Veiled in anger, hiding the truth.

The manner in which someone dresses, and the perception which this conveys upon others is a challenge facing many in society.  However the wearing of clothing for religious purposes is a very old and established norm. That which is worn by religious leaders, both secular and ecumenical, and laity is something that defines one's identity. Despite this there is always challenges facing these individuals. Occupational guidelines and social traditions can be counter to such religious expressions.  In recent weeks this has been shown best in the debate regarding the niqab veil and the full length burqa, often worn by Muslim women. A court case in Hackney and a school in Birmingham are only the most recent locations where the wearing of the burqa has been challenged. 

  Birmingham Metropolitan College  has dropped it's ban on students wearing the full-face veil following complaints from those who wear it and attend the college. The ban which has been repealed was not solely targeting Muslim attendees, but also those who wore caps, hats and hoodies which made the wearer harder to identify. It was an effort to guarantee a clear recognition of all students attending the college. 

  Meanwhile a court case in Hackney has made the headlines when Judge Peter Murphy refused a 21-year-old woman from entering a plea unless she revealed her face from behind her full-length burqa. He clearly stated that he respected her "right to dress in any way she wishes", however he could not accept the plea "from a person whose identity I am unable to ascertain". The concerns of Judge Murphy are based on the possibility that someone else could impersonate the accused if they are unable to identify her properly. 

  Both cases at the college and court raise not just the debate regarding the veil and burqa, but also the challenges it brings to the secular education and judicial systems within the UK. In the case of court plea, the protocol in place has been as such for longer than any debate about Muslim dress has been commonplace in this country. Meanwhile the U-turn performed by the college impacts on people far beyond the British Muslim Community. Both scenarios were neither created for the purpose of Muslim dress, however the manner in which each handles the fallout will be watched by Muslim and non-Muslim with increasing interest. 

  Though there are referencing in the Quar'an (Surah 24:31, 33:59) to which Muslims have interpreted as meaning the compulsory wearing of burqa and niqab; it would appear that the true source of authority can be traced to the idea of Namus, virtue. The context in which namus is predominant is with regards to male virtue. If a man's namus is violated, it is generally caused by a female family member. Such violations include the birth of a daughter rather than a son, if an adult daughter fails to dress 'appropriately', or even the rape of a daughter. To restore namus such 'methods' as honour killings, forced suicide, acid attacks, infanticide, and sex-selective abortions can be applied. The application of namus is not an Islamic invention, but would appear to predate all the Abrahamic faiths. It is a culture based ethical structure, which was adopted by Islam. It would seem fair therefore to not assume that this is a religious phenomenon, but rather a cultural one. Muhammad would have known about namus as he grew up in the Arabian Peninsula, and most likely adopted it for the Quar'an. It is commonplace for religious groups to adopt cultural habits of their coverts/adherents. This creates a spiritual path which members can relate to; it can also test the flexibility of a fledgling religion. For Islam, namus became and has become a cornerstone of the faith. Without it, the status of the burqa and niqab would not have developed to the position of prominence it enjoys in a Post-Modern world. 

  To those involved with Birmingham Metropolitan College and Blackfriars Crown Court, as well as all other Western minded people, the association of namus to the cases of veil and burqa would seem barbaric and inhuman. Chastising and killing of women and girls is something that the majority of the UK has reserved for the activities of those in the Dark Ages. However, the enforcement of the burqa and niqab is commonplace in the UK. Cases of honour killings and infanticide are also not foreign to the people of Great Britain due to its coverage on various media outlets. Despite the attitudes to these apparent alien practices, such attitudes towards women can also be found within the Laws found within the Torah (or New Testament). Too many have become fixated upon current outrages that they have forgotten past inhumanity. 

  It is more than clear that when the developments in Birmingham and Hackney are given further scrutiny it becomes apparent that it is more than a purely Islamic characteristic. It represents further examples of an ignorance towards Islam and its deeper faculties. The West understands to a cynical degree the factors and components which it's Christian heritage enjoys. A British child of 10 can know more about Christianity than a British adult of 70 will know about Islam. It is a reality which many ignore and prefer to hide through media scare mongering and political activism. Rather than understanding it we prefer to sweep it under the rug, making it gradually more and more taboo. A fear of the burqa and niqab is endangering us as a society, allowing ourselves to hide behind a veil of ignorance. If such attitudes are to be challenged, then a timidity towards such differences within society must be removed. 

Descartes and Wine: Dangers of Doubt.

  The works of Descartes permeates throughout much of society. The basic tenants of his work, in particular his 'Meditations', are a common topic of study for many university students. It is out of such an awareness that what I am about to write is grounded. From my time at university one of the many areas of knowledge which I left with was with regards to Descartes, and his argument relating to doubt.

