Archives for November 2006

I found myself in the BBC's Blackstaff studios tonight watching the taping of the BBC Question Time programme. An edition of the programme from Belfast is always a bit of a challenge for David Dimbleby (though, of course, nothing ever looks like a challenge for this most polished of broadcasters), for a couple of obvious reasons.

First (and quite understandably), the network audience is clearly not as fascinated by Northern Irish politics as people are here. The producers deal with that challenge by picking mostly "national" rather than "local" questions for discussion.

Then comes the second problem: Whatever the question -- no matter how seemingly unrelated that question may seem -- local panellists and the studio audience in Belfast will steer the debate back to our traditional political tit-for-tat. Ask a question about Tony Blair apologising for Britain's role in the transatlantic slave trade, and within minutes the discussion will return to Northern Irish politics. Ask about those Russian "murky" murders and whether they look like a throw-back to the bad old days of the Soviet regime, and we'll soon be talking about the bad old days of Northern Ireland's troubles.

This dynamic was in evidence again in tonight's programme. We barely made it through a single question on any topic without returning to the Northern Ireland political issues. Our local political questions are extremely important and need serious consideration; but other global and national issues are also important in their own right and deserve consideration without rhetorical side-tracking. Watching the usual dynamic unfold during the programme, I wondered if we, in Northern Ireland, are not a nation of political alcoholics, returning to the same favourite tipple with predictable regularity. Is it time for a detox?

Before I end this rant, let me pick up on one thing David Trimble said tonight. When asked if it was right that Tony Blair should say sorry for slavery, he told the audience that calls for an apology were "stupid". Those calling for an apology forget that Britain was the country that ended the slave trade. It's undoubtedly true that Britain took the lead in dismantling the slave trade -- and abolitionists such as William Wilberforce deserve to be better known today than they are. But isn't it also undeniable that Britain was dismantling a slave trade that it, more than any other country, helped to create in the first place?

Is "redecorate" the right term for redesigning a blog? I bet someone's already coined a blogospheric term for this (and I fully expect to be told what it is). In any case, you'll be noticing one or two changes in the layout of the blog, which I hope will prove useful. My most recent entries will be highlighted, and your most recent comments too. I'll also be putting up my own blogroll, alongside some key BBC blogs. I might even get very trendy and add some videos here and there. (Okay, when I say "I", I mean David, the BBC web-wiz who fixes these things for me -- thanks David.) I'd like to hear your ideas for improving the blog's look. Don't be shy.

I doubt any of Pope Benedict's advisers will give him this editorial to read while he's visiting Turkey. It's from the much-respected National Catholic Reporter and amounts to a compilation of evidence in support of the claim that the Catholic Church in America has lost the plot. The editorial argues that most American Catholics are no longer paying attention to the moral teaching of the church on sexual ethics, and for good reason. Addressing new documents from American bishops tasked with examining contraception and homosexuality, the editorial say this:

It is difficult to figure out how to approach these documents. They are products of some realm so removed from the real lives of the faithful one has to wonder why any group of busy men administering a church would bother. They ignore science, human experience and the groups they attempt to characterize. The documents are not only embarrassing but insulting and degrading to those the bishops are charged to lead. The saddest thing is that the valuable insights the bishops have into the deficiencies and influences of the wider culture get buried.

Speaking of contraception: did you know that if you combine blood pressure and schizophrenia drugs you can stop men producing sperm? The things you learn on this blog (you lucky members of the blogosphere).

John Allen, the NCR's Rome correspondent, is travelling with the pope in Turkey. You can read his diary of that visit here. You'll learn from that diary that Pope Benedict has already changed his position on whether Turkey should join the EU.

This new welcome to Turkish membership of the European Union is in line with the Vatican's renewed efforts to reach out to the Muslim world. Notwithstanding those eirenic gestures, I'm sure some of the pope's security advisers must have advised against this trip in the current climate.

The Guardian's lead story today is headlined: "Revealed: rise of creationism in UK schools". What's been revealed is that a Creationist campaign group called Truth in Science has been mailing a Creationist starter pack to every secondary school head of science in the UK.

The pack contains a manual and two DVDs and is intended to encourage schools to include an account of Creationism as part of their science studies. Creationists see this as an overdue addition to the science curriculum which merely explains some of the flaws in evolutionary accounts and offers young people an alternative model. However, to some of the country's leading scientists and science institutions -- including the Royal Society -- inviting Creationism into to the science classroom is tantamount to an attack on the very basis of science education, since that inclusion (in their judgement) lends credibility to a non-scientific (or "pseudo-scientific") religious perspective.

At about this time last year, a judge in Pennsylvania was adding the finishing touches to his judgement in Kizmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.. Judge John E. Jones concluded that Intelligent Design Theory (a recent mutation of creationism), whatever its merits as a religious view, is not "science" and could not be taught as science in state-funded schools. Judge Jones, incidentally, is a committed Christian (and a member of the Republican Party who was appointed to the bench by President Bush).

