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. 


   

Coptic Egypt - Post Shenouda III

"the Copts are not a minority, but an integral part of the human cultural mass of the Egyptian people" -  Muhammad H. Haykal

The recent loss of the Coptic Pope of Alexandria, Shenouda III, is not only a great tragedy for Copts but also the greater global religious community. His efforts to forward the inter-faith dialogue between Christians, Jews and Muslims within the greater Middle East region is worthy of considerable praise. One could go so far as to say that the work of Shenouda III is comparable to that of the late Catholic Pope John Paul II with regards to bridging theological divides. However, as in the event of the a great and prosperous secular leader passing, the death of Shenouda leaves a great void within the Coptic Church and clouds its future with great uncertainty.
   These fears are not solely the result of Shenouda's death, but also the events which have blighted Egypt, the seat of the Coptic Pope. The overthrow of Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak resulted in a relative power vacuum, now being filled, following an election, by pro-Islam and Islamist politicians such as the Muslim Brotherhood. This has worsened the fears of Coptic Christians as their position may now suffer from a growing persecution at the hands of Muslim opposition. Without a doubt, the future of Coptic Christians in Egypt is at a potential crossroads.

   What choices does a minority religion have in the face of an uncertain future? When such a minority constitutes 10% of the Egyptian population, it is clear that they have a fair representation of the population. Within the nation of Egypt, it is without a doubt true that though politicians may now try to squeeze the Copts out of areas of society, the general populous had a mind of its own. The experiences of the residences of Cairo, Alexandria, or along the Suez Canal will have had very fruitful relationships and friendships with members of the Coptic Church. As is a common approach within the UK, Egyptians should not approach each other as Copt or Muslim, but rather as citizens of the same nation. Those that state they are a member of a 'minority' are ostracising themselves through a potentially debilitating label. Further more, the Arab ethnic group which make up the vast majority of the population can claim ancestry. It may be the case that 95% of Egyptian Muslims come from a family who in the past were members of the Coptic Church. Egypt's people are not just joined by a shared current respect for each other, but also by a proud shared demographic and ecumenical past.

  Now that a vague understanding of internal matters have been considered, a secondary question may be asked: who is going to help the Coptic Church if and when disaster strikes? When one considers the greater  Christian community and denominational representation around the Middle East and East Africa, the support which the Copts can call in is substantial. The Coptic Church is a member of a group collectively termed the Oriental Orthodox Church. This consists in total of the: Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox, Eritrean Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, and Armenian Apostolic churches. This considerable collection of churches from varying regions represents a support base similar to an Orthodox UN. If the Egyptian authorities were to begin bringing pressure down on Coptic civilians, then the greater Orinental Orthodox community could offer both physical and spiritual backing. In a region where the dominant religion (Islam) is known to impose certain restraints on non-Muslims, thus creating a second-class citizen institution, those who experience such a strangle hold on their lives need a capacity to resist. If all this was to take place before a new Pope is elected to replace Shenouda III, then the power of unity with the Oriental Orthodoxy my be invaluable. 


With his death, Pope Shenouda III left behind his both a great legacy and an uncertain future. After 41 years of stability, the Coptic Church must now steer its leadership and laity forward into a post-Mubarak Egypt. Though the temptation is great, they must not fear the days, months and years to come. They are blessed not only with support base within Egypt from Copts and Muslims alike; but also that they can rely upon the bonds between themselves and their Oriental Orthodox brothers. Instead of a bleak and dark future, Copts everywhere must embrace the bright future which is laid out before them. With their Apostolic tradition dating back to St. Mark, and a long history of opposition from Muslim and Christian alike, it is hard to see their disappearance happening any time soon. 

Cardinals and Ceremonies: Marriage For All.

Without a shadow of a doubt, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the most senior Catholic figure within the United Kingdom, has this past week made himself out to be as dangerous as Abu Qatada to the socio-religious stability of this country. In his article in Saturday's The Daily Telegraph , O'Brien has outlined his stance, based on his Catholic dogma, that marriage for couples of the same sex would be 'grotesque' and considerably detrimental to the U.K, both internally and on the international stage.

