questions on discrimination and principle

I'm always cautious about wading into to some 'hot topics' on this blog, because it's not part of its purpose.  Having said that, sometimes I do feel the need to float ideas and more importantly to pose questions that arise out of an issue.

Hence, I am going to pose a question on the topic surrounding the recent B&B ruling, although it is not in reference to this case specifically (I did appreciate the gentle manner of Mrs Bull's response, however).  In my readings of the many opinions on this topic, I frequently come across the suggestion that because B&B owners are offering a public service, it should therefore be open to all members of the public and their practices, regardless of the personal religious belief of the owners of said public service.  Please correct me if that's a bad summary.  In some cases people have said that if they do not accept homosexual or pre-marital sex in general under their roof, they should not be in the business of offering hospitality (and by that I mean literal business, not just a general welcoming-ness).

My question is this:  for those B&B owners who do hold these deep beliefs which mean they are incredibly uncomfortable with the practice of certain things in their own home, are we then saying they should give up their business?  For those who have long-standing businesses, a sense of calling to this kind of hospitality wherein it is important to offer a lovely holiday to others, but cannot in all personal conscience accept, for example, homosexual practice in their homes?  Do we suggest that someone cannot start such a business unless they do so?

Where do we draw the line here?  It's a bad analogy, but I'll use it briefly - prior to the smoking ban, there were B&B owners who did not allow the practice of smoking in their establishment.  Now, you may quite rightly say - well, that's to do with health factors, the air quality, and how it affects other guests.  I did say it was a bad analogy, but surely for some owners it was a personal preference.  Likewise some B&Bs  did not personally want people bringing their pets into their establishment, not just for the sake of other guests but because it was their home.

My point, however badly made, is that decisions are made on personal principles all the time, including in the hospitality business.  My question, I suppose, is are we to consider that personal beliefs and preferences are unimportant in these areas and even unacceptable?  That we can no longer officially do things on moral principle?  That the private should never influence the public? Because frankly, we do not all hold the same principles and no group, religion or government will ever be able to force us to do so.  And I wonder if deliberate discrimination and personal principle are occasionally getting mixed up, when I don't think they are necessarily the same thing.

These are my current ponderings and I am not submitting an argument or an answer.  Neither am I commenting on legality and law.  But I can't get rid of the questions - hence I'm throwing them out here out of genuine interest in peoples' response.  I'm interested by the relationship of the private and the public, of belief and practice, of how we deal with personal principle - these things are abstract, but they impact our thinking on such issues.  Again, these questions are not particularly specific to the most recent case, but neither would I necessarily apply them to other areas.

Feel free to disagree - but please be respectful and remember I am asking a genuine question, rather than delivering an argument.

big society

I'm getting quite interested in this. I do think there are so many untapped resources in the individuals and in the communities in our country...it would be great if we can pull together to make a difference, no longer to be spectators but participants.







http://www.number10.gov.uk/

belief in hope and wonder

As usual my mind is a whirl of thoughts, ducking and diving.  It means of course that one can easily slip away as another draws my attention, but such are the perils of being me.  I have oodles of writing topics tucked in my brain too, of course, all trying to get out of the neck of the bottle, risking jamming it entirely.  At times like this, I have to go and prune a hedge or something.  (We don't have a hedge; plenty of bushes, however, are trying to work on their ambition to become trees.)


I've been working on my first sermon for a while, which should be interesting.  Loving getting into the topic and learning more myself, re-discovering a sense of wonder.  Wonder gives life sizzle and shine. It fuels faith and gives perspective.  It gives us reason to worship.  Let's have more of it.



Keeping my eye on politics, with interest. BBC News 24 is on much more than it used to be.  I still feel positive about the future.  The coalition has the potential of neutralising the extremes of both parties, a thing of balance.  I love the idea of putting national interest above party politics.  We're all weary of the latter.  I know there are those who claim 'it will never work' but I tire of the negativity.   Let's believe in hope, for a while, shall we?  The idea of the 'Big Society' necessitates co-operation  - its weakness and its strength.  We need to start believing in our potential again, our capacity to change and affect change in the world around us.

Am I playing the same old record?  Well, I like it, so - tough.

new politics?

Our youngest Prime Minister in 200 years and the first coalition government since the Second World War.  Goodness, this is all very different and could be quite exciting...

Image from BBC news website, for full article see here


***

Today is also ME/CFS awareness day, which is well worth a mention, amid all the hype of current happenings - drawing attention to those of us who long to make a difference but are hampered by an unsympathetic, unpredictable and frequently misunderstood illness.

hanging around...