I suspect a UK or European court will soon have to face similar questions and determine whether creationist "theories" or intelligent design "theory" can be taught alongside evolutionary biology in science classrooms. Whether a court of law is the best place to decide what constitutes "science" -- and whether a judge the most qualified individual -- is another matter altogether.

In the meantime, I'd be interested to hear if you know of any state-funded schools in Northern Ireland where Creationist materials have been used; or principals or teachers who have invited Creationists to make presentations in assembly halls or classrooms. Perhaps you're a science teacher who has presented Creationist arguments to the young people in your classroom; or perhaps you are a teacher who is concerned that your principal has invited Creationists to make presentations to the young people in your care? You can share your accounts here, or contact me directly.

The Princeton philosopher Peter Singer, whose book Animal Liberation is regarded by many people as the "bible" of the modern animal welfare movement, has accepted that animal experimentation is sometimes justified. In a documentary to be screened tomorrow night ("Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing", BBC 2, 9 pm), Singer is seen in conversation with Dr Tipu Aziz, an Oxford neurosurgeon specialising in parkinsonism. Aziz explains to Singer that 40,000 people have, to date, "been made better" through a treatment developed by means of experimentation on monkeys. About 100 monkeys worldwide have had parkinsonism induced in them for research purposes. Singer says:

I do not think you should reproach yourself for doing it, provided ... that there was no other way of discovering this knowledge. I could see this as justifiable research.

Some will regard this new statement from Singer as an ethical U-turn. And, if Singer has argued in the past that we are never , under any circumstances, justified in causing harm or suffering to an animal, it would indeed be a massive U-turn. But a more careful reading of his books will show that Singer's position is more nuanced than that. His statements in this documentary are consistent with the following ethical stance: One should not cause harm or suffering to any sentient being capable of experiencing harm or suffering except for very good reasons. Enjoying the taste of an animal's flesh would not, for Singer, constitute a "good reason" to cause harm to this or any other sentient being. Similarly, harming an animal in order to commodify its skin or fur would not constitute a "good reason". And destroying the few remaining members of an endangered species would be difficult to justify (even for experimentation purposes). But I think most reasonable people would draw a distinction between causing suffering to an animal for aesthetic pleasure (eating, cooking, clothing) and causing suffering in the furtherance of research designed to reduce the sum total of suffering in the world. And the loss of one hundred monkeys set against the health gains of 40,000 human beings would satisfy the terms of that distinction. Singer is not the first vegetarian to consistently defend animal experimentation under limited and clearly specified circumstances.

Anyone know how to say "Whodunit" in Russian?

President Vladimir Putin is appalled that anyone would point the finger at the Russian secret services -- even though they are famed throughout the world for their chemical creativity. One thing is sure: Mr Putin doesn't need the bad publicity internationally at the moment.

The evidence is skant and apparently not pointing in any particular direction at present. This shadowy operation dominates the front pages of today's UK newpapers, as befits a potential international incident; Russian media outlets, by contrast, have played the story down in their coverage.

Mr Litvinenko is a former KGB colonel. Mr Putin is a former head of the FSB (the successor organisation to the KGB). It is suggested in various reports that the two had a falling out in the late 90s - apparently Mr Litvinenko was unsatisfied with Mr Putin's efforts to deal with corruption in the FSB.

Needless to say, a former Russian security service operative will have made a lot of enemies during his career -- and after it. Perhaps it is significant that Mr Litvinenko's poisoning with the radioactive polonium 210 appears to have taken place on the day he acquired UK citizenship (having moved to London in 2000 seeking, and being granted, asylum). An assassin with a sense of irony?

We also know that Mr Litvinenko was investigating the murder of the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. Did he get too close to the identity of that courageous reporter's killers?

By any standards, this is bizarre. Lot's of questions remain to be answered after yesterday's aborted Stormont (inaugural/transitional/shadow: delete where applicable) Assembly session.

1. What did Ian Paisley agree to do? The Assembly Speaker, and some commentators, interpreted the DUP leader's comments as technically satisfying the St Andrews Agreement's terms (that he "indicate" his willingness to enter a coalition with Sinn Fein). Others, including some DUP Assembly members, think he offered a carefully worded statement which fell short of any such "indication". Dr Paisley did not rise to object to the Speaker's interpretation of his words. The DUP leader is not usually behind the door in making his own views abundantly clear. Should we take it that the first significant Hain deadline has been met by both Sinn Fein and the DUP?

2. When, and in what terms, will Sinn Fein "sign up" to policing? Following a grass-roots consultation, Sinn Fein recently "indicated" that it is ready to take a significant step forward on the outstanding issues. Is that enough to meet the terms of the St Andrews Agreement? It's certainly new language. Perhaps since transparency might be an issue for the DUP, this media test will help. Interviewers often ask a Sinn Fein representative to respond to a crime story in the news and try to extract a comment from the spokesperson that "indicates" an openness to cooperate with the ongoing police investigation. Lately, the Sinn Fein reply has been (something like): "We are not upset with anyone who cooperates with the police; and it is also possible to cooperate through the offices of a solicitor rather than going directly to the police." Between now and March, if a power-sharing executive is to be formed, the DUP will be looking to hear something different. Something like, "We encourage everyone who has information that may be useful to the police investigation to make that information available to the police and we pledge ourselves to full cooperation with the police service in building a safer society for us all."

