Bible quotes in gun sights

U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret 'Jesus' Bible Codes

Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the United States military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found. [...]

The company's vision is described on its Web site: "Guided by our values, we endeavor to have our products used wherever precision aiming solutions are required to protect individual freedom."

"We believe that America is great when its people are good," says the Web site. "This goodness has been based on Biblical standards throughout our history, and we will strive to follow those morals."

Old Testament "Thou shalt not kill" would seem the more obvious choice.

Susan Blackmore on Peter Singer

Susan Blackmore in her Blog in the Guardian, says Peter Singer is wrong

Singer is right to point out the psychological differences in how we respond to the toddler in the pond as opposed to the distant starving child, but wrong if he concludes that we ought to be as generous to one as the other.

There are lots of reasons for not giving money to try to save the life of someone you have never met, in a country you have never visited, and in a culture you do not understand

It sounds like an excuse to me.

(My thoughts on what Peter Singer is saying.)

Peter Singer

About Peter Singer in the Guardian 23/5/09:

Singer's argument, as first laid out in an essay in 1971, isn't hard to follow. "If it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it ... If I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing." As he added, however, the "uncontroversial appearance" of this argument is deceptive. Considerations of distance, or of how many potential rescuers there might be, are irrelevant to Singer: the child you see dying of malnutrition or a preventable disease on the foreign news has as much of a claim on you as the child in the pond. Spending your surplus income on consumer treats rather than efforts to end extreme poverty, he concludes, isn't greatly different morally from leaving the toddler to drown.

[...]

Needless to say, this is a challenging position - "almost impossible to argue with", as the political theorist David Runciman once wrote, "but also very difficult to accept."

[...]

Singer's own approach to ethics, a version of utilitarianism, has deep roots in the English-language tradition, but it's scarcely uncontroversial. One famous criticism, associated with Williams, is that it's implausibly demanding, making people as responsible for the things they fail to do as the things they bring about. Williams's ultimate point was highly technical; Singer, in discussing it, soon brings the argument back to practical outcomes. "I think we can set standards that limit our responsibilities to help people. But I wouldn't want to say, therefore we're only responsible for our acts and not for our omissions.

If we want to be moral, I can't see any way out of this other than, for me, Christian forgiveness. It's another reason why I remain in the church while not, in any straightforward sense anyway, 'believing in God'. Things they fail to do has strong echos for those of us brought up in the C of E:

We have left undone those things which we ought to have done,
And we have done those things which we ought not to have done,
And there is no health in us:
But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us miserable offenders
Book of Common Prayer

I don't know you'd find much support for that expression ('miserable offenders') nowadays - within the church or without - but, there you go, the money I spend on, say, going to watch the MK Dons, could have saved lives. How can that make me anything other than a miserable offender?

But, back to Singer in the Guardian, on why you have to include 'things undone':

If you draw a hard line there, you end up saying that really quite trivial things are wrong because they're violations of my positive responsibility not to cheat or whatever ..." He casts about for an example. "Well, we have it all over the tabloids, don't we: I charged the government £5 for watching porn movies, right? I had the opportunity to save a child's life, either by ruining my shoes in the pond or by giving some spare money I had to Oxfam, but somehow that's not as important to assessing whether I'm a decent person or not as whether I cheated the government out of £5 to watch a porn movie. And I think that's the wrong set of priorities, that sends the wrong sort of message."

This leads into issues of moral equivalence (I don't think that's quite the right term, but it'll do for the moment), and I'd like to explore, for example, fiddling expense against the death of hundreds of thousands. Shame Hazel Blears is implicated in both! But thats for another time.

MP's expenses

Everyone has a view on it. We can easily agree, no-one is going to defend the ducks island. But, I'm wondering if its Parkinson's Law of Triviality (more time spent on discussing the colour of the bike shed than decisions on a nuclear power plant because everyone can understand the bike shed).

I'm not defending the duck's island either, or the fiddling around with the second homes and the like. But, maybe the hours spent on it - dominating the news for weeks - is out of proportion? Maybe, I don't know, global warming, poverty, injustice, maybe some of these are more important?

