Penning the recent review of the year argument I was prompted to reflect on the death of the late Christopher Hitchens.

Polemicist, wit, writer, commentator and orator, he was a free and independent thinker when conforming to the (usually politically correct) script and staying “on message” is the norm. He also appears to have been a bit of a bon viveur in an age in which the threat of the Health Nazis looms – although this may have contributed to his untimely demise.

One of Hitchens’ best known works is of course his tract against religion “God Is Not Great – How Religion Poisons Everything”.

In this he attacks religion as a powerful regressive influence based on superstition and prejudice, promoting ignorance, tribalism and repression.

In his disdain for religion Hitchens is outdone only by Professor Richard Dawkins, whose position can be summarised in this quick crib from Wikipedia:

“Dawkins is an atheist, a Vice President of the British Humanist Association, and a supporter of the Brights movement. He is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design. In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, he argued against the watchmaker analogy, an argument for the existence of a supernatural creator based upon the complexity of living organisms. Instead, he described evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker. He has since written several popular science books, and makes regular television and radio appearances, predominantly discussing these topics. In his 2006 book The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that religious faith is a delusion—a fixed false belief. As of January 2010 the English-language version has sold more than two million copies and had been translated into 31 languages.”

The thing that I always find ironic about Professor Dawkins when I hear him speak is his almost Messianic zeal about atheism. And whenever I consider the works of Dawkins and Hitchens on this topic I cannot help but be reminded with great affection of Douglas Adam’s “Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy”.

You may remember that apart from the fact that he had God disappearing in a puff of his own logic, he was also had Him being given a bit of a kicking by the celebrated “philosopher” Oolon Collophid who wrote the popular “quadrilogy” “Where God Went Wrong”, “More Of God’s Greatest Mistakes”, “Just Who Is This God Person Anyway”, and last but not least “Well, That Just Wraps It Up For God”.

Which is not to say that I dismiss the works and position of Dawkins and Hitchens. Notwithstanding my monkish persona I think they pretty much hit a real nail on the head. One only has to flick through a history book to find page after page of war, murder, repression and torture, all in the name of whether “God” wants his “wizards” to wear a blue gown or a red gown, a pointy hat or a round hat or no hat at all, or eat pork or not eat pork. One only has to flick on the television to see that the greatest threat to the future of humanity comes not from global warming, but from fanaticism based on creed which has the inevitable effect depriving “the believer” of any sense of compassion for their fellow man. After all, what can be wrong about promoting the Will of God as it has been revealed? The ends must justify the means. The Unbeliever must be slain.

And yet I believe in God. What do I mean? This is tricky. It is very hard to define. Now when I was going through my logical positive phase I seem to remember the general proposition being that if you could not define something or test for its existence it could not be said to exist.

To which the romantic might with some justification say: define “love” and prove it. And no doubt Dawkins would reply that it is an aspect of evolutionary behaviour hardwired into us to promote the species as a whole.

Perhaps…

I do not believe in a God who is a man with a beard, or even a woman with harp. Indeed I am not sure I believe in a God who takes any particular interest in what we call good or bad at all. I read in the papers this morning that Tony Blair is to be paid some £8,000,000 to advise the brutish ruler of some far flung Asian “Stan” on social policy. In a world in which so many struggle there can be no greater illustration of the moral ambiguity, or indeed neutrality, of “God”.

What then do I mean? Consider it this way. On a practical level we life in a world of Newtonian physics and cause and effect. If you want to move a big rock, you can pray that it moves, in which case nothing will much happen. Or you can construct a lever and in a display of mathematics put into physical reality, shift it with some hard work. Cause and effect, action and reaction.

And yet as science develops and probes into the quantum level, quite different theories as to the workings of the Universe begin to appear.

I have a limited understanding of quantum physics, but my understanding is the two systems – Newtonian and quantum – are somewhat incompatible, and neither properly or fully explains the physic of the Universe. Indeed, an important aspect of quantum physics is that perception changes the condition of the perceived. One of the founders of this branch of science was Nobel Prize winning scientist Max Planck.

Planck himself ultimately reached as somewhat radical position as a result of his study:

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.”

In short, the Universe is not a mere mathematical accident. And it is not made up of matter at all. It is made up of thought expressed as what we perceive as matter.

I prefer to think of God as the endlessly growing, expanding product of some quite unfathomable Infinite Intelligence, endlessly growing, experimenting, and learning as we all do. Expressing itself through evolution, for example. Not really bothered about what robes those who worship “God” are, or whether we eat pork or not. Not really bothered if it is the hunter or the hunted. An endless experiment of imagination expressed through all of what we perceive.