3. How can a Loyalist paramilitary folk hero get as far as the Great Hall of Stormont carrying a handgun and (apparently) some explosive devices? Even though many commentators clearly found the image of Michael Stone being dragged out of the building feet-first by an unarmed female security guard, well ... hilarious. Hilarious or not, it was certainly the stuff of farce. And farce is a word being used by both the UUP and SDLP leaders to describe the political antics taking place simultaneously inside the building.

British Airways is to review its uniform policy, which prohibited religious symbols (such as a cross) being worn by staff on duty. And one can understand why they have decided to go back to the drawing board on this one. Following the Archbishop of York's very public objections this week, the Archbishop of Canterbury, on a visit to Rome to meet Pope Benedict (he flew with BA), made it clear that the Church of England was now considering the sale of its £10m BA shares. That, in itself, wouldn't represent a massive commercial problem for BA, but there were other calls for a Christian boycott of the company. This entire episode has turned into a public relations disaster for the company; and the potential loss of the public's trust could clearly have servious commercial implications.

I've already noted that the Union Flag -- which is incorporated in some BA logos -- features three crosses (St Andrew, St Patrick, and St George); and yesterday Rowan Williams took some pleasure in pointing out that BA was selling duty-free crosses on board his flight to Rome.

What's next for the BA unifrom policy? It's now up for review; we'll watch carefully to see how it is amended as a result of that review.

Nick Clarke's death was announced yesterday on Radio 4's The World at One, the programme he has presented for the past twelve years. Obituaries in today's newspapers are united in their praise of one of the UK's most "honourable", "understated", "incisive" and "intelligent" broadcasters.

I never met Nick Clarke (and I regret that deeply), but I've been listening to him for years and I admired him enormously. Like many listeners, I was drawn in by his quietly devastating interviews, his avoidance of unnecessary theatrics, his gentle wit, and that wonderful voice. Many interviewers, even some great ones, forget something Nick Clarke never forgot: that the interview is not about the interviewer. I don't think I ever heard a Nick Clarke interview without learning something new about the subject under examination. As an interviewer, he practised the rare art of listening, which made me, as a listener, want to pay attention. The remarkable connection he established with radio audiences over the years is reflected in the kinds of tributes being written online by those, like me, who admired him and will miss his voice on Radio 4.

The late Alistair Cooke, still a broadcasting legend, was privileged to have another brilliant broadcaster as his biographer; and Nick's biography is not only the most authoritative account of Alistair Cooke's life, it's also one of the most fascinating analyses of radio broadcasting one can read.

I texted a colleague today, an old friend of Nick's from Radio 4 days, and said I hoped there would be a future for Nick's kind of journalism.

Mark Damazer, the controller of Radio 4, has written a terrific tribute to a journalist he rightly describes as a broadcasting "colossus".

If you missed it the first time, you can still listen to Fighting to be Normal, Nick Clarke's audio diary of his life following a diagnosis of cancer.

Here's a nice piece in Saturday's New York Times about the Northern Irish poet (and former BBC Northern Ireland arts producer) Paul Muldoon.

Any progress towards an agreement between Sinn Fein and the DUP was always going to be a difficult -- and painful -- journey for some members of each party. The recent comments by Ivan Foster, a close friend of Dr Paisley, may just be the tip of the iceberg. Mr Foster is one of of Ian Paisley's most loyal supporters, and a personal friend. How many others agree with him?

We need to appreciate, of course, that the DUP and the Free Presbyterian Church are different organisations. Yes, there are significant points of contact (and Ian Paisley is the embodiment of the close relationship between the two); but they do not always agree on public policy, and this is not the first time we've seen a difference of opinion. If a Sinn Fein-DUP coalition is agreed, we may begin to see a widening gulf between the two.

New life expectancy figures just released by the Office for National Statistics. A male child born in 2003 has an average life expectancy of 76.6 years. The figure for a female child is 81 years. The regional breakdown is as follows:

England M: 76.9 F: 81.2
Wales M: 76.3 F: 80.7
Scotland M: 74.2 F: 79.3
N Ireland M: 76.0 F: 80.8

Glasgow has the lowest life expectancy in the UK. And Kensington and Chelsea has the highest (men: 82; women 86).

If you're wondering what your own life expectancy is, and brave enough to speculate about it, you can try the BBC's health quiz.

The Archbishop of York has waded into the debate about BA and the wearing of cross necklaces. Dr John Sentamu says BA's policy is "nonsense".

Setting aside this particular issue, it's interesting to see Archbishop Sentamu taking the lead yet again on a matter of public controversy. He recently expressed concern that Christianity was being marginalised in Britain's public life, and has giving leadership on issues such as global warming and global poverty. One might wonder why the second most senior Anglican prelate is taking the lead on these kinds of issues, rather than the Archbishop of Canterbury himself. Perhaps this is a "good cop, bad cop" strategy? Or is Rowan Williams too busy working on Anglican and ecumenical issues to focus on British public debates?

