Cyclists

I have been accused of not liking cyclists. This is odd, because a) I have been a cyclist and b) I know lots of cyclists, and they are all lovely people. And yet, what I have seen from them, from their experiences of cycling (especially in London), I think cyclists are very poorly treated overall.

I should point out, for the record, that I used to cycle to work each day, and I did that for a couple of years. In London, in the peak hours.

I should also point out that I do try to give cyclists room and consideration when I am driving. I try to give them space to pass and when I pass them.

Cycling in London is very difficult. There is a lot of traffic all busy, some of it fast, and it is traveling on roads that are not always wide enough for the load. It requires a lot of bravery (or something). There are cycle paths in some places, but the system is woefully inadequate, and, as the news reports have shown of late, they are not safe cycling routes. Sometimes they seem just to direct cyclists into busy junctions, and abandon them there - the Bow roundabout being one example.

When traffic systems are being looked at, development made, most of the time the cyclists are not given priority, and any provision is often a last-minute hack to stave off criticism. Even outside London, where some of the problems are eased, cycling provision on some of the major commuting routes is inadequate, making cycling along these (usually busy) roads dangerous.


Of course, the other side to this is that cyclists do not always do themselves any favours. I see cyclists running red lights, cycling across pavements, ignoring zebra crossings, using pedestrian lights while still on their bikes. These are all dangerous. Now people point out to me that cyclists jumping red lights is not as dangerous as a car jumping a red light - as if that made it acceptable. It is true, and it is also the case that cars jump red lights sometimes. However as a pedestrian, a bike jumping a red light is usually harder to see than a car doing the same. I can see a car from some distance away, but a bike may have just been weaving its way through the cars, and might charge into me suddenly. And usually with some disdain that I am getting in their way.

The injuries that a bike hitting a pedestrian can cause should not be underestimated. They can be serious and even fatal. I have been at the top of Greys Inn Road in London, as a busy crossroads, when the lights have gone red for traffic, and seen dozens of bikes zipping across the junction in all directions. We are not talking about a very few bad eggs, but a significant number of cyclists, especially in London, but not exclusively.


So not I don't hate cyclists. I have a lot of sympathy for them, and do not envy anyone who cycles in London. But they must accept that they are part of the road traffic, and should follow the accepted rules of the road (not precisely the same as the written rules). I don't mind when they pass me to move to the front of a queue at the lights - it is the safest place for them, and they are narrow enough to pass other vehicles. I do object when they them cycle straight through the lights when they are on red. And yes, cars should abide by the accepted rules of the road too. But just because some members of one group break the rules is no excuse for members of another group to also break the rules. That is madness.


Can I find some spiritual or Christian message in this? Not a great one, just that rules are there for a purpose. The purpose is not that we should not break them under any circumstances - that is the pharasitical approach. They are there to guide us, to point out the way, to indicate the direction.

If we break the rules there are consequences. That does not mean we should not break the rules, just that we should accept the consequences.

And mostly, the message I get is that when I was cycling, it was then that I most contemplated my eternal future, because, many times, I felt that it was due to begin shortly. Cycling does wonders for your prayer life. But rather less for your nerves.

How do we think?

Some time ago, there was a report about the way we think. I have searched for it, but could not find anything for a link, so I will have to explain what it said.

Traditional thinking says that there are two types of thinking: intuitive and rational.

Rational thinking involves putting a logical set of ideas and reasons for the actions we take, the decisions we make. If someone asks rational people why they have made a certain decisions, they will give you the logical set of steps they have taken to reach their decision. Therefore they can justify it.

Intuitive thinking involves just finding a decision, without a process as to how you got there. If you ask an intuitive person why they made a certain decision, they will not be able to tell you - it just makes sense.

Given that me and my wife have very opposite approaches to this, I know from personal experience that it can be very difficult to mix these two - at the extremes, both sides seem unreasonable to the other. In particular, because of the dominance in western thought of the rational and logical, it can be very hard to explain rationally when an intuitive has made a decision.

The report I referred to challenged this approach. What it argued was that everyone thinks in the same way - intuitively. When you make a decision, you simply reach out and find the answer within you mind.

Then most people put a post-hoc rationalisation on this decision. That is, logical thinkers put the logic and rationalisation onto the decision after they have made it. Intuitive thinkers don't bother. But they both reach their decisions by the same approach - a pseudo-random leap of imagination.

What is significant about this is that the Western dominance of logical, rational thinking processes is suddenly turned upside down. It doesn't mean that logic is irrelevant. It doesn't mean that the logical method or the scientific method is wrong. This post-hoc rationalisation is the important thing for scientific research.

