The accounting firm I'm with recently picked up a new client, whom I will call Mr. Jones. That's hardly a reason to put the flags out, we are an expanding practice and I hope we will continue to be so.
When a businessman changes accountants, his new accountants will write to his old accountants asking for certain information that will help the new accountants to understand the background to the business, so that they don't have to bother the business owner with loads of questions. As a general rule, they will get a response, eventually, from the old accountant to their questions. There may be a time delay depending on how complex matters are and how teed off the old accountant is at losing one of his clients. Normally, however, changing your adviser shouldn't be a problem.
When we wrote to Mr. Jones's old accountant, who I will call Mr. Smith, we got a letter stating that he objected to our acting for him. Why, we asked. Mr. Jones owes me money, he replied. That's no reason for objecting to our being his accountants, we said. You should simply ask Mr. Jones to pay his bill. Mr. Smith persisted in refusing to co-operate, so we reported him to his professional body. After much correspondence, we got some of the information we wanted, but it was about a year before we got enough clarity on what was going on to make sense of Mr. Jones's accounts. By then, they were late, and he had to pay fines to the Government.
It came out that Smith & Co. were reluctant to sue Mr. Jones for the unpaid bills. The principal of Smith & Co. was a very religious Christian who took the Bible absolutely literally, and it says in the Bible that you shouldn't go to court against your fellow Christians. The reference is the first letter of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians, chapter 6, verses 1 to 11. Now, given that the early Christians were predominantly Jewish, I can explain just why the apostle said what he did. He envisaged that there would be church courts, like the Beth Din of the Jewish community, to which Christians would refer for resolution of disputes between church members. Given that Mr. Smith's church clearly doesn't have its own legal system or anything like it, all that Mr. Smith could do was to write increasingly intemperate letters to us and to all else involved about his continued refusal to hand over details to us of Mr. Jones. It doesn't strike me as a functional method of dealing with a dispute.
It is with the above in mind that we have to consider Sharia law. It would be much more straightforward, as well as less expensive, for faith communities to regulate themselves than it is for them to use the legal system of the State. It isn't anything new in human affairs either: in the early days of the Jewish community in India (approximately 400 C.E.) the decisions of Jewish Batei Din were automatically ratified by the ruling Maharajah. If a naughty member of the Jewish community refused to obey the Beth Din, the Maharajah would send his boys round to ensure compliance. It worked like a charm.
Today, there are Jewish women who are unable to remarry in accordance with the rules of the Jewish faith because their estranged husbands won't give them a divorce complying with Jewish religious law, and there appears very little that anyone can do to make them. If, however, it were the law of the land that all Jews have to do as our Beth Din says in matters of dispute, and that those who don't will face a criminal trial before the legal system of the U.K. for contempt of court, then even the most obstinate man may well see sense. The same principle could apply to Muslims, Hindus, or anyone else.
That is why I would be in favour of a law recognising religious courts of faith communities as being of competent jurisdiction for U.K. legal purposes on the following conditions:
1. Only civil cases could be tried before such courts, not criminal cases.
2. The rulings of such courts apply only within the faith community concerned.
3. The law of the land cannot be overruled by any decision of a religious court.
4. When any case is brought before a religious court, its decision is final and binding subject to judicial review if it can be proved that it acted dishonestly or in bad faith.
5. And finally: as a condition for being recognised as being of competent jurisdiction, the religious court has to comply with democratic principles. That would imply, on the basis of equality of the sexes, that women should be able to be appointed as judges.
I hope the above is close enough to what Dr. Rowan Williams had in mind. Women bishops, anyone?
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Sunday, 9 March 2008
Thursday, 3 January 2008
A sober New Year
Happy new year, everyone!
The column-inches of the Standard are filling steadily up with drink-related stories of every kind. In response to "Hungover staff blamed for Notwork (sic) Rail fiasco", 3 Jan 08 page 9, and other such horror stories, this is my take on the media obsession with booze.
There isn't anything new about national insobriety. This time four hundred years ago, everyone in the land used to drink beer morning, noon and night, because the water was so filthy. In those days, if you lived long enough to develop liver trouble, you were very fortunate; we were all dying like flies from infectious diseases. The average life expectancy was between 25 and 35 years. Over time, other drinks such as tea and coffee began to be introduced to Britain, the water supply began to be cleaned up, and industrialisation demanded a sober workforce. Now that work patterns have changed, and we also don't have to behave ourselves properly to impress imperial subjects, we are reverting to the way that we have always behaved in the past.
It is now becoming clear that way isn't helpful for us.
The question is whether you can enjoy life without chemical intervention. Many of us feel that we are lacking something. Life doesn't seem exciting, stimulating, peaceful, or whatever, enough, and something seems missing. In order to fill the gap we put all sorts of substances in our bodies, legal or otherwise, which have no business being there.
This is because we weren't taught how to go within. The idea that somehow we aren't complete is a fallacy. With practice in the art of cultivating our inner life, we can find inside ourselves all the stimulation, or relaxation, that we want. That wasn't the way we were brought up. We were taught, consciously or not, that we have to get something from outside ourselves in order to be happy. That something will inevitably cost money: there is a fortune to be made out of human discontent, you just have to be creative in inventing more things to be discontented about. Or else it will affect our health: there's no effective drug without a side effect, which means a lot of people will earn a good living dealing with the side effects, or pretending to.
People used to talk about the military-industrial complex, in which our economy depends so much on the production of weapons that we have to go around creating war and commotion to maintain our customer base. The discontentment-chemical complex is just as real. We are fed with thought systems that make us depressed. Most of us will look for a mood-altering substance, sooner or later, to get us out of the depression. Once we come to see it isn't working, we may have become dependent on the substance, so we carry on using it anyway, even though it may be costing us more than we can afford.
