In March of 2021 the head of Religious Education at Batley Grammar School in Yorkshire used, in class, an image of the prophet Mohammed that had been published by the Charlie Hebdo magazine in Paris, triggering the slaughter of a dozen people. This provoked protest by the local Muslim community, leading to threats against the teacher concerned and, eventually,
I think every (prospective) student at any educational institution should be asked to sign a formal declaration of assent to that school’s ethos / principles. So each establishment should declare clearly and simply what its principles are ( a half page of A4 should suffice). If their applicants don’t wish to sign, no problem, no entry. If the girl at Michaela’s had signed such a document, she could hardly complain when the school banned prayers in the playground.
One of the things I'm more and more convinced of is that headteachers must have the absolute right to exclude a pupil (subject only to accountability to the board of governors). It's all about maintaining boundaries. There will be something more on that next month.
Regrettably not - I have looked at your website but not read every article - however, I did not present that information on the assumption that you didn't know about it or that I was revealing something new, and hope I did not give that impression. But if tidal waves of migrants are in fact God's judgment, then our response will necessarily have to be different.
What if God has said, "You do not want your own children (abortion) and you do not want the Christian religion, so this is what I will give you instead"? And if this is the case, what is God's calling for the Christian? Certainly not to fight evil with evil, but rather to focus on Colossians chapter 3 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." Christians went through the collapse of Rome and all of the attendant chaos (again, not a new fact for you!), it may be our lot to do the same.
I did not this comment " Our imaginations, how we understand God, who we understand God to be, whether we picture in our hearts and minds God as someone angry, seeking to punish and chastise, or whether we see God as someone loving and merciful, seeking to bring us into life – this is where our real spiritual work needs to be done. Our imaginations need to be renewed in the light of Christ, who He was and how He taught. So let us spend some time understanding what Jesus taught about the end of the world."
Does not the Bible show God as both? Merciful and loving and willing to forgive, yet also visiting his wrath, both in this world and in the life to come? Is it possible that for those outside of Christ the Old Testament God is still on the throne?
I want to say 'sort of!' Wrath is real - it is when we experience the consequences of our own actions, ie it is the absence of grace - but it is important not to overly anthropomorphise it, in other words, not to treat God simply as a large and angry human being. The extract from my book starts here: https://samcharlesnorton.substack.com/p/c4cc25-the-end-of-the-world-1
What if these and other problems are the direct result of God's displeasure? We read in Isaiah chapter 1 "Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment. Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers."
Of course the prophet is addressing biblical Israel, yet God's hand is over all the nations, and we read in the New Testament that these things are written for our example.
And contrary to Carlos it has nothing whatsoever to with any kind of metaphysics. It is very much and only about worldly power, especially the worldly power of organized Islamic groups as demonstrated in a micro-form by this essay. A micro-form of something that is happening all over Europe.
Many/most Islamics pretend that Islam is the final revelation thereby superceding ALL previous forms of religion and Spirituality. Remember too that Sufis are more often than not treated with great hostile suspicion in some Islamic countries, especially those dominated by Sunni's.
In any democratic country which allows any and all forms of religion and the exercise of free speech, "insulting" the prophet should be freely allowed. And of course it is impossible to "insult" a long ago dead "person". Assuming (too) that such a legendary "person" as the "prophet" actually existed.
Who has the right metaphysics? The secular state tries to avoid making metaphysical pronouncements, but in forcing spirituality to be a marginal phenomenon with no say in public life, it is effectively asserting that materialism is correct.
It is unsurprising that there are traditions that will not allow the view that their tradition is false to simply be stated so bluntly. Which is the one true faith? Secularism or spirituality? This matter of depictions of Muhammad, particularly disrespectful depictions, is really of a piece with the abortion problem: materialist metaphysics being imposed on the spiritual. Materialism and secularism are nothing, and will surely die along with this civilization.
That said, the Muslims, like the other Abrahamics, tend to have issues with accepting perennialism, which is a flaw. But surely, one will not get the Muslims to accept the validity of a different metaphysics by insulting their Prophet.
