Adrian Hawkes | Books & Blogs

Author: adrian hawkes

Blog

6. Morals and Values – Laughing at Bad

6. Morals and Values Laughing at  BadI was leading a community of Jesus followers in the North of England, when I noticed that there was a particular parent who every time their child did something bad, they laughed at the child and noted how…

Blog

Morality and Values 1 – ETHOS

Ethos


Morality and Values  1.


This subject of “Morality and Values,” I observe presents such problems.


I was part of a government think tank in looking at OFSTED inspections of schools. One of the things they looked at is the moral dimension of the ethos of the state schools.  My problem was – and is: How does one get hold of and understand morals and morality?  In this small group, on the discussion  of “Moral teaching in Schools”, were Muslims, Catholics, Jews, Evangelical Christians, and Humanists.


All of us – apart from the humanist – agreed that morals has to come from some kind of law giver. And actually, in all of our thinking, we concluded that the law giver must be God – that is, apart from the humanist – who said “There isn’t a God! So morals must come from somewhere else”.

I went on to argue that in terms of generosity, in such things as tsunamis, famines, natural and man made disasters and the like, the UK Is actually quite generous in its giving. I put this down to the Judeo Christian influence in the historical background of the nation. The humanist said, “Now don’t be silly! It is due to the fact that we were once great colonists”.   Hmm! I thought that was all about greed, trade, and getting lots of power and things for ourselves?


Anyway! Having been one of those interviewed by Richard Dawkins for his, “Religion is the root of all evil” programmes, I find the stuff all over the internet, usually with many of “the learned” atheists – so called – poking fun at my opinions.  Funnily enough, I have read Richard’s book, “The God delusion”. One of the things that struck me from the volume is how often the base of “who we are” and “where we are”, comes down to “luck” and simple good fortune – at least according to Mr Dawkins’ book. 


God seems a better thesis to me.


And of course, both in the programme and on the net, as well as – defiantly – in Wikipedia, comes the discussion of morality.  I am sort of “amused” that in at least one article or comment, the fact that we live in a moral universe  – and one “without God” according to the “atheists” – is actually argued from the fact that some fish have a symbiotic relationship with cleaner fish and actually protect them. This, so they claim, is the logical grounds as to why we don’t go around on our streets killing each other. 

The fish story is used to suggest that violence and killing is – sort of – wiser not too.

One of the things that Richard Dawkins said to me in the interview for his programme, (which I have not seen on the TV repeats or YouTube, so I guess it’s on the cutting room floor), was; “I am more righteous than you”. I, of course, said “Oh! And how is that?” To which he replied, “I don’t go around pillaging and raping, and I don’t need a God to stop me. You, Adrian, need God to stop you.” 

To which I answered “Bully for you! You maybe ought to watch the international news every day!”


One Swallow does not a summer make.








Adrian Hawkes

For UCB

300417

W. 550

 Edited KL

Authority / BBC / Birds / boxed / Cage / chance / change / Christianity / complaints / Culture / deny / Disagree / disappointment / Equality / Female / Fences / Gender / legislation / Male / Morality / Narrow Minded / negative / Negatives / pay / Political / Politics / Progressive / selfish / Structure / Sumptuary / Surprises / Wages / world view

How to Create Gender Equality

How to Create Gender Equality


I think this desperate need within society is not easy at all to bring into being – to put it mildly. However, as it’s been in the news again just lately, I would like to have a go at how I believe it can be done.  We have particularly noted the wages problem in the BBC. And, make no mistake, we are told it’s much worse throughout the rest of the country.  If one happens to have been born female, then those persons will receive around 17% less than their male counterpart, even though they may be doing exactly the same job in the same office.


Why is it not so easy to change this and bring in a satisfactory sense of equality? Because we have to change a deep set culture, or even lots of different sub-cultures, and much of the thinking that has formed that culture goes back a long way, ingraining itself into people’s thinking over many generations?


What is that ingrained thinking? At a basic level it really is a fact that Males are in charge. Because they are more intelligent? Stronger? Could it be that they are better?  Females are, of course, lesser because they are not so clever or as strong, and therefore men need to be in charge. (That is a comment of sarcasm – please don’t write in to complain.)


What we tend to do is address symptoms of this disease. This means that we are wanting to increase women’s wages and make it, “equal jobs for equal pay” right across the board.  The trouble is that such an action, once taken, still will not have addressed the thinking, just the symptoms that came into being because of that thinking.


Legislation would change things, though that would be somewhat of a blunt instrument. We know that laws can change wrong to right (and sometimes even change right to wrong), so we must not underestimate the power of a passed law by government.


However, I do think we need to address the issue of equality at its base. The foundational  base is how people think. The way that people think has been formed by their family, the government, the educational system, the community that they mix with, the business pressures that they have been exposed to, the history that brought the issue into being, and even the language. 


So it’s about changing people’s thinking. Changing the thinking that says men are superior, woman are inferior.   That means influencing, educating, legislating and seeking to change the cultural mind-set that makes the acceptance of the statement above acceptable.


