Category Archives: capitalism

Beware of prime ministers quoting the Bible

Posted on by symonhill

Beware of politicians quoting random Bible verses at Christmas. Earlier this week, on Christmas Eve, David Cameron said:

“The Gospel of John tells us that [Jesus] was life, and that his life was the light of all mankind, and that he came with grace, truth and love… Indeed, God’s word reminds us that Jesus was the Prince of Peace. With that in mind, I would like to pay particular tribute to our brave servicemen and women who are overseas helping bring safety and security to all of us at home.”

The Prime Minister’s words remind me less of the Bible and more of George Orwell’s 1984, in which the government declares that “war is peace”.

When the word “peace” appears in the Bible, it means much more than an absence of violence.

In English translations of the Bible, the word “peace” is usually a translation of “shalom” (Hebrew) or “eirene” (Greek). “Shalom” refers to far more than a lack of violence. It is about justice, healing, wholeness and the restoration of right relationships at personal, social and political levels. The meaning of “eirene” is contested, but when Jesus speaks of leaving “peace” with his followers, he is clearly talking about something more than the fact that they are not killing each other (a practice that didn’t develop amongst Jesus’ followers until a few centuries later).

There have been occasions on which UK troops have been used to contain or limit violence, although this in itself requires coercion and the threat of violence. Whether or not this is justified, it is certainly nothing to do with “peace” in the biblical sense.

However, recent use of troops by UK governments has gone way beyond this. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have been acts of aggression that have done nothing to make the British people safer and have added to death and suffering in other parts of the world. The young men and women sent to their deaths by Cameron and Blair have been sacrificed in the name of values and powers that Jesus firmly rejected.

The notion that violence is the best, or ultimate, answer is contrary to Jesus’ active nonviolence. John’s Gospel, the book that Cameron quoted, records that Jesus’ last instruction to his disciples before his death was “put away your sword”. 

UKIP: The respectable face of the far right

Posted on by symonhill

Members of the United Kingdom Independence Party must be rubbing their hands with glee today. They’re the subject of the day’s leading news story. The Education Secretary has described them as “a mainstream party”. The Leader of the Opposition has effectively defended them. They’re being portrayed as victims of discrimination, despite their own discriminatory policies.

According to the story that broke this morning, foster carers in Rotherham had non-British children removed from their care because they are members of UKIP. This is the claim of the couple concerned. Rotherham Council’s statements seem less clear, suggesting that membership of UKIP influenced the decision, but implying it was not the only factor. They have spoken of the children’s cultural needs not being respected.

Our primary concern in all this must be the needs of the children. I do not know whether Rotherham Council were right to remove the children. I have not been involved in the case. I do not know the children; I do not know the foster carers; I do not know about all the issues involved. Nor, of course, do the many people who have rushed to condemn the council’s decision. These include Michael Gove, who has already described it as “the wrong decision”.

It is utterly inappropriate and unprofessional for the Education Secretary to comment on the rightness or wrongness of a fostering decision on the basis of media reports, without thoroughly investigating the details. It is comparable to the Home Secretary commenting on the guilt or innocence of someone who is in the middle of a criminal trial. Gove’s behaviour is the real scandal in this story.

I am not arguing that UKIP members should be barred from fostering children. I am not even arguing that UKIP members should be barred from fostering children who are not British. I am not arguing that Rotherham Council made the right decision. But I do believe that it is legitimate to take foster carers’ beliefs into account when considering the needs of children. For example, it would be inappropriate to place children from a Muslim family with foster carers who were prejudiced against Muslims.

UKIP are using this case to portray themselves as a reasonable, credible, non-racist party. The reality is that they are a far-right party. On many issues, their policies are comparable to the British National Party. It is true that they do not share the BNP’s focus on skin colour, but their policies are similar on issues including immigration, education, criminal justice and climate change. On economics, they are way to the right of the BNP, calling for all sorts of policies that would benefit the richt at the expense of the rest.

