Skip to main content

Anti-pacifist media conspiracy?

I've been quite concerned about the news in the last few days. After the release of the British peace activist Norman Kember, along with two Canadians (whose names are never mentioned in the British media, I don't know about anywhere else) the news has very quickly turned to slagging off Mr Kember.

It seems like only a few hours after the rescue Mike Jackson, Head of the British army 'said he was "saddened" there did not seem to be any gratitude.' What?! Norman Kember hadn't made any public statement yet, he was probably still sleeping. What right does the head of the British army have to start slagging him off for something he hasn't done yet? Why did the media rush to report this? There seems to be a wish of the media to start attacking pacifists in general and the Christian Peacemaker Teams in particular. Now I'm not a pacifist, although I might be close to being one, but I find myself really disguisted with this attack on this man when he's still recovering from trauma. Am I the only person deeply uncomfortable with this?

The other issue is the Labour cash-for-peerage controversy. Now let me say I've voted for Labour in the past, and I may vote for Labour in the future. I have never voted Conservative, and never will. But I think it's terrible how Labour has spun this issue round to turn the spotlight on the Tories. It's such obvious spin, and it seems to have worked. This is not about the Tories, it's about Labour, it's about the appointment of Lords. I want some accountability about what's been going on with Labour. I don't want to be told that Labour brought in rules about declaring donations in the first place. That's not the point, and it does not excuse any wrongdoing that's happened since. And I don't want Labour politicians to jump up and down shouting 'Look at the Tories! Look at the Tories!' in such an obviously self-serving partisan distraction stratgy.

Comments

Bill Baar said…
The CPT think Bush and Blair a greater threats then the thugs who kidnapped and murdered their comrades.

They are perfect examples of the Cruel Pacifists Orwell saw back in 1941.
2:44 pm
PeaceBang said…
Stephen, sorry to bother you in your comments, but I was wondering if you might contact me at lunadiva@msn.com. I want to ask if you'll share a paper you wrote about on the Soulful Sundown services.
Please feel free to delete this, as it's off topic. I just didn't know how else to reach you.
Thanks so much.
9:27 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What does it mean to be non-creedal?

Steve Caldwell says "The problem here isn't humanism vs. theism for theist Unitarian Universalists -- it's the non-creedal nature of Unitarian Universalism" This is a good point. We need to think much more deeply about what it means to be a non-creedal religion. The first thing I want to say is that there is more than one possible understanding of non-creedalism. The Disciples of Christ are a non-creedal church, they say here : " Freedom of belief. Disciples are called together around one essential of faith: belief in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Persons are free to follow their consciences guided by the Bible, the Holy Spirit study and prayer, and are expected to extend that freedom to others." Quakers are also non-creedal and say here : Quakers have no set creed or dogma - that means we do not have any declared statements which you have to believe to be a Quaker. There are, however, some commonly held views which unite us. One accepted view is that th...
3 comments
Read more

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with ...
3 comments
Read more

Is humanism theologically tolerant?

OK, well this might be controversial, but I feel the need to say it. Is humanist tolerant? Please note I'm not asking about humanism within society. Clearly humanism certainly believes in tolerance within society and I'm forever glad they are often the only people in the media calling for a separation of church and state. No, what I'm talking about is descriptions of Unitarianism like this and adverts like this , discussed at Peacebang here , which say that humanism is one option, Christianity is another, God is one option among many. The trouble is, humanism, by definition is theologically opposed to theism. This is very different from the relationship between Christianity and Buddhism. These two traditions may be vastly different, but Buddhism, by definition , is not opposed to Christianity, and Christianity, by definition , is not opposed to Buddhism. But humanism is consciously defined in opposition to Christianity and theism. So to say that humanism and theism can bot...
14 comments
Read more