How does free speech die? It’s a pertinent question given the events which have occurred in Paris recently. Can violence and murder and hate prevail against the human right of freedom of expression? Can death and slaughter win out over the right to insult, mock and deride any and everyone?
Judging by the reaction to the massacre at Charlie Hebdo the answer is a clear no. The magazine’s print run, usually 64,000 is now expected to be 5 million. The very insults and satire which provoked, if such a word can be used, the attack is now being seen by millions across the world who ordinarily would not see it. It’s a common enough occurrence – martyrs and tragedy invoke a fascination within us. For what reason did these good people die? What cause was so dear that the survivors would continue despite the loss? As such, I would submit that the current bother about free speech is largely unnecessary. The death knell of free speech will not be sounded by the rattle of guns and the explosion of bombs. Of much greater concern is passive resistance to free speech. The great “tut” of society which silences those who break with the Perceived View. The quiet suppression of debate through non-engagement, the voices of public life which are pushed to the edges for departing from what is considered to be proper, the slow but relentless march of “progress”, the tides of thought before which no one can stand. Free speech is no easy right to maintain. For many are the fools in the world and their words are a babble and nuisance. Insult, criticism, dissension, hatred, all encouraged and inflamed by committing to a robust policy of free speech. The price of being free to voice one’s opinions is hearing back the diverse and collective opinions of mankind in all their glorious stupidity. Given this hardship, given this battle, it is important to have figureheads, examples to follow and praise.
0 Comments
It's fair to say that the vast majority of Yes supporters would cut their own throats before voting UKIP. For Yes supporters don't want to vote for a bunch of racist, tribalistic UKIP fruitcakes who scare people with talk about an oppressing foreign power, prey upon the political disillusionment of voters and draw support from the fears of the working class and the quiet anger of the middle classes.
Oh, sorry, I seem to have got the words "Yes" and "UKIP" the wrong way round there. Welcome, to the first of many ironies about the Yes movement in Scotland. Of course, the big difference between Yes and UKIP is that Yes leans left politically and UKIP leans right. But both use the same tactics to secure voters - the main one being to promise everything to everybody. UKIP gets votes for making promises to everyone from Libertarian - Conservatives to Working Class Labour with a dislike for immigration. The Yes campaign promises to be a socialist utopia fuelled by big business oil and without raising taxes. Both can't offer anything but contradictions. I used to think that the worst thing about Facebook was all the other people on it. To be fair, I still like to think that, and yes, in case you're wondering that does include you.
The number of pet hates I have is so great I've split them into two lists. Those that merit instant unfollowing and those that I tolerate but still basically hate. The former list is reserved for anyone who does those ridiculous gratitude challenges, people who take selfies of their six pack and any individual who posts more than three status updates in the one day. My second list is a lot longer and includes in no particular order: pictures of meals (either home cooked or at a restaurant) - I've yet to see one which doesn't make the meal look both unappetising and a little pathetic. "Cute" couple statuses along the lines of: "isn't my [insert name here] totally amazing" or an abundance of couple photos. Quoting the Bible too many times, too many baby photos, too many clubbing photos, any attempt at the ice bucket challenge or any other viral charity campaign which people share so everyone can glory in their generous nature. Any status with the word "blessed" in. Sports related updates. Everyone who shared their degree result online. Anyone who "pokes" people - seriously, like, who does that? Anyone who invites me to play some stupid game. Anyone who posts those: "I took a quiz and got 100%" things. Oh yeah, and Guardian articles, Nationalist propaganda, Left Wing nonsense and Liberal theology. Pictures of drunken escapades. Pictures of fake drunken escapades. The "so and so such a babe" posts. The like this to win competitions. The sympathy craving posts. I could go on. Now this is a familiar story, it has been told before, it will be told again and nothing will be learned in its telling. For those of you who don't know, Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church has been dropped by Acts 29 the church planting group set up by Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church. It is the latest chapter in a long and depressing tale which may one day be known as: "The Rise and Fall of Driscoll". If you are curious please consult the internet as I have no desire to repeat it's sorry chapters here.
It reminded me of Justin Bieber. Perhaps the six most tragic words in the English language. I have made no effort to follow the news about Mr Bieber but in this day and age news seeps into my head whether I want it to or not. The story is the classic: young boy becomes very famous (I can't remember why), grows in popularity, grows in fame, grows in celebrity status, perhaps he is even the darling of the celebrity world for a while. And the fame goes to Mr Bieber's head, his behaviour becomes erratic, he is full of himself, he says stupid things, commits actions of dubious morality and eventually gets punched by Orlando Bloom. Fame turns to infamy, love turns to hate, adoration to insult. Whenever I watch something geeky my Dad always sarcastically asks: "Is it about real life and real people?" But the thing that science fiction "haters" always ignore about science fiction is that it's never about the aliens. All the cool technology, space dogfights, shields to maximum, giant robots, green creatures, "Make It So" and ice planets are all just spectacle. Enjoyable, to see the heights of human imagination, but ultimately second place to what makes science fiction great.