Brought in following the Second World War in 1948, the Declaration of Human Rights, as the Cardinal points out, states that:
  "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family." (Article 16)
  The Cardinal is correct that it supports the union of men and women in marriage; however the purpose of this clause is to reaffirm the breaking down of racial and cultural divides. It condemns bigotry and racism in the face of the affairs of the heart. The issue which Keith clearly fails to acknowledge is that the Declaration has not been amended since the forward march of same-sex equality which has spread throughout the world. He, like so many of his theological predecessors, have taken a point of law or precedent, molded it to their own agenda, and abandoned the contextually correct purpose of the literature. The Declaration of Human Rights were brought about to prevent a repeat of the devastation experienced as a result of the Second World War; and not as a means of reaffirming Catholic dogma.

  In his expressing of views with regards to Civil Partnerships, he describes them as "harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual well being of those involved"; however it is clear that this is far from the case. The protection which such a ceremonial event endowed those who have endulged in it accommodates perhaps not Article 16, but many other Articles which constitute the Declaration. Property and inheritance laws have been opened up to those in Civil Partnerships, and thus bringing them closer to the rights which individuals such as Cardinal O'Brien takes clearly for granted. Article 25 which states that "everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family" does not degrade the rights of those who are homosexual.

Marriage, as O'Brien states, predates any "state or government". One may have suspicions that if the Ancient Egyptians or Sumerians were around in the 21st Century, they would perhaps disagree with that suggestion. For the Cardinal to say such demonstrates a degree of ignorance, for as a Catholic, it would by far predate his own religious inclination. In his attempt to convey his opinions of the longevity which marriage has enjoyed throughout history, he has forgotten a crucial factor. This is that throughout human history there have been practises of homosexuality. Within the Greek City State of Sparta it was common for men to engage in what would perhaps now be considered homosexual activities, but to them it was a way of strengthening the bonds between them. The 'ceremonial' activities of swans as they court and mate for life has greater historical precedent that his Catholic ceremonies, riddled with pomp, pageantry and popery.

The term 'civil partnership' appears to only be defined as different from marriage in that the initial does not take place within a religious setting such as a church. However, when heterosexual couples have their ceremony within a registry office, without the presence of a clerical representative, it is still considered 'marriage'. It must therefore be possible to say that homosexual partners whose union is in a similar fashion must therefore be married! However, for those of Cardinal O'Brien's thinking, the issue of marriage is that is must take place within a religious building. Without this it cannot be marriage! Yet with the recent openess enjoyed by clergy of different denominations towards there own homosexuality, surely acceptance of homosexuals requesting marriages in their churches is the logical next step?

We must all remember that the power of organised religion can have positive effects on society. However, the words of Cardinal O'Brien are most certainly leaning towards the contrary. His failure to balance the discussion shows the onesidedness of many Christians, not only Catholics. Within a denomination where the cleargy is forbidden to marry and must take a vow of celebacy, how then can they truely understand what marriage means to laypeople. The embracing of social development does not have to result in the sacrifice of doctrinal committments; however it does mean that those who follow such doctrine must be open and willing to support within their own limitations. This growing outcry from Christian leaders in the face of social change is encroaching too heavily on the liberties which politicians represent, and the fundamental ideals of the Declaration of Human Rights. We are all of the same species, and with that comes an awareness of our shared experiences and emotions. Heterosexual and homosexual people can share the same kind of love for not only their partners, but also for a G_d who can transend not only race and culture, but also sexuality.

View from a Jew: Iran and Israel.