I do not make these claims lightly. Two years ago, I analysed the polices of both UKIP and the BNP. I had expected some similarities but I was genuinely shocked by the extent of them. The article I wrote as a result can be read here.

UKIP want to end all permanent immigration for five years, and severely restrict if after that. In their own words, they oppose multiculturalism. They would abolish the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the UN Convention on Refugees. Their education policy includes the teaching of a pro-imperial view of British history. They want to increase military spending by 40%, reduce taxes for the rich at the expense of the rest of us and force all unemployed people to work without pay in order to receive benefits. They are keen to double the number of people in prison. Unlike almost every other party in Britain, they want to discriminate against gay and bisexual people by denying marriage rights to same-sex couples. Until 2010, they wanted to make laws about what people were allowed to wear in public, by banning the niqab. Their attitude to the environment seems to be pure fantasy, based on the claim that climate change is not caused by humans.

I have come across many people who have voted UKIP because they oppose the European Union, but who are unaware of the rest of their policies. I have no doubt that some UKIP members are decent individuals. Indeed, I dare say that some of them would make good foster carers. I have no interest in encouraging personal hostility. But UKIP as a party is a far-right grouping with a twisted image of Britain, a strong stream of prejudice and policies that would benefit only the super-rich. I’m appalled that Michael Gove and Ed Miliband seem to be trying to claim otherwise.

Debating capitalism in Marlborough

Posted on by symonhill

Yesterday evening, I was very pleased to take part in a debate on “Can capitalism be made good?” in Marlborough. I argued “no”, alongside Stewart Wallis from the New Economics Foundation. On the other side were Will Morris, chair of the CBI’s tax committee and Anglican priest, and Hugh Pym of the BBC. The Bishop of Salisbury, Nicholas Holtam, presided.

I received a warm welcome and a friendly approach from organisers, audience members, the other speakers and the staff and sixth formers at St John’s School who were involved in arranging the event. Sandwiches beforehand were very welcome.

I argued that capitalism could not be made good because three central aspects of it are inherently immoral: it involves a few owning the world’s wealth that rightly belongs to us all; it relies on ever-increasing consumption that is destroying the planet; and it based on usury, treating money and markets as if they have a “real” existence separate from how people choose to use them.

The question “Can capitalism be made good?” was put to the vote before we started debating. 71 people voted Yes and 36 voted No. Stewart and I were disappointed, but we pressed on. There was another vote at the end of the debate; this time 63 voted Yes and 46 voted No (there were several abstentions on both occasions). So, while we lost the vote, the opposition to capitalism increased during the evening, which I was really chuffed about.

One of the most surprising moments came after the debate, when two students from Marlborough College – an extremely expensive, elitist private school – told me that they had voted aganist capitalism.

Five years ago, I think it would have been highly unlikely for over a third of an audience in an affluent area of south-west England to vote that capitalism could not be good. Indeed, at that time, it is unlikely the debate would have been held. The economic crisis has caused immense suffering, particularly to the poorest (while the rich largely carry on as before). But it has made many people aware that we have an economic system that is immoral, exploitative and based on lies. Thank God for that.

Sex, money and church attacks on governments

Posted on by symonhill

This week, several UK churches have been objecting to government attempts to redefine things.

On Tuesday, the Church of England attacked government plans to “redefine” marriage – i.e. to allow same-sex couples some of the same rights as mixed-sex couples.

On Thursday, the Baptist Union, Methodist Church and United Reformed Church (URC) made a joint statement criticising government plans to redefine poverty. David Cameron wants to measure poverty differently. Even the least cynical person in Britain must surely suspect that this is likely to result in statistics showing a lower level of poverty.

None of these churches are wholly united behind these statements. The Church of England statement triggered protests from its own members, especially given the scaremongering warnings about the danger to church-state relations. Some individual Methodists, Baptists and URC members object to their churches’ recent tendency to issue left-wing statements on economics.

The difference here is not only between one denomination and another. It’s also between comments on marriage and comments on economics, and between reactionary statements and progressive ones.

