13 posts tagged “christianity”

Here's a list of all the things I've wanted to blog about in the last couple of weeks but haven't had time / Internet connection to do so:

• Why taking a day off from the wedding planning stopped me having a breakdown and reminded me why getting married was Such A Good Idea.
• All the stuff that's gone wrong in the last few days and why that's made me love my friends so much. In related news: why my friend Kirsty rocks the house.
• Why Christians who think it's okay for someone else not to do their job and deny gay people their services because their faith comes first and they're in the majority should be forced to attend a mosque, celebrate Channukah and prepare Prashad.
• Why I am becoming a broken record about how important secular societies are in protecting faith (see previous topic)
  
• Why "I'm glad it happened to an MP" smug comments are not helpful in the Damian Green case.
• Why travelling to Glasgow by train is either complicated or ludicrously expensive.
• The new training regime we have the cat on, and why he's an evil bastard and I love him for it.
  

Please feel free to imagine what I might have written.

*Tired wave*

Sorry I've been pretend blogging for the last few days - I know, I know, my vast swathes of intelligence are hugely missed and the Twitter updates just aren't the same. My modesty is my best feature, you know.

It always feels strange to say 'sorry I haven't updated by blog'. I don't suppose I would ring someone up and say 'sorry I haven't recently harangued you on my pet hate / whinged about something unimportant / navel gazed my way through fixing the state of the nation'. But somehow you feel that even if only one person is reading it, you are neglecting them when you don't update for a while.

Anyway, weddingosity is now under control. There's virtually nothing left to do but send out the invitations and wait. So that's good. In the meantime we attended another wedding and thought the couple were stunningly lovely. The dark-haired, petite and pretty bride wore a royal blue crossover ballerina length dress with black tulle petticoat, black ribbon sash and a flower / petal motif holding up a swathe of the blue crepe on either side. Stunning, with real vintage appeal and it suited her very well. The groom, one of the sweetest men in the world, looked similarly dashing, but what really blinded us guests was the very palpable wall of love surrounding the two of them. When it's as genuine as this, with no flash or desire to be centre of attention, it's very moving.

This was made all the more bittersweet by the notable absence of the bride's father. Where the groom's family would have done anything to have their late dad back to attend it, the bride's very much alive father opted out of proceedings. Why? Because his daughter is Jewish and the groom is Irish Catholic.

Here's the real stupidity at the heart of the matter though. The bride is an atheist. Her father is an atheist. Her mother converted (twice, reform and orthodox) so that the children would be Jewish, so he himself sort-of kinda married out. That marriage, sadly, did not last, and perhaps that's why he now believes that people of different backgrounds cannot have a successful relationship.

So, for the three years that his daughter has been dating this lovely young man he has refused to meet him, talk to him or really talk about him. The boy in question wrote a lovely letter to his future father-in-law shortly before the wedding saying that what they had in common was love for this wonderful girl, so perhaps they could come together over that? Nothing doing - it wasn't even acknowledged.

After three years of domestic bliss, this couple married in front of 200 people; their family and friends knew that this was for life. The groom's mother (who is well aware of Ashley's and my background and praised his parents for accepting me as well as they did) commented: "It's so silly. They'll be talking in ten years and family again in twenty, definitely, so why waste that time?". Coming from someone who wished their life partner, with whom they had 6 children, could be there to see his youngest son's wedding - he never even met the girl - it was that much more poignant.

People need to stop wasting the short time they have. The bride's father has lost out on something that no-one can ever give back to him. But he doesn't need to lose out on a good relationship with a wonderful daughter or on the process of getting to know the best son-in-law any father could ask for. He might not believe in God, but I do; to that end I will pray that he will come to his senses soon.

We've finally got our arses in gear to watch season 7 of The West Wing, and it couldn't be at a more timely moment. Set in the last 110 days of campaigning before a Presidential election that saw the choice for a Democratic candidate come right down to the wire before being won by the young, dynamic, hitherto unknown ethnic minority candidate who chose a grizzled but experienced old white guy as his running mate and the choice for the Republican candidate hinge on debates about abortion... hang on... isn't this real life?

After all, fictional Dem. candidate Congressman Matt Santos was based on a young, up-and-coming Senator called Barack something...

So, anyway, it's certainly apt. And interestingly I came across this article about creationism on the BBC the day after watching the episode in which these exchanges take place:

Press: Congressman, do you believe in intelligent design?
Santos: I believe in God. And I like to think that He's pretty intelligent.