By way of another example, I went on a course in employee relations recently, in which the speaker touched on the subject of depression. He said that the most common reaction to feeling unhappy is to get a take-away meal and watch a video. He also said that is about the worst thing you can do to deal with such feelings. It may give you a lift now, but it does nothing about the causes of sadness. Well, if you're like me you probably get a bit of junk mail every day advertising one or another fast food outlet, which in my home goes untouched from doormat to recycling bin. Some people must be making a fortune out of reactions to being depressed.
Therefore, once enough of us to make a difference master the art of enjoying a satisfying inner life, the economy will take a considerable knock. We will have to prepare ourselves for having to change our ways of living, and for finding something interesting and creative to do that won't be part of the discontentment-chemical complex. The people who earn the most from it, including the media, won't like to see us all going within. Expect large amounts of black propaganda against meditation, and against non-invasive forms of healing, in the media in the near future. And when you see it, smile: you've started to make an impact.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
The column-inches of the Standard are filling steadily up with drink-related stories of every kind. In response to "Hungover staff blamed for Notwork (sic) Rail fiasco", 3 Jan 08 page 9, and other such horror stories, this is my take on the media obsession with booze.
There isn't anything new about national insobriety. This time four hundred years ago, everyone in the land used to drink beer morning, noon and night, because the water was so filthy. In those days, if you lived long enough to develop liver trouble, you were very fortunate; we were all dying like flies from infectious diseases. The average life expectancy was between 25 and 35 years. Over time, other drinks such as tea and coffee began to be introduced to Britain, the water supply began to be cleaned up, and industrialisation demanded a sober workforce. Now that work patterns have changed, and we also don't have to behave ourselves properly to impress imperial subjects, we are reverting to the way that we have always behaved in the past.
It is now becoming clear that way isn't helpful for us.
The question is whether you can enjoy life without chemical intervention. Many of us feel that we are lacking something. Life doesn't seem exciting, stimulating, peaceful, or whatever, enough, and something seems missing. In order to fill the gap we put all sorts of substances in our bodies, legal or otherwise, which have no business being there.
This is because we weren't taught how to go within. The idea that somehow we aren't complete is a fallacy. With practice in the art of cultivating our inner life, we can find inside ourselves all the stimulation, or relaxation, that we want. That wasn't the way we were brought up. We were taught, consciously or not, that we have to get something from outside ourselves in order to be happy. That something will inevitably cost money: there is a fortune to be made out of human discontent, you just have to be creative in inventing more things to be discontented about. Or else it will affect our health: there's no effective drug without a side effect, which means a lot of people will earn a good living dealing with the side effects, or pretending to.
People used to talk about the military-industrial complex, in which our economy depends so much on the production of weapons that we have to go around creating war and commotion to maintain our customer base. The discontentment-chemical complex is just as real. We are fed with thought systems that make us depressed. Most of us will look for a mood-altering substance, sooner or later, to get us out of the depression. Once we come to see it isn't working, we may have become dependent on the substance, so we carry on using it anyway, even though it may be costing us more than we can afford.
By way of another example, I went on a course in employee relations recently, in which the speaker touched on the subject of depression. He said that the most common reaction to feeling unhappy is to get a take-away meal and watch a video. He also said that is about the worst thing you can do to deal with such feelings. It may give you a lift now, but it does nothing about the causes of sadness. Well, if you're like me you probably get a bit of junk mail every day advertising one or another fast food outlet, which in my home goes untouched from doormat to recycling bin. Some people must be making a fortune out of reactions to being depressed.
Therefore, once enough of us to make a difference master the art of enjoying a satisfying inner life, the economy will take a considerable knock. We will have to prepare ourselves for having to change our ways of living, and for finding something interesting and creative to do that won't be part of the discontentment-chemical complex. The people who earn the most from it, including the media, won't like to see us all going within. Expect large amounts of black propaganda against meditation, and against non-invasive forms of healing, in the media in the near future. And when you see it, smile: you've started to make an impact.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Monday, 10 December 2007
Christmas with Trevor Phillips
This is my reply to Trevor Phillips' article "Why be ashamed to celebrate Christmas", 10th December 2007, page 13.
There's nothing wrong with celebrating anything on principle, but it helps if you know on what basis you are celebrating it. There is actually not a single word, anywhere in the Christian New Testament, about celebrating Jesus's birth. Two out of the four Gospels (Mark and John) don't so much as mention the birth: they just have Jesus appearing out of nowhere, being baptized by John the Baptist, and getting on with his mission.
To my knowledge the only birthday in the New Testament is found in the 14th chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew. The birthday concerned was that of Herod, and according to the story on that day he gave orders for the execution of John the Baptist. Immediately thereafter follows the story of the feeding of the five thousand, which is meant to contrast the spiritual kingdom of Jesus with the earthly kingdom of Herod.
According to Christian tradition, there are twelve days of Christmas, and they start on Christmas Eve, when you put your decorations up, and finish on Twelfth Night, when you take them down. According to the way that Christmas is celebrated in my neighbourhood, you have a seasonal bad taste competition, which begins in early December. The object is to erect the ugliest possible effigies of Santa Claus, reindeer, and snowmen in front of your house, and to decorate its exterior with the most garish flashing lights that money can buy. The winner is the householder whose seasonal display afflicts the most passers-by with a migraine. There's a consolation prize for the size of your carbon footprint.
If you take out of Christmas all the commercial elements, you would have very little left. It's essentially a secular festival. That doesn't make it wrong. But if you are looking for a way to celebrate your Christian beliefs, there are other ways of so doing that could work better.
When I was a Christian, I used to organise Passover (Pesach, for my Jewish readers) celebrations. I reasoned that Passover was in the Bible, unlike Christmas, and that it can carry a Christian message of redemption from spiritual bondage, as well as a Jewish one. It also seemed a bit odd to me that the Church didn't make more of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection and the ascension, or indeed of Pentecost, which is the day, it is said, that the Holy Spirit was given to the Church. They are no less important in Christianity than the birth of Jesus, are they not?