Which of those distinctions affected the media response is open to debate. The Church of England was making headline news on Tuesday. It was a rare case of a religious story being on the front page of at least three national newspapers. In contrast the statement on poverty doesn’t seem to have led to even the smallest article in any national paper.

Much of the public – especially this week – have understandably got the impression that Christian Churches are fall of reactionaries obsessed by sex. If we want people to notice the radical political and economic views that many British Christians now hold, we have to speak about them more loudly, and more effectively. The media also need to be more aware of what’s really going on in British Christianity. They need to notice Christians saying surprising things – about money as well as sex.

CofE and same-sex marriage: Serving society or protecting privilege?

Posted on by symonhill

The Church of England have today issued their formal response to the government’s consultation on same-sex marriage. They had a great opportunity to acknowledge the diversity of views within their own ranks and to move on from the defensive tone that characterises so many Christian contributions to debates over sexuality.

It is an opportunity that they have completely missed.

There is very little sign of originality or creative thinking in the CofE’s statement. It relies heavily on old, and largely discredited, arguments, to push its opposition to government plans to allow legally recognised civil marriage ceremonies in England and Wales.

The CofE’s central argument is the same one used by most other opponents of marriage equality – and it is equally unconvincing. This is the claim that the government is “redefining” marriage, which has been “always and exclusively between a man and a woman”.

Marriage has meant many different things in many different cultures. Very few British Christians would now argue for arranged marriage, let alone forced marriage or marriage while still of childhood age. Yet all these practices have been normal for Christians in certain times and places. When the Married Women’s Property Act was passed in 1882, critics claimed that it was an attack on the sanctity of marriage. Similar claims were made when laws were introduced to protect women from domestic violence and rape (indeed, Stephen Green of the right-wing fundamentalist group Christian Voice still claims that marriage has been undermined by the law that bans men from raping their wives). As a friend of mine put it more bluntly recently, “The fact that you can’t sell your daughter for three goats and a cow suggests that we have already redefined marriage”.

The reality is that on many occasions marriage has been about money. As David Graeber points out in his recent history of money and debt, this has worked in several ways. “Brideprice” has involved a man making a payment to his new wife’s father. The opposite system is that of dowries in which the father makes a payment to the groom. In the UK today, money-based approaches to marriage are still strong. They are preserved symbolically in the appalling practice of the bride being “given away”. More alarmingly, they are very visible through the hugely profitable wedding industry. The average cost of a wedding in the UK is now roughly equivalent to the average annual income.

Thankfully, marriage has never been solely about money. Jesus shocked his listeners with his comments on marriage. In a time when only men could initiate divorce – often throwing their wives into social disgrace and even poverty – he criticised casual divorce. In a culture that blamed women for giving men lustful thoughts, he encouraged people to take responsibility for how they dealt with their own thoughts, and be aware of what they did in their hearts.

In other words, Jesus challenged relationships based on power and money in favour of relationships based on love, equality and self-control. It might be said that he redefined marriage.

The second major argument in today’s statement is the claim that men and women are fundamentally different. It speaks of the “biological complentarity” of men and women. Marriage, it argues, “embodies the… distinctiveness of men and women”. It states, “To argue that this [difference] is of no social value is to assert that men and women are simply interchangeable individuals”.

The Church of England leadership do not seem to have noticed the reality, diversity and uniqueness of the human beings they are called to serve. Of course, the writers of this document may well have major problems with transgender and genderqueer people. Disgracefully, the document doesn’t even mention the government’s proposal to scrap the outrageous practice by which a married person who transitions gender automatically has their marriage dissolved. But no-one can deny the reality of intersex people – those who are born without a clearly identifiable biological sex. This includes people whose genitalia do not “fit” with social categories, as well as those whose chromosomes do not “match” their genitals. About one in every 2,500 people are born intersex. Has the Church of England nothing to say about them, let alone to them?

