The Pope is coming to town

I noticed police presence on Wimbledon Park Road the other day. And could see they were standing in front of some big swanky house (not that most of the houses on Wimbledon Park Road aren't super swanky). And when I passed by there again today they had blocked off the sidewalk in front of the house, closed the road, and there were cops galore. With guns. Very, very big guns. And bored expressions.

I had noticed there was a sign on the entrance pillar, but couldn't manage to read it. Today I slowed down just enough to read it...or sort of...I thought it said "Apostolic Nunciate" which basically made me none the wiser. But then I put 2 and 2 together and realised the Pontiff was comin' to town tomorrow for the first Papal state visit to the UK in over 500 years and that the sign probably said Apostolic Nunciature which probably means Pope Hotel.



-0-

One of the Pope's pals won't be coming with him. Apparently he said that Britain is like a 3rd World Country. In darker moments, I may have occasionally said the same thing. Don't kick me out.

According to The Telegraph, Cardinal Kasper Walter made some disparaging remarks about the UK including that it was an aggressive new atheism was rife (which I think may also be true). In an article headlined “A Third World country” he was quoted as saying: “When you arrive at Heathrow you think at times that you’ve landed in a Third World country.”

Well, exactly. Heathrow is skank. It's better now. But used to be you'd think "Look, I bought a ticket, I told you I was coming - along with the tens of thousands of other people who are arriving today - the least you could have done was tidy up a bit. Run the vacuum, maybe? But really, it's ok, don't put yourself out on my account." I've been in genuine 3rd World airports that were cleaner and classier.

But in order to clarify his comments, it's apparently because of Britain's "multi-cultural diversity". Really? Yes, don't let the UK think you're just a snobby German neat-freak, make a comment that could be interpreted as just a teensy bit racist.

Who's handing the Vatican's PR these days? 'Cos I want me some of that media goodness.

But it's not because he's so 'plain spoken' that he's not coming, but rather because Cardinal Walter has gout.

-0-

All this puts the dodgy memo about possible activities for the Pontiff by a junior member of Foreign and Commonwealth office staff in a new light. This young fellow 'brainstormed' that an ideal papal visit* could include a special edition brand of condoms, sacking of dodgy bishops, ordination of a female priest and apologising to the British people for Spanish Armada (which received both papal blessing and Vatican cash). Then he was foolish enough to actually distribute that as a memo. And even though the then Foreign Secretary David Milliband made a 'grovelling apology' apparently that was not enough:

A well-placed aide in the Vatican said: 'This could have very severe repercussions and is embarrassing for the British Government - one has to question whether the action taken is enough. It is disgusting.'

Oh really? Like a Cardinal making some seriously off colour remarks just days before showing up (and then not). One has to question whether the action taken is enough.

___

*OK, all the other ones are clearly a no-go and trashy. But I always thought the Armada apology was inspired.


(Photo credit filip1)

Sarah Palin talks smarts

I've never been one of the people who were tempted to slam on Sarah Palin for being an idiot or denigrate her achievement at becoming Governor of Alaska (oh, it's only a small state population wise), which seems a bit ridiculous unless you yourself have served as the governor of a larger state, and if you have it's still not classy.

But it's fair to say that I agree with her on practically nada. But today I do: In the Daily Mail, she was reported as saying about the proposed burn-a-koran day at a Florida church.

Book burning is antithetical to American ideals,' she wrote.

'People have a constitutional right to burn a Koran if they want to, but doing so is insensitive and an unnecessary provocation - much like building a mosque at Ground Zero.'

She finished by saying: 'We don't need to agree with each other on theological matters, but tolerating each other without unnecessarily provoking strife is how we ensure a civil society.

'In this as in all things, we should remember the Golden Rule. Isn't that what the Ground Zero mosque debate has been about?'

And on this I tend to agree. Burning Korans, deliberately insensitive and provocative. Building a mosque near Ground Zero, probably not deliberately insensitive - just in the fact that I bet suitable properties in Manhattan aren't super easy to source and that's where that happened to be - but it strikes me as a touch inappropriate all the same.