A person can get tired of approaching everything from purely academic and scholarly perspectives. So much so that the current developments in the Middle East has invoked a personal response. The events in question are the progressively worsening relations between Israel and Iran, and the global tensions which this contributes to. However, such challenges, as is the case with many global issues, focuses more on the nation state as a sentient form rather than those who reside within. I am not concerned with Iranian opinion as I neither consider myself possessing an awareness sufficient to comment, nor do I know of anyone within the Iranian community from whom I have any first hand accounts. Therefore, as someone who associates himself with the Jewish people both within the UK, as well as a greater global community, I feel I have some understanding of feelings and emotions with regards to the potential crisis.

  I believe that it can be said, with relative confidence, that Iran is not going to attack Israel, either using conventional or nuclear armaments. When a nation such as the Islamic Republic of Iran is as isolated within the Global Community as it finds itself, it would be foolish to engage in any military action. This is made even more politically suicidal when the focus of its enmity, Israel, is considered. With its place as the prodigal child of many of the Western countries, Israel holds a special place within world politics. Any assault would result in near total condemnation, or worse, direct military intervention.

So what do the people of Israel have to worry about? Honestly, very little when it comes to Iran. The worst that Iran DOES is sponsor and support anti-Israel groups such as Hezbollah; but direct action is not something that Iran would be partial to. The concern of countries such as the U.K. and the U.S.A. only goes to encourage hysteria within Israel, and offers Iran a platform to stick its finger up at the world. This latest scenario also detracts away from the required drive to resolve the creation of a Palestinian state which would in turn ease much of the tension in the region. The people of Israel must rally around this endeavour and ignore the Ayatollah's petulant child.

  However, everyone talks as if the Iranians and Israelis are next door neighbours, yet there are two countries trapped in between. The nations of Iraq (another American project) and Saudi Arabia (Arab best friend to much of the West) sit in a rather precarious position. If Iran was to launch its latest medium range missiles towards Israel, it would be taking the risk that it could fail to make its target. In the event that it was a nuclear warhead, then such a technical failure could lead to the devastation of Riyadh, Baghdad, or any major populated area within the two nations. Worse still the projectiles could hit anywhere in the Western Middle East. Though the prospect of an Islamic state causing such catastrophic damage to a fellow Muslim country may seem ludicrous to some, this may be interpreted by Iran as a secondary success. This is simply, to avoid a discussion for another time, that Iran's Shia majority may relish the destruction of its Sunni neighbours. Such a controversial suggestion is not one to be so readily passed over. The crux of the immediate matter here is that Jewry should not forget its neighbours, no matter how contentious it may be at times.

  One final country who has played a supporting role, quite literally, is the Russian Federation. Dmitry   Medvedev and Vladamir Putin supported the supply of materials which have enabled Iran to construct uranium enrichment facilities and the capacity to build nuclear reactions, or weapons. This in itself may be enough to hold Russia accountable for some of the possible damage in an armed engagement between Israel and Iran. Despite this, the Russian Jew, whether they live in the Russian Federation or have resettled in Israel, may feel caught between their past and their future. To be killed by weapons which in part were possible thanks to their former home nation must be a terrifying thought. Yet this may make them the most ardent voices speaking out against Iran, as they would be seen as the puppets of a nation which had, in its past, launched numerous pogroms against the Jewish communities.

  As the sun sets on another day and the Sabbath returns, one can only speculate what emotions and fears are being expressed in Israeli Synagogues. As the daily cycle of prayers engulfs the attention of Iranian Muslims, perhaps their inner concerns are directed at the threat of war. Both peoples share a common love, their G_d who they trust to protect and sustain them. This love should be directed to maintain the uneasy peace which exists between Iran and Israel. As someone of Jewish heritage, I do not feel animosity towards Iran or the Iranian people. I share the chills which fill the dreams of the residents of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Haifa. However it is not the possible destruction of much of the global Jewish population, it is that such an action would represent the third application of a nuclear weapon, when both previous uses were in 1945. Hatred and anger is a waste of energy, while reconciliation would seem to consume too much time for anyone to bother with.

The Blossoming of Dante.