Well the last week or so I've not been Internet connected...hence the hush.  I would have been commenting more on the UK political excitement, although excitement seems a funny word to use now. We're all waiting on Nick Clegg, while not envying his position.  Am getting a bit goggle eyed and rather than calling the Blues Conservative or Tories, have begun referring to them as Conservatories (no offence, Dave).  We stayed up watching the results until 5am which was a bit pointless - a hung parliament was predicted and a hung parliament was what we got.

Thought it was a shame the Lib Dems didn't do so well; that was making things much more interesting.  And I'm very keen on electoral reform (though please don't ask me the best way of doing it - I've only been getting my head round politics recently!)  I'm not sure if a coalition or what have you with the Conservatives (or Conservatories) would lead to a real reform in the electoral system.  I also think maybe the Lib Dems were down on votes because people were voting tactically - to keep either Labour or the Tories out.

Well, that worked...(!)

Was talking to a family member today who had a bad experience with the former Conservative government, and wondering if that is what prevented them getting a majority - that the cloud cast from the past hangs over them more than they realise.  But then, what do I know?  Like I say, I've only been getting into it all recently, as part of my 'how can I change world?' mandate.  (These days I know who is the Speaker of the House and can understand jokes about Mandelson, which is a start...)

So, we're hanging around with a hung parliament, waiting, not knowing. Meanwhile, Gordon holds the reins while the other two confer. What's going to happen?

I'm still determined to get involved. Somehow.  When we know what government we've actually got, that is. 

Have been thinking a lot about advocacy...but will save that for another post.

politics and passion

The other night I had a dream.  Like most of my dreams, most of the specifics and substance fled instantly from my memory.  I was somewhere - was I living there? Possibly.  Possibly I was hosting an event of some kind.  What I do remember is that Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg were all present.  Whatever else, I remember that. Obviously, the upcoming election has gone to my head.

I want to make a difference.  I want to use my voice (and my vote).  I'm trying to gather all the information I can, work out what's important, see through the clutter of competition and know what I think.  So I'm reading all the election supplements and relevant newspaper articles.  I want to know what to do.  I want to know who to vote for.  I want to choose wisely.

It will be interesting watching the debate tonight.  It feels faintly presidential, which doesn't seem to fit with our voting system, but I'm keen to see them, all the same.

Of course, it's not very straightforward. Do you vote for the person or the party? And frankly, which person: Prime Minister or local MP? Is it about what they stand for politically? Or who they are? And what about safe seats, two party races, swing voters and tactical voters?  It's not just a case of saying what (or who) you want. It's about understanding the choice you have in the first place, and what to do about it. In my head the local and the national don't sit easily together (because of the parliamentary system, I suppose), so focussing on these elements separately, can lead to two different outcomes. It's a trifle mind boggling.  It seems to me, the only way to get the passion of the voting public back into politics is to reform the whole system. But it's not going to happen in the next month.

I know some will choose, in the face of this, simply not to vote.  I can't make a difference, they say.  But I am going to vote.  I'll do the best I can at deciding it, pray for guidance, try to be well informed.  But my vote, I've decided, is going to mean more than that.

I'm voting to get involved.

Whoever is running the country in a month's time, I need to act.  I need to stand up for the things I am passionate about, be a voice for the voiceless, call for justice for the powerless.  I want to motivate myself to write letters to my government and my MP, participate in petitions, and, as I've mentioned before on this blog, raise awareness of the things that matter.  The things that are unacceptable in our world today.   

Yes, I still want to change the world.

We stand back and say 'I won't make any difference'. Well, you know what I think about that.  We can all change the world a little.  Just because we can't do a lot, does it mean we shouldn't do something?  But I would also say  that I would rather try and fail than never try at all.  Will I walk away?  Will I refuse to do anything? 

I would rather know that I've tried.

I'm voting to get involved.  Hold me to it.  Being flawed and human I'll get distracted, tired, forgetful, apathetic.  But I don't want to be.  I want to be passionate about the things I care about and I want to carry that passion into all areas of my life.

I'm voting to get involved.

Will you?

***

First image from BBC website, second image from stock.xchng. 3rd imagepart of promotional material for the televised debate.

from the little person

Do you know, it's only just sunk in properly that Obama is actually the US President? I listened to the inauguration speech on the radio while doing the washing up, in the dark of evening over here, and then progressed into the lounge to watch it on TV (having to close the door because the digital signal of the television digi-box was slightly behind the analog radio that sits on top of the fridge, to which Andy was still listening). I liked it when he said: '...to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation...'