Alternatively, you could perhaps celebrate Jesus's first miracle, which according to John's gospel was turning water into wine, although some may suggest it would encourage drinking to excess (and Christmas doesn't, I suppose?) or else that he withstood Satan. This last is reminiscent of both Moses and Buddha, in that they are said to have gone into the desert in order to deal with their strongest illusions.
Alternatively again, there's always Harvest Festival. This encompasses thanksgiving to God for the food, and beside that the harvest is seen as a synonym for the Last Judgement: there's plenty about that in the Gospels. It could also be seen as about generosity, kindness, and benevolence in general: doesn't it teach us that God is good to all, whatever we may think about Him, and that is how we are meant to be?
If we can get that last point across to the world in general, it would take a lot of the fear and misunderstanding out of religious discussions.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
There's nothing wrong with celebrating anything on principle, but it helps if you know on what basis you are celebrating it. There is actually not a single word, anywhere in the Christian New Testament, about celebrating Jesus's birth. Two out of the four Gospels (Mark and John) don't so much as mention the birth: they just have Jesus appearing out of nowhere, being baptized by John the Baptist, and getting on with his mission.
To my knowledge the only birthday in the New Testament is found in the 14th chapter of the Gospel according to Matthew. The birthday concerned was that of Herod, and according to the story on that day he gave orders for the execution of John the Baptist. Immediately thereafter follows the story of the feeding of the five thousand, which is meant to contrast the spiritual kingdom of Jesus with the earthly kingdom of Herod.
According to Christian tradition, there are twelve days of Christmas, and they start on Christmas Eve, when you put your decorations up, and finish on Twelfth Night, when you take them down. According to the way that Christmas is celebrated in my neighbourhood, you have a seasonal bad taste competition, which begins in early December. The object is to erect the ugliest possible effigies of Santa Claus, reindeer, and snowmen in front of your house, and to decorate its exterior with the most garish flashing lights that money can buy. The winner is the householder whose seasonal display afflicts the most passers-by with a migraine. There's a consolation prize for the size of your carbon footprint.
If you take out of Christmas all the commercial elements, you would have very little left. It's essentially a secular festival. That doesn't make it wrong. But if you are looking for a way to celebrate your Christian beliefs, there are other ways of so doing that could work better.
When I was a Christian, I used to organise Passover (Pesach, for my Jewish readers) celebrations. I reasoned that Passover was in the Bible, unlike Christmas, and that it can carry a Christian message of redemption from spiritual bondage, as well as a Jewish one. It also seemed a bit odd to me that the Church didn't make more of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection and the ascension, or indeed of Pentecost, which is the day, it is said, that the Holy Spirit was given to the Church. They are no less important in Christianity than the birth of Jesus, are they not?
Alternatively, you could perhaps celebrate Jesus's first miracle, which according to John's gospel was turning water into wine, although some may suggest it would encourage drinking to excess (and Christmas doesn't, I suppose?) or else that he withstood Satan. This last is reminiscent of both Moses and Buddha, in that they are said to have gone into the desert in order to deal with their strongest illusions.
Alternatively again, there's always Harvest Festival. This encompasses thanksgiving to God for the food, and beside that the harvest is seen as a synonym for the Last Judgement: there's plenty about that in the Gospels. It could also be seen as about generosity, kindness, and benevolence in general: doesn't it teach us that God is good to all, whatever we may think about Him, and that is how we are meant to be?
If we can get that last point across to the world in general, it would take a lot of the fear and misunderstanding out of religious discussions.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
Ken and the trees
You couldn't make this up: 20th November 2007 (page 24 of the Standard), Ken Livingstone says we should plant more trees, fruit trees in particular. 21st November 2007 (page 17 of the Standard) Islington Council wants to chop down some pear trees because of "dangerous fruit".
This autumn, I have noticed that there are dozens of homes around where I live that have fruit trees in their gardens, and the home owners clearly haven't got the first idea what to do with them. For the most part, the trees have not been pruned. The fruit is therefore too high up to be picked without a great deal of effort, and it just hits the deck every September.
I expect that many years ago, before London expanded so much, this was fruit-growing land, and what we see is the last remnant of the apple and pear trees that used to form part of someone's farm. They probably include species that have long vanished from the shops because they can't be grown in industrial quantities, wrapped in plastic, and shipped all round the globe. For example, I've got a pear tree which must be at least as old as my house, I prune it each year, and I get large green and yellow pears. They seem to be an early variety, and the shelf life is measured in minutes, so you've got to do something with them right away. I expect in the old days they were either fermented into perry or else jammed. I make compote from them and freeze it. In any case, they clearly aren't commercially viable today: they'd be dead on their feet before you could get them to the supermarket. When it's a contest between shelf life and taste, shelf life seems to win, and as a result we have food that tastes of nothing much.
It seems an awful shame to have something growing on a tree in your own garden that you never use. It's been suggested to me that we could start a "back yard gardeners' co-operative" to make creative use of the fruit. Let's suppose you have got an apple tree that you have no idea how to look after: you don't want to destroy it, but you don't have the time for its maintenance. Why not get someone else in the co-operative, who does know about trees, to keep it in trim for you? You can then decide if you want the fruit or not. If not, it can go to someone else in the co-operative. At the very least, it won't end up as a rats' banquet.
This doesn't apply only to edibles: if you've got a bush of some kind that seems to grow very vigorously, you could offer cuttings from the bush via the co-operative. I've got bay tree twigs that I am attempting to root at the moment, if they give rise to viable tree seedlings then you would be able to get from me what would, over time, grow into a very beautiful evergreen for the garden. And, if Ken Livingstone is right in his predictions of climate change, it would be a good choice of tree: the bay is native to the Mediterranean.