What it does mean is that those who jump to their conclusions, those who cannot provide the logical reason, those who "feel" what the right way is, rather than arguing it logically, are merely reflecting the way that everyone actually makes their decisions.

By rejecting the precedence of rationalism, I think this makes for a stronger role for the paradoxical, for the irrational, for the odd. Because faith is not logical or rational. There are logical and rational reasons for believing, for faith, but somewhere there is also something beyond the rational.

Maybe it is that part that is reflecting the true human nature, the real way we are. I like that idea.

This government.

I don't often do explicitly political posts, but I have been driven to post something about the current government, their actions, and the effects on people.

There are a number of statements that David Cameron - and other members of his cabinet - have made that are typical of a manipulative leader - of which I have met a few, usually in churches. He makes statements that everyone can agree with, and then interprets them is ways that most people would disagree with. Then, if you disagree, the response is "so you don't really think that xxx" where xxx is the broad statement that everyone would agree with.

Let me take an example. One of the recent ones is "nobody should get something for nothing". Now in truth, I would totally agree with this, as it stands. People should not get something for nothing - some of us work to earn a living, to have to pay for all the stuff I want. So yes, it does seem unfair if some people get stuff they want without having to work for it.

Then he does something ridiculous by applying this to those on welfare payments. The vast majority of whom have made their national insurance contributions, which are the payments that they have made for the benefits they should be receiving. While it is true that they may receive more than they have paid in, that is the nature of insurance. The idea is to give people a safety net when things are difficult - and at the moment, the economic situation means that jobs are hard to find and easy to lose. This is the time when we should be increasing the welfare bill, because there are more and more people in need of this.

This actually leads to another of the mis-information that this government constantly gives out, which is that the welfare budget is a major part of the government expenditure. The truth is, it isn't. Yes, it sounds a lot when you see the total figures, but it is not that much in real terms. There are other ways in which the government could find this money, that would impact far fewer people in far less severe ways. In fact, if everyone were to claim all the benefits that they were entitled to, and all those who fiddle the system were stopped, the welfare bill would go up. Benefits are actually underclaimed, not overclaimed.

Of course the other side of this is that this statement came from a cabinet populated by millionaires who have inherited their wealth, who have received expensive education from this money, and have therefore received something for nothing. This is the most astounding hypocrisy. For then to say this and not realise why this is so hypocritical indicates to me some serious lack of appreciation of most peoples situation.

"We are all in this together" - that was one of Camerons first great statements. What we understood was that everyone would be contributing to the recovery, which is perfectly right. Of course what meant was that he was going to implement the most aggressive, right-wing, anti-poor policies ever, while pandering to the rich. In fact, everyone has paid and contributed, however the poor have been squeezed significantly more than the rich. That is completely upside down - the people who should be contributing most are the richest, and in particular those who got us into the mess in the first place. that is not the welfare claimants.

"The taxpayer should not fund people living beyond their means" - once again, this is a statement that it seems everyone can agree with. Of course our taxes should not be funding people to live lavish and expensive lifestyles. Cameron meant that taxpayers should not be finding expensive benefits claimants lifestyles. Once again, of course, the truth is not as it is presented to us. One or two people scam the benefits system to live an extravagant lifestyle. It is perfectly right that they should be caught and stopped. The vast majority of claimants are not living extravagant lives, and should not be unnecessarily punished.

Any yet there are some 600 people in Westminster who are living beyond their incomes, on very high levels of expenses (the sorts of levels that many people even in business would be appalled by), who are clearly living "beyond their means", and getting money from the taxpayers to fund it. It is also the case that tax system tends to favour the wealthy and rich businesses, enabling them to profit from not paying as much tax as they should. So many of the richest people are having their lifestyles supported by the taxpayer. If you have not seen JK Rowlings excellent comments on paying tax, she is awesome, and the only one of the top 10 richest people in the UK to take this attitude to tax. So yes, the taxpayer should not fund people living beyond their means. Especially those whose means are significant.

A more recent policy statement continues this direction. The idea that young people under 25 should not receive benefits is preposterous. It may be perfectly OK in nice safe middle-class families, where young people can stay at home without problems, because there are plenty of rooms in the house, and plenty of money to look after them, whether they have a job or not. However this is a strange and privileged view of society, and one that very few people see around them. What about the family who have no spare room, because the bedroom tax has taken it from them, and who have no jobs in the household, because they have all vanished.

Once again, the idea that people on benefits should do work "like picking up litter" is another example of a lack of appreciation of the reality of the situation. Who do they think picks up litter at the moment? In fact, any of this work will take jobs and money from people who may be doing these jobs because it is all they are able to get these days. When the job market is so squeezed, the answer is not to demean those on the more menial jobs, and try to take them away by giving them as unpaid forced labour to those who are unable to obtain a job.