  As all Cartesian scholars of varying experience shall know is that Meditation 1 focuses on the nature of doubt. My focus though is on the very beginning where the reader finds Descartes is pondering on reality, and whether one can trust what they see and subsequently know. He (Descartes) is sitting in front of an open fire, considering his thoughts with a glass of wine. Yet for me I am not reflecting upon any doubt which may be directed towards the fire, nor even the paper upon which Descartes is writing on. Rather it is the wine which is being consumed by this consummate Frenchman.

  Descartes concludes, as any person should know, that 'Cognito Ergo Sum', I think therefore I am.  Our capacity to think, and through that enables us to understand our universe through doubt and self-awareness. However the wine which Descartes is enjoying reflects a rather pedantic perspective from myself. When ones ability to think is interfered with, then the doubt must surely be exacerbated.

  As the ethanol enters your bloodstream and your brain becomes intoxicated, then doubt must surely become your enemy. When you are convinced into believing your senses when they are effected by the alcohol it becomes much more dangerous. Doubt becomes irrelevant when you cant tell the difference between doubt and false doubt. With a clear mind one can produce informed conclusions; however with intoxication there is every danger of foolishness. This is the fate of all those who consume sufficient alcohol to cloud both mind and doubt.

  Descartes' actions are an example of doubt becoming contaminated by human weakness. Our love of pleasure damages out capacities. Such harm can cause the wise to drift into madness, and all doubts to become clouded. One must learn to control the desire for intoxication, or suffer as a result. The mind is only limited by itself and only itself. If we restrict or damage this capacity, we become both Descartes' enemy and inadvertent friend.

Light Through The Trees.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet, Act I, Scene V

  One of the genuine pleasures of living in Scotland is the landscape which makes it world renowned. The dense coniferous and deciduous trees which cover the land hide many a floral and faunal beauty. However, when one looks upon these vast forests, the cliché of  'can't see the wood for the trees' becomes very apparent. Despite this, the overworked phrase above ironically represents the truth of the people who use it.

  Fore you see there are those who see both wood and trees, yet fail the grasp the reality of this overgrown metaphor. As they stare upon the scale which the forest encapsulates, they just see a body of matter, a potential obstacle. This natural barrier is as intimidating as the barricade which infests their minds. The roots of their ignorance grow deep as they stretch towards heights which they could never truly appreciate. They compete with their neighbours to bask in a warmth which will just leave them cold at the core. They see the bark, a shield against a reality and deeper reasoning beyond their sphere or willingness to entertain. For those who take this floral display at face value they deny themselves a greater consciousness. They are content in the understanding that a tree falling in a forest with no one to hear it  will make a clear Simpson-esque crashing sound,  rather than engage with this thinking at a deeper level.

  There are those, fortunately, who occupy a juxtaposition from those above. As they stare at the forest before them, they do not formulate black-and-white conclusions. They peer past the blatantly obvious reality before them and realise a true magnificence. For what they see it a complex and perfectly balanced chaos, created by chance and nurtured by luck, for no other reason to exist other than that it does. The light which permeated is the light of greater knowledge. This higher sentience lies in the experience of those who glory in that which is uncontrollable, yet completely captivating. The light for which the trees reach for is relative to the luminous draw of reasoned thinking. Through this the warmth of lustrous wisdom is attained. Each leaf that falls or rustle of a branch percolates an entropic effect on all which the universe contains. The existence of a tree in an exact location at a designated time may have as far reaching effects as the collapse of a star or the formation of a galaxy. Such concepts are only appreciated by those who see the wood and the trees for what they really are.

Roughly 1/3 of the Earth's dry land is covered in forest/ woodland, when 34% of the planet's surface is dry land. Within this area there is an estimated 90% of the terrestrial biodiversity. To those initially described above this is just a collection of facts and figures for a pub quiz. However those who fall within the latter group, who see not just the physical; but also a vast expanse of philosophical reasoning before their eyes and minds. Do not just see the wood, the trees, or both; but rather see the improbability of its very existence and the possibility that it may never have existed in the initial circumstances. To open one's mind is to bring it into the warmth of reason and away from the darkness where one roots dare to tread.

The Evolution of Greed: Malvinas or Falkland.

  When speaking today to a gentleman from Argentine, I jokingly referred to the Falkland Islands, known as 'Islas Malvinas' to the Argentinians. Later, I commented to the same individual that I do not see why either the United Kingdom or Argentina should care so much about them when, apart from the possibility of oil, the islands have no real value. Yet, where do we get this concept of value, and in turn the creation of greed? With all the  focus on materialism and possession which is entrenched within the psyche of the 21st Century, is the solution hidden within the natural origin of the attitude?