Any constructive comments on this will be greatly appreciated.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
This autumn, I have noticed that there are dozens of homes around where I live that have fruit trees in their gardens, and the home owners clearly haven't got the first idea what to do with them. For the most part, the trees have not been pruned. The fruit is therefore too high up to be picked without a great deal of effort, and it just hits the deck every September.
I expect that many years ago, before London expanded so much, this was fruit-growing land, and what we see is the last remnant of the apple and pear trees that used to form part of someone's farm. They probably include species that have long vanished from the shops because they can't be grown in industrial quantities, wrapped in plastic, and shipped all round the globe. For example, I've got a pear tree which must be at least as old as my house, I prune it each year, and I get large green and yellow pears. They seem to be an early variety, and the shelf life is measured in minutes, so you've got to do something with them right away. I expect in the old days they were either fermented into perry or else jammed. I make compote from them and freeze it. In any case, they clearly aren't commercially viable today: they'd be dead on their feet before you could get them to the supermarket. When it's a contest between shelf life and taste, shelf life seems to win, and as a result we have food that tastes of nothing much.
It seems an awful shame to have something growing on a tree in your own garden that you never use. It's been suggested to me that we could start a "back yard gardeners' co-operative" to make creative use of the fruit. Let's suppose you have got an apple tree that you have no idea how to look after: you don't want to destroy it, but you don't have the time for its maintenance. Why not get someone else in the co-operative, who does know about trees, to keep it in trim for you? You can then decide if you want the fruit or not. If not, it can go to someone else in the co-operative. At the very least, it won't end up as a rats' banquet.
This doesn't apply only to edibles: if you've got a bush of some kind that seems to grow very vigorously, you could offer cuttings from the bush via the co-operative. I've got bay tree twigs that I am attempting to root at the moment, if they give rise to viable tree seedlings then you would be able to get from me what would, over time, grow into a very beautiful evergreen for the garden. And, if Ken Livingstone is right in his predictions of climate change, it would be a good choice of tree: the bay is native to the Mediterranean.
Any constructive comments on this will be greatly appreciated.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Wednesday, 14 November 2007
Limits to religion and culture
These are my views on the YouGov poll (13th November issue of The Standard).
Firstly, I find it rather perverse that in a poll of supposedly "influential" people on the subject of Islam, only one per cent of those questioned was a Muslim.
Secondly, the questions seemed to have been worded as if all Muslims were a homogenous mass. That isn't the case. There is as much disagreement, and difference of opinion, within Islam as there is in any other religion. The fact that there is disagreement doesn't make it a bad religion. Disagreement is essential for the world to function: if we all thought the same, there would be no new ideas, no inventions, and no progress. The question is how we are to manage the differences in viewpoint.
I believe that all religions and cultures are valid as long as they are prepared to keep within certain boundaries which have to exist for a democratic society to function. The structures of democracy are also the limits to religious belief and practice.
All civilisations nowadays are beginning to agree that some kind of democratic rule is the method of government that works the best. The damage done to the world at certain times in history by various dictators is too well known to require comment. It is seen as essential to limit the power of the government to do just what it likes. But although democratic principles have been discussed for milennia, it is only in very recent times that they have been fully put into practice.
Two conditions seem essential for a democracy to exist. One of these is that those who offer themselves as candidates for office have to be committed to govern in such a manner as to serve the best interests of all the citizens, or if that isn't practicable then at the very least to serve the best interests of as many as possible. The other condition is that all adults should normally be able to vote. Therefore, the U.K. has in fact been a democracy only since 1928, which was when all adult women were able to vote.
Democracy, by its nature, implies that all citizens are equal before the law, and equally subject to the rule of law. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religious belief are also necessary elements of the system. Equality of opportunity, regardless of gender, is implied in the principle of democracy. An educated and informed electorate is also essential. These governing principles serve as the limit to how far culture can go.
Therefore, if any religious belief or cultural norm negates democratic principles, those who practice it may have to live with Government restraints on how far they can go in observing their traditions. I have written this last sentence with great reluctance and a heavy heart, because as a general rule I'm not at all in favour of more Government rules. I would be far happier if we could tear up the rule-book and empower people to take charge of their own lives. In this instance, however, we are dealing with people who intend to do far worse than to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. We have to take action as a nation to protect ourselves and our freedoms, until it becomes unnecessary.
Take, for example, freedom of religion. I do not think that in the Western world we have real freedom of religion. This is because all major Western religions - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism - teach to a greater or lesser extent that you risk going to Hell if you break their rules. There can be no freedom if your fear of the unknown is being exploited by your belief system. In order to function as part of a properly democratic nation, all religions must commit themselves to stop frightening their followers with horror stories of torture beyond the grave.
Another issue is that of womens' dress. The fundmentalist Islamic dress code is eminently sensible if you live in a country where there are sandstorms. Under such circumstances, men, women, and children would have to be veiled from head to foot for protection. However, in the U.K. even in today's globally warmed times it is highly improbable we shall ever see a sandstorm. No Muslim man would tolerate being made to dress in such a way that only his eyes could be seen.
Similarly, when my wife and I were living in Stamford Hill and trying to fit in to a Chareidi Jewish lifestyle, she had to wear a sheitel: that is to say, a wig that covers all your own hair. Almost all married Chareidi women wear them. Many actually shave off their own hair. The rationale for this is that it is immodest for married women to have their hair uncovered. But there is no similar rule for married men. Granted, we almost always wear a hat, but no Jewish man would dream of shaving off his hair and putting on a wig. It would be unheard of.