No sandwich for you

I love holidays, I do. If you got a feasting, dancing, singing, wear-a-silly-hat and jump up and down like a fool holiday, I'm all for it. As long as it's free and it doesn't clash with work, I might even join in.

But scourging and fasting just aren't my bag. I'm not big into ashes or penance either. Sorry. I understand it's importance, but I'm not in the game of collecting suffer tokens. Thanks, anyway.

And so, we're now almost into the season of Ramadan. You want to fast. Fine. Go ahead. But I'm not planning to do anything special for Ramadan. (I'll happily eat any Eid food, though.) I'm not planning to make much in the way of special considerations for those who do want to fast during daylight hours. I'll still eat lunch at my desk, but I won't offer you any special treats. Deal?

But at Tower Hamlets, everybody has to observe:

Muslim council leaders have sparked outrage after trying to ban all councillors eating in meetings until sunset during the holy month of Ramadan.

Politicians have hit out after the move to impose hardline Islamic rules on non-Muslim colleagues throughout September.

The bombshell has been dropped by Labour chiefs of the notoriously loony Tower Hamlets Council in east London.

The storm was sparked by an email sent to all councillors this week highlighting arrangements for Town Hall committee meetings next month, which marks the Muslim fasting period of Ramadan.

Oh, dear.

These are evening meetings and many of these councillors have jobs and are coming straight from their places of employment and they won't get out until very late. No tea, no sandwich for them. And it's rare that you'll go to a meeting in the UK where at least biscuits aren't on offer (unless I've arranged the meeting, I rarely order biscuits). But I guess that's out, too.

Some councillors (the ones in political opposition) are outraged and say this appears to be favouring one religion over another. I'd tend to agree.

Darwin vs God?

Last night I watched a little of Richard Dawkin's latest documentary, three hours of praise to Darwin over three weeks. All in celebration of the 150th anniversary of the publication of Origin of Species. I don't know why I turned it on. Richard Dawkins is a jerk. He winds me up.

I should state right now that I couldn't be more solidly in the evolutionary camp. I have a degree in Geology. Even before the smoking gun evidence of genome mapping, I was convinced by the overwhelming (though admittedly gappy) evidence of the fossil and geological record.

But Dawkins's diatribe is almost exclusively devoted to debunking religion with biology. He goozes enthusiasm about the wonder of the natural world - all without God. OK Richard, we get it - you don't believe in God, but I'm just wondering - if God isn't worth consideration why do you talk about Him so much?

Dawkins fails to recognize that maybe religion has some value - some evolutionary value - to human existence. We are not like the lions or the ant or the snails. We humans are more complicated critters than that, we build complex social organisations. We build civilizations. We construct cities and tribes and groups and clubs and - yes, religious hierarchies - all in a bid to hold off the savagery of nature and our own characters in order to help us survive and allow our genes to carry on. We have not evolved beyond this.

He tries to take on religious belief head on. In last night's program, he harangues a group of teenagers - some clearly from a variety of religious traditions. He takes them on a fossil hunt at the beach and shoves the DNA evidence down their throats in a quick few hours of (what seems to be) him lecturing about the silliness of relying on religious texts and their parents' teachings and them staring gormlessly back. Dude, that's not the way to support critical thinking.

He skirts around the dangerous trend of subverting proof and rationality to avoid causing anyone religious offense. Some Brits mock the credulity of the American public and the open battle between Science and Creationism. But in this country, Science and free speech are being gnawed away quietly by the trump card of not wanting to offend anyone's spiritual sensibilities. It appears that in many UK schools Creationism is taught alongside science.

And while Protestantism and Enlightenment have rubbed along fine for much of the time particularly when they keep to their own spheres, there's a new threat to scientific discourse. Islam. I don't know if Dawkins will discuss that in the remaining two hours of his programme on Darwin (and frankly, I don't know if it's relevant), but I'll give him some credit for at least raising the issue elsewhere. In a recent Daily Mail article:

Most devout Muslims are creationists - so when you go to schools, there are a large number of children of Islamic parents who trot out what they have been taught. Teachers are bending over backwards to respect home prejudices that children have been brought up with. The Government could do more but it doesn't want to because it is fanatical about multiculturalism and the need to respect the different traditions from which these children come.