I listened recently to young lads, of non UK origin being interviewed on TV about what they thought about the so called “honour killings”. Their answers were horrific. They said things like, “If my sister had dishonoured my family, then, yes, I think she should be killed”.   The whole idea that women are lesser, builds the strong presupposition that their freedoms of expression, their friends, their choice of dress, and all of their relationships must of necessity be controlled by men.


Sumptuary legislation, where ever it comes from, is always about power and domination.  I hear comments like, “… but that woman chose to dress like this!”  My question is one step further back. “Who pressurises them to choose, or to exercise their supposed freedom in that way?”  The probable answer is their religion, the law, their culture, and all those facets of life that are their personally accepted conventions.  Then we need to ask, “Why is it so?” The answer will be, “Because men dictate it”. (https://adrianhawkes.co.uk/sumptuary-legislation-2/)


We can achieve equality, but we need to deal with the symptoms, i.e. equal pay and opportunities and the like, but we also need to address the underlying cultural perception. We will need to do that by education, legislation and a strong argument against our historical position. In other words; a full scale attack on the current cultural position and underlying thinking.










Adrian Hawkes

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

Edited KL

w. 551

boxed / Christian / Christianity / Christians / Church / Coincidences / Conscience / deny / Disagree / disappointment / evangelicals / Faith / follower / Generosity / Help / Ignorant / Jesus / joy / Morality / Naive / Narrow Minded / Prayer / Relationships / Religion / Rude Christians / sexual misuse / Theology / Tips / Understand / unkind

Maybe I need some Helpful Understanding?

Maybe I need some Helpful Understanding?

It seems to me that after deciding on becoming a follower of Jesus, one then enters a relationship with God Himself.  This effectively changes the way that we are. This, I understand, is done by changing our minds by changing the way we think, which will in turn change our actions.
So; we should become the kind of people who love our enemies, do good to those who would seek to harm us, treat others as more important than ourselves, recognise that all humans are made in the image of God and therefore need to be respected and highly regarded.  I would then expect us (that is-all Jesus followers) to be generous, to see neither male nor female, bond nor free, this nationality or that – in fact caring for one another however possible
So; I am not sure how to express my disappointment, and lack of understanding on several fronts. Recently, reading an American article, (and I don’t think what I am about to say only reflects only on the USA- it just happened to be an American writer whose article I was reading) the writer noted that in the restaurant industry in the USA it was difficult to get staff to do the Sunday shift. They surveyed widely to try and understand why this was so.  Waiting staff are apparently not that well paid in America, and therefore tips become a very important part of staff income. 
It appeared, after the results of the survey had been assessed, that staff did not like the Sunday shift as they said, that, “Sunday is the day that all the church people come in to eat –  and they are the meanest and least generous of our customers”.  Why is it like that?
Friends of mine, both in the journalistic as well as the political world, tell me that the most vitriolic letters and communications, the ones that are “the most condemning” and, in their words, “the most unkind” of all the correspondence they receive (and this is both in the USA and in the UK) comes from people who express in their letters, that they are Christians.  Again why is this so?
I know it has always been a “secret evil” in society, but again; why is it that we keep seeing the misuse of children and the abuse of people of the opposite sex from selfish desires, so often by Christians who express themselves as leaders in the church or in church organisations.  Why?
I wonder!
Have these people really met God? Do they really understand what it is to have been changed by their relationship with God?  Or are they just “label” people? Are they hiding under the epithet “Christian” as a word that may seem to be a useful label to stick on their activities to cloak their dark activities?
Recently, I have stopped responding when people ask me, “Are you a Christian?”I wonder what that means. Usually my response is, “I am a follower of Jesus, and I want that to be more than just a label. I want it to be demonstrated in living lifestyle and action.”
Jesus said to his early followers; “This is how people will know that you are my disciples, in that you have love one for another”. 
I reckon that is not just love for other disciples. I think it should be possible to demonstrate that in the wider world with all races, colours and creeds.  To people who are created in the image of “the God who is there.”
What is it that I have not understood?
A.h
E. KL
w. 610.

chance / confidence / Faith / free will / humility / Practice / Swim / teacher / Theology / Theory / training / Water

Theory and Practice

Theory and 

Practice


My college years were in the late 60’s. I noted that during the years of training we were exposed to a great deal of theory. My complaint to the “powers that were” was; “This is all very fine, but we need practical knowledge and know how to go alongside all this theory.”
We live in a world, and in a culture where a piece of paper, stamped with some college or university’s backing and approval is very acceptable and the desired thing.  For some that certificate and status symbol gives great confidence. The recipients of these pieces of paper are inclined to become overnight “experts”, and lords of their discipline, demonstrating great academic knowledge and putting everybody else right, particularly those who do not have their own piece of paper.
The problem for me and my own personal perspective is that I am old enough to see that often the status information given by the piece of paper holders is not always correct. More than that, I see that more often than not the practitioners who do not hold the pieces of paper are often far more knowledgeable that those who do. Usually, after inquiry, I discover that deep and practical knowledge of almost any discipline and/or profession usually comes from years of experience in that discipline, learned at the coal face.  It’s a bit like learning to swim on dry land. Theory is great – but practice is somewhat different.