The reason why religious dress codes always come down more heavily on women in the Western world is that we have the Biblical myth of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden in which the woman is cast as the temptress-in-chief. But these customs are incompatible with the democratic principle of equality of the sexes. A woman isn't a vagina and a womb on two legs, no matter what some religious people seem to think.
I'm not against anyone's freedom to wear whatever (s)he wants. I am simply asking the religious leaders of the world to cease from making certain modes of dress compulsory. If you are making women adhere to a certain dress code but not men, then as far as I am concerned you have gone too far.
I would say the same about faith schools. If I were the government, I wouldn't place any restrictions on what you can teach your kids any more than there are now. It is perfectly legal not to send your children to school at all, I know someone who educates hers at home. But I wouldn't give any money to any school for children of one faith alone, or indeed any "religious" school - Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, or what you will. You want any Government money? You follow a completely secular programme of education. If you want to teach religion, you do it in your own time, and with your own resources.
Finally, as regards public holidays, it has been suggested to make Eid a public holiday. I believe it makes more sense for public holidays not to be religious at all. To replace the U.K. public holidays we have now, I suggest six special days as follows: (1) Last Monday in August, Carnival. Speaking as a Londoner, it would take the pressure off Notting Hill. Speaking as a normal bloke who enjoys life, it would be great fun to have a once a year celebration in every street. God help us, the neighbours might actually start talking to each other! (2) Nearest Monday to 11th November, Remembrance Day. I would put the emphasis here on peace and reconciliation, as well as honouring the fallen. It could be a day in which we are encouraged to forgive one another and settle disputes, as we do in the Jewish world before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. (3) January 1st or nearest working day thereafter, New Year's Day. (4) May 1st or nearest working day thereafter, May Day, in honour of the workers. (5) June 21st or nearest working day thereafter, Midsummer's Day, in which we emphasise care of the environment. (6) Some time late February or early March, National Day, in which we celebrate what is good about our country.
This would distribute Bank Holidays evenly in the year: it would not favour any religion over another: and it would mean something to everyone, religious or otherwise. If you want to have other days off in honour of your religious holidays, you take it as part of your annual leave.
My opinions on everything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Firstly, I find it rather perverse that in a poll of supposedly "influential" people on the subject of Islam, only one per cent of those questioned was a Muslim.
Secondly, the questions seemed to have been worded as if all Muslims were a homogenous mass. That isn't the case. There is as much disagreement, and difference of opinion, within Islam as there is in any other religion. The fact that there is disagreement doesn't make it a bad religion. Disagreement is essential for the world to function: if we all thought the same, there would be no new ideas, no inventions, and no progress. The question is how we are to manage the differences in viewpoint.
I believe that all religions and cultures are valid as long as they are prepared to keep within certain boundaries which have to exist for a democratic society to function. The structures of democracy are also the limits to religious belief and practice.
All civilisations nowadays are beginning to agree that some kind of democratic rule is the method of government that works the best. The damage done to the world at certain times in history by various dictators is too well known to require comment. It is seen as essential to limit the power of the government to do just what it likes. But although democratic principles have been discussed for milennia, it is only in very recent times that they have been fully put into practice.
Two conditions seem essential for a democracy to exist. One of these is that those who offer themselves as candidates for office have to be committed to govern in such a manner as to serve the best interests of all the citizens, or if that isn't practicable then at the very least to serve the best interests of as many as possible. The other condition is that all adults should normally be able to vote. Therefore, the U.K. has in fact been a democracy only since 1928, which was when all adult women were able to vote.
Democracy, by its nature, implies that all citizens are equal before the law, and equally subject to the rule of law. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religious belief are also necessary elements of the system. Equality of opportunity, regardless of gender, is implied in the principle of democracy. An educated and informed electorate is also essential. These governing principles serve as the limit to how far culture can go.
Therefore, if any religious belief or cultural norm negates democratic principles, those who practice it may have to live with Government restraints on how far they can go in observing their traditions. I have written this last sentence with great reluctance and a heavy heart, because as a general rule I'm not at all in favour of more Government rules. I would be far happier if we could tear up the rule-book and empower people to take charge of their own lives. In this instance, however, we are dealing with people who intend to do far worse than to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre. We have to take action as a nation to protect ourselves and our freedoms, until it becomes unnecessary.
Take, for example, freedom of religion. I do not think that in the Western world we have real freedom of religion. This is because all major Western religions - Christianity, Islam, and Judaism - teach to a greater or lesser extent that you risk going to Hell if you break their rules. There can be no freedom if your fear of the unknown is being exploited by your belief system. In order to function as part of a properly democratic nation, all religions must commit themselves to stop frightening their followers with horror stories of torture beyond the grave.
Another issue is that of womens' dress. The fundmentalist Islamic dress code is eminently sensible if you live in a country where there are sandstorms. Under such circumstances, men, women, and children would have to be veiled from head to foot for protection. However, in the U.K. even in today's globally warmed times it is highly improbable we shall ever see a sandstorm. No Muslim man would tolerate being made to dress in such a way that only his eyes could be seen.
Similarly, when my wife and I were living in Stamford Hill and trying to fit in to a Chareidi Jewish lifestyle, she had to wear a sheitel: that is to say, a wig that covers all your own hair. Almost all married Chareidi women wear them. Many actually shave off their own hair. The rationale for this is that it is immodest for married women to have their hair uncovered. But there is no similar rule for married men. Granted, we almost always wear a hat, but no Jewish man would dream of shaving off his hair and putting on a wig. It would be unheard of.
The reason why religious dress codes always come down more heavily on women in the Western world is that we have the Biblical myth of Adam, Eve, and the Garden of Eden in which the woman is cast as the temptress-in-chief. But these customs are incompatible with the democratic principle of equality of the sexes. A woman isn't a vagina and a womb on two legs, no matter what some religious people seem to think.