It'd be intesting to explore whether there is any correlation between the behaviour of MPs over expenses and how they vote. I was pleased to hear that Hilary Benn was clean over expenses - claimed a total of £140 last year, if I remember correctly. That sort of fits with my simple view of the goodies and baddies. Tony Benn is a goodie, and so to, it seems, is his son.

"...and that's a tragedy"

I've never (well, hardly ever) subscribed to the 'they're all rogues, out to look after their own interests' line on politicians. I really do think that most politicians embark on a life in politics out of a desire to do something worthwhile.

And this interview of Hazel Blears by George Monbiot doesn't change my views. I think that Ms Blears believes she and her fellow Labour MPs are 'decent people' out to do good for the world.

But, how can anyone say this:

... despite, you know, that hundreds of thousands of people have died, and that is a tragedy, I still believe that is was the right thing to do...

so jauntily?

I don't know what I'm expecting. But "and that is a tragedy" is somehow not enough coming after "hundreds of thousands of people have died". Shouldn't anyone who has been party to a decision that has resulted in hundred of thousands of deaths show some sort of stress?

Is she really so sure that the right decision was made? I know I worry too much about things I've done. And I know a politician is making what are in effect life-or-death decisions every day, so their jobs would be impossible if they agonised over every one. But, again, you know, hundreds of thousands of people have died.

Palm Sunday and G20 New World Order

Mary Cotes sermon at the Cornerstone on Palm Sunday made an interesting link between the adulation of the crowds as Jesus rode into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, and the claims of a 'New World Order' emerging from the G20 summit.

My interpretation of her starting point was a parallel:

G20 "New world order",
What it ought to be:
A new world with justice for the poorer nations
What crowds want it to be:
Recovery of a comfortable lifestyle in the rich countries

Jesus riding into Jerusalem:
What Jesus means:
A new world based on justice and love
What crowds want it to be:
The end of the Roman occupation and Israel back on top

The Kingdom of Heaven

What were the Churches and Christian charities doing among the socialists, the unions and the anarchists at the G20 rally ... marching through central London, surrounded by the police and standing alongside people calling for the death of neo-liberal capitalism?

1) Well, to get started, how can we tolerate such injustice in the world? How can we go on leaving people to starve to death, when there's so much wealth? How can we consume, consume, consume, when we know what climate change is doing? (If you believe the scientists, of course... but we do, you know, most of us Christians, whatever Richard Dawkins would like to think)

The world has enough for everyone's need, but not for everyone's greed.

We've all heard it before, so we can move on and think about something else? But that doesn't make it OK. The world is NOT OK. It's in a bad way. And its our fault (us human beings).

2) I expect most of us, Christians or not, know about that (what a bloody mess we've made of the world), and know that it's wrong. But maybe Christians are more inclined to think it is worth trying to do something about it? Because of our limitations, we will always get it wrong, but we believe in 'forgiveness', and that frees us up to have a go. And of course there's just the fact that if we go to Church we keep hearing people talking about these things - those 2000 verses (see snippet no 3) in the bible about poverty and justice.

3) For me, I guess, it is sort of what remains of my faith. You might say I don't believe in God*, but whatever I do believe in leaves me thinking that we can't just accept the way the world is. Quite often I'm embarrassed to 'be a Christian' - when I see and hear what is done and said in the name of Christianity - but in London last Saturday it seemed right.

*One day I'll explain a bit more about what God I don't believe in

Snippets from the Put People First G20 rally.

"On 28th March 2009, 35,000 marched through London as part of a global campaign to challenge the G20, ahead of their summit on the global financial crisis.

Even before the banking collapse, the world suffered poverty, inequality and the threat of climate chaos. The world has followed a financial model that has created an economy fuelled by ever-increasing debt, both financial and environmental.

Our future depends on creating an economy based on fair distribution of wealth, decent jobs for all and a low carbon future.

There can be no going back to business as usual."

From www.putpeoplefirst.org.uk

I was one of the 35,000. Here's some snippets from my day

1. Crowd of Socialist Workers outside Embankment tube station. Selling the paper, handing out leaflets and offering placards. (I wish I could recall what each of the different organisation's placards said!) The first of many contingents of various flavours of socialists, all with own newspapers.


