History

On the [a]moral high ground?

~ admin ~ 1 Comment

Speculative misguidance?

Once again the BBC is to be thanked for bringing to our attention a prominent issue in our contemporary world by drawing attention to the Brattle report. The reference to the ‘19 million [who] include those Africans kidnapped and transported to the Americas and Caribbean and those born into slavery‘ which is indeed a blight upon those nations who participated in the slave trade originating in West Africa and conducted over many centuries, brings to our attention the extent of the harm caused by slavery, and also whilst pointing to the evidence that exists today of the transatlantic aspects of that slave trade by mentioning those ‘born into slavery‘ also leads us to ask where today is, and if there is none, why is there none, of the overland transportation of slaves from West Africa to the east? There is sufficient information available to provide an answer to that question, but I shall not rehearse it here lest the descriptions used infringe the sensibilities of the censors and my readers. Let me say nothing more than that some of the men at the least may perhaps have preferred the Western than the Eastern transport.

Secondly, whilst the report produces a fine analysis of the harm done and endeavours to place an economic or perhaps financial value of it, it focuses merely upon the small number of nations who participated in the transatlantic trade ignoring those nations who were involved and benefitting from the far more harmful overland trade and the African nations themselves who were the initial enslavers of those who were transported. The report itself acknowledges its limitation in this way: ’our analysis and results are structured and presented around the state or territory in the Americas that experienced the harm and the colonizing European or American state legally responsible for the enslavement. This paper does not take on the important issues of harms to African countries or how reparations should be implemented. Rather we focus on estimating the magnitude of the harm in the Americas from transatlantic chattel slavery.‘ You will note that it specifically ignores that the enslavement had taken place before the European and American states became involved in the African nations themselves. If reparations are due, then they should also be apportioned to those who initiated the enslavement. Quite rightly it does not take into account the harms to the African countries themselves, as those harms were, looking at it from the perspective of the modern nation states, self-inflicted though if you look on a more granular level the same kind of behaviours within those nations will be seen to have taken place, and perhaps still do, as are attributed to the Western nations.

Let me say, as I have before, I have no wish to belittle the horrors of the slave trade. There are other matters with which I would take exception in the report, for example in the manner of their calculations. They acknowledge the difficulty of the calculations for much is made of the shortcomings of their calculations when a case might be made that the figure is too low, but no attempt is made to measure what the outcome would have been ‘in [the] hypothetical world that never experienced transatlantic chattel slavery‘. A comparison between that result and the present situation might prove rather interesting and not lend support to the primary contention of this report. A quite different answer may have been obtained if, instead of measuring the financial consequences in relation to the economies of the thirty one nations they chose, they had measured the cost in the way an insurance company would measure the amount of a claim to be paid by asking the question: where would the claimant have been today had the event (ie the transatlantic trade) giving rise to the claim not taken place? If you have ever suffered the total loss of a motor vehicle you will understand that the outcome is not as rewarding as the claimant may have hoped. Where would the nineteen million and their descendant be today had the event giving rise to the claim not have taken place? The report mentions this aspect: ‘Restitution, [which] should restore the victim to their original situation before the violation occurred, e.g. restoration of liberty, reinstatement of employment, return of property, return to one’s place of residence‘ So, are they suggesting that as well as financial compensation the victims and their descendants should be returned to their former place of residence? You may read for yourself. Are they consistent with their own principles?

The report may seek to stand on the moral high ground, but utterly fails to do so, instead relying upon the prejudices of a small liberal group in the Western nations who appear only to delight in the destruction of the very nations which permit them to speak in the way that they do. (And yes, I reply, in acknowledgment of your thought as you perceive my own prejudices as I say this). This is very evident in the manner in which they choose the calculations that they perform and present. Rather than presenting a comprehensive report, they pick and choose the bits that support their case. In a sense that is exactly what you would want your lawyer to do. You do not expect him to present a contrary case. Perhaps however they should remember that if Stalin had been born into a Stalinist state, such a state would never have existed.