  As a species, humanity can trace many of its wholesale characteristics back to animalia which are considered to share common ancestors with humans. One such basic notion is that of territory. Many inhabitants of the Animal Kingdom mark areas of territory with individualised scents, such as grand excretions and urine. In doing so the member of a species can define its personal boundaries, while also deterring possible rivals from entering their individual space. An area may be rich in: food, safe habitat from threats, or sufficient space to maintain a large breeding group. In some cases, such as grizzly bears,  territory can change and shift with the availability of food stuffs. However, in what way does this relate to humanity?

  For every individual human there is a desire to have a safe place to sustain themselves (ie eat, sleep, socialise). Whether it be for a single individual or a large/ extended family, people need territory to call their own. Out of this it would seem that objects have developed the same territorial claim over time. From a television to a carpet, the object has become as viciously protected as a hippopotamus would for its stretch of a waterway. This has evolved to the extent that we define the haves and the have nots as the difference between people(s). Those who want, desire; while those who possess, covet. Acts which people define as criminal such as theft and fraud owe their existence to the rapid development of human territory conceptualisation. Murders, riots and revolutions have been initiated in the face of possessiveness and the greed that comes with it. We are greedy because we either do not want to loose something which we possess, or to have the opportunity to possess taken away from us in future.

   Such greed and mammalian territorial instincts have led to a world where whole 'nations' (a strange union of peoples may be more apt) impose their influence and control over others less able to defend themselves. Such attitudes by the haves towards the have nots is driven by greed for the acquisition of resource-rich territory. However, with the 'freedom' wars of the mid to late 20th and into the 21st Centuries, each driven by the claims of leaders to be bringing liberty to oppressed populations, territorial influence has grown out with a nation's boundaries. The greed of ideologies and dictators has lead to a world where powerful nations vie with each other for influence over 'lesser' neighbours. As a result we live in a world territorially defined by guns as a way of exercising greed, rather than that basic survival reflex found in most of nature's creatures.

  Whether it be several small islands 290 miles off the coast of South America or a 29 inch HD television, possession and territory are never far from the mind of all human beings. We are all driven by an instinctive desire to possess through a developing and growing forcefulness. The only evident enhancement which separates us from our animal ancestors is our capacity to kill 100,000's to sustain our wanton impulses. The truth is that we do not require everything that we are told to want or need. We have been influenced by our natural instincts for preservation to covet and horde. Let us find a way to get back to our natural principal of possessing to survive, rather than the illusion that we must possess to survive.

Micro-culturalism within the UK

For some 60 years this nation has been obsessed with multiculturalism. Ever since the formation of the Commonwealth and the resulting influx of colonial based immergration, up to the current free movement of people within the EU, the UK has had to manage a diverse array of cultures and ethnicities. However, this preoccupation has resulted in possible neglect of indigenous groups. Worse still is that this language does not sufficiently explain the true diversity within. The obvious point of diversity emanates from the breakdown of the United Kingdom: Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Though united through political and economic structures, each engage in their own uniques identities. This neglect, in my opinion is a cause for the growth in regional nationalism. Pride in themselves is more profitable than a growing false hope in the Union. Those who have influence should be highlighting this danger, and offering a response. The strength of our individuality should be a glue to keep us together, not drive us apart. Though the above has been thoroughly studied and anslysed, the true diversity lies in each of us. Through the social upheaval of the 20th Century, a variety of micro-cultures have emerged. These include: ska, punk, goth, emo, ned, chav, and nerd/geek. Though these are not solely the product of this country, they have been fostered and developed here. These cultures, particularly found among 12-25 year olds, receives the same degree of ridicule or insult as any foreign culture which moves in. How then are we to manage our own cultural diversity? Well, to embrace them as we do those who immergrate into this country is the only option. Though they are at times considered social frustrating and economically burdening, they are no different from any other culture. Accommodate and by sympathetic to these internal cultures, while maintaining a strong line with them. We are blessed to be a hotbed of cultural creativity, and therefore we should avoid stigmatising them. They represent the feeling of the times. Without them, as without foreign cultures, out nation would stagnate and die.

Golden Ruling by Obama.

As an individual, President Obama has transcended all expectations which could have been placed on him, both personally and by others. As a coloured man, he has faced the challenge of winning over a nation who, but only 50 years ago, was split over the issue of civil rights. His Kenyan ancestry is one linked in with Islam, and so represents a faith which many in the USA feel they are at war with. Therefore Obama has taken on both racial and religious challenges to his political career. Now through sheer bravery, or perhaps voted winning bravado, has come out in favour of same-sex marriage for homosexuals in the United States of America. This, of course, is controversial when the political and religious landscape of that nation. However, Obama uses Jesus Christ and his Golden Rule to justify his stance. Why?


