It's The Little Things That Make A Difference

In an interview with NPR in the US, George Soros was asked why he had made his recent decision to donate $35 million to the state of New York, for the purpose of helping low income families with schooling costs.

Part of his motivation was to enable the release of a further $135 million in federal funding, which required the state to put up matching funds to release it. George's Foundation to Promote Open Society stepped in to give the state the money, which it could not afford.

Soros stated that "philanthropy has been badly hit by the financial crisis and so the usual donors actually are cutting back. I feel that people who can afford it should step up to the plate and actually increase their philanthropic donations."

And what actually inspired him to make this particular donation? Whilst studying at the London School of Economics, he struggled financially, and was having to work as a waiter at nights to make ends meet. When his tutor found out, concerned at the possible impact on his studies, she informed the local Quakers about his circumstances, and they sent him a cheque for £40 (not as small a sum as it sounds at that time) to enable him to continue. George Soros still remembers how touched he was by that, and that inspired his latest philanthropy.

It seems to me that there is a lesson in this for all of us. We are often discouraged from taking action to help others by the small resources we have, and the seemingly insurmountable problems that are faced. Yet a small action, such as helping a struggling student with a little money, can have a major impact on that person's life, and later affect the lives of so many others. This is a practical example of the so-called "butterfly effect", where the image is given of the beat of the butterfly's wings causing a turbulent flow that results in the start of a hurricane. Whatever we think of the analogy, it is true that seemingly small and insignificant acts can have unforeseen consequences, beyond our immediate comprehension or intention.

The cynical in this world will often tell us how misguided our good intentions are, how we are wasting our time, as the difference we as individuals can make are too insignificant. It is true that often our efforts will be doomed to fail, or will make too little difference to effect change. It is also true, however, that working together, our small efforts start to aggregate and have a better chance of success in effecting meaningful change. The one sure thing is that if we make no effort then there will certainly be very little chance of change.

The Demon Drink

Scotland is famous throughout the world for many things; tartan, haggis, and bagpipes, Rabbie Burns and Sean Connery, it's landscape and it's industrial heritage and whisky. And related to this last one, it is also infamous for it's relationship with alcohol.

In a study released today, research has shown that more than 1 in 5 Scots drinks to a potentially damaging level, and nearly 1 in 25 Scots has an alcohol addiction. Scotland is not unique in having these problems (it is echoed throughout northern Europe), but it is, unfortunately, a bit of a world leader.

What is it about Scotland and northern European culture in general, which has brought this about? Several theories are popular. Perhaps it is the climate and the relatively long and dark winters? Perhaps it is related to our experience of our brand of individualistic, consumerist capitalism? Perhaps it is related to the break down of the family unit? Or the lack of a spiritual or ethical element to so many people's lives in these societies?

And it isn't just alcohol, and it isn't just Scotland. Narcotic abuse, of both legal and illegal substances, has soared across most of the industrialised societies around the world, of all cultural backgrounds; so whilst alcohol is a particular problem in northern European society, addiction is a problem through much of the world now. Why do humans feel the need to seek intoxication or oblivion on a regular basis, despite clear evidence of the health risks and the wider costs to the individual and society?

Dr Lisa Miller of Columbia University has carried out some interesting research in this field, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Dr Miller surveyed 676 15-19 year olds about their spiritual lives and their attitudes to alcohol and drugs.

She discovered that those teenagers who had an active spiritual life, arising from their own choices and motivation, were half as likely as other teenagers to have or develop addictions to drugs or alcohol, or even to try illegal drugs. However, this prophylactic effect was not in evidence where the spiritual life was imposed upon them by their parents, or another adult. The key was the freedom of choice and the personal commitment.

The lesson from this is, I think, that whatever actually causes so many in our society to seek refuge in alcohol or other drugs, we can help protect our young people by encouraging their early interest in spiritual matters. We can guide them towards the beliefs we hold or admire, but we must also respect their right to seek that meaning for themselves. It can be counter productive to seek to impose it. And I, rather quaintly I suppose, believe that our own Quakerly lives of tolerance and moderation, coupled with an impassioned ethics, can inspire them to follow our example.

