A Capital Idea

We have a case in the UK where appeal judges have cut the minimum sentence by half, from nine to four and a half years, for a man convicted for raping a child while on the run from prison. I can almost hear you think, why should that happen? Surely 9 years was lenient? On the other hand, in Texas, the authorities are considering stopping the last meal given to a prisoner on death row, who will be executed that day. The rationale behind this action is that many prisoners don't finish their meals (they can ask for anything, and any amount) and the last straw was a man who wasted the meal he had asked for. Depending on your make up, this can either be sad or funny.

Capital Punishment is a constant argument, and very few countries still have it. Personally, I am glad the UK abolished this punishment some years ago, and I hope it never gains enough support to bring it back. In fact, the Texas experience is a really good argument for abolishing it there too. Obviously a convicted prisoner's life has little or no value in Texas. They can spend $millions (literally) in the legal process which takes years to get a man or woman to the 'execution chamber' but will stop at the price of a meal. This is not about the cost of a last meal, it is about dignity. Human dignity. Not of the prisoner, but of the prison authority.

Every now and again, a hideous crime is committed against the young and/or vulnerable innocents, and our indignation and anger rises to the point of voicing our wish to bring back capital punishment, but should we make law in anger, or should we wait until we are in a more balanced frame of mind? What if we always punished our own children, based only on our anger? Just asking. You may have an opinion too, and can express it freely.

Price of Peace

The middle east is in the news again. This time, the Palestinian cause is at the United Nations seeking to be recognised as a nation in its own right, and with its own territory and borders. The envoys were strangely silent on the issue of peace with Israel. It seems they want to short circuit the process to have their own land, where they can continue to deny Israel their own existence. Call me a cynic, but is that not a wee tad hypocritical?

We keep hearing about a two state solution, which most of the world leaders are shuffling to get behind, so that they can be seen to be active. It is now fashionable to be on the side of the down trodden Palestinians, and anything Israel does or says is wrong. We like to get behind, and support the underdogs, and this is one such case. Maybe some reminders are in order here. My thoughts only of course!

Israel grabbed with both hands the chance of their own country in 1947 when offered it by the UN. The Palestinians had the same offer, but refused to accept anything then, and have been trying to catch up ever since.

The Israeli people were oppressed during the Second World War, when they lost up to 6 million innocents in the holocaust. Something which some Arab states like Iran still deny even today. I don't think Israel would want to let that happen again, so they defend themselves vigourously. What is wrong with that?

We always hear that the Palestinians are in Israeli occupied land, and the Israelis are the aggressors. Certainly, Israeli retaliation can be severe, but are they always wrong? Are they never goaded/pushed by missiles (not just stones) killing their own people?

Who will control Hamas, or am I not supposed to mention that outlawed, terrorist organisation who operate for, and on behalf of the Palestinian cause? Do you honestly think they will lay their weapons down if a Palestinian state is ultimately granted by the UN?

Does it not make sense for peace to break out first, and then as neighbours, agree borders? If not, there is still a war, but this time from two sovereign nations. That is one real powder keg which we could get dragged into. I think the Bible may have a name for that eventuality. Armageddon! Doesn't the Bible warn us about times like this when it says, “..peace, peace, but there is no peace”.

Open question, “Can the Israelis and Arab nations ever be at peace?”

Rogue Trader

What a nice, inoffensive title. Rogue Trader. This particular Investment Banker gambled and lost £1.3 Billion, that's £1,300,000,000 to you and me, and a whole lot of money gone forever. Immediately after this news item, the BBC reported the plight of starving human beings in flood torn Pakistan, and in the drought ridden Horn of Eastern Africa, where they are also pleading for support.

Do I have to ask the obvious question, or can you figure out the question for yourself?

A short and (not so) sweet Blog. Any suggestions?

Why the Silence?

The Scottish Government is holding a public consultation on whether they should legislate for the redefinition of marriage. There is a call among many liberal, forward thinking, progressive people who think that the definition should be changed to allow the same Faith and Religious standing to homosexual couples as afforded to normal married couples, i.e., a man and a woman. I believe this is a minefield, and contrary to the Bible which I read. So, I would expect all those evangelical, Bible believing Churches to be set against it, and for this legislation to fall at the first hurdle. Now I am not so sure.

The Roman Catholic Church at the highest level in Scotland has made it perfectly clear that they are against any redefinition of marriage. It MUST be between a man and a woman, and they give their reasons, also clearly. No doubt, no ambiguity. They are taking the establishment head on, in the sure knowledge that their view is based on Scripture. Good for them! I applaud their courage.

On the other hand, the main body of Christians in Scotland, 'The Church of Scotland', is strangely quiet on the matter. Well maybe not so strange, after all, they are having their own fiery debate on allowing homosexual ministers in the pulpit. Logically, they cannot then be against allowing the definition of marriage to be changed. That would be hypocrisy, wouldn't it? So, that particular church's views are already known, and opposition can be discounted.