As the theologian Susannah Cornwall points out, the significance of intersex goes beyond its statistical frequency. It disrupts any attempt to fit men and women into simplistic binary categories.

In the past, people argued against mixed-race marriage on the grounds that people of different races are fundamentally different. The vast majority of people in this country would now find such a claim to be morally and intellectually abhorrent. I hope the time will come when we are just as appalled when the claim is applied to people of different genders.

The CofE’s statement includes more scaremongering about the possibility of churches facing legal action for not carrying out same-sex weddings. This is extremely unlikely (not least because almost everyone campaigning for marriage equality respects the right of faith groups to make their own decisions on it). Further, it is only an issue because the Church of England is an established church. This position gives it both privileges and legal responsibilities. If top Anglicans want to have more freedoms, they need to give up their privileges.

Nonetheless, I’m more than ready to agree that one the CofE have a point in one aspect of their response. They suggest that the government’s plans, and the discussion around them, have given the impression that the law recognises two forms of marriage, “civil” and “religious”. In reality, this refers only to a type of ceremony, not to the legal status of the relationship.

Unfortunately, the CofE’s statement does not offer a solution to this confusion other than to try to keep things as they are. But marriage laws are already complicated, confusing and easily misunderstood. It is not proposals for same-sex marriage that are mixing things up. Not only do same-sex couples have different legal rights to mixed-sex couples, but different religious groups have different entitlements when it comes to the authority to perform legally recognised weddings. For example, the law that allows Quakers to carry out their own weddings dates back to the Marriage Act of 1753. It has barely been updated since. The Quakers are one of the groups now seeking the right to carry out same-sex marriages. The government plans to deny them this right, which they will restrict to civil ceremonies, thus making the system even more complicated and discriminatory.

To deal with all this, we need a thorough overhaul of marriage law to recognise the diversity of beliefs and relationships in a plural society. A government consultation aimed at such an overhaul would be a courageous and welcome step indeed.

At the Ekklesia thinktank, we have long argued that celebrating marriage and making commitments should be separated from the (arguably less important) process of gaining legal recognition. This would mean that people could carry out ceremonies with personal, social and – if important to them – religious significance, with legal registration being a separate process. This would allow supporters and opponents of same-sex marriage to act on their beliefs, to promote them, to publicise them and to seek to persuade others, without being able to use the law to enforce their views on those who disagree.

The CofE’s statement makes the frankly offensive claim that “almost all other churches” regard marriage as a union of a man and a woman. It might have been more accurate to say “most”. In the UK, churches that recognise same-sex marriage now include the Metropolitan Community Church, the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) and the General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches. The United Reformed Church will be discussing the issue at their General Assembly next month. There are calls amongst Baptists for each church and minister to be allowed to make up their own mind on the subject. There is significant support for same-sex marriage within the Methodist Church, the Church of Scotland and indeed within the Church of England itself, as well as from smaller numbers in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

The statement makes no acknowledgement of the range of views within the Church of England’s own ranks. In talking about what “churches” believe, rather than what Christians believe, it seeks to uphold the authority of a privileged establishment, rather than to recognise the Holy Spirit’s movements amongst millions of believers – and unbelievers. While some church leaders are determined to resist change, other Christians seek, however imperfectly, to be at the forefront of it. Thankfully, we don’t need to rely on hierarchies. In the Church as well as in society, change comes from below, not from above.

The anti-monarchy, anti-cuts protest

Posted on by symonhill

I’m about to leave for the rebpublican protest against the monarchy and the royal jubilee. For me, this is not only a demonstration for democracy, important though that it. It is also an anti-cuts demonstration.

This is because the original meaning of “jubilee” is being scandalously abused this weekend. Jubilee is described in the Book of Leviticus as a time when debts were cancelled, slaves set free and the economy rebalanced.