Indeed, I have the suspicion that the Universe is teeming with life of all forms weird and wonderful, it is just the vastness of space that make it seem that we are alone. But that is another matter…

The great F. Scott Fitzgerald once observed something to the effect that the mark of a first class mind is to be able to hold two inconsistent thoughts at once and see the truth of both. I suggest that the same may be said of belief in God. Dawkins and Hitchens are quite right. And yet the Universe is an infinite expression of a thinking thing. A dream machine. Possibly even a dream machine which reacts to what thought is brought to it, right or wrong. Which has implications…

I have heard it said that the concept of God is useless because mankind is a finite being and the contemplation of what is by definition infinite is impossible. To take an example it is like asking a fish that lives at the bottom of the Ocean to contemplate a sunrise.

This fish will continue to dream…

Gildas the Monk

Hitchens and Dawkins are completely right. Except that they are completely wrong… is a post from: Anna Raccoon

The end of the world is nigh!

Well some people who follow the Mayan calender seem to have got the idea that because it finishes in 2012 it must mean time ends at that point as well. They aren’t the only ones. Many Americans are convinced that the Rapture or End Time is only around the corner. But it’s not just Christians. Hindus, Muslims, even Buddhists all have some sort of Eschatology in their beliefs. That is some sort of end of the world event where everyone will be judged and only the true believers will survive to the next age.

The end of the world has been announced from as far back as the 19th century. For some reason even though its announced with great regularity the end of the world refuses to happen. Maybe God just isn’t happy with us humans because we haven’t fucked it up enough yet. Or maybe he’ll wait till we mess up Mars as well.

Me? I’m convinced the world will end. Either in 2012, or in a few million billion years time. Well even scientists use such vague timescales.

2012 is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Race – Sex – Religion.

Three powerful forces in society. Which ones trumps the other?

Race encompasses ethnicity so you can be racist to French people by calling them Frogs even if both of you are blonde blue eyed Aryans. You can also be labelled racist even if the “victim” doesn’t perceive it as such but any other person does. Sex is the differentiation based on gender and gender identify and also includes sexual preferences. Religion is that which you have faith in, be it a supreme being, a god, or nature, or non at all.

According the recent ruling where it is discriminatory to forbid a homosexual couple from staying in a B&B even its against your personal beliefs the rights of sex overrides the rights of religion. It has now become legal for homosexuals to go to a Muslim business and demand compensation if they are refused service. It could also be technically illegal for a B&B to refuse service to an S&M loving couple. Because S&M is just as much a sexual orientation as homosexuality is according to some people.

Or was the ruling made on which group is the lesser minority. In other words because gays are a smaller minority than Christians, gays can’t be discriminated against by Christians. But then Gays can be discriminated against by Humanists.

The judge mentioned that it is a sign that society has changed that discrimination against homosexuality is now seen as taboo. But it also shows that society is less inclined to religion than ever before, even though a large proportion of the UK state that their religion is CoE in the last census.

Statists want everyone to have all rights possible and to have the state impose them and force them on everyone, but then they don’t usually think it through. Should we have any rights other than life? What happens when a conflict between two rights occurs? Which trumps the other? Should the state impose any rights through laws? How big an issue does it need to be before friendly banter is perceived as racism.

Now we don’t want discrimination based on someone’s beliefs, sex, or colour as a good society is one where everyone is fair to everyone else but neither do we want one group to claim top trumps over another group through rights. So how do we stop discrimination without using rights roulette?

Some examples that might help the discussion.

Is it discrimination to exclude a boy from a game of football if he is crap at playing? Is it still discrimination if the boy is black as well?

Is it discrimination to not serve a black customer in a village in northern Scotland where they don’t have much choice about where they can take their business? Is it the same discrimination in deepest London where a black person can just go to the next corner and conduct their business?

Is it discrimination to stop a Scientologist from entering a Mosque? What about stopping a homosexual from entering the Mosque. Can a Muslim be stopped from entering a sex club?

Is it discrimination for a black kid to make fun of a red haired kid?

Can we not just accept that people are different and have different viewpoints, ideas, and ways of living and that unless they are committing an act of violence against us that only best way of fighting discrimination is through education and that many times the discrimintion is only perceived and does not actually exist and that groups can still live harmoniously even when they have different beliefs. In the case of homosexuality the education has used the fact that its not so much a choice as a determination by genes and hormones and brain chemistry. Race has highlighted that there are more differences within a genetic grouping (such as northern Europeans) than there is between blacks and whites. With religion it is educating others that all faiths are equal as no one faith is better than the others, no matter what the fundamentalists think.

