belief

Christmas Ruined: where’s the Christmas Story in the Gospels…? (Countdown to Christmas #4)

Last Christmas – having been studying Religious Studies for her A Levels – my daughter came home and announced:

“Christmas is ruined”

Noting that teenagers have a tendency to be over-dramatic, I didn’t panic. When she had calmed down, I asked her why it was ruined.

“Because our RS teacher told me that basically none of the Christmas story happened the way I thought it had…!”

She followed this up by non-ironically asking:

“Can you believe it…?”

This reminded me of an article I wrote a few years ago about people’s understanding of the Christmas Story. In it, I asked how many people did not know that the ‘Christmas Story’ in the New Testament of the Bible is neither complete nor consistent across the four gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)?

Continue reading »

Conference: Diversity, Inclusion and Social Justice: Strategies for Inclusion

Next month, I’ll be presenting a paper at the “Diversity, Inclusion and Social Justice: Strategies for Inclusion” conference held at London South Bank University on Thursday 18th March. As the blurb for the event goes:

The University of Southampton (School of Education, Pedagogy and Curriculum Research Centre) and London South Bank University (Gender Research Forum, Department of Social and Policy Studies) are organising a one day conference on Diversity, Inclusion and Social Justice: Strategies for Inclusion at London South Bank University.

The conference brings together scholars under the following themes:
- Educational Inclusion: Difference and Diversity
- Policy, Practice and Social Justice
- Professional Experiences of Inclusion

My contribution to the conference will be a paper entitled, “Towards greater inclusiveness? A critical review of the ‘religion or belief’ equality strand”

The conference is FREE to attend but you do need to book in advance. To do so, contact the Conference Administrator Melanie Walters via email waltersm@lsbu.ac.uk by 5th March to avoid disappointment.

A flyer for the conference can be downloaded here

A conference programme can be downloaded here

EHRC’s Religion or Belief E-Newsletter

The Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) have today published the first edition of its ‘Religion or Belief E-Newsletter’. Included in this is a short review of the Islamophobia and religious discrimination symposium held at the University of Birmingham last December. The review is pasted below:

Islamophobia & Religious Discrimination: new perspectives, policies and practices

A symposium in December at the University of Birmingham – hosted by the Institute of Applied Social Studies (IASS) – brought together key individuals from the Department of Communities & Local Government, the Equality & Human Rights Commission, the Houses of Parliament, Birmingham City Council and the University of Birmingham amongst others, to consider the extent to which religious discrimination was on the rise and whether the current legislation and policies were working.

Continue reading »

Christmas not just for Christians – Jews, Hindus, Muslims et al Welcome (The 12 Posts of Xmas #6)

Whilst the average school nativity play might include a diverse array of children in today’s Britain, it would seem that the bare essentials – the  angels, the shepherds, the baby Jesus, Mary and Joseph – would also be present and correct. However, if the Church of England get their way, this may soon be slightly passe.

As reported in the Daily Telegraph over the weekend, the Church of England want to make Christmas ‘more multicultural’. As such, they have sought to include “Hindu snowmen, a Chinese dragon and a Jewish temple” in their festivities. As the newspaper article went on:

…in an attempt to make the celebrations more inclusive of Britain’s diverse communities,Westminster Abbey will unveil life-size snowmen that Anglican clergy hope will help to improve relations and dialogue between other faiths.

Dressed in turbans, with bindi dots on their foreheads, they are intended to demonstrate that Christmas should not be exclusively for Christians.

The Rev Jane Hedges, a canon at the abbey, said that it was important to encourage people from other faiths to join in the celebrations.

“We’ve done this as it creates a good opportunity for Christians to meet and hear about the stories of people of other faiths,” she said.

“Christmas is an opportunity for everyone to stop and think and is a great opportunity for the different faiths to talk to one another.

“Wherever you’re coming from there should be something to celebrate at Christmas.”

In principle that’s fine. Christmas as a ‘cultural’ celebration is already quite a multiple one and quite a diverse affair. Just see how many people from different backgrounds participate in Christmas parties at work, exchange cards or buy presents for each other.

But this doesn’t seem to be what the Rev Jane Hedges of the Church of England is saying. She is saying that this has been done “as it creates a good opportunity for Christians to meet and hear about the stories of people of other faiths”.

Why exactly would Christians want to hear the stories of people from other faiths at Christmas, the second most significant Christian festival in the calendar…???

Continue reading »

Ban, Ban and Ban Again: Is Sarah Maple the new ‘Jewel of Medina’ that was the the new ‘Satanic Verses’…

(This post expands upon some of the issues raised in my column for The Birmingham Post this month)

Having recently raised concerns about the (impending?) protests against the publication of ‘The Jewel of Medina‘ and the complaints about recent episodes of ‘Eastenders‘, another story relating to ‘Muslim outrage’ has hit the headlines. In The Telegraph on 10 October, ‘Sarah Maple’s Exhibition Poses Questions that Anger Muslims‘ reported that:

The artist, who has shown at Ronnie Wood’s Scream gallery, has a new exhibition with a headline picture showing a Muslim woman cradling a pig.