Finally, whilst this is a ‘hot topic’ today, there are other potential claims: when shall we see reparations paid by Assyria and Persia for the destruction caused in Lebanon, Israel and Egypt in the fifth century, that of the Italians in France, Germany and Britain in the first century (British slaves were available for sale in Rome as late as the sixth century), that of the French in Britain in the eleventh century, that of Turkey in the Balkans in the sixteenth century, or, do I need to add to the list, and I have only referenced the West, what was happening in the Steppes of Russia, China, India, and the other Eastern nations? Perhaps one case comes to mind, when will the outcastes be compensated by the upper castes? Of course many of the governments that I have referenced no longer exist in the form that they had at the time of the incursion of the damage. Is it only that the Western nations have somehow managed to survive since the abolition of the slave trade to which the report refers which provides the reporters the opportunity to press their quite misguided claim?

Perhaps the final nail in the coffin of this report is in its own admission: ‘The need for reparation…is much more than a call for monetary compensation and cannot be narrowly defined as such; rather, it is a call for a long-term commitment to stabilise and bring restitution to those who were oppressed and subordinated by the dominant colonial powers‘. We only need to look briefly at the chaos into which some of those nations which were formerly oppressed and subordinated by the dominant colonial powers to understand that the oppression and subordination of which the authors of the report are so fond, may not have been the solely harmful thing that they want you to think it was.

There is a suggestion in the report that the blame is on going, even though many, if not all, of the nations implicated by it have long since repented of and suppressed the behaviours which were previously expressed. How well they re-express the words echoed by the prophet:

The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge.¹

But when we hear the reply we begin to understand that there is a day coming² when the Lord shall change that. All souls are mine, that of the father and that of the son. The teeth of the one who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge, not the teeth of another. The soul that sins shall die³. Our judgements in these matters are imperfect, but the day is coming when God will judge the world in righteousness by Jesus Christ of which has given assurance by raising him from the dead⁴. There shall be no imperfection in his judgement, after which he shall lead his people, of all nations, tribes, tongues, peoples, rich, poor, slaves and free, into his kingdom of everlasting joy⁵, peace and love.

Will you join him in that kingdom? Will you wait till Jesus comes, down by the riverside⁶?

  1. Jeremiah 31:29 and Ezekiel 18:2
  2. Jeremiah 31
  3. Ezekiel 18
  4. Acts 17:31
  5. Isaiah 35:10
  6. Slave song

Quantification of reparations for transatlantic chattel slavery

Ilhas Flakland

~ admin ~ 1 Comment

Las Islas Malvinas son una dependencia británica en el Atlántico Sur cerca de Argentina.

Apart from the poor Spanish, on which I have no competency to judge, I do not see a problem with the name of the archipelago. Some may have a problem with the meaning of the sentence, but that is not what I am addressing here. In English we would of course say: The Falkland Islands are a British dependency in the South Atlantic near Argentina.

When we put ‘The United Kingdom is part of an archipelago off the west coast of Europe. ‘  into Spanish  it would be nonsense to say ‘El United Kingdom es parte de un archipiélago frente a la costa oeste de Europa.’  Even the English expect to hear: El Reino Unido es parte de un archipiélago frente a la costa oeste de Europa.

So a document produced by the EU, in respect of a primarily Spanish speaker conference making refence to the south sea archipelago by both its name in Spanish and in English is nothing about which to get hot under the collar, is it? Or am I missing something?

Actually, I think we should take the EU to task, for the actual words are: ‘over the Islas Malvinas / Falkland Islands’ on two points. The word order is incorrect, unless F comes before I in the EU alphabet, and the article is incorrect. The correct names are The Falkland Islands and Las Islas Malvinas. The Islas Malvinas is an abomination, deserving of no place either in the Spanish language or the English.

Finally we note that:

in the Spanish language version, which is entirely expected, the English language name of the archipelago is omitted. 

in the French language version we have a reference to les Îles Malouines/Îles Falkland, which is perhaps also expected as it is well known that the French, apart from de Gaulle do not know whether to say Oui ou Non (with apologies to my French friends)

in the Portuguese language version we have as Ilhas Malvinas / Ilhas Falkland, which is really quite confusing considering the close relationship between the Spanish and Portuguese tongues.