I'm not against anyone's freedom to wear whatever (s)he wants. I am simply asking the religious leaders of the world to cease from making certain modes of dress compulsory. If you are making women adhere to a certain dress code but not men, then as far as I am concerned you have gone too far.
I would say the same about faith schools. If I were the government, I wouldn't place any restrictions on what you can teach your kids any more than there are now. It is perfectly legal not to send your children to school at all, I know someone who educates hers at home. But I wouldn't give any money to any school for children of one faith alone, or indeed any "religious" school - Anglican, Catholic, Baptist, Jewish, or what you will. You want any Government money? You follow a completely secular programme of education. If you want to teach religion, you do it in your own time, and with your own resources.
Finally, as regards public holidays, it has been suggested to make Eid a public holiday. I believe it makes more sense for public holidays not to be religious at all. To replace the U.K. public holidays we have now, I suggest six special days as follows: (1) Last Monday in August, Carnival. Speaking as a Londoner, it would take the pressure off Notting Hill. Speaking as a normal bloke who enjoys life, it would be great fun to have a once a year celebration in every street. God help us, the neighbours might actually start talking to each other! (2) Nearest Monday to 11th November, Remembrance Day. I would put the emphasis here on peace and reconciliation, as well as honouring the fallen. It could be a day in which we are encouraged to forgive one another and settle disputes, as we do in the Jewish world before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. (3) January 1st or nearest working day thereafter, New Year's Day. (4) May 1st or nearest working day thereafter, May Day, in honour of the workers. (5) June 21st or nearest working day thereafter, Midsummer's Day, in which we emphasise care of the environment. (6) Some time late February or early March, National Day, in which we celebrate what is good about our country.
This would distribute Bank Holidays evenly in the year: it would not favour any religion over another: and it would mean something to everyone, religious or otherwise. If you want to have other days off in honour of your religious holidays, you take it as part of your annual leave.
My opinions on everything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Monday, 29 October 2007
The Stam and the scam
Today's piece is my take on the theft of designer handbags (29th October, "Handbagged", page 3). It also has a bearing on consumerism in general.
It appears that designer handbags are becoming increasingly attractive to thieves, in that they are small, light, readily portable, easy to sell and worth vast sums of money on the black market. Indeed, they raise huge sums on any market. As Laura Craik put it in the article: "Fashion brands have become more savvy about marketing, using engineered scarcity to create a 'waiting list' culture in order to push up the desirability...of these items".
In other words, the designers are deliberately limiting the supply of desirable items in order for the price to go up, and they will then make monster profits. Under these circumstances, I must ask, who are the real thieves? We can see how the law of attraction works. The people who produce the bags are robbing their customers. The goods are thus tainted with theft from beginning to end, and we should not therefore be surprised they are being stolen. What, objectively, is any bag really worth? You can only carry things in it.
On the appearance front, I've just ordered a new suit. I bought it from Roth Clothing in Stamford Hill. It's where the Chasidim buy their clothes. For those who don't know, Chasidim are the Jewish gentlemen in long black coats, fur hats and beards: a familiar sight in Stamford Hill. I'm not a Chasid by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm enough of an Orthodox Jew to have a deep distaste for spending my money on advertising campaigns, window displays, shop fittings that change every week, and planet-cooking lighting systems. I just want a suit, and Roth Clothing have suits like a monkey has fleas. Of course, they are all either black or dark blue, but that doesn't bother me: I have plenty of colourful ties to cheer them up.
People think, if I have some fashion accessory or other, I can make an image for myself, and I can be the thing called cool. It doesn't work like that. You begin by working on a cool state of being, and if you are genuine about it, your actions will follow, and you will end up having an air of elegance about you that goes beyond fashion. I knew Chasidic women who could make a plastic rain hat look sexy.
Regarding consumer goods in general, I was once asked a challenging question. Do I need a vacuum cleaner? The considered answer has to be, no. If all of a sudden my vacuum cleaner disappeared and I couldn't get a new one, I could choose to research pre World War 2 methods of cleaning my carpets. Alternatively, I could rip up all my carpets and have wooden floors at home from top to bottom. So, no, I don't need a vacuum cleaner. In which case, what am I doing owning one?
Consider the current state of affairs: in my street, there are over 50 households, almost all of whom own a vacuum cleaner. Think of the environmental impact of manufacturing 50 vacuum cleaners, and of disposing of them when they fail to function. It isn't very environmentally friendly, is it? Now consider what may happen if all 50 households had a vacuum cleaner between them, and organised a rota, so that you could designate one or two hours per week in which you would do your hoovering, and then pass the appliance on to the next person. Would your carpets still be regularly cleaned? Yes, of course. You get the same solution to your cleaning problems for one fiftieth of the environmental impact.
The way vacuum cleaners are made today, they would not last very long if used so intensively. Therefore, when vacuum cleaner "pools" become popular, the makers will say, "We had better start making machines that last twenty years!" The environmental impact goes down further, and better quality goods begin to be made. Everyone wins.
The other issue is, who will offer his/her vacuum cleaner first to be pooled in such a fashion? Few people would, at least at present. So, if I were the Council, I would organise a network of domestic appliance pools in local neighbourhoods. Membership could be free or subsidised, because everything would be paid for out of council taxes. We might even be able to get EU funding for such a project. We would then begin to understand what it is to be wealthy, as opposed to being rich. Rich means, you own lots of things. Wealthy means, you have access to lots of things. Even the poor can be wealthy if you get the system to work.
This kind of principle is called Conscious Commerce. For more on it, I invite you to e-mail jjsleeman@aol.com.
If it works for vacuum cleaners, it could work for handbags. So if we must get ourselves into a hot sweat about a designer handbag, let the Council buy one of them, and any local resident can have it for one, or more, evening of her choice. Then we can all be highly fashionable for one day every now and then. I've already seen that Richard Branson's Virgin Group has a very similar scheme for luxury cars.