He added: 'It seems as though teachers are terribly frightened of being thought racist. It's almost impossible to say anything against Islam in this country because if you do you are accused of being racist or Islamophobic.'

I don't "blame Islam" for this, but I think Islamic religious sensibilities are reinforcing the trend to abandon science and pursue a "cuddly world" where belief is never challenged. I don't think religious belief should be subjected to same kind of rigour that scientific theories must face - as that is the model for how science thrives and progresses. But at the same time, we need a framework for nuanced discussion about religion and the ability to challenge pernicious beliefs, for example the status of women or indeed the perceived fallacy of scientific truths - like evolution. Richard Dawkins doesn't have a clue how to do this.

Martyrs of Memphis

Martyrs of Memphis icon, originally uploaded by St. Mary's Episcopal Cathedral - Memphis.

I found this when I was looking for something else in Flickr today. Apparently, they were martyred by yellow fever. Is that possible?

Just thought it was interesting, click through on the picture for the full story.

Jesus loves you

Walking down the street today and a man passed me in a rush and then told the man behind me, loudly, that Jesus loved him.

I could hear the guy, perhaps a little bit in shock, chuckling to himself over the unexpected encounter.

I turned to him and said, jokingly "But not me, apparently."

He smiled and said "Jesus loves you, too. You don't need to be told that."

Pay to pray

It costs dearly to go to a church in this country. Not just any old church, but one of the big famous ones. Like St Paul's or Canterbury Cathedral. Like the kind of money you pay and expect to get rides.

But here's a little tip. If you actually go into church at the right time and sit there for a service you can pray for free. Oh sure, they pass the basket around, but believe you me you can respectably drop in a pound coin or two and that'll save you at least a fiver off admission. But once you're in, sneaking off to look at the statuary is considered uncouth.

I happened to going past Westminster Abbey today, which is filthy with tourists right now. I overheard an American couple asking about the free admissions (I guess for evensong) and the tabard wearing attendant said "Yes, you can come in for free for the service if you plan to stay the whole hour."


_______
At Canterbury you pay a lot, but the ticket is good for a year - so not so bad on the locals.

The Very Reverend Vol Abroad

Did you know that you can get ordained, for free, online?

Well, you can.

And the ACLU is defending your rights as a free, online, ordained minister (what you haven't already gotten ordained? - didn't you follow the link?) to conduct weddings in Pennsylvania.

(And no, I didn't get ordained yet - I'll let you know.)

Sharia in the UK?

The Arch-freakin'-Bishop of Canterbury* is saying that sharia law in the UK is inevitable? Holy-effin'-moly! Where's your convictions man? I'm nearly (but not quite) struck speechless.

In one breath the Archbishop says

Nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that has sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states: the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women,”

Well, yes, I would certainly agree with that. But then he goes on to say:

“But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them.”

Arrrrgggggggghhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Sorry I couldn't come up with something more eloquent, but I did say I was nearly struck dumb with the stupidity of it all.)

Doesn't he get it? Doesn't he understand? Enforcing sharia based decisions in matters of family law - and especially in matters of divorce - is exactly what underlines the barbaric attitudes to women.

There's nothing to stop two parties coming to an agreement based on sharia and abiding by it under current UK law. Women - in case of separation, do you want to hand over custody of your children? Do you want to have a "mosque-based" marriage in which you have no rights when it comes to property? Hey, fine by me. Do what you want.

But no way, no how should British courts be enforcing such decisions or routing women of Muslim origin into sharia based civil court hearings. That's what a tandem system of sharia law for Muslims would mean.

It's wrong.

Equality before the law. One law for everyone. We may not always get it, but we must always , always aspire to it.