Check in your cross if you work for British Airways. A BA worker has just lost her appeal, which challenged BA's policy prohibiting staff from wearing religious symbols "openly". Nadia Eweida, an evangelical Christian from Twickenham, was told by BA bosses that she cannot wear a cross necklace at check-ins. The company's appeal board confirmed that decision this morning. Ms Eweida may initiate a further appeal, and there are legal options open to her. BA says they are not banning crosses; its uniform policy requires that crosses, or other religious symbols, must not be visible.

This debate isn't going to go away soon. Some will ask: what about a Union Jack badge on a lapel? It's made up of the crosses of St Patrick, St George and St Andrew. Will that be banned next? Or a religious symbol on a wedding ring? Is this the best way to deal with the UK's increasing religious and ethnic diversity?

And what about consistency? Apparently, religious headscarves are permitted to be worn by Muslim and Sikh staff. I can see one obvious difference between a turbin and a cross -- one cannot be concealed. It's also the case that some Sikhs feel obliged by their personal faith to wear a turbin, whereas Christianity makes no such requirement.

Does BA have a point?

In today's Church Leaders Special, the Presbyterian Moderator, Dr David Clarke, had no difficulty telling listeners that he was a "theistic evolutionist" and that he believed the first chapters of Genesis to be a poetic celebration of God's sovereignty in creation rather than a pre-scientific account of the world's origins. I mention that because we'll have a chance to examine creationism in much more detail in two weeks time, when I present a Creation Wars Special on Sunday Sequence.

Richard Dawkins will be one of my guests, in an extended live interview, with other commentators and analysts -- including Peter Bowler and David Livingstone, two leading historians of the creation-evolution dispute -- and all before an invited audience in Broadcasting House in Belfast.

Readers of this blog of course get special treatment; if you would like to be in the audience on Sunday 10 December (8.30 - 10.00 am) you can e-mail [email protected] (no later than Friday 24 November) and we'll see what we can do.

We're keen to include a wide range of views on the programme, so it would help if you added a sentence in your email indicating your own view (creationist, evolutionist, theistic evolutionist, atheist evolutionist, undecided, etc.) and mentioning any personal connection you might have to the debate (e.g., you are a biology teacher and are concerned that some schools are permitting creationists to make presentations at school assemblies; you are a biology teacher who wants o have the freedom to outline creationism as an alternative to evolution in your teaching; you are a former creationist turned evolutionist; or a former evolutionist turned creationist; you are fascinated and simply want to find out more, etc.).

Well, that was a fast-paced discussion of some pretty divisive issues on today's programme. The leaders of Ireland's four largest churches faced questions on: their sense of the biggest challenges facing churches today; whether they regarded each other as Christians; why there are so many Christian denominations; whether faithful followers of faiths other than Christianity can be saved; whether they believe in evolution or creationism; whether they support civil partnership legislation for same-sex couples; whether they believe infant euthanasia is ever justified; their response to Richard Dawkins' claim that the God of the Old Testament is a "genocidal psychotic"; their reaction to the claim that religion is a danger to the world; their sense of how much progress has been made in the Northern Ireland peace process; and why they think church attendance is falling so dramaticially across Ireland.

That's a lot to get through in an hour, by anyone's standards. There were many other questions we didn't have time to consider -- and, inevitably after a programme like this, a presenter regrets not making more time for other important topics. In order to get through so many subjects, I had to risk appearing rude by moving the discussion alone at quite a pace.

I'd be interested in your reactions to the church leaders' comments on the programme. I was struck by how unified they seemed across a wide array of topics -- and how protective they were of each other in the cut and thrust of a live studio discussion.

There were a few areas of disagreement (not many), including the vexed question of salvation outside the church. While the others repeated the phrase "only God can know", the Catholic primate, Dr Sean Brady, was more prepared to argue that God had already made his views on the matter known (faithful non-Christians honestly following their own conscience could be saved).

I've just watched "The Wedding", a new documentary by BBC Northern Ireland -- to be broadcast on Monday (10.40 p.m., BBC 1 NI) -- which tells the story of Shannon Sickles and Grainne Close, who made history last December when they became the UK's first same-sex couple to have a civil partnership ceremony.
The BBC had exclusive access to the ceremony itself at Belfast City Hall; you also see Shannon and Grainne in New York, where they first met; and talking about their up-bringing, their experience of coming out, their family life, and what it's like to be gay in Northern Ireland. They walk along a street in New York's Greenwich Village, without turning heads, and talk about how they would be nervous to hold hands in Belfast -- and how ironic it is that they are able to become legal partners in Belfast while that freedom is still not afforded to gay people in New York City. We also see religious protestors gathered outside Belfast City Hall on Monday 19 December 2005, when they took their vows, shouting insults, waving Bibles at the couple, and carrying banners denouncing the ceremony as the legitimisation of "sodomy".

This is a fascinating and utterly compelling programme about a moment of history. The producer/director is Natalie Maynes, who has produced two recent TV projects I've presented. I will be very surprised if this doesn't win some big awards for Natalie and her team.