I think every (prospective) student at any educational institution should be asked to sign a formal declaration of assent to that school’s ethos / principles. So each establishment should declare clearly and simply what its principles are ( a half page of A4 should suffice). If their applicants don’t wish to sign, no problem, no entry. If the girl at Michaela’s had signed such a document, she could hardly complain when the school banned prayers in the playground.
One of the things I'm more and more convinced of is that headteachers must have the absolute right to exclude a pupil (subject only to accountability to the board of governors). It's all about maintaining boundaries. There will be something more on that next month.
Regrettably not - I have looked at your website but not read every article - however, I did not present that information on the assumption that you didn't know about it or that I was revealing something new, and hope I did not give that impression. But if tidal waves of migrants are in fact God's judgment, then our response will necessarily have to be different.
What if God has said, "You do not want your own children (abortion) and you do not want the Christian religion, so this is what I will give you instead"? And if this is the case, what is God's calling for the Christian? Certainly not to fight evil with evil, but rather to focus on Colossians chapter 3 "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." Christians went through the collapse of Rome and all of the attendant chaos (again, not a new fact for you!), it may be our lot to do the same.
I did not this comment " Our imaginations, how we understand God, who we understand God to be, whether we picture in our hearts and minds God as someone angry, seeking to punish and chastise, or whether we see God as someone loving and merciful, seeking to bring us into life – this is where our real spiritual work needs to be done. Our imaginations need to be renewed in the light of Christ, who He was and how He taught. So let us spend some time understanding what Jesus taught about the end of the world."
Does not the Bible show God as both? Merciful and loving and willing to forgive, yet also visiting his wrath, both in this world and in the life to come? Is it possible that for those outside of Christ the Old Testament God is still on the throne?
I want to say 'sort of!' Wrath is real - it is when we experience the consequences of our own actions, ie it is the absence of grace - but it is important not to overly anthropomorphise it, in other words, not to treat God simply as a large and angry human being. The extract from my book starts here: https://samcharlesnorton.substack.com/p/c4cc25-the-end-of-the-world-1
What if these and other problems are the direct result of God's displeasure? We read in Isaiah chapter 1 "Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger, they are gone away backward. Why should ye be stricken any more? ye will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment. Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers."
Of course the prophet is addressing biblical Israel, yet God's hand is over all the nations, and we read in the New Testament that these things are written for our example.
Did you read my stuff on divine wrath?
It is indeed the problem.
And contrary to Carlos it has nothing whatsoever to with any kind of metaphysics. It is very much and only about worldly power, especially the worldly power of organized Islamic groups as demonstrated in a micro-form by this essay. A micro-form of something that is happening all over Europe.
Many/most Islamics pretend that Islam is the final revelation thereby superceding ALL previous forms of religion and Spirituality. Remember too that Sufis are more often than not treated with great hostile suspicion in some Islamic countries, especially those dominated by Sunni's.
In any democratic country which allows any and all forms of religion and the exercise of free speech, "insulting" the prophet should be freely allowed. And of course it is impossible to "insult" a long ago dead "person". Assuming (too) that such a legendary "person" as the "prophet" actually existed.
Who has the right metaphysics? The secular state tries to avoid making metaphysical pronouncements, but in forcing spirituality to be a marginal phenomenon with no say in public life, it is effectively asserting that materialism is correct.
It is unsurprising that there are traditions that will not allow the view that their tradition is false to simply be stated so bluntly. Which is the one true faith? Secularism or spirituality? This matter of depictions of Muhammad, particularly disrespectful depictions, is really of a piece with the abortion problem: materialist metaphysics being imposed on the spiritual. Materialism and secularism are nothing, and will surely die along with this civilization.
That said, the Muslims, like the other Abrahamics, tend to have issues with accepting perennialism, which is a flaw. But surely, one will not get the Muslims to accept the validity of a different metaphysics by insulting their Prophet.