_________
*head honcho bishop in the Church of England


UPDATE: At Harry's Place, just as one would have expected there's a discussion about this. They call for the sacking of the Archbishop and the disestablishment of the Church of England. No need. When the head of the CoE calls for sharia law - the church done been disestablished.

with Friends like these

Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) is what I would describe as a radical Islamist group. To put this in perspective a fundamentalist Muslim I know thought they were a dangerous cult. This group is proscribed in a number of European countries, but not the UK.

I would guess that many of the members of HT in the UK are of a Pakistani origin. I don't know what the ethnic breakdown is, but I'd guess there are enough that they feel they it's legitimate for them to turn their organisational attention to the situation in Pakistan.

And it's no surprise what they feel the right solution is for Pakistan - more Islam. Sharia law - the whole thing - the establishment of the Caliphate or Khilafah. That's what a brochure I found on the street in my neighborhood says anyway:



And here's the text:

Since its inception in 1947, Pakistan has been tormented by failed dictators and political parties.

The US and UK, constantly meddling in the affairs of Pakistan, are desperate to save their only hope in the region, General Pervez Musharraf, by working to ally him with failed politicians such as Benezir Bhutto. They have thus brought about an alliance between the most treacherous leader and the most corrupt politician in Pakistan's history.

Pakistan is in need for anew type of leadership which look after the needs of the people according to the Quran and Sunnah, and implements a system which is truly representative and that has an independent judiciary: the Khilafat State.

Hizb ut-Tahrir, Britain has organised a conference to artculate the need for a new leadership and new system for Pakistan - an alternative to the failed leadership and systems of the past 60 years.

It doesn't really disturb me that HT is calling for a Caliphate state. Yep, that's what they want - what they've always wanted for all countries, not just Pakistan. What does disturb me is that Friends House - the home of the peace loving Quakers in Central London is hosting this conference. Why oh why oh why are they providing a venue for a group which would give all Christians and all women second class citizenship or worse.

For many years of my childhood we attended Quaker (Friends) meetings. I'm pretty sure that Quakerism is incompatible with the establishment of a global Caliphate. I'm pretty sure that message of tolerance and forgiveness that I learned in First Day school are not in line with the harsh, biased justice of Sharia.

With friends like these....

More on the Undercover Mosque

This article pretty much exactly encapsulates my opinion on the matter:

Andrew Anthony's Comment is Free article: When did the police start collaring television?

Channel 4's controversial documentary Undercover Mosque was great investigative journalism. That the CPS thought it incited racial hatred beggars belief

To recap: Channel 4 commissioned a documentary on extremist preachers working in the UK and supported by Saudi Arabia. Preachers with some extremely unpleasant views. The documentary focused on a mosque in Birmingham. West Midlands Police (headquartered in Birmingham) investigated the preachers - when the couldn't find enough evidence for a crime of incitement, they turned on the programme makers.

That radical preachers hold radical (and repugnant) views, is sadly, nothing new. That those holding extremist views are often embraced by the UK government and are given positions of responsibility - encouraging "community cohesion" is laughable if weren't so disturbing. That the police are going after journalists for exposing them, practically acting as religious enforcers for Wahabism is terrifying.

Fresh outrage

The Muslim "community" is up in arms again. Just metaphorically this time. There's fresh outrage over a documentary - Undercover Mosque, which aired in January on the UK's Channel 4.

The documentary is largely based on secret filming by a undercover reporter at Birmingham's Green Lane mosque. It shows that some Muslim preachers are spewing hate. Hate for homosexuals, hate for Jews and Christians, and at the very least disrespect for women. (We are "deficient" - fathers should beat daughters who don't don the hijab from around ten.) This same mosque claims to be working toward "community cohesion" - i.e. multicultural understanding, blah, blah, blah. But as the program shows, really a number of preachers are Saudi trained, Saudi subsidised and supported.

This was supposed to be a shocking expose. I missed it when it first came out in January. But I watched it this morning (See it here on YouTube) Can't say that I found anything terribly shocking. Religious fundamentalists hold abhorrent, archaic views. Duh. I didn't need to go to years of Church of Christ Bible study to work that one out. Some religious fundamentalists hold particularly militant and violent views (some of these preachers were filmed saying that Muslims should bide their time, wait for the right moment for the big jihad and establish the UK branch of the Islamic Caliphate - I'm paraphrasing). Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war.