Santos: No, I don't think Creationism should be taught in our Science lessons... I think we all agree that at the beginning of all that begatting, something begun. But what that is...

[goes on to explain that Science lessons are for Science, and deal with demonstrable, testable hypotheses and facts, whereas Creationism demands Theology and faith and that's a whole different subject.]

The article does show that an increasing number of people are muddling up intelligent design and creationism, partly because the term 'intelligent design' has been created (pardon the pun) to allow people to do that. Because 'creationism' fell out of favour over several trials in the US and thanks to the Church of England's recent apology to Darwinism, this phrase became popular as a way of hiding what people were really talking about.

I don't believe the world is a few thousand years old and that it was created in six days. I do believe that evolution is such a wonderfully complex and bizarre system that it shows hallmarks of an intelligent design. The two, for me, are not related, but are endlessly confused. I do not think that evolution, as one of the arguments in the article runs, suggests futility at all, or that we 'come from nothing and return to nothing' but that we are cogs in a wonderful clockwork of development and enlightenment, and we owe it to ourselves and to God to further that process by looking forwards, not back.

I also don't think that a reluctance to offend religious sensibilities means that religious theories of creation should be taught in Science classes. They are Science classes. If there are scientific methodolgy weakness and as yet untested hypotheses in the theory of evolution, they must be discussed. And in RE, the alternatives should be raised in an atmosphere that does not ridicule. Although there are many Christians who are scientists (indeed, whole orders of them like the Jesuits) I think that if those subjects were touched on in Science they would be dismissed as crackpot nonsense, which is not helpful in promoting understanding of the beliefs of others - a must if you're going to live with them, even if you disagree with them, if for no other reason than to preserve your own sanity.

Sometimes I get very cross with some Evangelicals and creationists. The likes of Richard Dawkins lay into them easily, because they leave themselves open to (justifiable) accusations of crackpotry (not a word, but it should be). The wider public sees these, decide all Christians are like this, and ridicule and deride those of us who believe that in a free world you should be allowed to disagree and criticise, but who don't deserve such hatred and bile spat at us. I do not proselytise nor seek to convert, I do not believe religion should be forced on children in schools but should be a home matter and that parents should be open to questions and debate, I am not a creationist... so why lump me in with the crazies? Militant atheists preach against the corruption and hate of some evil Church figure, while spewing more vitriol than all their targets put together.

Except maybe the Westboro' Baptist Church and surely everyone knows they're exceptional loons?

Going back to the school question, doesn't it all come down to the thing I'm obsessed with when it comes to all matters religious - the separation of Church / Faith and State? Until that is enacted in practice as well as in theory, there can be no peace. Until people in the US stop voting for a candidate based on how many times a week he goes to church and until people in the UK recognise the problems with faith schools and are prepared to risk offending some people if it means playing fair, we're just going to end up going round in circles.

I'd say it's been a bizarre week, ranging from in-depth discussions about socio-political subjects to working out whether to accept the landlord's rent increase, but actually when I look at what happened this week it's just been interesting. And I'm fine with that.

The Republican Vice Presidential candidate has been the spur for a lot of these discussions. Personally, I couldn't care less about her private life beyond how she uses it to paint a certain picture of herself which I believe to be at odds with my personal political philosophy. When she says she's proud of her daughter's 'decision' to be a mother, I take issue because it's a 'decision' no other parents will be able to respond to with pride, horror, interest, indifference or anything else if she has her way. Because it's a decision she wants to take away.

In the past I've steered clear of making very loud pronouncements about how I feel on the abortion issue, mostly because it changes according to emotions, and I find decisions that I would want to apply for an entire country based on emotion and personal moral feeling are on shaky ground. The separation of church and state is not enshrined in the UK the way it is in the US (the monarch is the nominal head of state AND head of the Church of England, named Defender of the Faith), although ironically from my limited experience I've formed the opinion that the lines are far less blurred. Still, I can't mandate on the one hand that religion should be kept out of politics for the good of the entire populace and then make a decision about abortion based on a morality that is largely informed by my cultural and religious upbringing.

When I was of an age when having a baby was pretty much a disaster, there was no question I thought abortion was a Good Thing. Three friends of mine have thus far publicly declared that they had an abortion, and no matter how my feelings fluctuate on the subject I have never felt a moment's judgment about this. Not only because I think it's a poor thing to be judgmental (especially of one's friends) when one is full of error, but because in all cases it was fairly obvious why the choice was made and I couldn't possibly argue that it was for 'bad' reasons.