And don’t get me started on politics!

SBML

Rights roulette is a post from: Anna Raccoon

On 30^th December last, in his excellent blog “Captain Ranty” set some of his reasons why he was unhappy with organised religion, and Christianity in particular. One of the reasons for his problem with organised Christianity was that he thought the Bible was incomplete. There were many books missing from the official version, he observed, and he argued he wanted to have a full picture. He posed the question; what was it that had been cut out and hidden and why?

What a very, very good question.

Now, two points. First, anything which touches on religion tends to cause a considerable kerfuffle on the net, so let me say at once that this piece is NOT intended as a religious tract or to advance any particular view or argument (at least not consciously). It is written from the perspective of the amateur historian, with the emphasis very much on “amateur”. So if I am happy to be corrected if I have got matters wrong.

Second, I don’t propose to try to give a full answer, because I am not sure anyone knows the full picture. I certainly don’t.

Instead, I propose to dwell on the story of the “Gnostic Texts”, and of their re-partial discovery – which is a matter of fact, and not theology. It is, in my view, a fascinating story and with more true life twists and turns than a Dan Brown novel – with whom, as many will know, there is a connection.

Now where to begin?

It is the second century AD.

Christianity is a persecuted religion. Many Gospels are in circulation; perhaps as many as thirty, and many other Christian texts. But there are schisms and sects within Christianity.

In 180 AD Bishop Irenaeus of Lugdunum (now Lyons) writes a polemic[1] attacking what in shorthand we can call “Gnosticism.”

Quite what Gnosticism was is a matter which bears some consideration. “Gnosticism” derives from the Greek “Gnosis” meaning “knowing” or “those who know”, and this branch of Christianity appears to have preached tradition of secret knowledge handed down from Jesus.[2] There were other more profound differences with what might now call traditional Christianity. Put rather crudely, one is that the physical world is essentially painful, even evil, and is not the work of a creator God because it is imperfect. God was thus not the creator of the world in the way usually associated with traditional Christianity, although he is the Supreme Being. Thus, to be released from the evil of the world and inhabit the spiritual realm is a good thing.

In his polemic, Irenaeus attacks the Gnostics. He argues there are only four true Gospels, those today called the Canonical Gospels: Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, and what are now called the so called “Gnostic Texts,” were in fact heresies.

There was one of these “Gnostic Texts” in particular that Irenaeus had it in for:

“They [the authors] declare that Judas the Traitor, alone knowing the truth as no others did accomplished the mystery of the betrayal. They produce a fictitious story of this kind, which they style “The Gospel of Judas….”   [My emphasis]

So, from Irenaeus’ tract we can be sure of some key facts. First, that there were many Christian Gospels and tracts in circulation by 180AD. Secondly, that many of these were from the “Gnostic” viewpoint. Thirdly, that one of these was the so called “Gospel of Judas.” Fourth, that whatever that was, it claimed Judas was possessed of some secret knowledge, unknown to the other Apostles, and that he accomplished something special.  And finally, that Irenaeus hated what it said.

We now move forward to 367 AD. The Church is more firmly established. Athanasius of Alexandria is now a leading Christian Bishop and intellectual. Athanasius writes to his followers declaring that there are only twenty seven texts written after the birth of Jesus which should be read. These include the four Canonical Gospels. These, and ONLY these, he said, were approved scripture. Any text or Gospel other than those he named was heretical and should not be read. Indeed it was these twenty seven texts which ultimately formed what we now call the New Testament. The others were either suppressed or fell into disuse, and lost.

We now move forward 1,500 years to 1896. In Egypt, two British archaeologists are excavating ancient papyri written in Greek and Coptic (second and third century Egyptian) found in what appears to be an ancient rubbish dump.

Within the many thousands of fragments of papyri is one which lies unnoticed for years, until someone notices that it refers to “Mary”. Although only a small fragment remains, the text refers to a vision of Jesus which “Mary” has had soon after Jesus’ death and her discussion about it with the other disciples. The text records an argument. The disciple Peter appears to resent the fact that Jesus has made himself known in a vision to a woman rather than the other Apostles.

This is the so-called “Gospel of Mary Magdalene”, although it is right to say that no mention of the name Magdalene is made. But it suggests that a female figure, Mary, had a significant role within Jesus’ close followers at and after his death, or indeed according to some, that she was his closest disciple.