For further information refer to:

Freedom? With a price on your head?

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Little has changed since 1524 when a young man began a work which would inflame the authorities in his homeland as he dared to defy the authorities who wished to silence him.  Two years later the book that he had published, and which had been smuggled into his homeland, was being burned in the streets. He had to go into hiding, where he revised and improved his earlier work using the profits from the first then having been burnt printing.  In 1530 he further enraged the chief executive who then sought his extradition. The extradition attempt failed for the lack of production of formal evidence. A price was however now on his head, and it would only be a matter of time before he would be betrayed by a ‘friend’, illegally held and then transported to a trial in which the charges were so designed that he could not be but convicted.

What was his crime? He had spoken out for freedom of speech. He had spoken out for the freedom of the people that they might not be in thrall to espouse the ideology of the elite but be free to question it and to form their own opinions based upon their own examination and understanding of the truth.

William Tyndale translated for the people of England the New Testament into English that ‘the boy that driveth the plow [should] know more of the Scriptures than [the bishop did]. The young ploughman would then be able to judge whether what the governor said was right and just. The authorities were afraid of this. They must keep the people in ignorance that they may control them.

Freedom to think, freedom to speak, freedom to question were not things that they would permit for their people. Let them remain in ignorance and fear, then we shall be able to control them.

Little has changed, a price has been placed on the heads of certain young people who asked for freedom but in doing so they have been driven into exile by those who should have defended them. The king of England lost his head not much more than one hundred years after Tyndale lost his* because he made war upon his own people. It is an illegitimate government that makes war upon its own people.

The apostle asked us that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.  We are encouraged to know of those in China who have come to a knowledge of the truth, may their leaders, and ours also, come to that same knowledge, that we and their people may live quiet and peaceable lives.

China accuses UK of harbouring Hong Kong fugitives

*Tyndale was actually burnt at the stake. The king was spared that humiliation.

Debate and dogma

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Debate is valuable. Debate and disagreement are necessary in science. Debate is dangerous.

Three statements and it may surprise you, or else it may not, that these statements are not incontrovertible; indeed, they provoke as much controversy as these:

Dogmatism is valuable. Dogmatism is necessary. Dogmatism is dangerous.

Why should this, that debate is dangerous, be?

Often it may arise because reputations or careers are at stake. If the foundation of your life is that science which says A is true and another comes along and asks the question: How do you know A is true? Have you considered this set of data? Does it not suggest that A may not be true in all circumstances? then from your perspective the very asking of the question is a personal challenge not a scientific one.

So in a very simple case, you may notice that if you pump 1 kilocalorie of energy into 1 kilogram of water its temperature rises by 1°C (A is true). If therefore you conclude that when you pump 110 kilocalories in its temperature will rise by 110°C, you may be disappointed unless you also increased the pressure under which you heated the water to at least one and half atmospheres. Change of state effects would disrupt the thermal elevation – you may even lose enough water in trying to do so for the espresso that you would have had in order to recover from the falsification of your paradigm had you not the change of state occurred. A is not always true, or if it is true it is true only in specific well-defined circumstances, and so your understanding must be improved. You may want to hold onto your idea that A is true, but the data is against you, or is it? Look again. You may think that you must now say A is not true, but the actual position may be that A is not true only under certain, perhaps clearly defined but perhaps not, conditions.

We should note here, though it is not our main point that it is folly to base our paradigm of life upon our own transient scientific understanding of the way the world works. We are here speaking of derived paradigms, not underlying paradigms which we shall address shortly.