It struck me that the capitalist approach is, on the whole, that if you want things, you should pay for them. And yet, it seems that the policies of this Tory government is precisely the opposite, whereby those in privileged positions seem to expect those who are unemployed to do work on their behalf for free. The workfare schemes were similarly un-capitalist in principle.


The policies of this government have been very damaging to the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. That is a abdication of the purpose of government, which is to look after everyone in society, from the rich to the poor, irrespective of whether they like or agree with them.

As I alluded to earlier, I have seen some of these tactics in the church, where manipulative leaders abuse those they are supposed to lead, and fail to support those they disagree with. They also fail to support those who are most vulnerable, those most in need of help and support, those most in need of the church. This is a disgrace, a failure of leadership, a failure of responsibility. Whether in church or nation, all good people should stand against this.

Back to Church Sunday

Some time ago, when I said that I believed that I wanted to focus on those who were leaving the church, or had left, I was told that "We don't want to be seen as poaching from others churches - we want to focus on bringing new people into the church". I was - and remain - unconvinced.

Of course, focusing on bringing new people in, rather than working with those who might want to leave, is much easier. You don't have to deal with the reasons that people leave, the problems that people have with church. "New" people don't have all the knowledge and hangups of people who are dissatisfied with church.

And then we have "Back to Church Sunday", a concept that is misguided in several ways. Firstly, there is the idea that people who have stopped going to church might want to try it again. By naming it a Sunday, of course, it removes any need to consider why people might have stopped going. Yes, some people leave because they just drift away, but many people these days leave through deliberate choice. And if people just drift away, that itself is an indication that they no longer find anything to keep them there.

Of course, having a single Sunday with a name means that all of this can be ignored.

 There is also a strange focus on church, not on God or faith. The fact that people may be engaging with God more outside church is ignored. The fact that people may wish to focus on a relationship with God rather than going to church is ignored.

I have heard that it should be called "Back to God Sunday", but, of course, for so many, this is considered the same thing. For many people, returning to God is not something that is done on a random, nominated Sunday. for many, the church has so hurt and damaged them, has so destroyed their relationship with God, that it will take years to find that and build it again.

Naming a single Sunday like this trivialises the pain and anguish that so many people have in leaving the church, and that the church had done to them. It makes an assumption that returning to church is like returning to a social club, or a knitting circle. It puts church - and a relationship with God - on a level with a book club.

And that is wrong.

The third problem is that church so often put on something special for this Sunday. Something that is intended to appeal to those returning for whatever reason. Now in my experience, churches are astoundingly bad at doing this. Actually, they are very good at doing the odd and peculiar things that church do, at performing the strange ceremonies that happen. What they are unbelievably bad at is making this in any way comprehensible or attractive to those outside.

What is more, should anyone decide to return to attending church on the basis of events put on for this Sunday, one presumes that they will return next Sunday, and remember all of the reasons that they stopped going.

Back to Church Sunday? A good candidate for worst idea from the church ever. And there are a lot of good competitors in this category.

Mental Illness

There has been an interesting flurry of activity in the last few days about mental illness. It was sparked off by Asda offering a fancy dress costume.

As someone who has a mental illness - depression - this was rather offensive. The image being given was that mental illness means psychopathic killer. We are not - some of us actually hold down proper jobs, live a full life, and control any urges we might have to kill other people, at least most of the time.

However, what has been more interesting is the response that has generated on twitter. Firstly, the outcry was sufficient to get Asda - and Tesco - to withdraw these costumes and apologise. But more importntly, today there has been a whole lot of responses using the #mentalpatient hashtag, with people posting pictures of themselves dressed as mental patients. That is, in their ordinary clothes, exactly as they normally are.

I have seen one question raised - why is it that getting kids to dress up as a mental patient promotes such ire, but dressing up as a serial killer is acceptable? Well actually I don't entirely think it is. Celebrating the mythological creatures of evil is one thing, and I know a lot of people have issues with this, but I do think that celebrating modern day killers, or celebrating outmoded stereotypes of mental illness is not acceptable.

There is a bigger problem here. The problem is one of perception of mental illness in our society. The mentally ill are seen as being dangerous - the image of the mentally ill as serial killers is subtly reflected in many peoples perceptions of the mentally ill. The truth is that one in three people will suffer from mental illness in their life. That means that everyone - every single person - will be affected by mental illness.