It is now 1945. Three hundred miles south of Cairo is a place of deserts and caves called Nag Hammadi. Egyptian farmhands searching for a type of fertile soil find a skeleton, and with it a sealed jar. At first they do not open the jar because they fear it might contain an evil Jinn. But the lure of gold tempts them. When they break open the jar they find not gold, but thirteen leather bound papyrus codices. How these then survive is itself a minor miracle (no pun intended) since the farmhands rip up the texts to divide them amongst themselves, some are discarded in a back yard and some of these dusty old papers are designated as kindling. But in the main they do survive. These are the Nag Hammadi texts, and they contain more than fifty early Christian texts, written in Coptic and dating from the 3^rd or 4^th century AD. They now reside at the Coptic Museum, Cairo.

They include the almost complete Gospel of Thomas, which is not a narrative but a list of 114 sayings of Jesus, at least half previously unknown, many decidedly cryptic, The Sophia (“wisdom”) of Jesus (an important Gnostic concept is “Sophia”), and The Gospel of Philip.

It is The Gospel of Philip which causes the most controversy, because it suggests that Jesus had a very close (though not necessarily sexual) relationship with Mary Magdalene. Tantalisingly some words have been destroyed, but the usual translations of the key parts are as follows:

“There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary.

And the companion of [the saviour was Mar]y Ma[gda]lene. [Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [often] on her [mouth]. The rest of [the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval]. They said to him “Why do you love her more than all of us?” The Saviour answered and said to them, “Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness.”

As I mentioned above, it does not necessarily follow that this involves a sexual relationship; it could be that in the context of the time the act of kissing on the mouth – if that is the correct translation – is a spiritual symbol for the exchange of wisdom, the spirit, or spiritual knowledge. Once again, however, the figure of Mary Magdalene is very much to the fore in Jesus’ life. Please note that I am expressing no view on the authenticity or significance of the account – that is for each individual. But the document is a genuine 3^rd century papyrus.  However, it is this text which in part gives rise to the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, which forms the basis of Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code.

Finally, and most controversially, in 1978 and again in Egypt, a farmer searching for treasure allegedly finds leather bound codex in a cave. The book is in decent condition and finds its way to Cairo and from thence to the international antiques market. It is a murky word, and a web of intrigue then surrounds who owned or (perhaps) stole the book. In 1982 attempts are made to sell it to an American university at an asking price of $3 million. The academics who examine it can see it is significant, and can recognise the repeated references to “Judas”, but do not have that amount of money and are not given time to study the text in detail. The deal goes off. Ultimately, the codex is left in an American bank vault for 17 years without appropriate protection. The result is that the papyrus begins to dry out and degenerates significantly. Nevertheless, rumours of what the codex might be abound in the antiquities market. In 1998 an antiquities dealer receives a “mystic urge” to track down the codex (or make money, depending on your view). She does so, and negotiates a purchase. She takes then the now crumbling papyrus to Harvard University.

When properly examined, it is found that it is entitled “The Gospel of Judas.”

Is it genuine? Experts note its similarity to the Nag Hammadi texts and vouch for its authenticity. Carbon dating confirms the date of the document to circa 280 AD.  It is genuine, at least in the sense of being from the 2^nd or 3^rd century AD.

The document has become desiccated and utterly fragmented, but in an astonishing feat of patience experts slowly reconstruct it; a fragile million piece jigsaw in an ancient language. About 85% is restored and readable.

This Gospel turns the traditional image of Judas on its head. According to this account, Judas is closest to Jesus and his understanding of Jesus’ teaching is more profound than the other disciples. Jesus imparts Judas with special knowledge of the Kingdom of Heaven, and according to this version, it seems that it is on Jesus’ own instruction that he “betrays” Jesus, knowing that he does so at his own cost because he will be hated by the other disciples. Jesus seems to choose Judas to do this, because it is only Judas has the strength to do what Jesus believes is necessary. Note how this matches Irenaeus’ complaint about this Gospel above:

“Judas the Traitor, alone knowing the truth as no others did accomplished the mystery of the betrayal…….”

And this is by no means the end of the story. There are many more “mainstream” documents that did not make it into the New Testament. An example is The Gospel of Peter, which was known to exist but thought lost until a part was found by French archaeologists in 1886. One might think a text by the first acknowledged leader of the Church would have made the grade, but it did not.