I do understand that folks living with their heads in a kind of soft, fuzzy, lefty la-la multi-culti land might have found this shocking. "What - you mean evil isn't an exclusively Western attribute?" Ha. I have to admit that while I don't find the revelations particularly shocking, I do find them disturbing. I don't want to live under Sharia law.

The outrage though - from some of those filmed - was that their comments were taken out of context. I doubt it. Sure, the documentary makers picked out the most inflammatory statements, but the statements were made. It would be like the highlights of a sermon being taped in your local church, but editing out the prayer list and information about next Sunday's potluck.

And those filmed were given a right of reply.


-0-

Here's the outrageous bit.

Following the documentary, the police investigated. They may have investigated some of the nasty things that folks said. You can watch the show and judge for yourself, but only a few things sounded to me like they might have been direct incitement to violence - the rest were just deeply unpleasant. And yes, they might well fall foul of "stirring up hatred" - which is against the law. I don't believe that should be against the law - stirring up an emotion. So we'll let that pass without further discussion.

But the police also investigated the program makers:

After investigating 56 hours of footage, West Midlands Police said that it had been advised by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the broadcaster for stirring up racial hatred, but that selective editing had helped to create an impression of Muslim hatred.

And from the Metro:

Confirming that police had now made a formal complaint to broadcasting regulator Ofcom, Assistant Chief Constable Anil Patani said: "The priority for West Midlands Police has been to investigate the documentary and its making with as much rigour as the extremism the programme sought to portray."

Stop just a moment and let that sink in. Someone spews hate. You film it. You do some necessary editing. It's got to fit into an hour less commercials. You broadcast. It could certainly be argued that it's in the public interest to broadcast this material. Some of the people filmed have advised or are associated with those who advise the government on community cohesion. It's in the public interest to understand just what kind of community they're hoping to cohere.

And then you get investigated by the police. Rigorously. For stirring up racial hatred.

And what lesson is in that? Investigate unpleasant elements in the Muslim community, get investigated yourself.

another first for Cletus

Cletus received his first copy of The Watchtower today. A couple of Jehova's Witness folk came by to help restore my focus in a troubled world. Yeah, right.

I'm not really into a religion that would deny me birthday cake, Halloween treats, Christmas crackers and potentially life saving blood products.

So I almost gave Cletus another first - closing a door in the face of a Jehova's Witness.

But the two fellows were older West Indian gentlemen with lovely, gentle deep voices and mellifluous accents and Cletus was rapt listening to them. He'd been grizzling all morning, but he shut up and gazed at them wide-eyed.

And sometimes I'd rather listen to even Jehova's Witness than a whiny baby.

Holy Cow!

Well, not exactly a holy cow, more like a holy bull. Shambo is a temple bull at Skanda Vale, in Wales, who tested positive for bovine TB. So, as part of the effort to control cattle consumption, Shambo has to go.

But the monks of Shambo's temple don't want him to be sacrificed on the altar of agribusinesses. They say that Shambo should be allowed to live.

I would tend to agree.

Now, first let me say, I'm not entirely sentimental about hamburger on the hoof. I've been to bull fights (and had a good time) and I do like steak (medium rare). But it does seem to me that he can be suitably quarantined from the rest of the cow population of Wales and saving Shambo could avoid a lot of unnecessary human suffering and much kerfuffle.

There have already been two appeals of the slaughter order. One to overturn the slaughter and one to overturn the overturn. So Shambo - according to a high court ruling today - is due to die.

The temple devotees are not going to give up on Shambo. I can't imagine that there's going to be a Waco type standoff, but they clearly mean business. On their website they promise:

We could no more allow the slaughter of Shambo than we could the killing of a human being. Ultimately we would be willing to defend his life with our own.

and they have exhorted others to come to their aid. I'm not really ready to form part of human chain around Shambo or even sign the online petition, but I'll happily direct interested readers saving Shambo online - in fact here's an image from his web cam (of course he has a web cam).



