Blog Archives

Word of the Week: 02/02/15 - Pro-life

31/1/2015

The moral position that human life in all forms has Intrinsic value and an absolute right to existence. Most commonly associated with the abortion debate.

The Abortion debate is both emotive and tricky to discuss within any environment, let alone at School - yet students are often fascinated by its complexity and implications. As a teacher it is especially difficult as one knows that it is an issue that many will have to deal with in their personal lives as they grow up; either personally, with a partner or a friend. It is therefore an issue that needs to be dealt with carefully whilst also not shying away from the realities of the topic.

Students at Berkhamsted were therefore lucky to have the opportunity to attend a symposium on the subject this week - Anne Scanlan of the charity Life came to address the Philosophy Society about the issue of Abortion. I had the task of replying and giving the pro-choice response. Despite being from a charity that wishes to reduce the number of abortions performed in the UK, Ms Scanlan made a very balanced and compassionate case.

First of all she set out the facts and figures for Abortion in the UK and examined the reasons why women seek abortion – this is predominantly for reasons of mental health and the potential damage that having a child might cause to the mother. She then examined the logic of when life begins and if, on the basis that a foetus is alive from the moment of conception and the rest of development is a continuum, is it ever right to have that life terminated? She employed a combination of logical arguments, statistics and anecdotes about the negative effects of abortion on a woman’s mental health to make her case. She dealt sensitively with the most difficult of issues in this topic area; including when a woman falls pregnant having been raped; but certainly did not condemn women who make the choice to abort. She also outlined her role as a councillor for Life where she offers support to women, but no advice or pressure. Her conclusion was that abortion on demand is not the solution to women's equality; rather sex and relationship education, a more compassionate maternity and childcare system and a more open society was the only way to get to the root problems of unwanted pregnancies.

In response I focused initially on the importance of the mother who is often forgotten in the debate,that the foetus did not have a right over the body of the mother and that no one has a duty to have a child against their will. I then discussed the benefits for society that women having control over their reproduction has bought over the past decades. The idea that a foetus is not a person in the truest sense of the word was developed and that even if one accepts that it is “potential life” this does not give it the right to necessarily become an actual life. I also examined what it would be like to be a country, such as Ireland, with anti-abortion laws; the problem of Abortion Tourism and the rise of illegal abortions or the taking of abortifacients in secret. My argument ended with the idea that one cannot escape the fact that a life is terminated during an abortion, but that the moral judgement had to be that the actual life of the mother takes priority over the foetus and that her right to autonomy outweighs any right the foetus might have.

Students and staff asked some excellent questions and interestingly spent more time focusing on the weaknesses of the pro-choice position. The talk was extremely well received by the students and one thanked Ms Scanlan after the talk adding that hers was the most coherent argument he had heard to date for the pro-life position. Whilst he was not persuaded, he thought it was good to have heard a set of arguments that were not predicated purely on religion and the existence of a soul within the foetus – as textbooks so often offer.

The talk was videoed and this will be shared with all Y13 and Y12 students via Google Drive

Word of The Week: 26/01/15 - Rights

25/1/2015

The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered to be entitled, often held to include the rights to life, liberty, equality, and fair trial, freedom from slavery and torture and freedom of thought and expression.

The history of Human Rights could be argued to go back as far as Cyrus the Great when he freed all the slaves in Persia and declared that people had the right to practice whatever religion they chose. One can track their history and development in documents asserting individual rights such as the Magna Carta, the Petition of Rights, the US Constitution, The French Declaration on the Rights of Man, The US Bill of Rights, the UN Declaration on Human Rights and the European equivalent.

The founding principle of these documents seems to be that humanity has intrinsic value – either due to a religious reason such the existence of a soul or for logical reasons such as the fact that we all have the same DNA and are all members of the species Homo Sapiens.

On Thursday 22nd January, Martin Chamberlain QC came to address our Philosophy Society on the need to continue to have human rights enshrined in law. He first set out the arguments used by those who would remove human rights in the belief that civilised societies automatically protect the rights and liberties of their citizens. This was summed up in the words of Thomas Jefferson: “Our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves”. Mr Chamberlain suggested that although on the surface this sounds honorable in reality this is “tyranny by the majority”.