I do not propose to suggest why. Instead, if a reader is interested, I merely say I draw much of this account from the excellent BBC documentary “The Lost Gospels” by Anglican priest Peter Owen Jones, who has the time and space to explore the issues, and with whom viewers may agree or disagree at their own leisure. I commend it. It can be found via YouTube, beginning here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L7cQ3BrD5U&feature=related

There is also a rather cheesily over the top but still informative National Geographic documentary on the Gospel of Judas. Ironically, in true archaeological style it is slightly incomplete, but it is still a most interesting watch when the experts give their views.  Here is a link to the start. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywJdMezcqio

Finally, I emphasise again that I am NOT advancing any theory on these topics. Faith (or lack thereof) is a private matter and I have no monopoly on truth. Indeed, a summation of my life would suggest that I have a talent only for error. But I hope you found the story of some of what was cut, and what turned up, an interesting one.

©Gildas the Monk

[1] “Against Heresies”

[2] I think “Gnosticism” survived on in the form of the Cathar religion until it was ultimately and horribly violently suppressed in the 13^th Century.  I commend a reading of Kate Mosse’s excellent novel “Labyrinth”

The Lost Gospels is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Young Mohsin Khan was driving along with this collection of 10″ blades held together with chain under his car seat. He was stopped by Police on his way to a West End nightclub.

Several years earlier, 2005 to be precise, young Charlie Booker was found to be in possession of a butter knife with ‘no handle, sharp edges, or points, and his prosecution for carrying an offensive weapon was upheld. During the case the judges observed “that the law by its terms did not confine itself to sharp or dangerous blades.”

“I would accept that a sharp or pointed blade was the paradigm case – however the words of the statute are unqualified and refer to any article that has a blade.”

The case of Booker v DPP 169J.P. 368.DC is now proudly quoted by the Crown Prosecution Service as one of the leading cases as to what comprises an offensive weapon.

Some surprise in legal circles then, that an object with no less than five sharp or pointed blades, should be considered harmless.

The essential difference between the two cases would appear to be that Charlie Booker, being a fine upstanding Man of Kent, didn’t have the wit to claim that his butter knife formed part of his religion.

Mr Khan, however, instructed his barrister to tell the court that the object above was a ‘sacred implement’ that he had put under the front seat of his car intending to ‘flagellate’ himself as some future date – in the event he had used his spare flagellator, as you do, and had forgotten the one under the car seat. The jury, drawn from the catchment area of Southwark Crown Court, thought this was perfectly reasonable, and decided that unlike the deadly butter knife, the flagellator was not an offensive weapon.

I was reminded of the Neumann case. The Neumann’s chose to sit beside their dying daughter and rather than get medical attention for her, they sat and prayed. The couple were sentenced to spend one month in jail each year for six years. Prosecutors said the couple had recklessly killed the youngest of their four children by ignoring clear symptoms of severe illness as she became too weak to speak, eat, drink or walk. They said the couple had a legal duty to take their daughter to a doctor but had instead relied totally on prayer for healing.

Jay Kronenwetter, Mr Neumann’s lawyer, was asked in a BBC interview if he thought his client had got off lightly.

“My client sees spiritual treatment as the proper medicine and I suspect the people who want harsher punishment see Western medicine as the proper medicine, I guess therein lies the difference,” he told the BBC World Service. “My clients just happen to have a belief that is very outside of our social norm.”

On the other hand, the Fallows of Chester were sentenced to substantial jail sentences for failing to get medical help for their child. The Judge said:

“Those who are blessed with children, and there are many who do not have that advantage but who would wish to, have to understand that together with children come the very highest responsibilities of an adult. It is the first duty of a parent to protect and to get proper assistance for a helpless child in distress. Where parents put their heads in the sand and simply hope that it will all go away, where they do not want to face up to the proper facts, then it is really serious.”

The difference being that they did not claim religion as their motivating factor.

Old Holborn has asked for suggestions as to what ‘we can do’ to effect change in the UK. He wants to get ‘organised’. A laudable aim.

I suggest that our first move is to get ourselves organised as a religion. There are huge advantages. We won’t pay VAT, we can have charitable status, if we need to take time off work to march or demonstrate, ‘they’ won’t be able to fire us for doing so. There will be no problem as to whom or from which country we can accept donations. We can march round with banners saying ‘off with their heads’ without getting arrested for hate crimes. We can sit down in the middle of the road and claim to be saying our essential prayers to the Great Blogger in the Sky. We can apply for Lottery funding to set up a conference centre, free wi-fi naturally, to feed and house any bloggers that aren’t supported by advertising. We can demand an equal slot on the BBCs ‘prayer for today’ – please shoot Lord Mandelson? We could probably get away with hanging various politicians if we claimed they were religious sacrifices.