The day after the British citizen Mirza Tahir Hussain was released from death row in Pakistan and permitted to return to his family in Leeds, Tony Blair begins a visit to Pakistan for talks with President Musharraf and to announce that the UK will be doubling its development aid to the country to £460m.

We know Mr Blair has already personally intervened on Mr Hussain's behalf. It seems likely that his release was part of a bigger deal with Pakistan, other elements of which appear to include educational funds to counter the influence of those Islamic religious schools thought to be part of the radicalisation of young people.

Is this decision by the Dutch government consistent with basic democratic principles of free speech and free expression?

The issue here is not whether you or I would choose to live our lives under a full-body covering. Nor is the issue whether you and I may feel uncomfortable in the presence of a Muslim woman who has made that choice. The key question is whether a free society should take that choice away from someone. Yes, there are those who argue that some women put on a burqa under pressure from their husbands, fathers or brothers. That is clearly something we should all be concerned about. But are there Muslim women who freely choose to wear a burqa? If you grant that there are, then could you support a law that would ban them from doing so in the street?

We've already had lots of response from the public -- people have sent emails, left questions on this blog, and some have even written letters (people still write letters, you know). There's still time to suggest a question, which may be put to the four Irish church leaders on Sunday morning, either individually or as a group.

The response so far suggests that listeners will want me to press the church leaders on the relevance and credibility of their religious perspectives today; some of the great moral debates of our time; and some want to know how churches can be made more welcoming, interesting and stimulating places (and so deal with the massive drop in church attendance across Ireland). The political queations are there too, of course, and we've a slew of theological questions, some of which would require book-length answers.

There's still time to add your voice to the event. Please try to keep your questions short and well-focused. Question Time with the Church Leaders begins at 9.00am on Sunday on BBC Radio Ulster.

An update on the story of Mirza Tahir Hussain, the Briton jailed 18 years ago after being convicted of murder, and facing execution in Pakistan. The circumstances of his conviction remain, to say the least, unclear.

You'll remember that his execution was originally scheduled to take place while Prince Charles was visiting Pakistan, and was postponed for obvious reasons (the government of Pakistan did not wish to execute a British national which the heir to the throne was in town). Good news for Mirza and his family: following significant international attention to his case, which was assisted by an intervention by Prince Charles, his punishment has been commuted to a life sentence.

I don't know if Prince Charles conspired to be in Pakistan on the original date of execution to secure a stay of execution (that seems unlikely) or if the coincidence of his visit and the date of the execution was accidental (that seems much more likely). If the coincidence was merely serendipity, I'm sure Mirza will be counting himself very lucky indeed, and perhaps reflecting on the fact that he would now, in all likelihood, be dead if Charles's visit had taken place a month earlier or later than his scheduled date of execution.

Perhaps Prince Charles should regularly plan royal tours to jurisdictions where capital punishment is still practised, and arrange for his visits to coincide with the dates of scheduled executions of British citizens. How many other lives could he save by shaming other countries into commutations?

STOP PRESS: 17 November: Mirza Tahir Hussain has been released from prison and is returning home to his family in the UK.

Everyone seems to be talking about this. The Lonely Planet Guide has named Belfast one of its top must-see destinations for 2007. Good news for the tourist board and for businesses in Belfast -- and the story is being widely reported across the UK, which is good news for the Lonely Planet Guide.

Here's an unrelated piece of trivia for you. Which co-founder of Lonely Planet was born in Belfast in 1950 and was awarded an honorary doctorate from her alma mater, the University of Ulster, in 2001? Click here for the answer.

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics has recommended that premature babies born before 22 weeks should not be resusitated or given intensive care. This news has angered some commentators, even though the Nuffield Council's proposal is merely a re-statement of current practice. Specialists tell us that no baby can survive at 21 weeks, while only 1 per cent of children born at 22 weeks survive to leave hospital -- and, even then, they may face significant developmental difficulties.

I think the BMA is right to regard "blanket rules" as mostly unhelpful in sensitive cases such as these, and doctors will continue to pay close attention to the attitude of parents faced with a very early birth. Health care economists point out that prolonged interventions in very early births may be a questionable use of limited health care resources -- and, though it seems unpalatable, health costs are certainly part of the equation. I'm also conscious that it's important to develop new procedures, technologies and techniques to assist premature births, and that further advances will clearly require continued interventions.

Some campaigners say every child has a "right" to specialist intervention. But there comes a point in all medical care when doctors and parents may need to accept that further interventions will merely prolong a child's distress without much hope of improvement. The Nuffield Council's proposal merits serious consideration.

Are these CIA memos likely to come back to haunt President Bush? Since we can't read them (yet), we can't say whether they sanction "torture" (and that's a category apparently more difficult to define than to condemn), or "robust" interrogation policies. Right? Right.

Did the argument for vegetarianism just get stronger?

Duke Special's new album "Songs from the Deep Forest".

The Belfast singer-songwriter-pianist-poet-philosopher Peter Wilson (aka Duke Special) is an overnight sensation that's more than a decade in the making. I first heard him perform as Booley, one of his previous incarnations, and thought he was unique even then. When I presented last year's Festival Nights programmes, he performed on one of the shows and was mesmerizing. His new albumn is yet more confirmation that Duke Special is one of the most imaginative and original voices in contemporary alternative rock music.