If we know that we will get the chance to access whatever it is we like and when we like (within reason) then I dare say the desire to steal may be much diminished as a result.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
It appears that designer handbags are becoming increasingly attractive to thieves, in that they are small, light, readily portable, easy to sell and worth vast sums of money on the black market. Indeed, they raise huge sums on any market. As Laura Craik put it in the article: "Fashion brands have become more savvy about marketing, using engineered scarcity to create a 'waiting list' culture in order to push up the desirability...of these items".
In other words, the designers are deliberately limiting the supply of desirable items in order for the price to go up, and they will then make monster profits. Under these circumstances, I must ask, who are the real thieves? We can see how the law of attraction works. The people who produce the bags are robbing their customers. The goods are thus tainted with theft from beginning to end, and we should not therefore be surprised they are being stolen. What, objectively, is any bag really worth? You can only carry things in it.
On the appearance front, I've just ordered a new suit. I bought it from Roth Clothing in Stamford Hill. It's where the Chasidim buy their clothes. For those who don't know, Chasidim are the Jewish gentlemen in long black coats, fur hats and beards: a familiar sight in Stamford Hill. I'm not a Chasid by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm enough of an Orthodox Jew to have a deep distaste for spending my money on advertising campaigns, window displays, shop fittings that change every week, and planet-cooking lighting systems. I just want a suit, and Roth Clothing have suits like a monkey has fleas. Of course, they are all either black or dark blue, but that doesn't bother me: I have plenty of colourful ties to cheer them up.
People think, if I have some fashion accessory or other, I can make an image for myself, and I can be the thing called cool. It doesn't work like that. You begin by working on a cool state of being, and if you are genuine about it, your actions will follow, and you will end up having an air of elegance about you that goes beyond fashion. I knew Chasidic women who could make a plastic rain hat look sexy.
Regarding consumer goods in general, I was once asked a challenging question. Do I need a vacuum cleaner? The considered answer has to be, no. If all of a sudden my vacuum cleaner disappeared and I couldn't get a new one, I could choose to research pre World War 2 methods of cleaning my carpets. Alternatively, I could rip up all my carpets and have wooden floors at home from top to bottom. So, no, I don't need a vacuum cleaner. In which case, what am I doing owning one?
Consider the current state of affairs: in my street, there are over 50 households, almost all of whom own a vacuum cleaner. Think of the environmental impact of manufacturing 50 vacuum cleaners, and of disposing of them when they fail to function. It isn't very environmentally friendly, is it? Now consider what may happen if all 50 households had a vacuum cleaner between them, and organised a rota, so that you could designate one or two hours per week in which you would do your hoovering, and then pass the appliance on to the next person. Would your carpets still be regularly cleaned? Yes, of course. You get the same solution to your cleaning problems for one fiftieth of the environmental impact.
The way vacuum cleaners are made today, they would not last very long if used so intensively. Therefore, when vacuum cleaner "pools" become popular, the makers will say, "We had better start making machines that last twenty years!" The environmental impact goes down further, and better quality goods begin to be made. Everyone wins.
The other issue is, who will offer his/her vacuum cleaner first to be pooled in such a fashion? Few people would, at least at present. So, if I were the Council, I would organise a network of domestic appliance pools in local neighbourhoods. Membership could be free or subsidised, because everything would be paid for out of council taxes. We might even be able to get EU funding for such a project. We would then begin to understand what it is to be wealthy, as opposed to being rich. Rich means, you own lots of things. Wealthy means, you have access to lots of things. Even the poor can be wealthy if you get the system to work.
This kind of principle is called Conscious Commerce. For more on it, I invite you to e-mail jjsleeman@aol.com.
If it works for vacuum cleaners, it could work for handbags. So if we must get ourselves into a hot sweat about a designer handbag, let the Council buy one of them, and any local resident can have it for one, or more, evening of her choice. Then we can all be highly fashionable for one day every now and then. I've already seen that Richard Branson's Virgin Group has a very similar scheme for luxury cars.
If we know that we will get the chance to access whatever it is we like and when we like (within reason) then I dare say the desire to steal may be much diminished as a result.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
Class
This piece is inspired, if that's the right word, by Andrew Gilligan's article "To fight the class divide" on page 12 of the Standard of 22nd October.
Firstly, it is well known that most of the people who get to the top of British society have attended certain public schools and universities, and this has been the case for several centuries. None of the social policy initiatives of modern times has done anything significant to change this. It's often remarked how people of that background seem to have an air of confidence about them, that their contemporaries from other backgrounds do not. This is most clearly noticed in the university setting. Bright children from working class families can be overwhelmed by it, and can be made to feel very inferior.
This is because the education system that most of us experience is of no value when it comes to learning "people skills". As Matt Morris put it: "I studied English, math, history, grammar, science and geography, but I was never offered classes in confidence, self-esteem, leadership, motivation, communication skills, how to build quality relationships, how to create wealth, or enjoy physical well-being or spiritual growth....As a result I entered the world with big goals, big dreams, but no real-world tools to achieve what I wanted. So like many people I struggled as an adult in the workforce." Mr. Morris now teaches personal development classes, but don't let that put you off. If the National Curriculum offered lessons to all children in such things as confidence and self-esteem, that would go a long way towards removing the class barriers.
I've no objection to private education as long as it is made genuinely available to everybody. Thus, if I were the government, I would want all children to have the opportunity to take an entrance exam for Eton, Harrow, Rugby or wherever. If they were from a poor family who couldn't afford the fees, the Government would pay the fees for them.