2. Service in Methodist Central Hall, Westminster. Not full, but I was on balcony and there must have been well over 1000 all told. Can't say Andy Flanagan and Band's electric music was quite to my taste... but the speakers were worth listening to.


3. Peter Meadows of the Bible Society spoke of the 'Poverty and Justice Bible'. Apparently there are over 2000 verses refering to poverty or justice in the bible, and if you remove all the pages containing them, there's not much of the Bible left. Someone had done it and he showed us the resulting slim volume.


4. Father Joe Komakoma from Zambia talked about the reality of the combined consequences of the financial crisis, climate change, and the pre-existing inequalities on people in Zambia. Over half the population don't get a proper meal each day, for example.


5. Christine Elliot of the Methodist Church had us doing one of those little things that I'm not sure I'm too keen on, but I have to admit was effective. Alternate members of the congregation asked to stand up: we were the poor. Then everyone else invited to stand up 'in solidarity' with us. Then they sat down again. "How do we feel?" "How do they feel?" "What do we want to say to each other?" etc.


6. Several more speakers... Revd Joel Edwards of Micah Challenge stood out for me. (I later learned that Joel is of the Evangelical Alliance - a very long way from my theology!)


7. I've not listened to it again, but the whole service is here


8. Left the Hall in groups to join the main march. Selection of placards to choose from on the way out... I ended up with a CAFOD one "Kick the carbon habit'


9. Carnival atmosphere on the march. Most of the bystanders seems friendly (strangly, more so, it seemed to me, than those in Coventry for 'Countdown to Copenhagen' march a few weeks back.) Never seen so much photography going on - the media, people on the march, and the 'general public'. (No photos from me, sorry. My phone's just a phone.)


10. Lots of foreign unions present, gave extra colour to the march. They tended to be more vocal.


11. "The-workers. United. Will-never-be-defeated". It's a long time since I've heard that!


12. Lots of fun fancy dress. A curious green creature was sat on top of one of the bus-shelters.


13. Seemed rather an unnecessary density of policemen along the route near Hyde Park.


14. More newspapers for sale: Socialist Worker (again), Socialist, Morning Star and The Respect Paper.


15. Events in Hyde Park hosted by Tony Robinson: always good value! A range of speakers from across the world: environmentalists and union leaders. eg:


16. "We were all backing Obama (sounds from the crowd, most in support, some dissent), but we now need him to deliver, We were all asked to chant: 'yes we can; yes we must; yes we will'"


17. "We own RBS now, so they should do what we want"


18. Tony Juniper quotes Gandhi about the difference between what we are capable of and what we actually do


19. Lots of famous people. Eg Susan George, a very famous name. Trouble is I can't now recall what she said.


20. Mark Thomas doesn't mince his words. "Neo-liberal capitalism is on it's knees and we must kill it off."


21. Mark Thomas again (I think). There was an average of less than one council house built per council last year.


22. Some thoughts on being a Christian at the rally

Obama's commitments

From an email from Avaaz:

... here's a list of 10 of Obama's campaign promises that concern the world – you can find his full platform here http://www.barackobama.com/issues/:

* Reduce the US's carbon emissions 80% by 2050 and play a strong positive role in negotiating a binding global treaty to replace the expiring Kyoto Protocol
* Withdraw all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months and keep no permanent bases in the country
* Establish a clear goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons across the globe
* Close the Guantanamo Bay detention center
* Double US aid to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015 and accelerate the fight against HIV/AIDS, tuberculoses and Malaria
* Open diplomatic talks with countries like Iran and Syria, to pursue peaceful resolution of tensions
* De-politicize military intelligence to avoid ever repeating the kind of manipulation that led the US into Iraq
* Launch a major diplomatic effort to stop the killings in Darfur
* Only negotiate new trade agreements that contain labor and environmental protections
* Invest $150 billion over ten years to support renewable energy and get 1 million plug-in electric cars on the road by 2015

There'll be plenty of pressure to prevent him delivering on these. Organisations like Avaaz will be encouraging him to deliver. I'm doing my (tiny, tiny, tiny...) bit by supporting Avaaz!