Scientific methods and historical analysis

Now our understanding of the relationships between heat, temperature, pressure and water is quite well understood. We are dealing with a simple (but it is a three body problem) molecule with well (is that really so?) understood properties. Experiments may be easily defined and conducted in well controlled ways, and repeated indefinitely by unrelated individuals who will, within the limits of observable experimental measurement, always obtain the same results, but our understandings elsewhere are not quite so clear. Experiments may not be possible or, if they are, controls may be difficult to impose. We may not know or even understand all of the factors which may influence the outcome. When Rutherford fired his artillery at a sheet of little more than tissue paper he expected nothing other than to punch holes in it. The data obtained however required a rethink. Some of the artillery shells, alpha particles, bounced back off the thin film of gold leaf.  Whilst Rutherford was able to describe what was happening, a proper theoretical understanding of what was taking place would not be available until several years later.

We not only require then data, which Rutherford had, but we need a robust framework within which that data may be interpreted. The old ideas of phlogiston and æther were abandoned when it was found that they could no longer explain the data that became available. Now however in the presence of the hypotheses concerning the warping of space one may wonder: how can something which is the lack of existence of anything, ie emptiness, be warped. Does not this suggest the presence of a substance, an æther, which is presently yet undetected, in that emptiness which is the thing that is being warped? That however is not a discussion for this article.

When we being to look at things rather more complex than water, though they are structures in which water is a major component, and indeed the symptom if not the cause of the problem, such as a biological machine, driven itself by smaller complex biological components, with its own messaging, delivery and disposal systems some of whose functions overlap and which are mutually dependent upon each other as well as upon the other components of the machine whose efficient function is also required for the maintenance of the systems of communication, we may have to acknowledge that our understanding of the behaviours of this system is somewhat less than our understanding of the behaviour of water. We are also faced with the fact that we cannot design experiments to perform on these machines, for that would be unethical, which would allow only one part to function whilst holding the others in stasis. We are therefore left with only the possibility of RCT (randomised controll(ed) trials) and clinical observation. These may result in significant quantities of data, from which tentative conclusions may be drawn until we have a robust theoretical framework from which explanations may be drawn and predictions may be made.

In some circumstances we have to resort to forensic analysis of the data which has many useful, indeed valuable, techniques associated with it, where there is no possibility of repetition of a single one time event, in order to understand it. Now I need say no more here than that forensic examination is simply another word for guess work in which the actual solution after all the possible explanations have been considered and shown to be wanting is the ‘impossible’ explanation. Darwin left this teasingly in his hypothesis concerning origins laying down clearly the grounds on which his hypothesis must be tested and leaving later generations to show the wantonness of his hypothesis.  Mendel began this work and it has continued in many guises to the present day with perhaps greater and greater skill being shown than of which Darwin ever dreamed in the elaboration of the hypothesis in the vain hope that somehow it may be possible to avoid the consequences of a failure at the quite simple test that he proposed. The resultant edifice is not even built on sand, it is built upon the impossibility of two mutually exclusive requirements existing at the same time, not to mention the uncountable (though not in the mathematical sense of the word) number of violations of the principle that change must only take place in simple single steps.

The possibility then must be left open that whatever conclusions we draw may be falsified by another set of data drawn from a different RCT or set of observations in other circumstances.

Contemporary events

In recent days we have heard many say that you must follow the science, but the science has been inconclusive and contradictory. At times the message drawn from this has been inappropriate and non sequitur. For example to say that acquiring immunity from a particular disease will protect others is patently untrue . If I have immunity from say TB then I am more likely to carry the disease unknowingly and therefore become a greater danger to those whom I meet who have no immunity. We only need to think of the case of Mary Mallon to understand this. I am being more socially responsible by not acquiring immunity, for then I would know when I were ill and could take appropriate steps to protect others. There are many other things that could be said both about the messages drawn in respect of the recent global infection and the quality of the data on which they are based, again however this article is not the place for that discussion.

Underlying paradigm

A second reason perhaps for debate being seen as dangerous is that it not only challenges the conclusions drawn from the data but undermines the paradigm which lies behind the specific interpretations of the data. The paradigm is held dearly by those who hold it, for they have an abhorrence, which some are not afraid to display, towards alternative paradigms within which alternative understandings of the data may be held, and which each can yield contrastingly different conclusions than the opinions generally held.