People often say "I couldn't judge as I haven't been in that situation". Fair enough. But neither have I been in the situation of being raped, but I have strong views about long sentencing, because it doesn't take much research and empathy, male or female, to understand that it is unacceptable in our or any society. I have never been to war, but I don't need to to know it should be a last resort. 'I have never...' could fill a library or two, but I must still do what I can to be an active member of my society, and be as informed as possible. I have never been murdered (obviously!) but I still think it's an act of pure evil.

Now that I'm settled and of an age where a baby is not so disastrous, and even though I'm not quite financially or emotionally ready, we'd get by, of course my emotional views are drifting. My case for abortion has always rested on the extremes. What about:

• Cases of rape. Wouldn't it permanently scar both mother and child?
• Cases where the mother might not survive the birth?
• Cases where the child would not survive anyway?
• Cases where the mother would be emotionally ill-equipped but unconvinced by the adoption route?
• Cases where the desperation is such that we return to the bad old days of backstreet butchers?

My friend Sam, recently a Catholic convert, argued against me, convincingly. He spoke of a girl whose son was beaten within the first weeks of his life by a violent father, and who would have to square with this history one day: "Should we now say that it would be better if he was not alive?" To my answers that it's different dealing with a cluster of cells and a real living person, he said "But the cells can become a person." And of course the present - though by no means historically universal - Catholic belief is that the soul is imbued in the 'child' at conception, so as far as the Church is concerned, even a little cluster of cells is a person and deserving of the same rights as the mother.

And that's where my problem comes in. My church would agree with Sam's. And I think if I were pregnant I would very quickly start to think of the pea-sized cluster as a person. But my hormones would be raging and my judgment would be impaired. My thinking is essentially hierarchical for many things: I think I'm more important than any pets I have, for example. And because I think I'm more important, I find the obligation and responsibility to look after them extremely great. They depend on me - I've put myself in that position, and they are innocents, not to blame if I fuck up.

Likewise I think most churches would opt in favour of keeping the mother alive if it was a choice between the two, even if afterwards she was unable to give birth again. That puts the mother above the child. Even if that is only done in extreme circumstances, when it comes to the wire, you've put the rights of a currently born person above those of a few cells.

[There's a whole side-discussion to be had here about when to perform an abortion. I believe 24 weeks, the current UK limit, is too long because it is now possible for around 11% of premature babies born at this age to survive. A minority, certainly, but enough to make me feel that, perhaps, at this point, the cells start to take the form of a person. Still, I'm uncertain on this topic, so I'm going to leave it there and get back to the main point.]

Some people might argue that in that case, you leave it up to God and hope someone survives. I think that is moral laziness, and I don't believe any God would advocate that, although I certainly empathise with it. I think it's an easier choice to make when we give ourselves a hierarchy - it's deciding between equals (a now born child and their mother, for example) that's next to impossible. For some people (and some Catholics / other Christians) it might be just this decision, and I sincerely pity them. I believe the majority (including many Christians and myself), would default to a prejudicial favouring of the person currently born, and I believe they make this choice on the basic of a logic that screams that the adult was here first.

So, essentially, I believe that abortion should be offered, along with readily available pre-and-post counselling for two basic reasons. Because, as a society, we place the needs of those currently alive first (it might sound a bit like a child's "I was here first!" argument, and basically it is) and because the alternative - backstreet butchering and a two-faced society, is abhorrent and dangerous.

Yes, I would find it sickening if women routinely had abortions because they were consistently crap about contraception. But I do not believe this happens, and if it does, it's extremely rare and women who have made one mistake or been raped or who are very ill should not be denied access because of an extremely small (possibly imaginary) minority of those who care nothing for their bodies.

Abortion is always considered a feminist issue, because it happens to women. But it's a feminist issue only if you are a proper feminist. Yes, goddamnit, I claim to be a better feminist than others. And not in the traditional second wave vs first wave 'this is what a feminist looks like' kinda way. It's because I believe in feminism only insofar as it ensures equality for women and men. Women have traditionally suffered from more inequalities, so a whole movement has been created to correct these. But this is pointless if the pendulum swings to parodying men as helpless, gibbering morons, unable to parent or multitask. That's insulting and inaccurate.