The same thing that makes War and Peace a great novel makes The City and the Stars by Arthur C. Clarke great. The greatness of The Count of Monte Cristo is the same greatness of the Hyperion space saga. We applaud these books for what they have to tell us about the nature and being of humanity. All good stories rest on this point. But what makes science fiction so interesting is that it offers us views and thoughts on humanity via displacement. By removing the ordinary and inserting us into the extraordinary we are removed from are usual touchstones of reality and become, without even being aware of it, all the more open to new ideas. As the setting is removed from the norm so our preconceptions are not immediately engaged. It has been many moons since I last updated this blog. And this isn't a proper update. It is just to say that I've done a non-theological blog on the issue of Scottish Independence over here. I didn't want to mix theology and politics by using this blog.
On the matter of future updates I would say that it is best to assume there will not be any or they will be very rare. Blogging was for a time, during my student days, but that time has drawn to a close. I hope to take it up again one day but it is not this day. Thank you for reading, it was always a delight to write. Being cynical - by nature, choice and desire - the recent fad on Facebook for girls posting pictures of their faces without any make up on provides much ammunition. While the end result, over two million pounds raised for a cancer charity, is undoubtedly a Good Thing there is still a lot of room for perverse amusement.
As a typically unobservant guy I can struggle to really tell the difference. Maybe if their face colour has changed from the usual orange to a more natural colour... The other thing that amuses me greatly is the irony of seeing a #nomakeupselfie taken with just the right light, just the right angle, just the right background to basically achieve the same effect as make up. On further reflection, it is a brilliant concept. Consider a hypothetical woman wanting to take part in the trend. A #nomakeupselfie makes her appear brave for sharing her non dolled up face with the world and makes her look morally good for being willing to do this for charity. Not only that but any likes or nice comments are doubly pleasing for her vanity! It's a win-win situation. And all this combined with a veneer of humility, how can it be about pride and vanity when money is going to charity and a potentially awful picture is being shared with the world? I dedicate this post to my pot plant: Friend, Rock, "Green Dog" Plant.
Introduction "I will not say: do not weep. For not all tears are an evil." Gandalf. We've all been there, sitting in front of a blank screen, awed by the potential of unstarted creation and scared by the awesome weight of responsibility that falls on an author's shoulders. Writing a book is hard. Sentence construction is a pain. And the less said about spelling and grammar the better. This book come from my journey, my quest, my adventure to fill up such a space and forge, in the twin fires of writing and experience, the golden ring of an American Christian Book. It comes from my beating heart for the unimaginative and the uninspired and for all the empty, white, unfilled screens lacking in the richness of a black spidery crawl. But mainly this book comes with a biblical message, a message best summed up in Daniel 5 v 5: "Suddenly the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall, near the lampstand in the royal palace. The king watched the hand as it wrote." Here we find a biblical warrant for writing. A warrant that suggests that a Christian author can expect to be read by the kings of this world. It also stresses the importance of writing near a good light source. I know what you're going to say: "But Ben, we don't use handwriting any more." And you'd be right. Last Monday evening I attended a public lecture given by Tom Wright (also known as R.T. Wright), the ex Bishop of Durham and a lecturer at St Andrews University and as you might expect a very clever and able man. His lecture was on “How do we speak about God in a confused world?” which basically translated to the role of the Christian faith in public discourse. His lecture was almost brilliant. But the almost left me feeling troubled.
The brilliance was in his insight into modern culture and it's failings; the divinity of progress now that any conception of god has been removed, the failure of science-ism (hot air, resting on thin air, leaving us in mid air, as he wonderfully said) and the place of Christianity in Western society. His diagnoses was accurate but in describing Christianity as the solution he worried me. The almost was in what he did not say. This makes it a subtle error but it has been my observation that often the most tricky errors are found in what is not said rather than what is. Before I get to the exact error of omission that was concerning I think it is necessary to say that Tom Wright is hardly the only one doing this. Indeed, he acts a figurehead for a broader church wide movement of not preaching the gospel as well as it should be preached. From my own experience I find it most common in evangelical charismatic circles but it is creeping into conservative circles too. As every Christian man knows there is nothing worse to hear from the lips of beautiful Christian lady than: "I'm sorry, God is telling me not to go out with you." Rejection, not just from the girl but from the Almighty as well. "Oh yeah, then why didn't he tell me too?" seems a suitably bitter reply.
Let's face it though, the issue of God's guidance over our lives is a complicated one to say the least. Graduating from university last year and facing the question of what to do next year then it is an issue I've had to wrestle with. What follows is some advice I'd like to pass on. I remain indebted to Peter Masters' book: Steps for Guidance - it's very wise and surprisingly nuanced to boot. |
Archives
October 2018
Categories
All
|