Birthdays

I'm going to a 30th Birthday party this weekend and I have to say I'm quite terrified.

The reason is simple. This party is for the first of my friends who was in the same academic year as me to hit 30. In 5 months time it will be my turn. I like having a '2' at the front of my age, makes me still feel young.. but to me, having a '3' at the front makes me think I should be sensible and grown up.

I remember years ago while watching DS9, there was an episode where Dr Bashir turned 30, and to quote Julian:

"It marks the end of youth and the slow march into…middle age"

For some reason that line has stuck with me ever since - I must have been 14 or 15 when I this line was first spoken.

I fear that if i'm not careful i'll start to look back on my twenties and wonder where it's gone and what i've done!

Just like Buses...

I don't blog for ages.. then two posts come in quick succession.

So.. buses... It was announced today that Bendy Buses in London are to have No God slogans on them, paid for by the British Humanist society.

This in itself is fine. I'm all for freedom of speech and think that all Beliefs have an equal right to be heard. For many years now you have been able to see adverts for Alpha Courses and the such and therefore it's a surprise to me really that it's taken this long for Atheists to jump on the bandwagon.

Talking of jumping on the bandwagon, any story about Atheism just HAS to include a soundbite by Richard Dawkins - Fundamentally the World's most Evangelical Atheist. He can always be trusted to come out with an absolute gem and he didn't disappoint this time. He is quoted as saying:

"This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion."

Really Richard? Is it?

Effectively, the message that Prof. Dawkins gives out is that 'There is no more than this, what you see, hear and feel'

The message that Religion gives out is 'There is so much more than this, much more than you can see, hear and feel'

Now, which one of those involves more thought? It doesn't take a Professor to realise that in order to follow a religion, you have to think. You have to think beyond the realms of what you know and decide for yourself if you want to believe. You open your mind to the possibility of more and make an decision based on what you do, and do not know.

Surely the easy option is not to think but to accept only what you can see, hear and feel.

So, if these adverts give everyone the opportunity to have a think.. then I welcome them.

Edit: I also note that the phrase is 'There is probably no God...' Is this so as not to offend people with a faith (Take note Prof D!) or because they just want to hedge their bets!?

Election Fever

Wow.. 2 weeks and no posts for me.. After my initial spurt of blogging things seem to have run a bit dry. It's not through lack of things to say, as there have been quite a few topics that I wanted to blog about, but more that I have been trying to spend a little less time at my PC when I don't have to be.

I've been spending the time instead either reading, playing guitar or catching up on a huge amount of TV that I have on my PVR that I haven't watched.

The book i'm currently reading is called Jesus for President and it is one of the most challenging books i've read and I have to say it's quite a struggle. I think there may a few blog posts coming out of it. I recently read Velvet Elvis, by Rob Bell, and while it made me think a lot, I never had to put the book down and walk away. The last book that did this to me was Lifestories by Mark Hall.

Anyway, enough about those books.. more in later posts.

For now I want to talk a little bit about US Politics and 'Signing Statements'. Now, US politics is not something I know a great deal about and i'm sure that Duncan can enlighten me on this topic as this whole things confuses me a bit.

As I understand it, the US Constitution was written so that no one person can have absolute power over the country. I assume that this was a dig at us Brits who have one Monarch as Head of State. So.. there is Congress who write the Laws, the Judiciary who interpret these and the President who can either accept them and sign them, or veto and have them looked at again.

Seems that this is a sensible way of working, with three separate parts who all have to agree for a law to get passed. But.. I hear about this 'Signing Statement' whereby the President can sign the law, but attach any caveats that they like, effectively applying a veto that isn't then checked. Now, isn't this going against the Constitution? If so, how can these statements be valid? Or is it seen as illegal to question these signing statements as they are now law?

See.. confused!

Don't Stop Believing....

I was having my usual Sunday afternoon read of the news (BBC News site, not the papers) today and I came across an article about a Church in St Louis, Montana, called 'The Journey' which made for very interesting reading.

The paragraph below really stood out.

"The Journey isn't your typical church, to be fair. Its website proclaims a mission to reach out to 'punk rockers, grandmothers, [and] construction workers' alike. And as part of its strategy to persuade young people that a love of alt-rock and alcohol is compatible with Christianity, it holds regular informal meetings in this ale house I visited."

To me, it sounds as if this Church is doing EXACTLY what a Church should be doing. It's reaching out to all those that don't know Jesus, proving itself as accessible to all and showing that it is indeed relevant in today's world. If this is indeed not 'your typical Church' then what does a 'typical' Church look like? Presumably one that does not know Jesus!

I'm hoping that this statement is naivety on the part of the author and not the state of the Church in Montana!

Moving on the Author talks about the Church in the UK.

"In Britain, we tend to be cynical about anyone who tries to marry popular culture with faith"

He has a point here. I mean, when was the last time Sir Cliff had a number one hit?!

Being serious though, I think that the Church HAS to be counter-cultural. It's got to show people that there is an alternative to todays secular world, that isn't focussed on selfishness and the individual.

When secular society thinks about the Church they will often think of elderly priests, old buildings along with outdated and quaint viewpoints on life.

But it's not outdated. The words may have been written a long time ago, but they are just as valid now. They just need to be understood as to what they meant back then to the culture and society of the day when they were written and how that maps to now.

The Church is SO relevant to today's society, it's full of people of all ages with passion for their faith, wanting to go out there and make a difference in today's world.

Look at our society and the good that Churches and Faith based organisations do in the local community can be easily seen. You'll find parent and toddler groups, food and clothing programmes, youth clubs, and many more examples of how the Church works in and around your local area, often being a key part of the local infrastructure.

Ok, I've done my usual trick here and ended up on my soapbox again!

But moving back to the article in question. It talks a lot about how the Religion and Politics mix in the US. It seems to me that the attitude this Church takes by distancing itself from the political fight and concentrating on the social justice and community issues is the right way forward.

I remember once being told by a Christian who is involved with politics that you should always vote for whoever is doing the best at a local community level at that time rather than sticking to one side or the other.

Good words I think.