I want to see feminists supporting Fathers 4 Justice. Anyone who is or wants to be a parent has a duty to support other good parents, no matter what gender.

And this brings me to my final point, which was spurred in a Twitter discussion with a friend who thinks you can't be a 'pro-life feminist'. Yes, you can. Because real feminism is about equality, and if you really, really, honestly believe (as Sam and many others, male and female, do) that from the moment of conception, those cells are a person, then you have to treat them as equal to the person they are gestating inside.

But I'm not a feminist pro-lifer, because I think that when push comes to shove, we place those who are born above those who are not. I know I would in a desperate situation. And that simple logical step means that I cannot say that because I would not have an abortion outside of such a situation, any other woman cannot have one for other reasons. In my head, I have created the precedent. It exists, and once it does I am forced to universalise it or reject it.

If I had a daughter who fell pregnant and suffered complications, I would put her first before the potentiality of life. It is an ontological argument - whatever is is better than whatever could be.

I'm prepared to be completely and utterly wrong about this, because it is a really uncomfortable realisation. I don't mind changing my mind when armed with facts I was previously missing. It's just how it seems to me now, today, September 2008.

*deep breath*

I'm now going to do some work and wait eagerly for lunch. I have popped Patricia's book on my brand spanking new eBook reader and am chomping at the bit to finish it.

Does it ever annoy you how many times in a day, week, month or year you hear the same tired argument (usually depleted by conversational Chinese whispers) being trotted out without anyone bothering to examine what they've said and actually decide if it's an accurate statement?

I love to read and write about faith and religion, but I rarely indulge because I simply can't be bothered to deal with the anti-God brigade anymore. Not because they don't have their right to an opinion - I really do respect people who are thoughtful, educated atheists; I might disagree with them but at least they've thought about it - but because so often you get a slew of comments along the same anti-religion line that not only miss the point spectacularly, they also cast these people as exactly the same as the people they're criticising.

The argument is that "religion has killed more people than XYZ / caused misery and suffering."

Okay, let's get this clear. Stalin was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of around 40 million people. He was an atheist and belonged to a Marxist regime that rejected religion as the 'opiate of the masses' (i.e. that which holds them back from revolution). Religion does not kill people or cause misery and suffering. People do that.

People are the best and worst thing on this planet. Nowhere but among people can you find the best examples of compassion, love and honour and the worst examples of depravity, violence and hate. Because people feel strongly about their religious beliefs, they are used as a cornerstone to build their hatred upon. This is perversion and corruption of the worst kind in any faith I can think of.

I am not suggesting that scriptures do not come with their problems. There are clear elements where personal or societal interpretations have lead to religious authority mandated violence and oppression. Those interpretations were made by people, not by some nebulous sense of the faith itself.

And now, by spouting hatred against religion because of the hatred that people have shown whilst hiding under the mantle of a corrupted faith, those people who reject religion on those grounds become exactly the same as the people they're rejecting.

The various offices of many denominations have been abused by those who knew how to manipulate them for power, wealth or influence. If you are put off believing because of the perceived violence of 'religion', that formless beast that rears in people's heads like an entity separate from both faith and God, then understand that that is the real myth. There are plenty of doubts and questions in the mind of the most devout follower and there are plenty of debates with atheists worth having. The "religion has caused upheaval" one shouldn't even be allowed in the foyer of the debating hall.

It's been a schizophrenic few days. The balance of dealing with Internet mentalists and yet at the same time having the work I've done over the last few months being positively recognised by peer publications has been a heady one. Mainly I've decided to enjoy the good and use the bad as an impetus to hit the gym or, failing that much energy, at least go for a brisk walk at lunchtime to clear my head.

Wedding plans are now basically under control. The bridesmaids dresses are the main issue left, with various quotes from dressmakers littering my notebooks; I'm still waiting to hear from the most likely party. £90 from one (minus materials) but I can't call her until October. £160 (including materials) from another - eek! £200-£300 from a third - say what?! One of my bridesmaids helpfully and supportingly labelled the colour I'd chosen as 'shit brown' so I know she's never going to wear hers again anyway, so what do I care if they're completely perfect? Truth is, I don't. I want the women themselves to be comfortable and feel happy about their appearance. Beyond that, it's only so much excess frippery. My mother-in-law is slightly worried about the little girls but I am sure that decent flower girl dresses will be found.

Also the hairdresser hasn't got back to me yet but then I did take an age to reply to her last email. You get what you give.