The hostility to any alternative view, even if it can be supported by rigorous mathematical calculations using the same data and mathematics that the majority view use, leads to a stifling of debate and ultimately to a stagnation of science. The silencing of those whom you see as your opponents in science is detrimental to progress.

It is exceedingly important in science that you recognise those who disagree with you as being honest scientists. None of us are infallible, and none of us have a perfect understanding. Archimedes was wrong. Pythagoras was wrong. Galileo and Copernicus were wrong. Einstein and Bohr were wrong. Only two of us were right, and I cannot remember who the other one is.  Of course I jest, but you, dear reader, know what I mean.

It is not, at least from a scientific perspective, wrong to hold different underlying paradigms for to hold a paradigm is necessary in order to offer interpretations of data, but we cross the line when we say that our interpretation is the only valid one.

The correct position – to encourage debate

Every true scientist lays down a challenge for every other scientist: This is my hypothesis A is true, disprove it if you will, please. His delight is, and if not is, it should be, that you take up that challenge. If every other scientist does not rise to the challenge then no progress will be made and we shall do nothing more than promulgate the same false ideas with which Galileo agonised. It is not until we have demonstrated that A cannot be false that we have any real certainty that A might be true. The scientist must live dangerously, expecting that every one else will wish to prove him wrong and in failing to do so demonstrate that he might be right.

Conclusion

Debate is valuable for it is the life blood of progress. Debate and disagreement are necessary in science for we do not have a complete and perfect understanding. Debate is dangerous for it challenges our well beloved but imperfect understandings of how things are and may require us to change.

The corollary ‘Dogmatism is valuable. Dogmatism is necessary. Dogmatism is dangerous.’  has also been demonstrated in this short article. It is left as an exercise to the reader to deconstruct and reconstruct the article appropriately.

Coronas

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Today is an important day for many reasons. We have crowned a man who is king, who in that crowning made certain clear commitments. We do not have to be monarchists to recognise the benefits of those commitments, and I would suggest that of whatever form of government you want if you do not require of the governor those same commitments then you do both yourself and your fellow countrymen a great disservice. There are only two, or perhaps three, on which comment shall be made here.

Firstly, a commitment is made to protect his people both from external troubles and from those within the kingdom who would exploit them. Now we cannot argue against that.  A king, or any governor, who exploits his people, leaves them defenceless or makes war against them is a not one any of you would want, but we do see such elsewhere in this world. We are called upon to pray for kings, rulers and all in authority, for why? Two reasons are given, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life (1 Tim 2:1). I shall come to the other later. This is an important commitment.

Secondly, a commitment is made to defend the Christian religion.  The Scriptures provide the foundation upon which our treatment of each other rests. If we have any other foundation then we shall conclude that some are second or even third or lower class, or that the death of a man is no more significant that the death of a fly on the wall, it being merely a rearrangement of the chemicals of which he is made. We are told: ‘Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ So God created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth’ (Genesis 1)

I am not arguing here that we have been obedient to that instruction, the king whom we have just crowned has long spoken about many of the ways in which we have overstepped the authority that we have, but where else do we such a clear testimony to the value of a human life. We are made in the image of God; what could be a more beautiful image than that? Even more so, what this means is that we cannot relegate one of our kind to a lower position, or consider them to be soulless, for every one of us carried that image with him. It is this, and this alone, that gives us value not any other trappings that we may carry with us. Secondly, God declares: ‘Male and female he created them’. Men and women are not the same, otherwise we would have the same noun to describe us, but we are both made in the image of God, If not the same then, what are we? We are both made in the image of God, but made complementary to each other as we read later: And the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.’ And Adam declares: ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man.’ I do not claim that my etymology is correct, but superficially the English words used here do show a similar connection as the Hebrew: she shall be called ishah, because she was taken out of ish. Jigsaw pieces could not all be the same for the jigsaw to fit together (except in certain special cases of which I am sure mathematically minded individuals would be delighted to point out), the pieces must be complementary to each other (the complementarity of the special cases is what makes the same special cases work as jigsaws). And so it is for us, men and women are complementary to each other.