Mr Chamberlain then went on to outline why this was the case based on the thinking of scholars such as John Adams, Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill; that in a democracy, if an individual is wronged, who can he appeal to other than the majority? If the individual is not supported by the majority they risk being victimized or subjected to violations of their rights. This is why there must be an independent judiciary and intrinsic human rights to protect citizens.

Now the discussion moved onto a number of cases where there has been an appeal to the Convention on Human Rights to ensure that justice is done – some of these were cases where Mr Chamberlain was the acting barrister. These included prisoners arguing for the vote, the death of Baha Mousa, the deportation Abu Quatda and the issue of Free Speech. The talk concluded with a discussion of the Charlie Hebdo case and how selective governments can be about the right to free-speech – the Human Rights Convention is needed to ensure that justice remains blind and that all are treated with equality and impartiality.

The talk was extremely well received by our pupils and this was demonstrated in high quality of questions that they asked in response. These included whether there are any situations when human rights can be legitimately be ignored, if the British government should develop an independent Bill of Rights and Responsibilities and whether verbal abuse should be treated in the same way by the Law as physical abuse.

For Berkhamsted students, a video of the talk will be available on the learning platform.

Do you think we don't need to have a Convention on Human Rights? Or are they essential for justice to be done?

Word of the Week: 19/01/15 - Eucharist

17/1/2015

The celebration of the “Lord’s Supper” at which Christians remember Jesus' death and resurrection. It features a re-telling of the events of Maundy Thursday and the sharing of the bread and wine. From the Greek, εὐχαριστία (eucharistia), meaning "thanksgiving".

A few months ago the WotW was Sacrament and this week we turn our attention to the most commonly practised of the sacraments; The Eucharist. Otherwise known as The Mass, Holy Communion and The Lord’s Supper Christians believe it was instituted by Jesus on the night before he was crucified. In all four gospel accounts (and Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians) he shares the Passover meal with his disciples on the night of his arrest and during the meal he commands them to remember what He was about to do on behalf of all mankind: shed His blood on the cross thereby paying the debt of humanity's sins (Luke 22:19). This is why so many denominations remember this event and re-enact the last supper.

That said, the importance of the Eucharist varies a great deal; from Roman Catholics who celebrate it daily in their churches to Free Churches who might only share the Lord’s Supper on rare occasions.

For Catholics the last supper was the summit of Jesus’ ministry on earth and is so important now because a mystery occurs every time that it is performed; transubstantiation. This is the turning of the bread into the literal body and blood of Christ. This is not to say that it changes form and that you would be able tell the difference with your senses but the reality of it has changed.

For most denominations the act is symbolic and the sharing of the bread and wine is an opportunity to gather as a community and worship together. Jesus’ command “do this in remembrance of me” is seen as a command to meet together and share a meal – this is certainly how the early Christians interpreted the commandment. In the book of acts it records how the Apostles met "Day by day, attending the Temple together and breaking bread in their homes” (2.46) and how St Paul shared the Eucharist with other early Christians (Acts 20:7). As such it is an act which links modern-day Christians with their fore-fathers in a long line of succession back to Jesus’ death.

So no matter what Christians believe happens at the Eucharist and how they “dress it up” (or indeed dress it down) it is a central point of reference for all Christians and, along with Baptism, is something that you can almost guarantee that a practising Christian has participated in.

If you are a practising Christian comment below to give your insight on the importance of the Eucharist.

Word of the Week: w/C 12/1/15 - Aniconic

11/1/2015

The practice of or belief in the avoiding or shunning of images of divine beings, prophets or other respected religious figures, or in different manifestations, any human beings or living creatures.

This week’s shocking events in Paris (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30708237) have brought back into public consciousness debates about free-speech and the right to freedom of expression. Many have naturally rallied to uphold the right of satirical magazines such as Charlie Hebdo to express their opinions and publish cartoons containing images of The Prophet that many Muslims find offensive - this has been seen most clearly with the twitter hashtag #iamcharlie (http://republicanherald.com/news/i-am-charlie-goes-viral-after-paris-news-attack-1.1814311).

I think at times such as these it is worth looking back at why many Muslims find images of the Prophet Muhammad offensive. The Aniconism of Islam began with the prohibition of images of God; Islam is concerned that God is limited and diminished when he is reified by human beings. This is really crucial to understand; Allah is at the heart of every Muslim life and yet he is a transcendent being who is not to be limited or captured in human terms. This is why he has 99 names - he is beyond full definition.