Consider your origin;

you were not born to live like brutes,

but to follow virtue and knowledge.

(Inferno, Canto XXVI, lines 118-120)

The creation of Dante's division between Inferno, Purgatory and Paradise demonstrates the distinction which the Italian poet held to be true with regards to these domains. However, upon much consideration, I find myself observing these three regions as if part of a single form. To be precise, the imagery of a flower is how I wish to link the trinity of Dante's creation.

  Following in Dante's journey, the reader will firstly find themselves travelling through the 9 circles which make up the Inferno. Similar to a root system, they spread and flourish deep under the ground. Also like the tubers of a flower, each circle works independently while also satisfying the demands of the greater structure. The nature of the Inferno within Christian tradition would also make it possible to state that without the diabolic mechanism below, all that which comes above would be impossible. Just as the roots absorb nutrients and minerals deep within the earth, so too does damnation feed Dante's medieval readers desire for salvation in Paradise. The strength of the plant is based on the robustness of its root network to maintain it. For the institutionalised Western Church of the early 14th Century to operate, it needs the Inferno to bolster its claims regarding Purgatory and Paradise.

  Out of the depths of the Inferno, one is taken up through Purgatory.Consisting of 9 levels (10 if you include the Garden of Eden at its summit), it rises out of the ground leading up towards Paradise. This second domain is similar to the stem of the flower. Protruding out of the Inferno, it leads those who reside in Purgatory up towards eventual forgiveness by the Almighty. Neither condemned to the darkness below nor blessed in the bathing light of the highest, Purgatory is the link which brings the two juxtaposed realms closer. As a bridge between the two domains, it offers a glimpse for those within what lies at both ends of the spectrum.

Finally, at the zenith of the flower, the beautiful blossoming head is found. Just as is the case with Paradise, the bloom represents the highest achievement of the structure. The colour and fragrance, designed to captivate insect, bird and human alike, resonates the feelings and emotions which Dante experiences as he travel through the 9 spheres of Paradise. As well as its aesthetic value, both represent an origin to life. Paradise, as the realm of G_d, may be considered the home of all creature, for without the divine there would be no universe. Similarly, the structures of the blossom are designed to propagate its seed so that they species may continue. Though the latter may appear somewhat more crude for this comparison, it is nevertheless an apt portrayal. Paradise is the place of the creator of all which has been, is and ever will be; let alone the Father of all flowers.

Dante's Divine Comedy and the structure of a flower demonstrate some shared characteristics, if one is willing to take the time to find them. As one of the greatest writers of Western Europe, if not the whole of civilisation, Dante demonstrates a simplicity to his writing on what can be taken to greater depths. His writings should be treasured as a flower, with great care, consideration, and of course time.

Cetaceans and Children: Revising Rights.

It is fair to say that the majority, if not all nations of the world have been accused of violating apparent human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the U.N. in 1948, is generally accepted by all members of the United Nations. Despite some issue with Muslim countries resulting in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, the Universal Declaration has become to cornerstone to any consideration regarding the condition of a country and its people. However there are two outstanding concerns which, though initially may seen completely juxtaposed, have been worthy of coverage within the media.

  Firstly a resurgent effort to establish a Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans has been renewed in Canada. At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, Canada, the world's biggest science conference, a number of experts forwarded the case that Cetaceans (dolphins, whales, porpoises) deserve rights and liberties similar to those enjoyed by humans. the declaration had already been agreed in May 2010, though it now required international support and recognition.
  As this was taking place, an extraordinary story broke by the organisation Human Rights Watch (HRW) that apparent entire classrooms of Somali children were being kidnapped and forced to fight by al-shabab, an Islamic extremist group. This was resulting in children, as young as 10, being killed on the front line as al-shaba engaged with forces loyal to the Somali Government. On top of this it is claimed that young girls from schools were being used as wives for the adult fighters. The report from HRW demonstrates the severe condition which Somalia finds itself in, and perpetuates its branding as a 'failed state'.