As the citizen of a different nation, I appreciated the feeling behind the statement. I have to confess sometimes it feels like America oh and the rest of the world but this speech did not make it feel that way. Even when talking about the leadership of America it was not put across in a condescending fashion.

Here in Britain the headlines dwell on recession; not being very economically minded I feel ill equipped to offer much comment except to do what I always do: quietly observe events and wait to see what happens next. I find my not-very-economically-minded brain* trying to get to grips with the whole idea of economy in the larger sense - asking such stupid questions as - where does the money come from- I mean, where does it start? Who are we borrowing from? I feel like a child at the back of the classroom who has somehow missed the first lesson and doesn't know how to catch up, worries about looking stupid if she asks - and probably wouldn't understand the answer anyway.

I glaze over with the comebacks and criticisms of opposing parties: I honestly do not know who is right, and frankly it has come to the point where it appears that whatever one does, the other will burst a blood vessel over it. To me, and perhaps others of us 'little people' trying to make sense of things, the parties and leaders strip each other down for the sake of stripping each other down - so right and wrong seems to recede in the face of simply shouting each other down. The many people who are jaded with politics are fed up either with hypocrisy and suchlike or simply the amount of labels being bandied back and forth - like arrows aiming for weak spots in armour, so any real governing is either disguised or delayed or disrupted by a constant battle.

To me, me who would never make any kind of politician, I am simply reminded that we are all so terribly human, with all our weaknesses. No matter the label or the party. But we are, still, wonderfully human, with all our strengths, and thus I try to take an interest and not become jaded. But so often the media is swamped by minutiae and the bigger, more important issues lie untouched, or unseen.

Perhaps it is just me.

* As in, not good at understanding economics. Not 'ooooh I want to spend loads of money!'

Today: 5/10, medium

bye bye Bush

Somewhat more frivolously than my previous post, I direct you to this , where you can find some Bush-isms to enjoy, now that we will no longer be experiencing them (on a large scale, at least) and links to further websites.

politics and prayer

Ah, so Obama did it. I wasn't particularly surprised, although I experienced a sudden surge of trepidation a moment before I found out, and prayed desperately 'let it be the right person'. I'm afraid I didn't watch the election coverage - which for us GMT-ers meant staying up between midnight and 6am - not something that is wise for me to do these days!

In a disjointed way, this reminds me of something I was challenged with several months back, and need to be reminded of again - the need to pray for our leaders and those in government. Here in the UK there is quite a lot of disillusionment about politics and many are choosing not to engage with it at all. But I think of the immense responsibility and pressure our leaders are under. I could never do that, cope with that, be that. But somehow I neglect, so easily, to simply pray - for wisdom, strength, sensitivity, diplomacy...I think I need to zap up my intercessionary praying overall, in fact. So often I pray for others when I am moved to do so - but what about all those times when I sink into apathy? - so many times. If I'm honest, the majority of them. Here's a thought: compare how often we criticise our leaders, with how often we pray for them. That thought makes me stare at the floor and shuffle my feet...

I think I shall try and write down all these things / people in a notebook and discipline myself to go through it regularly. I have such good intentions, but I am so easily distracted. Such good intentions...so easily distracted. (Remind me, please!!!)

Do you ever have moments when you realise you are still very near the beginning of journeying to maturity in lots of ways - simple ways and yet you so easily neglect them?

Lord don't let me forget
to pray for others
those with needs,
responsibilities,
those with power,
or powerlessness.

too many gates...

What is this current craze with putting '-gate' on the end of any political scandal? I cringe when I hear 'datagate' and 'donorgate'. They sound, frankly, ridiculous, as if they as words are trying to be cool - and failing miserably. I caught part of a political programme a couple of days ago and one woman was talking about 'donorgate' and I literally cringed. It sounded just plain silly.

We all know about Watergate. In that case, the word pulls it off nicely, mainly because it wasn't surrounded by other words aspiring to be it, and it earned its significance as a point in history (will there be any blockbuster movies about Labour donations? I mean, really?) But why does every single scandal become a '-gate' these days? I don't think, personally, you can make a judgement about the significance of anything - whether it makes or breaks a person or a party - until you are in the realms of hindsight, where history is the true judge.

But mainly I just think the words sound silly.