The second song on this album, "Everybody wants a little something", includes these lines:

I don't get those pop and idol shows
Everybody knows
That the good things take a little longer
12 years on, the cracks begin to show
Scared you wanna go
But I hope that we're a little stronger.

Forget pop idol; this is a musician who's served his apprenticeship and has just produced a beautifully crafted work of art. But don't listen to the CD for the first time in your car: you'll be late for your next appointment.

Next Sunday, my guests on Sunday Sequence will be the "four church leaders", and they will be answering questions for an hour, live on BBC Radio Ulster.

Of course there are more than four churches in Northern Ireland, but the leaders of the four larger churches have combined their efforts on a number of fronts in recent years and the term "four church leaders" has been coined to mark that collective commitment of will. They sometimes release joint statements, and they sometimes lend their collective support to important initiatives. Nevertheless, it difficult to find a picture of all four of them together on the net -- so I've selected a picture of the two archbishops of Armagh receiving honourary doctorates from the University of Ulster (only because I was on the platform when they received their degrees!).

The Presbyterian and Methodist churches have a public relations challenge with their leaders, since their tenure is just twelve months and that doesn't give the public much time to get to know them -- nor does it give the Presbyterian Moderator or Methodist President much time to develop a platform on many issues. The archbishops of Armagh, as the leaders of Ireland's two largest Christian denominations, can be in office for years (or decades), and that gives them a greater opportunity to leave their mark. But what mark will they leave? My guests on Sunday:

Most Rev Dr Seán B. Brady, Archbishop of Armagh, Catholic Primate of All Ireland
Rt Rev Dr David Clarke, Moderator of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church in Ireland
Most Rev Lord Eames, Archbishop of Armagh, Anglican Primate of All Ireland
Rev. R. Ivan McElhinney, President of the Methodist Church in Ireland

The public has already been emailing questions they want to put to the church leaders (to: [email protected]), and you can leave questions on my blog as well.

The place of religion in society today? Is religion a danger to a free sociiety? Has the church in Northern Ireland helped or hindered the peace process? Do churches believe in human rights? Not to mention the live moral debates our society continues to debate from gay marriage to a woman's right to choose and a terminally ill person's right to die.

It's going to be a fast-paced 60 minutes for the leaders of Ireland's four larger churches, and I want to be able to put your questions -- and comments, views or challenges -- on Sunday morning.

Richard English's new book, Irish Freedom: The History of Nationalism in Ireland, is unusual in a number of respects. I'll mention two. First, it's rare that a book on Irish nationalism would even attempt to place that political phenomenon in a global context and present a theoretical analysis of nationalism per se. Second, it's rare that a book of 625 pages can be read so quickly. That's a compliment to English's lightness of touch and his eye for the ready illustration or quotation. This is an important book by a writer rightly regarded as one of our most nuanced and careful political thinkers. On Sunday morning's programme, the book provoked 25 minutes of fascination conversation, with Richard English, Dermot Keogh, Jude Collins, and Dawn Purvis.

After so much recent debate on this blog over the meaning of "patriarchy", can we all agree that Mike Newell, the manager of Luton FC, is sexist? Even Mike Newell agrees. This is what he said when a female referee's decision didn't go his way:

She shouldn't be here. I know that sounds sexist but I am sexist. This is not park football, so what are women doing here? . . . It is bad enough with the incapable referees and linesmen we have but if you start bringing in women, you have big problems.

The crime committed by Amy Rayner, an assistant referee, was to fail to award Luton a penalty in their 3-2 loss to QPR. I wonder if the QPR boss John Gregory agrees that his team only won because of the failings of women's intuition?

The Church of England and the Christian Medical Fellowship seem now to accept the burden of the logic presented by Singer and Harris. These church bodies argue that passive euthanasia should be an option in the case of a child born with a severe disability. The CMF is nervous about the use of the term "euthanasia", but this term clearly covers the scenario envisaged in their analysis: deliberately withholding treatment in order to shorten a person's life.

There's a legal difference between passive and active euthanasia -- the latter involves a deliberate action intent on ending a life -- but whether that difference amounts to much ethically is a matter of some debate.

The term "infanticide" would be rejected by the church and the CMF; but supporters of Singer and Harris might point out that this is merely an emotional repugnance on their part. Infanticide is the killing of a child. Passive infant euthanasia is stepping aside from a child and allowing him or her to die. Is there much of a moral difference?

That's a pretty bold headline, which appeared recently at the top of a London Times report on the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology which is calling on the medical profession to openly debate infant euthanasia (or "infanticide", as some would prefer to name the proposal). According to the College:

A very disabled child can mean a disabled family ... If life-shortening and deliberate interventions to kill infants were available, they might have an impact on obstetric decision-making, even preventing some late abortions, as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome.

