Category Archives: Religion

Pilgrimage plans published

Posted on by symonhill

It is now less than four weeks before I begin walking from Birmingham to London as a pilgrimage of repentance for my former homophobia. I’m delighted with the support and encouargement I’ve received and I’m very pleased to report that details of events during the walk have now been published.

Please click here to read about the events.  

As you’ll see, there will be three city centre events. These will be in Birmingham on the evening before I start walking (Wednesday 15 June), in Oxford around half-way (Sunday 26 June) and in London on the evening I arrive (Friday 1 July), which will be the day before Pride.  

I am still discussing events with churches in other locations, and details will be available shortly. In addition, a few churches and other groups have kindly invited me to meet them more informally or join them in worship.

If you have any questions or suggestions, please feel free to contact me at symonhill@gmail.com.

To read more about the pilgrimage, please visit http://www.repenting.wordpress.com.

Kate and William are our equals

Posted on by symonhill

BBC Radio 4, so often a voice of intelligence and relative impartiality, began this morning’s news with the extreme bias and simpering tones they reserve for reports on the Windsor family. It was announced that Kate Middleton would be “transformed” from a “commoner” into “Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge”.

I hope that Kate Middleton and William Windsor have a very happy marriage. Marriage is about love and commitment, not about privilege and hierarchy. If Kate Middleton has been “transformed”, it is because she has become a married woman.

She has not become somebody else. Her blood has not turned blue. She has not stopped being a human being, equal in value to you and me. All that’s happened is that her grandmother-in-law has said she should be referred to by a medieval title.

I continue to be amazed that so many otherwise caring, respectful, intelligent people can demean themselves by happily addressing somebody else as “your royal highness” or “my lord”. I respect those who consider they are doing so out of necessity, such as lawyers committed to justice who call judges “my lord” when they would rather not. But the acceptance of such titles in a supposed democracy, and the self-contempt implied in them, has never made sense to me.

It has made even less sense since I became a Christian. Christ is my lord, my king, my queen. Early Christians died for refusing to say “Caesar is lord”. They wouldn’t acknowledge an earthly monarch even when this led to their deaths. How much do we insult their memory if we idolatrously recognise another lord simply out of habit or acceptance of social norms?

When William and Kate’s engagement was announced, some said it was a sign of “social mobility”. This is laughable. An upper class man is marrying an upper middle class woman.

The government talks of social mobility while slashing public services, education and the welfare state, driving wider the already vast gulf between the poorest and richest in our society. The very phrase “social mobility” implies a few individuals being allowed to move through a hierarchical system. We don’t need social mobility. We need equality.

We cannot achieve equality and uphold human dignity while grovelling in front of privileged individuals. We are not subjects. We are not servants. We are not “commoners”. We are human beings, created in the image of God. 

Thinly veiled prejudice

Posted on by symonhill

The first steps in a legal challenge to the French ban on face coverings have already been taken. Twelve Muslim women were arrested outside Notre Dame Cathedral on Monday, apparently for an unauthorised protest rather than for wearing the niqab – ten of the twelve were not wearing it.

This protest and others undermined the notion that any woman wearing the niqab is disempowered and deprived of independence. Kenza Drider, a 32-year-old French woman, appeared to show a great deal of independence when she contacted the media in advance and tipped them off about her movements before travelling on a train from Avignon to Paris wearing a niqab.

 A challenge to the European Court of Human Rights can’t come soon enough. The notion that a relatively democratic European country is making laws about what clothes its citizens are allowed to wear should outrage anyone committed to free expression. 

Supporters of the ban have at times avoided the main issue by talking about women being forced to cover their faces by their husbands or parents. It’s outrageous to pressurise somewhere to wear a niqab against her will. But it’s no less outrageous to oblige her not to wear it when she would freely choose to do so.

The issue then is not about one form of dress versus another. It is about clothes that are freely chosen against those that result from force or social pressure. People may be pressurised into wearing a niqab, or they may be pressurised into dressing in the latest fashions when they would rather not. Or they may choose these things freely.

I respect the fact that some women find the niqab liberating and empowering. I recognise that others believe it to be a requirement for them. But I understand that others fear that the niqab is oppressive or ethically wrong. But it is a big leap from regarding something as wrong to calling for it to be banned.

I’m relieved that there have been few calls for a ban in Britain. Inside Parliament, a ban has the support of only one MP. Outside Parliament, a ban is backed by the UK Independence Party and the Daily Express, both of which are cheerleaders for a number of other far-right causes.

Sarkozy may hope to distract attention away from his own dreadful policies by targeting a small minority of the margins of society. Thankfully, women with the courage of Kenza Drider don’t seem likely to let him do so.