But what about the evangelical wing of the other Churches in Scotland? I wonder where they stand on the issue? I think they are in hiding, afraid to take a stand, or make waves, just in case it all goes against them and they lose parishioners from the pews in the process. I would like to see some of these 'silent churches' come out of hiding, and go public with their views. The time for sitting on the fence is over. All of Scotland's Churches have been asked by the Government to take part in the consultation, and that is good, whatever the convictions of any individual church, and we already know there are some already in favour of marriage being redefined. We live in a democracy, and we all have an opinion, and in this case, a vote. It would do no harm to air your views on the Scottish Government Consultation website, after all we may not be able to depend on our own Church to participate and reflect our views. The website is:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/09/05153328/0

Sometimes it comes down to ordinary people taking their stand!

Prayer and Encouragement

The ten year marker has just passed for the biggest single loss of innocent life by any terrorist organisation in a peacetime country for many many years. Nine/ Eleven, or 9/11 as it has become known, was a terrible day, and a blot on the landscape of human history. We should remember these times, not because we are a gory people, but because we should stand together, and we believe in prayer and encouragement.

There is an old saying, “An ounce of encouragement is worth a ton of correction”. I also think an ounce of encouragement is worth a ton of silence (if you can have a ton of silence!). From that viewpoint, I was pleased to see the many Christian churches, across our own nation, and others, who stood beside a grieving nation as they mourned their losses. Each mourning an individual who left someone behind to feel the loss. Each one should feel they are not alone, or forgotten.

“You in your small corner, and I in mine”, can't do very much to help, but we can pray individually, or collectively. By that small act we encourage those who need it. I believe the small orphaned child's simple prayer will have every bit as much weight before the Throne of Grace, as the eloquent prayers uttered in Churches across the world. But together they are a formidable defence and statement of our faith, and a common encouragement to all who call themselves 'Peacemakers', after all, Jesus said they are the ones who will inherit the earth, not the terrorist! Makes you think of the encouragement of public prayer, doesn't it? 

Loneliness of the Blogger

There is a movie called, “The loneliness of the Long Distance Runner”, and I have to say that blogging is a bit like that. The blogger takes a chance by putting his or her thoughts into words, perhaps badly, and placing them in open view for all to see. No exceptions, except those who do not own a computer, and if that was true, you wouldn't be reading this right now! There is also more than one website which carries my blogs, so they do reach a wide and varied audience.

As a Christian, I have a Bible based worldview, or big picture type of thinking, obviously founded on years in and around church, Christians, and church folks, although not exclusively. I do have some experience of life in general, so I hope that can help me give a balanced view. There's the problem! My worldview as a Christian, can be worlds apart from another Christian, who will take an opposite view on some of my thinking. Is that a problem?

I am still learning. I have not “got it all together” even yet. I like to hear other's views and opinions, so I don't mind disagreements or other thoughts being expressed reasonably, logically, and well. I suppose that's “non judgemental compromise or negotiation”. However, for that to work, each side has to be prepared to move. It is not my job to judge. That lies with the great Judge, who will make His verdict known perhaps in this life, but certainly in the next.

So what has prompted this blog? Just the fact that I have had recent responses which have taken a different side from my own views, and maybe, just maybe, I have offended someone. I would not want that. I hope we are all, as adults, able to listen to each other's thoughts, agree or disagree, and move on. Now I come back to the title of the blog, and that's where it can become lonely. My only defence is that my own worldview is made up from my convictions, both spiritual and physical. I cannot change the good and bad lessons of life I have been taught, but maybe I can change the way I react to them. 

Sectarianism-The Jury Decides

There were thousands who saw the attack happen live in open view on the touchline of the Celtic v Hearts game last year. Millions of others saw it replayed time and again on national TV. It was the talk of anyone who even had a passing interest in either football (Scotland's game) or bigotry (Scotland's shame). I think I speak for most ordinary people, that the unwarranted and unprovoked attack on the Celtic Manager, Neil Lennon, was based on a religious bias.

The court case against the accused was last week, and the jury decided. Not the police who were there to see and hear the attack, not the staff who were also in sight and earshot of the verbal and physical abuse, not the judge and not even the witnesses. It was the 'jury of our peers' who brought the not proven verdict. In other words, there was no proof of religious bias, in spite of reliable eye and ear witnesses!

I had mistakenly thought that we were trying to get on top of bigotry/religious bias/sectarianism in Scottish football and society, but it is now evident that the problem goes much deeper. A jury is not hand picked. It is a random group of ordinary folks who find themselves on the jury benches. They are the ones who are influenced by the legal arguments and the various witnesses, and yet they still brought a not proven verdict. Only Scotland (to my knowledge) has this halfway house of a verdict which sits between guilty and not guilty.

Since this random jury group made this strange decision, I have to conclude that we, as a society, cannot see our own bigoted and sectarian problem. Now, I am left to wonder if we even want to work at eradicating this evil. After all, it is only a problem if you see it as such, and for me it feels like trying to climb up a greasy rope. A lot of effort to get nowhere. Would someone please tell me I'm wrong, and encourage me??