 The condition which brings these two events together is the role which humanity and rights are woven into them. The crux of the matter is that, despite our desire to be stewards if this planet, we fail to gain a balance between caring for other species and our own. When we focus on the preservation of animals such as cetaceans, we can be accused of drawing our attentions aware from the plight of our fellow humans. Likewise when we maintain attention on the welfare of those in Somalia and elsewhere, we are chastised for failing the other living creatures with whom we share Earth. There are those who endeavour to foster concern for both animal and human, however this is a heavy burden to say the least. Those that wish to see rights respected for either animal, human or both should first consider the age old maxim 'you are damned if you do and you are damned if you don't'. Though this may sound belittling to the lives of children being lost in war and the risk of extinction to a number of cetaceans species, it demonstrates the true struggle which those with a sense of moral authority face. Unfortunately the common practice of many liberal, moralism Governments is to engage with both camps. This results in, as we see today, in both sides being neglected as a result of the others support. Nations cannot resolve one and then the other, as this would result in the the latter priority being doomed. Perhaps then, as humans, we must imbrace the fact that we are no omnipotent; and accept, against between moral judgement, that we will never be able to guarantee rights to anyone unless our fellow humankind respect all forms of life.

Sensitivities: The One Way Street.

For the United Kingdom, as well as a numerous other nations, a watershed in their measuring of time can be observed. No longer the religiously orientated BC/AD split; now it is a corporeal divide based on the events of September the 11th 2001. Following that monumental occurrence in the U.S.A., much of the internal news coverage of the UK media is focused on the existence of Islamic Fundamentalism. Abu Qatada, the latest figure at the heart of the British media circus, demonstrates the dangers associated with extremist religious groups. Nevertheless, the media is more than willing to neglect acts which may appear at least to be anti-Islamic, or are inclined to cause some reaction from Muslims.
 
  Today the Reuters news agency released the story that over 2,000 Afghans were protesting in the wake of the apparent burning of Qarans at the Bagram airbase. This act of "improperly disposed of copies of the Koran" resulted in U.S. helicopters firing flares at the protesters in the hope of dispersing them, as they threw stones and changed "anti-foreigner slogans" outside the main U.S. military base. To many of a Western persuasion, the actions of those protesting will be seen as another example of hatred towards those who are apparently trying to 'help' rebuild Afghanistan, however the truth is far more bleak.

 Issue is not the protesters, but rather the source of their demonstrations. The action of the 'foreign troops' in burning the Qaran, the holy book of Islam, is comparable to improperly disposing of the Vulgate outside St. Peter's Basilica. Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, and therefore holds Islam and the literary focus of the faith, the Qaran, to be most precious. The actions of those soldiers demonstrates a clear ignorance to any sensitivity to the cultural and religious attitudes of the people who they are there to support and protect. Despite the apology of General John Allen, head of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), in a written statement, it does not cleanse the actions of those responsible for the burning.

  The events in Afghanistan should draw ones thinking back to 2010, and the controversial plans of Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Centre in Gainesville, Florida. Jones intended to burn 200 copies of the Qaran on the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.A. This sparked widespread protests within the Muslim community worldwide, and deplorably resulted in the deaths of some 30 people. The Christian Science Monitor, a news organisation that reputedly "delivers thoughtful, global coverage" held Afghan President Hamid Karzai responsible for speaking out against the burning on March 31st.  Fortunately, Jones cancelled the event and promised never to follow through on his plans in the future.
 
 The relevance which this has with today's events are very simple; both demonstrate that those outside of Islam have a lack of awareness and understanding for the role of the Qaran . To Islam, the Qaran represents the origins of their faith, handed down to Muhammad, via the angel Gabriel, by Allah Himself. The troops involved in burning the Qaran had clearly either not been told the appropriate manner to deal with the texts, or worse they wholly flaunted cultural awareness training which the may have been privy to. No matter the reason, the easiest method of 'disposing' of the literature would have been to give it back to the community. Such an action would demonstrate, to some at least, that those foreign forces were open and accommodating to local beliefs. They would have been seen as willingly supporting Islam, and at the same time giving a slap in the face to Taliban anti-Western propaganda.