“You shall hallow the fiftieth year and you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you… The land shall not be sold in perpetuity… If any of your kin falls into difficulty and sells a piece of property… in the jubilee it shall be released and the property returned… If any of your kin fall into difficulty and sell themselves… they and their children with them shall go free in the jubilee year… I am the LORD your God”. (Leviticus 25, NRSV)

As Gareth Hughes, Anglican chaplain to Hertford College, Oxford, pointed out last week, “our society is crying out for this sort of jubilee”. Instead, this weekend’s “jubilee” will celebrate earthly power, obscene wealth, hereditary privilege and military might.

The economic dimension of “real jubilee” is a key reason for the involvement of Christianity Uncut in the weekend’s protests. Sadly, many churches are celebrating, rather than challenging, the abuse of the concept of jubilee. This makes it all the more important for other Christians to make clear that they want to celebrate justice, not privilege.

Pacifism in rural Hertfordshire

Posted on by symonhill

Rural Hertfordshire is not known as a hotbed of radicalism. I was surprised – but pleased – to be asked to give a talk about pacifism in the village of Ayot St Lawrence this week. As I arrived there, I encountered a village that looked both affluent and physically remote. I instinctively started to make assumptions about the likely political views of its inhabitants. But of course, I was wrong to make guesses before I’d met them. As it turned out, the views expressed at the event were fairly varied.

Amazingly, Ayot St Lawrence – despite having only about 100 houses – has a regular “tricky issues” group that discusses ethical questions. This is great. More villages should take it up.

They’ve looked at topics including euthanasia and religious experience. This week, it was pacifism versus “just war”. I put the pacifist case, while the argument for “just war” was made by Chris Pines, head of religious studies at a school in St Albans.

I have to admit that I was very tired after working flat out for four days at Quaker Yearly Meeting, which had finished the day before. I had been reporting for The Friend magazine. As a result, I wasn’t at my best and was sometimes too keen to talk rather than to listen. Nonetheless, it was a good and thought-provoking discussion. It was vigorous and passionate but people were very friendly, both before and after the debate. I was given really good refreshments, including some truly excellent home-grown apple juice.

The event benefited from the presence of several people with experience of the armed forces, including someone who had recently left the forces after several years. She was very much in favour of the arms trade and soon Chris and I were agreeing with each other as we both challenged her argument that it was “just business”. On most other questions that came up, Chris’ views differed sharply from mine.

There was very interesting discussion of aspects of World Wars One and Two. However, I regret not making more of an effort to explain my position on the nature of nationality and the role of national armies. Several times, the discussion focused on what “we” can do if we are aware of atrocities being committed overseas.

In this case, the “we” refers to the UK government and its armed forces. The question was when those forces should be sent into battle against an oppressive regime. Several people present – including several who made clear that they were not pacifists – agreed with my point that governments tend to intervene when they have a strategic or commercial interest in doing so, even when they wrap it up in humanitarian language.

What I didn’t explain so well were my feelings about the whole notion of talking about what “we” can do. Each of us in the UK has a very small amount of power to contribute to the policies of the government. Most of what we can do about injustice is not about what we can ask our government to do. It is about what we can do as individuals, as communities, as churches, as charities, as NGOs, as campaigning groups.

It is vital to remember that for every atrocity denounced by UK ministers, another one is defended. For every tyrant they criticise, there is another to whom they well arms. As people in Bahrain and West Papua are viciously assaulted with British weapons by their own governments, what “we can do” is to resist the injustices committed by politicians and companies in our own country. This is why I make a priority of campaigning against the arms trade and resisting the militaristic outlook promoted by the government and much of the media. We can continue to support people resisting tyranny around the world, whether the tyrants in question are defended or denounced by the rich and powerful in Britain.

Cameron tries to blackmail the Greeks

Posted on by symonhill

David Cameron and Kenneth Clarke yesterday tried to blackmail the people of Greece. Along with other European politicians, they have threatened the Greeks with all sorts of dire consequences if they elect a left-wing government. 