This is a version of the controversial argument developed some years ago by the Australian ethicist Peter Singer. When Singer was appointed to a senior chair at Princeton University in 1998, his arguments in defence of infant euthanasia proved so controversial that various presidential candidates that year (gearing up for the 2000 primaries) felt obliged to call for his immediate dismissal. At one point, Singer was given police protection. The argument's most famous British advocate is the Manchester University medical ethics professor John Harris.

The argument, in one form, runs like this: If we can defend the termination of a pregnancy in cases where it is severe disability is suspected, we can defend euthanasia in cases where a child is born with that severe disability. The claim made by some is that the same logic underlies both scenarios. There are quite a few "pro-life" advocates prepared to countenance abortion in the first scenario (including, for example, President Bush), while clearly opposing what they would regard as "infanticide" in the second scenario. But how can the second moral argument be rejected while the first is accepted? It's a complex debate, which I'll be pursuing with the ethicist Dr John Catherwood (a former student of Singer's) and Dr Moyna Bill (a consultant anaesthetist) on tomorrow's Sunday Sequence at about 10 am.

The Channel Four newsreader Jon Snow has raised his voice against "poppy fascism" -- an undue pressure, as he sees it, placed on broadcasters to make them wear the symbol of the UK's Remembrance Day commemorations. In a Channel Four blog he acknowledges (if that's the word -- seems a bit McCarthyesque) that he wears a poppy in his private life, but he does not feel it appropriate to wear on on air. His colleague Alex Thomspon agrees: "I'm a journalist - not a promoter for the Royal British Legion, or pink breast cancer thingies, or be nice to dogs day."

It's looking likely that Jim Webb pulled it off in Virginia, giving the Democrats control of the Senate as well as the House of Representatives. I expect we'll be seeing quite a few Democrat big-hitters stepping forward in the next couple of weeks to announce their candidacy for the presidency. It might be a more difficult race than they imagin, though, if New York's former mayor Rudolf Giuliani runs for the Republicans. Here's a blog tracking Rudy's path to the White House.

So farewell then, Donald Rumsfeld. President Bush has said goodbye to his secretary of defence, who became in so many ways the personification of the war on terror. His departure is unlikely to be mourned -- indeed those Republicans who've just lost their jobs on the Hill may wonder why Rummy wasn't retired six months ago, when his departure may have limited the electoral damage of the Iraq war.

Notwithstanding Rumsfeld's war record, many will miss his press conferences. Standing behind the DoD podium, Rummy delivered some of the most memorable Rumsfeldisms. My favourite is the following, which establishes Rummy's reputation as one of the great epistemologists of our time:

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.

Who can deny the truth of that? Or, for that matter, this:

We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead.

The logic is undeniable. And he's not just a great philosopher; Rummy's wisdom is delivered with the cadences of a great poet:

I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said.

Beautiful. In other instances, the voice of a living prophet can be heard:

Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war.

Yet, throughout it all, he remained the consumate politician:

Needless to say, the President is correct. Whatever it was he said.

So farewell, Donald Henry Rumsfeld -- law school drop-out, congressman, special counsellor to Richard Nixon, investment banker, and the youngest Defence Secretary in US history -- and the oldest.

A reader has objected to the headline I gave to Mark Driscoll's analysis of the Ted Haggard affair ("Don't blame Ted: It's his wife's fault.")

This headline is an example of the worst kind of sensational tabloidism; "never let the truth get in he way of a good headline".

I was careful to give a link to the full article written by Driscoll. Given that his comments were written in the context of a comment on the Haggard story I think my headline is fair comment. For what it's worth, I regard much of the Driscoll analysis as irredeemably patriarchal (and, therefore, also sexist) -- even though some have made a valiant effort in the comments here to save Driscoll from that accusation. I'd be interested to hear other comments on this, particularly on the meaning of patriarchalism and sexism and whether Driscoll's analysis is an example of either or both.

That's Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, who's about to become the first female speaker in the history of the US Congress. What's she saying? Our majority is this big -- no, this big!

There's a feeling abroad, in some circles at least, that the Democrat's success in the mid-terms last night will have a massive impact in terms of American foreign policy. I heard one stretegist last night saying that these mid-terms will decide whether George Bush's presidency will be a six year term rather than an eight year term. We'll see. As all fans of The West Wing will know, the House of Representatives has control of the federal budget and the president can't pay for his policies unless he persuades the House to put up the money. He could also now face legislative gridlock if he proposes laws the House is opposed to. We wait to see how the Senate race will turn out; but similar legislative problems face the president in the new Senate. We may also see new congressional investigations into corruption and presidential mismanagement, now that the hand of the Congress has been strengthened. We could even see an investigation launched in the US while the UK's Labour government continues to argue that a parliamentary investigation would be inappropriate while British troops are still in harm's way.

But will the direction of the Bush administration's foreign policy change significantly as a result of this election? In recent weeks, even some of President Bush's leading neo-con supporters -- not least the über-hawk Richard Perle -- have acknowledged that the invasion of iraq was a mistake. The administration itself seems to be focused now on a belated exit strategy, but that change in direction pre-dates this election. And the president's greatest powers -- nothwithstanding the complexion of any given Congress -- are his foreign powers. We live in interesting times.