 The clear consequence of the past few days is that further rebuilding between local and international factions within Afghanistan will have further ground to make up. We so readily condemn and remember the actions of free lance extremists, and associate these individuals with the greater masses and authorities which represent a peaceful Islam. Perhaps we must encourage a framework of reconciliation, not only with people who we see as 'different', but also our own understanding and respect for difference. This would both further ourselves in the utopian dream of being a truly civilised world, but also to develop sensitivities that can travel in both directions completely free.

Following later developments, it has become apparent that the burnings in Afghanistan may not have taken place. Nevertheless, the sentiment remains true and personally advocated.

A Christian Country By Numbers.

Recent expressions of opinion both from political figures and the media are pressing an issue which is not readily resolved; is the United Kingdom a Christian country?
This question reverberates through all the social and cultural groups which this nation is comprised of. Religion has been a point of consideration which, if nothing else, along with politics, has been taboo within the bedroom. However since the arrival of the Con-Lib coalition, such a quandary is being shouted from the proverbial rooftops.

   For those of a secular persuasion, the answer will always be not so much a straight 'no', but rather a disapproving 'yes, but keep it quiet'. It is imperative that people do not brand secularists as haters of religion, for they do not hate it in principle. What they are opposed to is its beliefs and practices being pressed upon society. They acknowledge that religion, in particular Christianity, has played a pivotal role on the formation of this country; however they are of the stance that Christianity is no longer pivotal to the development of this nation.
   As for the people of faith, they will tell you 'yes'. I use such broad terms as it is not just the Christian community who believe in this being a Christian country. Baroness Warsi, Conservative Party chairperson and open Muslim, stated that she believes that this country is a Christian one, and that we face "militant secularism...taking hold of our societies". Though the crux of the matter would appear as Christians and Muslims saying yah while Secularists cry nah; yet where are all the other faith groups? This is where the numerical issue becomes apparent and relevant.

Taking a recent poll by the Office for National Statistics, a survey of 413,000 people in September 2011, the figures suggest Christianity would possess a comfortable majority of 68.5% of the population, while Islam would come third with 4.4%. Second place, if the statistics are to be believed, are those of 'No Religion' with 23.2%. However also represented are 5 other groups: Hindu - 1.3%, Other - 1.1%, Sikh - 0.7%, Jewish and Buddhist - 0.4%. These figures may very well represent the true structure of religious affiliation in the UK, and with that it may be said that yes, this is a Christian country.
   However, the terminologies used above to outline the figures are umbrella terms, used to cover all denominations found within each grouping. So if you are referring to ‘Jewish’ that would include the three majority groups of Orthodox, Conservative and Reform; or with Buddhism one would have to consider Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. Even the 4.4% of Islam would be broken down into Sunni, Shia and Sufi, not to mention other such sub-groups.

Nevertheless, when it comes to the term Christianity, there are said to be an estimated 38,000 denominations associated with the Christian faith. Out of this a BSA Survey from 2007 can be drawn in, despite the fact it omits Northern Ireland in its findings. The BSA found that within Scotland, England and Wales, roughly 21% of the theoretical 68.5% of Christians were Church of England, 10% were non-denominational, 9% were Roman Catholic, with a further 3% Presbyterian/ Church of Scotland. The remaining 25.5% potentially constitute any number of the other Christian denominations which could possibly be represented.

 These figures lead to the deeper and potentially more relevant question; if the UK is a Christian country, which branch does it belong to? This question is even more improbable to be answered. What is clear though that this nation is synonymous with a long and proud tradition of religious diversity. This is not a country of one religion or belief, but rather one of people who are free to practice as openly or as privately as they wish. Whether one holds a faith or not, we are all blessed to be so valued, statistics optional.