Clarke said the Greeks should not elect “a hopeless lot of cranky extremists”. This is presumably a reference to parties such as Syriza, the Radical Left Coalition, who are leading in the polls ahead of Greece’s election re-run on 17 June. Cameron demanded that Greece “meet their commitments” by implementing austerity measures in return for handouts from the Eurozone.

These “commitments” have not been made by the Greek people. They have been made by Greek politicians in the parties now being punished by voters: the right-wing New Democracy party and Pasok, the “Socialist” Party. The measures these politicians cravenly accepted include cuts to the minimum wage and massive privatisation, contributing to a rapid growth in extreme poverty in Greece.

What’s happening in Greece is only the most extreme example of what’s happening all over Europe. The rich have gambled with the wealth of others, been bailed out, and everyone else has to pay for it. The idea that unemployed people and minimum-wage workers in Greece are responsible for the country’s problems is as ludicrous as the argument that they have a moral obligation to pay for them. 

It is largely assumed by commentators and the media that if Greece refuse to “meet their commitments”, they will have to pull out of the Euro and there will be economic disaster. Thankfully, progressive economists are pointing out that the Greek people may be better off in the long run if they repudiate this unjust debt, citing the example of Argentina in 2001. If it’s managed relatively well, then they may even have some hope of being better off in the short term.

Whether or not this prediction is accurate, there is still a good reason for Greece to refuse the bailout package. Merkel and Cameron are seeking to bribe, bully and blackmail the Greeks into voting in parties that will betray them into the hands of bankers. Merkel and Cameron tell the Greeks that they have to face extreme pain – and then promise to alleviate the pain slightly if they do what they’re told. This is not democracy. 

The bailouts offered to this unjustly indebted nation are nothing more than crumbs from the cake of the capitalists who caused the financial crisis. Like millions of other working class and lower middle class people across Europe, I am fed up of this blackmail. We don’t want the crumbs from the cake. We want the cake.

Capitalism and idolatry

Posted on by symonhill

I recently wrote an article for Reform magazine entitled “Trusting in what isn’t real”. It is a brief piece in which I ask if capitalism has made our relationship with money into a form of idolatry.

It was published in the May 2012 issue of Reform, a monthly Christian magazine published by the United Reformed Church. I love Reform (and not only becuase I write for it!) and heartily recommend the magazine generally.

If you have a subscription to Reform, you can read my article here.  However, the article has now been reproduced in my column for Ekklesia, so it is freely available here. Your thoughts and comments are welcome!

Warsi was right to link UKIP with the BNP

Posted on by symonhill

Sayeeda Warsi, co-chair of the Conservative Party, was last night brave enough to note a link between the BNP and UKIP. She pointed out that UKIP candidates are standing in areas where the BNP had previously stood, implying that they can draw on the same sort of support.

She triggered a storm of anger, including an abusive Twitter message from a leading member of UKIP (who thus made himself sound more like a far-right thug, rather than less), for which he later apologised.

Warsi was right to make the point. I hope she will not back down. All she has done is to state the obvious: two parties on the same end of the British political spectrum may well attract sympathy from the same voters.

She could go further. Two years ago, ahead of the last general election, I wrote an article comparing the stated policies of the BNP and UKIP. I found even more similarities than I had expected.

It is true that UKIP do not share the BNP’s obsession with ethnicity, and this is important. It is also true that the BNP are more statist and that UKIP are basically ultra-Thatcherite in economic terms. In other areas, their policies are very, very similar.

They are both strongly anti-immigration, anti-European, anti-multicultural and pro-military spending. They both deny the reality of climate change. Like totalitarian regimes, they both want to make laws about what people are allowed to wear in public (by banning niqabs). They both make comments on the niqab and on multiculturalism that whip up fear and prejudice against Muslims. They both want biased history teaching that portrays the British Empire in a positive light (this is explicit in their policies).  They both support “workfare”. And they both want extreme, punitive approaches to law and order.

It’s not that Warsi went too far. She didn’t go far enough. Because one far-right party includes middle class ex-Tories with a polite manner, that doesn’t make it any more acceptable than the other one.