In one of my earlier pieces, I said that I would not take any education system seriously unless it taught kids how to meditate. It seems that David Lynch and Donovan have been putting this idea forward, to predictably dismissive comments in today's "Readers' Views". Transcendental meditation (TM), it appears, leads to "pre-medieval notions" and is at best "Californian mush". We forget that every belief system in the world, including those of James Randi and Richard D. North who wrote on the "dangers of TM", has its fair share of apparent absurdities.
To illustrate, in my religious system (Judaism) I perform a ritual on Friday night and Saturday called "making Kiddush" in which I hold a cup of wine aloft and recite a number of verses from the Scriptures stating that God made the world in six days, and rested on the seventh. I don't for a moment think that God really did make the world in six days, or indeed that He rested on the seventh. What I do think those verses mean is beyond the scope of this blog. I could cite similar examples from other religions. The point is that all beliefs, not just TM, are to a greater or lesser extent harking back to a pre-scientific view of the world.
The very fact that we think a week has seven days is only because early man observed that besides the stars, which seem not to move, there are seven heavenly bodies that appear to be in motion. These are the sun, the moon, and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. We decided that each of them had a special influence on a particular day: hence Sunday, Monday (the day of the moon) Tuesday (Mardi in French, the day of Mars) Wednesday (Mercredi in French, the day of Mercury) Thursday (Jeudi in French, Jupiter's day) Friday (in French Vendredi, the day for Venus) and Saturday (Saturn's day). We all accept this without thinking about it, even though there isn't a scrap of logic to any of it. All we can say for sure is that a week of seven days seems to work, so we have stuck to it. The French tried to introduce a new calendar including a ten-day week after the Revolution, and nobody could live with it, so they went back to the traditional calendar.
The reason I think meditation is so important is that it works. There's nothing particularly esoteric about it. It simply involves deciding what you want to think, and then thinking it, to the exclusion of all else, for a given amount of time. In this world we are bombarded with all kind of images that tell us what we should think, and they form a distraction from life at best and an incentive for us to harm ourselves at worst. You have to develop the skills to keep on course, and the earlier you begin to do it, the easier it will be when you are an adult. We are back to the importance of learning self-confidence and inner peace as an essential tool for life.
When we get into the habit of thinking that in the ultimate reality we are all one, which is what we are, and that there is no such thing as superiority, questions of social class will not matter.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Firstly, it is well known that most of the people who get to the top of British society have attended certain public schools and universities, and this has been the case for several centuries. None of the social policy initiatives of modern times has done anything significant to change this. It's often remarked how people of that background seem to have an air of confidence about them, that their contemporaries from other backgrounds do not. This is most clearly noticed in the university setting. Bright children from working class families can be overwhelmed by it, and can be made to feel very inferior.
This is because the education system that most of us experience is of no value when it comes to learning "people skills". As Matt Morris put it: "I studied English, math, history, grammar, science and geography, but I was never offered classes in confidence, self-esteem, leadership, motivation, communication skills, how to build quality relationships, how to create wealth, or enjoy physical well-being or spiritual growth....As a result I entered the world with big goals, big dreams, but no real-world tools to achieve what I wanted. So like many people I struggled as an adult in the workforce." Mr. Morris now teaches personal development classes, but don't let that put you off. If the National Curriculum offered lessons to all children in such things as confidence and self-esteem, that would go a long way towards removing the class barriers.
I've no objection to private education as long as it is made genuinely available to everybody. Thus, if I were the government, I would want all children to have the opportunity to take an entrance exam for Eton, Harrow, Rugby or wherever. If they were from a poor family who couldn't afford the fees, the Government would pay the fees for them.
In one of my earlier pieces, I said that I would not take any education system seriously unless it taught kids how to meditate. It seems that David Lynch and Donovan have been putting this idea forward, to predictably dismissive comments in today's "Readers' Views". Transcendental meditation (TM), it appears, leads to "pre-medieval notions" and is at best "Californian mush". We forget that every belief system in the world, including those of James Randi and Richard D. North who wrote on the "dangers of TM", has its fair share of apparent absurdities.
To illustrate, in my religious system (Judaism) I perform a ritual on Friday night and Saturday called "making Kiddush" in which I hold a cup of wine aloft and recite a number of verses from the Scriptures stating that God made the world in six days, and rested on the seventh. I don't for a moment think that God really did make the world in six days, or indeed that He rested on the seventh. What I do think those verses mean is beyond the scope of this blog. I could cite similar examples from other religions. The point is that all beliefs, not just TM, are to a greater or lesser extent harking back to a pre-scientific view of the world.
The very fact that we think a week has seven days is only because early man observed that besides the stars, which seem not to move, there are seven heavenly bodies that appear to be in motion. These are the sun, the moon, and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. We decided that each of them had a special influence on a particular day: hence Sunday, Monday (the day of the moon) Tuesday (Mardi in French, the day of Mars) Wednesday (Mercredi in French, the day of Mercury) Thursday (Jeudi in French, Jupiter's day) Friday (in French Vendredi, the day for Venus) and Saturday (Saturn's day). We all accept this without thinking about it, even though there isn't a scrap of logic to any of it. All we can say for sure is that a week of seven days seems to work, so we have stuck to it. The French tried to introduce a new calendar including a ten-day week after the Revolution, and nobody could live with it, so they went back to the traditional calendar.
The reason I think meditation is so important is that it works. There's nothing particularly esoteric about it. It simply involves deciding what you want to think, and then thinking it, to the exclusion of all else, for a given amount of time. In this world we are bombarded with all kind of images that tell us what we should think, and they form a distraction from life at best and an incentive for us to harm ourselves at worst. You have to develop the skills to keep on course, and the earlier you begin to do it, the easier it will be when you are an adult. We are back to the importance of learning self-confidence and inner peace as an essential tool for life.
When we get into the habit of thinking that in the ultimate reality we are all one, which is what we are, and that there is no such thing as superiority, questions of social class will not matter.
My opinions on anything are subject to change. My love for you will not change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)