This is where liberal Quakerism can be strong. We seek to nurture our young people in a loving community and to provide the ethical framework for a good and rewarding life, but also to assist them in their own search, without imposing any creed or specific belief upon them. People need to feel both loved and respected as an individual in order to thrive, and they need both freedom and support to develop into a complete and fulfilled person.

Let Us Not Create Gods

My attention was brought to a quote from the gnostic Gospel of Philip today: "This is how it is in the world - men create gods and they worship their creations"

There have been times when I have heard Friends recite words from George Fox, and it has reminded me of the way some of the more fervent television evangelists quote from the Bible. There seems to be an almost unquestioning acceptance; an assumption that the mere fact that the quote comes from that particular source makes it in some way unassailable. Surely, as Quakers, we are seekers after truth? Not blind acceptors!

Is it possible that sometimes we are guilty of making a god out of George? That we treat him as the Jesus of our Society? We do not accept the supremacy of the Bible as a fount of wisdom; we should not do so for the words of George either. Or those of any other weighty or venerable Friend. By all means we should use those words that "speak to our condition", but use them wisely and appropriately, and not as some reflex response. I strive to look behind the meaning of the words, evaluate their sentiment and then see what I can say for myself. But sometimes the words of George, or whoever, do just put it better than we can hope to.

I read another quote today, which went along the lines of "a Quaker meeting is a place you come to have your answers questioned". I like that, and I don't think I can do any better. Well, not just now, anyway!

Hey - Quaker Biting?

I was searching a Quaker website today, when I came across a Google Ad at the side of the page.

"Hey - Quaker biting? Stop biting, screaming and plucking. Quaker training and taming report"

After a wry smile at this advert, aimed at owners of Quaker parrots, appearing on a Religious Society of Friends site, it set me off on a whole different train of thought.

The early Quakers were undoubtedly people with bite. They certainly weren't tame! This, I think, was part of their attraction and explains their success in drawing a wide following so quickly, despite the persecution that followed. It was when the Society withdrew within itself, and either abandoned or masked it's radicalism, that it lost membership. Our principled stands against slavery and war, and for prison reform, are what are best known about Friends, yet few people have a clear idea what we stand for today. We, perhaps, assume that our values are obvious.

Today, Quakers continue to worry about our lack of success in attracting new members, and in retaining our young people. We do a great deal of good work in the peace, social justice, trade, human rights and environmental fields. We feel strongly about such issues, and these are the concerns of many of our fellow citizens. We should be seen as radicals, taking a lead on these issues, which would surely attract people to at least find out more about us. Yet, we are often seen as woolly, wishy-washy people lacking in passion and conviction. Why?

In today's confrontational and anti-intellectual culture, our insistence on unity through "consensual" decision making, and our embracing of diversity of belief within our own community, is too often presented as a lack of conviction, although the opposite is true. It is the strength of our convictions which allows us to function as we do. We need to find ways to change that perception and be seen as strong and principled, without compromising ourselves. Indeed, people with bite!

We need to be more vocal about the work we do and more ready to identify ourselves as Quakers when we do it. We need to be actually seen to be living our lives according to our Quaker values. We are called not just to embrace the testimonies, but to bear witness to them throughout our lives - vocally, if necessary. Speak truth to power, and speak it plainly!

I know some Quakers will be uncomfortable with that; it may be seen to be unQuakerly. Yet the alternative, it seems to me, is that we either stumble along as we are or we fade away entirely.

Will we be "biting, screaming and plucking" about injustice and inequality, seeking to build the society we believe in, or will we be "tamed and trained" and just nibbling at the edges?

The Trouble With Kettles

Today, Britain's Independent Police Complaints Commission handed it's file on the death of Ian Tomlinson, who died after being struck by a police officer at the London G20 summit protests in April, to prosecutors. Mr Tomlinson's only offence was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and, hence, caught in the Metropolitan Police's "kettle".

"Kettling" is a police tactic which consists of penning a crowd into a confined space, usually a square or road intersection, supposedly to prevent anticipated disorder. Once penned, the crowd are kept corralled for hours at a time, with no access to food, water or sanitation. This can take place in either rain or hot sun, and the protesters may include children and the elderly. After being held for hours, the dispirited and disgruntled protesters are then allowed to disperse, being photographed or videoed as they go.