And I have to call the florist...

Other than that, photographer, food, wedding dress, cake, etc are all go. We do have to find a free date for the rabbi and priest to meet, as the priest is travelling a great deal this summer and isn't around for much time before the wedding. They want to discuss our expectations and construct a beautiful blessing for us, which I'm really very excited about. I dare say that at least will be unique to us. Not that I care about being unique - I just want everything to mean something to both of us.

Speaking of which, we still don't have a first dance or even mutually adored song that is even vaguely wedding-appropriate. Suggestions could not possibly hurt...

 Meanwhile we schlepped down to Southend-on-Sea last night to attend a shiva - my second. Prayers were lengthy and conducted by a very sweet and earnest young Rabbi who explained the significance of the Kaddish and how it is more valuable an expression of faith even than the Shema. "Because you are saying at this most difficult time that Hashem knows best". A rather lovely thing to say, I thought. I met some more of Ash's extended family who all seemed very nice and did their best to hide their appraising looks. I was wearing my cross which probably raised a few eyebrows but if it did it happened when my back was turned, so all's well.

I'm so tired. I'm going to drag my sorry carcass to the gym to try and wake myself up at lunchtime, but I'm keeping going today only by remembering I'm catching up with lovely friends tonight. Here's hoping I don't fall asleep on the pub table.

Today, I am mostly suffering from the Bichon Frise.

No, not the small, fluffy dog of the type that dominates Amber McNaught's life and has his own blog. It's my ignoramus's term for lachon hara, since to begin with I could only remember the "chon" part of the term, and the fact that it went -u -u (in keyboard-approximate pentameter markings). B'dum, b'dum if you prefer. Yes, I'm publicising my own inanity, but that's the world of blogging for you.

Anyway back to lachon / lashon / loshon hara, tangles and all. The Jewish "evil tongue" isn't really about saying bad things about someone irrespective of whether they're true or not. There's a separate prohibition against slander. This is about saying something true about someone when they're not there to defend themselves.

I do this all the time.

But here's the clincher - according to Ashley this includes saying pleasant and complimentary things about them is the purpose of saying them is to make the person you're talking to feel bad.

Ouch... done that too (though less commonly. Usually if I think something nice about you I'll tell you to your face and tell everyone I know just cos I think you're fab).

I'm working on improving my outward behaviour in a bid to make it second nature not to think bad thoughts about people, but it's easier said than done. Is it true that someone I know is childish, rude and arrogant as well as being funny and talented (the reason I still know them)? Yep. I can't help dwelling on it when they piss me off. And then, in order not to explode at THEM, I talk to Ashley about it. When what I should do is have the balls to sit down with them and say "this is why you're annoying me".

See, my lashon hara doesn't come from being a natural bitch (though I am one). It comes from this enormous desire to make everyone happy all the time.  Last night a friend accused me of not seeing them enough (even though they slept through the last plans we made!) and even though I knew I was 100% right that they were being unfair - and told them so, since they were a close enough friend to do so with confidence - I still second-guessed myself. I have a puppy-like desire to please everyone and instead all that happens is that I pick away at myself and then end up both indulging in the lashon hara and feeling guilty about it.

Oh and yes, I know I'm not Jewish. But it's the same heritage an' all and I dare say Christ upheld this particular law.

I think it's all going to get a bit heavy around here...

I was reading back through Patrica Volonakis Davis's blog and found the brilliant post entitled I Am Ann Coulter, in which she makes the clear point that calling yourself a Christian and acting like one have to go hand in hand if you're going to be anything like a genuine Christian.

That troubles me, but in a good way. For one, it's true, and for another it underpins the resolution I made for myself at the beginning of this year. Unfortunately, I've failed to meet it every single day.

I've come to the conclusion that once one gets one's head around the concept of forgiveness, one is a good Christian. Sadly, it's the most difficult thing to practice. Every single day I wake up and vow that today I'm not going to get angry at petty slights but save my righteous indignation for cruelty, ignorance and disrespect. Every single day I get up and promise that no matter what anyone says, does or believes, I'm going to not only treat them with peaceful calm, but train myself to actually respond with it.

It's a basic, unmistakeable tenet straight out of the Gospels that in order to attain forgiveness, one has to embrace it. I cannot love the people around me as truly as I wish until I can undo all bitterness and bitchiness from my mind and words.