The Golden Rule, found in the Gospel of Matthew 7:12, is one of the most famous maxims in history:

       "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."

It had been used for centuries as a means  to defend the disenfranchised and weak; and deter those who would suppress and reign tyranny over others. Notions of individual rights and laws for the protection of people owe their existence, to an extent, to the Golden Rule. This is all made all the more powerful by whom this quote is attributed to, Jesus Christ. His position with one of the world's leading faiths made the Golden Rule more accessible to a wide array of peoples. As Christianity expanded, so too did the maxim of the downtrodden. However, as the expansion of faith of the Trinity has in theory slowed down, how relevant is this pithy saying for a President to use?


When one wants to justify a stance, and is faced by possible backlashes from the society they live in, it is very supportive to apply local beliefs and customs. The Obama family consider themselves to be Christian. Those who are so openly opposed to same-sex marriage also claim to be Christian, and apply it to their polemic in opposition. However, this staunch denial of Obama's view is only possible through ignoring anything that may undermine them, such as the Golden Rule. 
   Obama is clearly applying this in his recent statement. To be President, one cannot afford to be stupid ( George W. Bush being the exception that proves the rule). He is not only reaching out to the homosexual community with the USA, but also to any Christians who are perhaps of the same opinion as himself. The Republicans have been very hard on women, and this has turned many against them. Now Obama is forcing Mitt Romney to force his hand, and he did in his opposition to same-sex marriage. Obama is applying both religious and political means to gain votes. This may sound somewhat cynical, however in an election year, he can not afford to miss a trick. 


There is little doubt in my mind that President Obama is sincere what he says. There is no reason to think otherwise. However, in applying the Golden Rule, he is striking at the heart of the Christian Right. It is undoubtedly going to be greatly in the President's favour, and should bring him both further support and resources. However, now that he has said something, he will be expected to act upon it. If he is re-elected this year, then he will be expected to apply the Golden Rule and follow through with same-sex marriage endorsement. This may be further exacerbated by a call from other groups for their rights and opportunities to be opened up further. President Obama has set a precedent, however can he handle the responsibility which comes with the rule.  

Cannibalism and Christianity.

"Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom." - Gospel According to Matthew, 26: 26-29


   The actions of various modern cults receive fluctuating public exposure by a diverse array of media outlets. Such cults as The Mason Family, Aum Shinrikyo, Branch Davidians and Scientologists represent a variety of controversial and criminal acts which have caused repeated outcries. Ranging from mass murder to fraud, the actions of cults have gained diminishing credibility over the years. However, a recent event has further blackened public opinion on cultist activities. Friday Thirteenth of April saw the arrest of three Brazilian cult members who are accused of not only murdering a number of women, but also cannibalising them as a way of 'purifying' themselves. Bodies were located in the grounds of a house which the three suspects shared, as well as paraphernalia which indicated that why consumed human flesh to cleanse their souls. However, with all the attention and condemnation which these individuals have attracted, an interesting reminder should be sounded.


   During the first centuries of the Common Era, the Roman Empire was plagued by rumours of a cult and its activities. It was said that this small group not only practised incest between its 'brothers' and 'sisters'; but that it also indulged in the consumption of flesh and blood as a rite of passage. This cult was known by its colloquial name which was derived from its supposed founder, Jesus Christ. These Christians suffered greatly at the hands of the Roman Empire until the Emperor Constantine made it the official religion of the Empire.  
   The reasoning behind the accusations of cannibalism can be traced back to the Christian practice of the Eucharist, where Christians consume bread and wine which is supposedly transsubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ. This act represents one of the primary rituals found within all leading branches of Christianity today.  


When comparing the events in Brazil and the ritualistic act within Christianity, a parallel can be drawn. Both consider the consumption of flesh to be a way of purifying their bodies, an act of spiritual acceptance and preparation. Yet the three Brazilians are said to have only selected those whom a spirit considered "bad people"; meanwhile the Eucharist represents a oneness with the Son of G_d. Though they approach the same goal, they do so from juxtaposed standpoints. 


  It would be more than fair to say that any act which appears to have been executed without the consent of all those involved can not ever be justified. However it is also crucial that perspective is maintained, so as to avoid needless scaremongering. The deep sense of spirituality which those arrested experienced through their cannibalism may be comparative to its figurative counterpart found in Christianity. Though the practice of Cannibalism has been all but wiped out thanks to the expansion of the Abrahamic faiths, it is far from dead. Perhaps a sense of sympathy for those condemned should be quietly fostered. The notions which it entails are still alive and well within the liturgical doctrines of the Christian churches.