I can't recommend it as the most exciting online viewing. But it was kind of cool when he moved from the right side of his pen to more kind of the middle.




And that's no bull.

Growing up with fundamentalism

Anglofille had a post about the tolerance of (Islamic) religious fundamentalism by some of Britain's leading politicians. I've been meaning to comment on it - but I've been quite distracted. All I can think about is baby, baby, baby - why are you so late?

I guess I'd like to say that I broadly agree with her points in the main post and in the comments section - so do go read it. But I'd like to add additional nuances to the argument, but sadly all I can think about is baby, baby, baby - why are you so late? (With the occasional, I feel really uncomfortable and moody thrown in - see I don't have a one-track mind).

Here's some of what she wrote:

I’ve been shocked to read about how Tony Blair and London Mayor Ken Livingstone have embraced certain Islamic fundamentalists here in the UK, men who have expressed vile and disgusting views. Under normal circumstances, I imagine that Livingstone would condemn a person who, for example, was a raging homophobe. [And if the person were Jewish, he may even call them a Nazi.] But apparently if you’re an Islamic fundamentalist, you can trample all over the liberal values these politicians supposedly hold dear. How is this possible? The mind boggles.

I'm not so certain about Tony Blair - although top people on the left have certainly accepted Saudi-funded, Wahabi-style, politicised fundamentalism with abhorrent views of women and homosexuals as the "mainstream" Islam. Ken Livingstone is certainly guilty of literally and figuratively embracing the leaders of Islamist movements - like Yusef al Qaradawi - a most nasty chap by almost any account.

Maybe Blair and Livingstone don’t have much experience of fundamentalism in their own lives and don’t understand how it operates. They associate it with “foreign” people and tolerate it on their home turf because they don’t want to appear racist, perhaps.

Racism is seen by opinion formers here as "the worst thing in the world"* and in order to get the same protection and promotion as the anti-racist agenda - some Muslims have quite pointedly played up the race element of Islam. (Anyone can be a Muslim, but it so happens that most Muslims in the UK have their ethnic origins in the Indian sub-continent.)

But I think we are getting into seriously dangerous territory when we associate thought, behaviour and belief (religion) with race. If we can't discriminate against people because of the way they behave, then we've lost our standards. After all, Sharia (Islamic law) is essentially a discriminatory framework based on religion and behaviour (fair enough, though I disagree with it) and gender (not so fair). If I can't say to the fundamentalist/literalist Muslim as well as to the fundamentalist/literalist Christian "I think you're wrong about evolution - and this wrongness leads me to doubt your approach to other scientific matters," then there's something not right.

Anglofille then writes of her own experience:

As an American and someone who knows a thing or two about religious fundamentalism, I worry about the threat religious extremists pose to British society. I see it as a very real and dangerous threat

I think she touches on an important point. I don't think it applies to Tony Blair or Ken Livingstone who are men of the world. I think Livingstone embraces Islamism as part of his cynical Trotskyite self-loathing and destructivist tendencies (just as he embraces Chavez and Castro to the cost of London taxpayers).

But I do think it applies to vast swathes of London upper-middle class policy makers and opinion formers and the mass who form "general public opinion". Their experience with church and religion has been cursory at best (at worst?). They have no idea what it's like to live in a community dominated by one prevailing and strongly religious world view. Well, I'll tell you what it's like as someone who grew up in the buckle of the Bible belt. If you're a natural non-conformist - it sucks. It's oppressive**. And that's exactly the kind of world that Qaradawi and political Islamists want us to live in.

Trouble on the left?
I consider myself something close to a classical liberal. And oddly this makes me pretty right-wing in the UK. But there is a movement on the left which recognises the danger of extremism.

I've written a little about that here - when I still had brain.



________
* I agree that racism is bad and harmful and ill-informed, but I'm not sure it deserves the "cause of all evil" status that it seems to have in UK society.
** Yet at the same time, religion can support good behavior and vital social structures and provide a comforting and useful moral framework. Go figure.

Winner or a sinner?