One new arrival on the Hill worth noting: Keith Ellison, a Democrat just elected to the House in Minnesota, is the first Muslim to be elected to the US Congress. One departure worth noting: Sentator Rick Santorum, a leading light of the religious right, and an outspoken culture warrior.

Christopher Hitchens, one of George W Bush's most gung-ho supporters -- at least as far as the decidion to invade Iraq is concerned -- makes an argument against the execution of Saddam Hussein here.

Yesterday, the President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Cardinal Renato Martino, said of the death sentence imposed on Saddam Hussein, "You cannot punish the crime with another crime, because the death sentence is a crime." An hour ago, the chair of the Catholic Bishops’ Irish Commission for Justice and Social Affairs, Bishop Raymond Field, released the following statement expressing his moral objection to the execution of the former Iraqi leader.

Read the rest of this entry

Just when you think a story can't get any more bizarre . . . step forward Pastor Mark Driscoll, the president of Resurgence.com (a teaching ministry of Mars Hill Church, which Driscoll also founded). In an attempt to draw encouraging practical lessons from the Ted Haggard affair, Pastor Driscoll suggests that pastors' wives often "let themselves go", reducing their sexual availability to their husbands and leaving them open to temptation. No, I'm not making this up. He writes:

Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.

Read it all here.

The Foreign Secretary, Margaret Beckett, says it is "right" that Saddam should face "Iraqi justice" for his "appalling" offences against the population. From this, I take it, that she is welcoming the death sentence handed down to Saddam yesterday. William Hague also welcomed the death sentence in this case.

No one can deny that Saddam Hussein is guilty of some appalling crimes -- war crimes, atrocities, abuses of human rights. But capital punishment is outlawed in the European Union and both Beckett and Hague apparently agree with that moral principle. There may be other arguments against capital punishment in general -- legal and political arguments -- which apply only to some jurisdictions, but shouldn't a moral objection to judicial execution apply in every case, regardless of the perpetrator or the crime?

Since we're talking about bad news stories for US Republicans ahead of tomorrow's congressional mid-term elections, have a look at "The Scandal Sheet" compiled by Mark Follman and Tracy Clark-Flory for salon.com. Sub-heading: "A dozen reasons to throw the bums out of Washington", the highlights include: dodgy climate change "science", generating fear over terrorism for political purposes, Pentagon lies, CIA secret prisons, being swept away by Hurricane Katrina, spying on American citizens, and covering up sexual and corporate scandals. Should be an interesting election.

At the morning service in New Life Church, Colorado, this letter from Pastor Ted Haggard was read to the congregation, and this letter from his wife, Gayle Haggard, was also read aloud. Ted Haggard has been dismissed from his leadership role in the church and has agreed to work with three senior evangelical leaders, who will assess his "mental, spritual, emotional, and physical life ... with the goal of healing and restoration."

In other words, the pastor has admitted that his earlier denials were fabrications and that Mike Jones's accusations are true. Some reading this story might say, "Well, he's gay, isn't he? He's been married all these years, but he's gay." But Ted Haggard is part of conservative evangelical movement which denies the existence of "gay people" -- homosexuality, for them, is not an identity someone can have, but a temptation someone can fall into." Which is why conservative evangelicals resist the idea that homosexuality is innate and regularly emphasise their view that homosexuality is a "lifestyle" and a matter of personal "choice".

A growing body of psychobiological scholarship is challenging the idea that homosexuality is merely behavioural choice, and many other commentators -- some for theological reasons -- would argue that a gay person's sexuality is a fundamental aspect of his or her identity, to be respected and protected. These competing perpsectives carry us into one of America's most entrenched culture wars, and the Ted Haggard affair is an eve of election battle in that war.

By his actions yesterday, Pastor Haggard has attempted to protect his future role within American evangelicalism. I expect he'll now write a bestselling book about his experience; he may even co-author that book with his wife, Gayle. After therapy, prayer and ministry from Dr James Dobson, one of new counsellors, I think it's likely that Ted Haggard will tour American churches selling his book and speaking about his restoration and recovery. (We may even see a book written by Mike Jones revealing details of his monthly "drug-fuelled" encounters with Pastor Ted.) Conservative evangelicals will be impressed by Haggard's story of transformation and re-sanctification; while others will wonder how he can continue to delude himself so comprehensively. The warring sides having regrouped, the culture war will continue on another front.

Ted Haggard isn't well known in Britain and Ireland. And until this week he wasn't exactly a household name in the United States either. Time magazine recently named him one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America -- founder and senior pastor of the nation's most powerful megachurch, president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals, the largest evangelical group in America, and, according to Harper’s, “No pastor in America holds more sway over the political direction of evangelicalism than does Pastor Ted.”

None of which adds up to nationwide celebrity. But all that changed this week when Mike Jones, a former escort based in Denver, went on radio and television programmes, coast-to-coast, to claim that Pastor Ted has been one of his clients for the past three years. In fact, he says, it's been a monthly arrangement, and the pastor liked to take drugs with him -- Crystal Meth, to be precise -- during sex.

Read the rest of this entry