Like I said, I fail constantly. Today and yesterday I had pretty uncharitable thoughts about someone who randomly seemed to stop talking to me a while ago and has since treated me with the bare bones of professional respect; I am now sitting here trying to compose a list of all the reasons why I should remember that her behaviour doesn't matter, all the ways in which my own falls short of the ideals and standards I hold up for others and all the good features she still has.

My friend D once told me that the best thing about me was that I saw good in other people and told them about it. I hope that I do this, but to me that's only half the battle towards being a good person and a good Christian. The other half is first seeing the good, making sure no compliment is backhanded, losing my instinctively critical nature and doing all this without trying.

Being a cynic is fun. Being sarcastic can be hilarious. Being streetwise is no bad thing.

I don't expect to become a saint; I'd just like to know I'm spreading more good than harm.

I don't know what irritates me more about this article; that the Greek Orthodox Church is getting involved in politics which have to be secular - because they affect non-religious people, whether you think that's right or wrong - or the really lazy piece of BBC journalism that led to this statement:

The government proposes to give common-law couples the same rights as those who have gone through legal or religious ceremonies.

It wants to harmonise Greek law to European standards.

European standards? What the fuck are they? Plus, the writers of this article do know that European society is based on a (secular) Greek model? Oh, and by the way, if you didn't know it already, BBC journalist, COMMON LAW MARRIAGE DOES NOT EXIST IN THE UK. It never has. Oh, and by the way, unless you also sign a register, religious ceremonies don't count as married under the law and that's the case in more than one country (just ask Eddie Murphy and his new "wife").

As cohabitees in the UK, you have no legal rights unless you create them by contract. Marriage protects you; cohabiting doesn't. I'm not saying that's a good thing, and I'd welcome couples who have no traditional, familial or religious imperative to marry getting the same rights as those who have conducted civil ceremonies. That's why I totally supported the creation of civil partnerships.

The Greek Orthodox Church has to come in for its own criticism about this. They consider cohabitation as prostitution - I have no problem with that. I don't agree, but that's between me and my understanding of my religion, and I'd be interested in talking to theologians on this issue. I just get frustrated when church and state collide; my personal ethics cannot govern an atheist, a Jew, a Sikh, a Ba'hai... you get the picture.

The central code of legal "morality" has to be based on something universal. It might be universal and a common religious principle, and that's great (for me!) but how can we have a hope in hell for an ecumenical future if a particular denomination - albeit the most common one in the country - keeps interfering?

The Rabbi's Daughter, Reva Mann's autobiography, is about to be released on paperback. My pre-order is in!

Truth be told, I'm already suspecting I won't like the author. Judging by this promotional interview in The Telegraph, her impulsive, addictive behaviour has little to do with anything Jewish and more to do with being confused or possibly selfish as a result of a bizarre upbringing. The fact that she had a religious upbringing is always a peg for people with some misguided anti-religious agenda to hang their prejudices on. See, they say, religious upbringings turn you into a nut!

This is insulting for two reasons. One, don't blame religions for the failures of people, if you believe they have failed. Two, you're assuming that her sexual promiscuousness - apparently a reaction to self-imposed ultra-religious strictures - is, in and of itself, a bad thing.

This leads me on to one of my personal bugbears. Personally I don't think impulsive sexual behaviour is necessarily very sensible in a time of great awareness of sexually transmitted diseases, but what I find people doing is firing a double-whammy of saying it's immoral whilst at the same time rejecting any code of religious ethics (which is far more likely to damn sexual permissiveness than secular ethics).

I'm not saying you can't pick and choose religiously - we all do. I'm just frustrated with the idea that the modern ideal is to condemn all religion whilst secretly thinking that the most restrictive rules might be okay when it comes to women. The heady combination of a blame-free society with dark ages misogyny is quite something, isn't it?

There are some religious ideas I reject, and I have to work through my own attitudes to that; for example, cultures that perform female circumcision disgust me, but for hygeine reasons I accept that male circumcision is fine. If there's a hypocrisy there, I should investigate it (and sometimes I think there is).

Women behaving with sexual freedom long enjoyed by men is no problem for me, although I believe that a lot of emotional, physical and sexual problems would be avoided if both genders showed some more respect to the act and its consequences, intended and unintended. It just drives me mad when women are condemned as sluts by the same people who deride religious beliefs. Which is not, by any means, all the people who are crass and misogynist, just a particularly loathsome subsection.

I shall try and withhold judgement on Reva Mann and look forward to reading her book.