The Vol-in-Law works near Oxford Circus, and I sometimes meet him outside the entrance to the Underground station. Sometimes, before I quit, I would lean against the railings and smoke while I was waiting. This drew the attention and the ire of a Evangelical street preacher. He told me - through a megaphone on a busy, busy London street, that I was using cigarettes as a crutch. I drew harder.

"Are you a winner or a sinner?" he hollered at just about everyone. I may have grown up in the South with street preachers and tract-distributers - but this guy had as much in common with London market traders calling out their wares as the hellfire and brimstone corner prognosticators of Tennessee. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked to classify myself as a winner or a sinner by this guy (can't I be both?). And I rarely used that tube station.

My man the street preacher finally got himself an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) for megaphoning some lefty BBC types. (This is a civil order to stop doing something or to stay out of a certain area. If you defy the order though, it becomes a criminal matter and you can go to jail.) After the ASBO, I didn't see him at Oxford Circus. He was replaced by a woman with a weak voice and without the salesman's patter. Sometimes there was a man out there, too. But it wasn't the same.

Last night - the street preacher, Phil - handed me a religious tract as I exited Oxford Circus station. "Will you considering becoming a Christian?" he asked me.

"Don't you have an ASBO?" I wanted to ask him.

__________
Photo credit to Dave Gorman who has a Flickr set dedicated to these London street preachers.

A Christmas Carol

We heard the letterbox snap Sunday morning and found an invitation to attend a carol service this evening on our front mat.

Personally, I'm a fan of attending the big, big carol services - like the one at St Paul's Cathedral. Not only is it a pretty good show, but normal admission to the cathedral is around £6 (that's almost $12 these days) - and the fee is waived if you're attending a service. But the Vol-in-Law is not keen as he feels he's being treated "like a piece of meat", which I grant is not a positive feature in a religious ceremony. Apparently, the big shows - like the one at St Paul's or Westminster Abbey are getting packed out these days - some hundreds of people were turned away from St Paul's Christmas Eve service last year (when we were in Lawrenceburg where we did not attend any church - although we did go to the Grand Ol' Opry on the 23d).

Since we didn't have any Christmas carol service planned we decided we'd go to the one where we'd been invited. Apparently it's our Church of England parish church - St Luke's - though I didn't have a clear idea where it was. Apparently the C of E has been guilty of gerrymandering their parishes in the past - and ours is oddly shaped and our house is tucked away in a distant cranny of the parish. Either that or they leafleted the wrong street.

The service was pretty good, the congregation was very friendly, and I knew most of the carols. The Vol-in-Law was impressed by the service, he was still talking about it the next day. But I guess there are some cross-cultural variations that make it hard for me to settle in at a carol service even after 10 years of living in England (not that I attended services every year). Here were some things that struck me:

• Why can't they just let us sing out of the hymnal? That way I could have written music. I'm not the best singer but I do read music and so if I don't know a song very well I can at least drag myself along by sight rather than blundering and guess work. In fact, does the Church of England have hymnals or did you put them away before inviting the unwashed public in to your carol service?
• Some British Christmas carols have extraneous notes - sort of like the "u" in colour. They aren't necessary and they'll always trip up the unsuspecting. For example, I know "Oh little town of Bethlehem" as a somber and simple song - it was presented to me as a song full of ladders and trills.
• Too much bloody organ for me. The organ filled up one of the "wings" of the church (sorry, I don't know the official name, but I didn't grow up in a church with wings) and the sound boomed throughout. What with the saxophone and the bass guitar and the flute and the really, really high-falutin' soprano in the choir - I could barely hear myself sing, never mind try to anticipate the next note in a carol arranged in a way I didn't expect. Maybe I had too much Church of Christ growing up - but didn't Paul say raise up your voices in praise - not raise up your monstrous organ and cacophonous band. (Gee, that's some imagery I didn't anticipate in a post about Christmas church services)
  
• English churches are cold, especially at Christmas time. Expect to sing in your coat. But parish churches are less cold than cathedrals. At my local parish church - I only needed my sweater.