What a great, glorious, enlightening and liberating teaching this is! No-one is second class; no-one is of less worth than any other.

Depart from the Christian faith and we shall descend into the abyss of superstition, idolatry, paganism, false religion and oppression, for it is only the Christian faith that demands that we love one another, even those who show themselves to be our enemies, and treat others, not as they treat us, but as we would want to be treated ourselves. As the king said on his arrival today: In [the name of Jesus Christ] and after his example I come not to be served but to serve. The example of Jesus Christ was to love his enemies, those who would hand him over to be crucified. Many of them later received mercy from the one whom they had, by means of the Roman nails and spear, pierced.

Thirdly, we are reminded of the importance of kingship. There is one true king, the true man, the perfect man Jesus. He is the only one who has fulfilled the law of God and the only one therefore who is fit to be king. The Scripture says of him ‘You love righteousness and hate wickedness; Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness more than your companions.’ (Psalm 45:7)  But each earthly king is to be like him, and to exemplify him before us. Some do it better than others. Many fail in many ways, as we may read in the books of the kings, and in our own history books, but their failings do not invalidate the value of a king. Rather let them learn what a true king is and learn to be like him. Even the wicked king Manasseh towards his end understood how badly he had failed and repented of his wickedness (2 Chr 33:13).

You see, we do not appoint a king, nor do we elect one, we acknowledge the one who is king. This one, some would say, is king by an accident of nature. So let it be. An accident of nature is certainly no less likely to choose the right man as the vicissitudes of an electorate choosing from a group of power hungry men, and probably more likely to do so. But I cannot say it in that way.  It is God who raises up rulers among men, and he has appointed one to rule over us:  Yet I have set my king on my holy hill of Zion, (Psalm 2:6) and later warns the kings of the earth to serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling, to kiss the Son (the king) as our Prince did his father today. That we do not choose our king reminds us of this, pointing both us and our king to the King of kings in whose name he was welcomed to the coronation today.

I mentioned that there were two reasons why we should pray for kings and all in authority. The second points us again to the king of kings, it is that it is good to do so in the sight of God our Saviour who desires all men to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth through the one mediator between man and God, the man Jesus Christ.

So, only three comments:

The king is our nation’s protector, just as Jesus, the king of kings is our protector.

The king is the defender of the Christian faith, from which we learn that our worth is that we are made in the image of God.

The king is appointed not by us, reminding us that we are to serve the one whom God has appointed, Jesus the king of Kings.

And this Jesus has been anointed by God, not men, so that the Spirit of the Lord God is upon him to preach good tidings to the poor; to heal the broken hearted; to proclaim liberty to the captives; and the opening of the prison to those who are bound. (Isaiah 61:1)

We have a king, who lives to serve his people not to be served by us, which points us to the King Jesus, who came not to be served but to serve and give his life a ransom for many. (Matt 20:28)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65503950

Further comments:

All remain standing. Samuel Strachan, Child of His Majesty’s Chapel Royal, addresses The King
Your Majesty, as children of the kingdom of God we welcome you in the name of the King of kings.
The King replies
In his name and after his example I come not to be served but to serve.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you. And with thy spirit.

Alleluia. Christ is risen.

He is risen indeed. Alleluia.

Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England?

Give the king your judgements, O God, and your righteousness to the son of a king. Then shall he judge your people righteously and your poor with justice.

Alleluia. May he defend the poor among the people, deliver the children of the needy and crush the oppressor.

