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

Swords into Ploughshares

  "They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Isaiah 2:4 Palestine Action are doing just this: beating swords into ploughshares i.e. putting weapons out of use. In doing so they are fulfilling this biblical mandate. They are expressing God's peace as expressed in the Jewish tradition and the Christian tradition. God desires that our swords shall be beaten into ploughshares, that we should unlearn war. That the government wants to make this action illegal has to be confronted in the strongest terms. To rush to condemn attacks on weapons but not attacks on children is perverse. To call attacks on weapons terrorism but not attacks on children is perverse. When government comes to such an extreme position - legislating that peace is war, that weapons need more protection than children - then they have fundamentally gone wrong. This is the definitio...
Post a Comment
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

Clergy-wear during protests

OK, I'm wandering into the territory of Beauty Tips for Ministers here, but a couple of recent conversations have brought up the issue of what clergy should wear for protests. I know a number of Ministers who only wear clerical collars for protests. The logic is that it's important to identify as a Minister when you're supporting something society doesn't expect clergy to. So Ministers will wear a collar at gay prides or pro-choice rallies to make this point. Now I could understand this if it you wore a collar going about your general business, and also did during a protest, but I'm quite uncomfortable with the idea of wearing clerical wear ONLY for protests. The seems to be something worth exploring. I have said before that I'm not in favour of special titles or clothing for religious leadership, mainly because Jesus explicitly said this was a lot of nonsense. Religious leaders should not need these articial crutches. I have no problem with certain liturgical c...
11 comments
Read more