Already, Mokhtar Badri, the vice-president of the Muslim Association of Britain, tells Mandrake that his organisation plans to visit the SaLon Gallery, in Notting Hill, west London, to demand that it remove Maple’s painting when it exhibits it next week.

“Although we condemn violence, Muslims have a right to express their disgust at this work,” he tells me. “An artist has the right to free speech and to express him or herself, but people also have the right to protest. She clearly wants to provoke a strong reaction from Muslims and that is what she will get.”

Maple, 23, who was brought up as a Muslim, has already evoked Islamic wrath. Her exhibition at Rolling Stone Wood’s gallery earlier this year depicted Muslim women in provocative poses, including one suggestively sucking on a banana.

Badri explained the upset that would be caused over the image. “Muslims believe that all of God’s creatures should be treated with respect, but we are taught to keep our distance from pigs because they are unclean,” he said. “That is why this picture is so offensive to us.”

A spokesman for the gallery explained: “She doesn’t intend to offend anyone but simply wants to pose questions about Muslim culture and identity.”

It is difficult in these situations to work out exactly what it is that ‘offends’. As far as can be ascertained, there is no theological justification whatsoever for (some) Muslims being ‘offended’, upset, distressed or perturbed by pigs and especially nothing that encourages an outright hatred of pigs, let alone the painting of one. Just because Muslims – as indeed are Jews, Rastafarians and Seventh Day Adventists amongst others – are forbidden from eating pork, this clearly does not mean that ‘forbidden’ equates to ‘offending’, ‘upsetting’, ‘distressing’ or indeed anything else that might be similar.

Because of this, it would seem that when those in relevant positions of authority and influence subsequently decide to ‘ban’ such things, they are completely removed from what they believe to be ‘respecting’ or ‘tolerating’ the beliefs of others. What they are instead respecting and tolerating are not ‘religious’ beliefs but the personal whimsies and fancies of a handful of individuals.

Why is this so, and why is it that the response to all people’s personal gripes are not afforded the same levels of respect?

A useful and interesting analogy is that of Mary Whitehouse. Following her death, the BBC wrote:

To some she was the guardian of Christian family values, to others a self-appointed busybody.

For more than 30 years, Mary Whitehouse led the charge of the middle-class moralists to purge the “poison being poured into millions of homes through television”…

…She complained vehemently of the increasing “blasphemy, bad language, violence and indecency” she saw on television.

It went on:

She was the scourge of the “permissive society”, and pilloried by the media…tainted with an image of a blue-rinsed reactionary, Whitehouse endured years of abuse, stink bombs and pies in the face

As someone who was ‘offended’ and complained in response of this, Whitehouse was rarely afforded any credibility whatsoever. Instead she was regularly and repeatedly referred to as a figure of ridicule. Few took her seriously, even though she was able to mobilise 37 coach loads of supporters to lobby against the media in Birmingham Town Hall: a significantly higher number than those who have more recently bothered to respond to Maples, Eastenders or even the likes of Jerry Springer the Opera a few years ago.

Why then is it that we nowadays afford these similarly ‘offended’ individuals and groups a far greater credibility?

Why is it that we have a seeming tolerance for some who are offended but a complete intolerance of others?

Is there something substantially different underpinning the ‘offence’ experienced and voiced by Whitehouse and her ilk to those ‘offended’ by Maples and hers?

All legitimate yet un-answered questions.

Rather than society starting from the premise that some have the right to ban what ‘offends’, surely the way forward is that all have the right to be ‘offended’? Going against this and banning whatever a handful of vociferous individuals – Whitehouse or whoever – take ‘offence’ to is based upon an entirely subjective basis and one where those who shout the loudest will eventually gain the upper hand.

Which is a shame because the voices of those such as Maples herself get lost: dismissed as being Muslim, dismissed as having anything legitimate to say. And this is exactly what Maples is trying to challenge. In an interview that is reproduced on ‘Art Space Talk‘, Maples is asked to respond to the ‘controversy’ that her art causes:

My work with Islamic themes comes from my own experience of being mixed race. because of cultural and religious clashes I think it’s very hard to mix east and west. I think many Muslims get it so confused, for example I know people who will celebrate Eid by getting pissed, it’s such a contradiction! I suppose I get fed up with the ‘judgment’ I feel is put on me by other Muslims who may see me as substandard because I don’t pray or cover myself. This is reflected in my work.

The best example of this is my piece ‘White Girl’ (which is a derogatory term I discovered is used amongst Muslims for a non-Muslim or a ‘bad’ Muslim) I made this after feeling angry when speaking to an old Muslim friend about my art.

Being ‘offended’ may then be a useful smokescreen: one that hinders intra-, inter and self-reflection as well as the need to recognise that many other significant problems exist within today’s society that desperately need attention. Restricting the right to offend in any way whatsoever then is far from something that should be seen to be a victory: convenient for some, yes; a victory for all, no.

The question then is not whether the humble, lowly and ‘unclean’ pig (feel free to substitute with painting, soap opera, book and so on) is really worth all this hassle, but why so many are trying to make out that it is?

This work by Chris Allen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0 UK: England & Wales License. Based on a work at www.chris-allen.co.uk.