During the chant the Lord President of the Council exchanges the Sword of State for the Jewelled Sword of Offering, and delivers it to the Archbishop, who says: Hear our prayers, O Lord, we beseech thee, and so direct and support thy servant King Charles, that he may not bear the sword in vain; but may use it as the minister of God to resist evil and defend the good, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Jewelled Sword of Offering is placed into the king’s right hand. The archbishop says: Receive this kingly sword: may it be to you and to all who witness these things, a sign and symbol not of judgement, but of justice; not of might, but of mercy. The king rises. The sword is put upon the king, and he sits. The archbishop says: With this sword do justice, stop the growth of iniquity, protect the holy Church of God and all people of goodwill, help and defend widows and orphans, restore the things that are gone to decay, maintain the things that are restored, punish and reform what is amiss, and confirm what is in good order: that doing these things you may be glorious in all virtue; and so faithfully serve our Lord Jesus Christ in this life, that you may reign for ever with him in the life which is to come. Amen. The king stands and offers the sword at the altar, where it is received by the dean. The king returns to the coronation chair. The sword is redeemed and is returned to the Lord President of the Council.

It is very meet, right and our bounden duty that we should at all times and in all places, give thanks unto thee, O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, Everlasting God, through Jesus Christ thine only Son our Lord. Who hast at this time consecrated thy servant Charles to be our King, that by the anointing of thy grace, he may be the Defender of thy Faith and the Protector of thy people; that, with him, we may learn the ways of service, compassion, and love; and that the good work thou hast begun in him this day may be brought to completion in the day of Jesus Christ. Therefore with angels and archangels and with all the company of heaven, we laud and magnify thy glorious name; evermore praising thee, and saying:

There are parts with which Coco may disagree! The Church of England is not fully reformed, and elements derived from paganism through romish errors have been retained. Notwithstanding this, though there is error as Paul said of those in Rome who spoke supposing to harm him: Christ is proclaimed. There was a clear proclamation at the start that he had been raised from the dead; the reading from Colossians spoke of his pre-eminence, creative and redemptive power; and the words of the communion the purpose of his death on a Roman cross.

The defiled mind

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Der Spiegel: India anger over ‘racist’ German magazine cartoon on population

A good man once said: To the pure all things are pure, but to those who are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure. So now, in the light of this and the recent reaction to a cartoon depicting a race between two trains which was perhaps as much of a contest as the legendary race in which a man and horse competed to be the first from London to York. To pit a new HSR (‘Bullet’ train) against an old diesel is surely a foregone conclusion, just as the outcome of the horse-man race would have been in the seventeenth century. Oh! distracted again so that my first intended sentence became little more than a noun and a qualifying subordinate clause I should resume where off I had left. So, in the light of the afore described colourful line drawing, if there is any element of race in it, and of course there is but perhaps not in the sense that has been expressed elsewhere, should I not now consider that there is an element of race in all things that are or could be said in the minds of some? It has often been said: ‘it takes one to know one’, but I would add that it is often incorrectly said in order to attribute, perhaps insinuate is a more appropriate word in this context, to attribute to the accuser the imputed qualities of the accused.

Whilst seeking to avoid the claim to any kind of purity in myself, if one sees impurity in a thing that is not in itself impure, does that not in the light of the words of our good and wise man, suggest that there is some impurity in the one who sees what he thinks is a kind of impurity in it? In which case the often ill-used saying: ‘it takes one to know one’ may also in this instance be true, that those who cry wolf are in fact wolves themselves, and that the same kind of impurity that they found in the pure thing is the very impurity which defiles them. But if you simply look at the cartoon as a cartoon depicting a race, is it not simply, purely, funny?

On the other hand, had the cartoonist given us the identities of the drivers perhaps we may have different views of the world.

The relations between the two drivers were quite cordial until the red train began to move ahead.

With thanks, and apologies for any possible infringements of copyright which may be found in this not-for-profit educational use of a small part of the material of the copyright holders, and in particular to Chappatte, Stuttmann, knowthenation, the Chinese Embassy authority and the BBC, without whose article this blog would never have been written.

The use of alien languages

~ admin ~ Leave a comment
Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau*

If Coco had written:
Gan nad yw rhywun yn disgwyl gweld Firenze mewn erthygl am Fflorens neu 臺北市 mewn erthygl am brifddinas y weriniaeth Tsieineaidd, pam mae disgwyl i un ddarllen Snowdon mewn erthygl Gymraeg am yr Wyddfa?