In fact it appears that we could do more or less whatever we wish, so long as we do it in the name of the Great Blogger. Who’s going to be first down the cyber mountain with the Apple tablet containing the Ten Blogging Commandments?

Your suggestions please.

It’s Me Religion, Innit? is a post from: Anna Raccoon

The son-of-the-Manse, Gordon Brown, has been pipped to the post in the ‘lets pray with Obama’ stakes. Our revered Leader is not to be honoured by being the first to shake the hallowed Presidential paw – despite the BBC showing misleading footage of him walking side by side with Obama on the BBC 6pm news, that film was shot before Obama’s inauguration. 

No, the first Senior politician to be given that ‘honour’ is Tony Blair; he may be considered a ‘has-been’ and referred to as  War criminal in his own country, you may even have thought he was too busy sorting out the Middle East, but in the USA? – he is the man chosen to give the key note speech at an influential early morning ‘prayer fest’ in Washington, attended by Barack Obama, religious leaders, law makers, and foreign Heads of State. 

Currently a lecturer on faith and globalization at Yale University, Blair spoke about the three biggest challenges he believes world leaders must confront: economy, environment and security at the Whitehead School of Diplomacy’s World Leaders Forum, which has previously attracted speakers like U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, – still the King of the sound bite, he said:

“You campaign for office in poetry but you govern in prose.”

- then you invoke the power of prayer to upstage your successor. 

The Power of Prayer meets the New World Order. is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Having dispatched his new Middle East envoy George Mitchell on an eight day trip to meet Arab leaders, Obama spoke to Al-Arabiya TV based in Dubai. In his first formal TV interview as President of the United States of America, Obama says he wants to listen to the Arabs as he feels that the US has often dictated instead of listening in the past.

There are some who feel that Obama should be making his first TV interview to his own nation. Better to pacify the enemy at home before sending succour and reassurance to the Middle East.

This also sends a strong message to the ousted Republican Administration.

Barack Obama’s First Formal TV Interview As US President Is With …….. An Arabic TV Network! is a post from: Anna Raccoon

Coronation Street, the TV soap opera, is something of an institution for the Northern diaspora. We relive our childhood and rekindle memories of a way of life and a gentle humour unknown on ‘suicide watch’ as the rival ‘Eastenders’ programme is known in our household. 

There are immutable props, the cobbled street, the Pakistani run corner shop, the ‘greasy spoon’ cafe; we know they still exist somewhere ‘oop North’ and Coronation Street obligingly trots them out for us week after week.  Someone, somewhere, is probably mightily offended by the stereotype that is the Pakistani run corner shop; someone, somewhere, is possibly up in arms regarding the celebration of the artery clogging and cholesterol inducing ‘full English breakfast’ that is permanently on sale in ‘Roy’s Cafe’. Unfortunately for them, they are not fashionably offended. 

The fashionable offence is offending ‘Muslim sensibilities’. Thus it was that the symbol of the official religion of the United Kingdom, Christianity, became the Cross that dare not show it’s face. The Producer of Coronation Street decided that a cross in a church had to be removed before it was considered a ‘suitable’ setting for two characters ‘Molly and Tyrone’ ‘to be wed in multi-cultural’ Britain. They insisted that the bronze cross on the altar of a 14th-century church should be covered over because it might offend viewers.  The Revd James Milnes, of St Mary’s Church in Nether Alderley, Cheshire, said the producers originally asked for it to be removed entirely, but they compromised on it being concealed behind candles and flowers.

Why not ban the use of the Bible during the service ‘lest it cause offence’. Why not disguise the Vicar behind candles and flowers ‘lest he cause offence’, indeed why not go the whole hog and ban weddings from soap operas ‘lest it cause offence’ to those who live ‘over the brush’……..

Whilst we are at it, let us ban pubs from soap opera settings, there is Toc-H to consider; sweatshirt garbed ‘Hoodies’ – there are the ‘recently mugged’ to consider.

I retreat to Coronation Street to escape political correctness, if I want to be told what to think, what is acceptable to our Labour administration (I hesitate to use the word Government)  I turn on the BBC News 24 – now that is a politically correct soap opera. 

BBC ‘thought control’ is alive and well in Granada…… is a post from: Anna Raccoon