And yet many people are still scared of the phrase "mental illness", taking an assumption that those suffering from mental illness are dangerous to themselves and others. The reality is that a few are - although mostly this is only an issue when medication is failing. The mentally ill can be difficult or unpredictable at times, but then so can those without diagnosed problems. The vast majority of those with mental illnesses are quite capable of appearing to be perfectly normal people. As the #mentalpatient tag has shown.

The perception of mental illness has to change. Too many people are hurt by the negative image that it has in the public mind. I can only hope that the result of this is that we learn to see mental illness where it is - all around us, everywhere.

Serum

The group at Greenbelt who I found most engagement with was a series of discussions by Serum. They are open discussions, on a variety of important topics and areas, without an expectation of the Christian faith as a starting point. In fact, they are discussions on faith-like issues without any assumptions to start from.

Which I found very refreshing.

This is one aspect of what I think church should be like. Open and frank discussions and explorations of spiritual matters, working though our faith with other people, challenging it, seeing how it works for other people. My faith is improved by being honed with others who don't agree with me.

Many people in churches - clergy included - seem to run scared at this sort of open and challenging discussion. There is an idea that by exposing our faith to challenge and critique, we will probably lose our faith - so it is far safer not to expose church people to this sort of thing. I have also heard, far too often, that "people may ask questions I don't know the answer to". That is the point, sort of - it is about exploring our faith, finding the areas we don't know about, and seeing if anyone else can help you work out a direction.

But I also ask, what are the churches doing, that people are so scared? How come these people can be in a church for 30 years, and still have absolutely no idea what they believe? How can you go to church for 30 years and not be able to discuss and explore the Christian faith with other people?

How come people go to church for 30 years and have no real faith? They have routine, they know what to do how to behave, they have process, but faith? If it cannot cope with some debate and discussion, is it faith, or just ritual?

Questions - which is what Serum is about - are the lifeblood of faith. Not answers, which is what so many church Q&A sessions are about, but questions, and the exploration of what they mean.

That is difficult, that is faith, that is fun!

The secret Diary of a Call Girl

I have been watching this on Lovefilm recently, and have been intrigued and surprised by it. I had caught clips and trailers for it when it was on TV, but only part of episodes, inconsistently.

I had expected it would be sleazy and sordid, but was pleasantly surprised - it is definitely justifying its 18 rating, but it is also humerous and insightful. In its way.

It is, for those who don't know, the televised version of the diaries of a genuine escort, who worked as a prostitute for a few years when she didn't really know what else to do. In honestly, it does rather glamourise the world, not least by staying in the high end market only. I am in no doubt that it does not entirely reflect the business, and it probably rather over-glamourises the top end of the market. But there are a couple of important aspects that it demonstrates.

Firstly, it identifies a distinction between sex and relationships. In fact, at least one series is all around this very issue. Can a prostitute have a relationship? Well, according to the story shown, the answer is yes, although it does require the right sort of man, one who can separate the relationship from the job. Yes, sex is part of the relationship, but, for some men at least, there is more to a relationship than this, so for Belle to be continuing to have sex for money is not a problem.

I think this is a rather more positive approach to both relationships and sex than the one normally taught by the church. I am not suggesting that prostitution should be a career of choice for Christians, but I do thing that the focus on "get married so that you can have sex" demeans both. A loving relationship, that might include marriage, will tend to include sex. But - and I am sorry if this is shocking to you - embarking on a life-long relationship just to have sex seems rather drastic. Embarking on a relationship because you want to stay together for life seems like a far better reason and justification.

Secondly, one of the recurring themes is loneliness. This is twofold - Belle is having lots of sex and enjoying her work, but is still very lonely - there are very few people she can talk to about her work, and about why she does not have a boyfriend. Despite being an outgoing, likeable person, she is desperately lonely. I think that this is probably not just about her particular line of work. I suspect that there are many people who cannot talk about their problems, their lives, their failures as Christians with anyone, because there is no-one who would understand.

How many Christians cannot talk about their doubts and worries, because they don't want to be seen as losing their faith? Or men (especially) about their work challenges, because they do not want to be seen as weak to their colleagues, the only people who might actually understand their problems? Or people struggling with mental illness, who cannot talk because so many people are scared or prejudiced about mental illness?

The other side, which is the same coin, is how many of Belles clients are lonely. In many cases, the sex is just the justification for the meeting. They are actually lonely, want someone they can talk to about anything - as Belle says a number of times, her clients can talk about anything, in complete confidence. Maybe high class escorts are the new confessional priests.

Maybe it it time that Christians stopped being so judgmental, and started behaving like Belle - being prepared to listen to people, and accept whatever they have to say. If anyone does want to talk, please get in touch (boredwithchurch@gmail.com), because, while I may not be a prostitute, I try not to judge.