Coco is quite sure there would be much support for the view expressed, which is why Snowdon in Wales is known as, and probably ‘always’ has been known as yr Wyddfa.  I quite understand this, for if Coco were to speak in Italian, which Coco cannot, it would be intolerable to refer to Florence and not Firenze, and in French, which the French do not permit, to refer to Paris as Paris (euphonically speaking of course). 

But if Coco asks:
As one does not expect to see Firenze in an English article about Florence or 臺北市 in an English article about the capital city of the Chinese republic, why is one expected to read yr Wyddfa in an English article about Snowdon?
will Coco receive a similar response?

The editors of the BBC seem to take a different view and give more regard to those who would detract them for reasons of being PC, which you will understand is nothing to do with pure chocolate, than to their intended audience. For, when they write for an English speaking audience, then they do not write in English but introduce other tongues. If there is a need to write in another tongue, and from time to time there must be such a need, as Coco has demonstrated in the foregoing, then a translation should be provided for those who do not understand what is written. In the slightly better article from this perspective, to which we thought we had already referred, but have not so the link must be edited later, though the explanation was rather lacking in due care, at least an attempt had been made to provide an explanation. In this one* (Snowdon: Yr Wyddfa could be the first plastic-free mountain) however, whilst Yr Wyddfa is the proper name for Snowdon in the Welsh language, it is not the name for the mountain in the English language.

As a great man once said: If I come to you speaking in tongues [you do not understand] how will I benefit you? So with you, if you utter speech that is unintelligible how will anyone know what is said? You will be speaking to the air. If I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker, and the speaker a foreigner to me. … I would rather speak five words and be understood than ten thousand words in a language that is not, but if I must speak in another tongue, please let there be an interpreter.

With apologies for not providing a translation of the Welsh and to those who know for Google’s bad Welsh.

* Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau – The land of my fathers

* There is an appearance that since Coco first saw the article, a change has been made to make it clear that yr Wyddfa is Snowdon, but still we have Eryri National Park. Is this a location in Transylvania or near the great lake of a slightly similar English name?

Not at the occident

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

12/04/2023

Ukraine war: Leak shows Western special forces on the ground

Does it really matter who leaked them? What really matters is are they true? Are NATO troops involved in the war? Some may argue that it is OK to sell arms to Ukraine, even to give them, and continue to claim that we are not involved in the fighting, but when we are on the ground? Surely that claim, if it has not already done so by the provision of arms, falls flat?

…
According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent of special forces in Ukraine (50), followed by fellow Nato states Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands
(1).The document does not say where the forces are located or what they are doing.
The numbers of personnel may be small, and will doubtless fluctuate. But special forces are by their very nature highly effective. Their presence in Ukraine is likely to be seized upon by Moscow, which has in recent months argued that it is not just confronting Ukraine, but Nato as well.
…
UK special forces are made up of several elite military units with distinct areas of expertise, and are regarded to be among the most capable in the world.
The British government has a policy of not commenting on its special forces, in contrast to other countries including the US.
The UK has been vociferous in its support of Ukraine, and is the second largest donor after the US of military aid to Kyiv.
US Defense(sic.) Secretary Lloyd Austin said the Department of Justice had opened a criminal investigation and he was determined to find the source of the leak.
“We will continue to investigate and turn over every rock until we find the source of this and the extent of it,” he said.

Just criticism

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

10/04/2023

China jails prominent legal activists Xu Zhiyong and Ding Jiaxi

The BBC reported that ‘in response to past criticism about its human rights record, Beijing has said “only the 1.3 billion* Chinese people have a say on China’s human rights”.’ It could well have added: ‘and if any of them exercise their right to have their say, we shall listen to them. In due time there shall be no more criticism’.

* A slight exaggeration may be seen to exist here. The number may be correct if an average lifespan were 50 years and the country had had a population of the current size for about seven times longer than history would allow, otherwise the figure should be 1.3 milliard, roughly 1‰ of the number quoted.