Part of the work of The Prophet in Mecca was clearing of the Kaaba of figural images worshiped by the people of his time. Very soon after The Prophet’s death the Quran was written down and so Muslims became a people of the book - Just like Jews and Christians. The difference being the stress in the inerrancy of the Quran; it is perfect and cannot be altered or interpreted as it was a near-direct revelation from Allah. That said, there is no actual prohibition of figural images in the Quran (http://www.newsweek.com/koran-does-not-forbid-images-prophet-298298), there is however to be found in Hadith (the sayings of the prophet) some directives aginast the production of images.

Either-way over time an aniconic attitude developed in Islam to not only include images of God but also images of The Prophet, other prophets and The Prophet’s family. This lead to wondrous range of non-figural artistic styles in Islam including geometric patterns and calligraphic art. Artists have also found ways of circumventing the prohibition by depicting Muhammad with a veiled face or a halo of fire which obscures his image. Thus artists were able to express themselves without breaking the religious taboo.

I hope that this will help us to remember that Muslims are offended by images of the Prophet because it strikes at a central tenet of their faith, theology and culture. Just as Americans would be offended by the burning of the star-spangled banner, Jews if you defamed a Torah Scroll or Roman Catholics if you did not consume consecrated bread and wine, so Muslims feel very strongly about this boundary and taboo. Just because in secularised Britain and France where many have lost a sense of the sacred and see everything as fair game for comment, criticism and satire does not mean that Muslims must necessarily adopt the same attitude.

What do you think about this difficult issue?

Word of the Week: w/c: 5/1/15 - Epiphany

1/1/2015

Epiphany, held on the 6th January, is a Christian festival which celebrates the revealing of Jesus as the Son of God and the visit of the Magi to the infant Jesus

This week is the festival of Epiphany; celebrated in the West on January 6th. It commemorates the arrival of the Magi who came to worship the infant Jesus. I don’t really want to get into a discussion about the likelihood of this event or who the Magi were but I do think It is interesting to think a little more deeply about the gifts that Magi offered and what this tells us about the person of Jesus. At the very least this can tell us what the only gospel writer who records their visit, Matthew (chapter 2), wanted to convey about the Messiah.

Gold is an expression of kingship on Earth, Gold was a highly valued metal and worn by rulers in crowns or other jewellery. Christians believe that Christ is the true king who now reigns in heaven. Jesus was also descended from the line of David, the greatest King of Israel who the Jews of Jesus' day yearned to see return and free them from oppression at the hands of the Romans (although Jesus is ultimately not this kind of Messiah)

Frankincense is an aromatic resin that is burned to give a sweet smell at times of prayer and worship. It was burned in the Temple to cover the smell of blood from sacrifices there is also a sense that the smoke rising carries prayer to God. This therefore is symbolic of Jesus’ role as deity - God made incarnate.

Finally the myrrh is an embalming ointment that was used for anointing the dead. This therefore is representative of Jesus’ future suffering and death. Jesus' resurrection was indeed discovered by women coming to anoint his body - however there is no mention that this myrrh is what they intended to use.

One of my favourite Christmas carols that considers the symbolism of these three gifts is Bethlehem Down composed by Peter Warlock and written by Bruce Blunt. It picks up wonderfully on the duality of Jesus’ life - “gold for a crown” becomes “wood for a crown” and myrrh is given both for its “sweetness” and “embalming”. The juxtaposition of the first two major verses against the minor tonality of the last two works wonderfully. The last verse never fails to bring a lump to my throat. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do:

When He is King we will give Him a King's gifts,
Myrrh for its sweetness, and gold for a crown,
Beautiful robes", said the young girl to Joseph,
Fair with her first-born on Bethlehem Down.

Bethlehem Down is full of the starlight,
Winds for the spices, and stars for the gold,
Mary for sleep, and for lullaby music,
Songs of a shepherd by Bethlehem fold.

When He is King they will clothe Him in grave-sheets,
Myrrh for embalming, and wood for a crown,
He that lies now in the white arms of Mary,
Sleeping so lightly on Bethlehem Down

Here He has peace and a short while for dreaming,
Close-huddled oxen to keep him from cold,
Mary for love, and for lullaby music,
Songs of a shepherd by Bethlehem Down.