No charges or arrests result, other than in a tiny minority of cases. The people concerned would have been treated better if they had actually been arrested, as they would then have been guaranteed rights to access food, water, sanitation and shelter. Our legal principles seem to have been turned on their heads; it is now "guilty until proved innocent". These tactics, it may be presumed, are designed to discourage legitimate protest.

What is even worse, though, is that the penned masses may include many people who, like Mr Tomlinson, have nothing whatsoever to do with the protest, and were just attempting to go about their day to day routine. The G20 "kettle" included many such people, including a consultant surgeon from a local hospital on his way to work, who was not allowed to leave, despite producing his ID and asking the police to speak to the hospital on his phone.

Many will be familiar with the internet footage of Mr Tomlinson trying to go about his lawful business, returning home from his newsagents business, and being pushed back into the "kettle" by a policeman in riot gear. The fall, or the blow to his chest, is thought to have triggered a fatal heart attack. The police undoubtedly need to take action to ensure that protests pass off peacefully, with minimal disruption to other citizens, but such action should always be the minimum necessary, and should not infringe the rights of either lawful protesters or bystanders. It is totally unacceptable when it results in the death of an innocent man.

The tactic of "kettling" is a profound overreaction and denies the basic human rights of those caught up in it. Far from ensuring public order, it causes a profound sense of injustice, and actually incites normally peaceable people to disorder. As one observer wittily put it, "the problem with kettles is they tend to boil."

Indeed, the footage of this protest actually shows police officers standing by as a pair of protesters attacked a branch of a bank, even though it could easily have been stopped by the officers present. The only individuals trying to stop the attack were some of the other protesters. So much for public order!

This episode has further undermined the declining confidence of many in our police. It is symptomatic of a malaise within parts of that service; a tendency to view the general public as the enemy - we are all potential, even probable, offenders.

There has been a steady erosion of our rights as citizens in Britain over the last few decades. Ironically, much of the worst of this has occurred under a Labour government. We are subject to ever greater surveillance, either physical or electronic (no doubt including subversive blogs!), and our freedoms of assembly, movement and expression have been whittled away. These are issues which should concern us all. The argument that "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear" is deeply flawed, not least due to the incompetent collection and handling of data by government agencies. Now even our local councils have the right to spy on us, and are doing so, often abusively.

I don't believe that we are close to living in a police state in Britain, but I do think that we have allowed our government to make significant steps in that direction. With the increased surveillance of the general public by police, other agencies and CCTV, the proliferation of databases, extended detention without charge, increasing police powers, restriction of rights to free expression and protest, restriction orders and a culture shift away from presumption of innocence and civil rights, our freedoms as citizens are restricted and threatened as in no other western society.

The argument has often been made that if Jesus of Nazereth was to appear today he would be locked up as a lunatic. In today's Britain, he would probably be put under surveillance, jailed or placed under a restriction order.

To paraphrase Pastor Niemuller "first they came for the Jews and I said nothing, because I wasn't a Jew....when they came for me, no one was left to speak for me." Quakers have had a long tradition of speaking out against oppression, and in favour of rights, wherever injustice occurs, and to whomever. Undoubtedly, many are already speaking out, but we need to do more. We need to actively make the argument for expanding and guaranteeing civil rights. If we believe in "that of God" in everyone (or however we choose to phrase it) and we believe in living our testimonies in our lives, then I think we are obliged to do so.

Two Ways To Be Religious

Yesterday saw "Israel's worst ever hate crime". A black-clad man walked into a gay support centre in Tel Aviv and opened fire on the young men meeting there. Two people were killed and 10 others wounded.

We don't yet know the motivation of this killer, but so often such crimes are committed in the name of one religion or another, and yet most religions declare themselves to be the repositories of love on earth. Why then are so many religious people seemingly incapable of love, especially to those different to themselves? Why do they preach only parts of their creed, ignoring those they feel uncomfortable with, and so often missing the most basic points of that creed?

In stark contrast 1200 "religious" people meeting in York, England (Britain Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends), sent a clear unambiguous message to other religious groups, governments and people throughout the world. They did this by clearly stating that they intended not just recognising gay marriage, but also would happily carry out the ceremonies in their meeting houses. They have taken a stand and thrown out a challenge. The liberal Quakers have often led on moral issues; the abolition of slavery, female equality, prison reform, environmental protection, and others have followed. Who will be the first to have the courage to follow now?