My employer, The United Reformed Church, has given its full support of the ‘Robin Hood Tax’ campaign launched on 10 February by a broad coalition of domestic charities, aid agencies, unions, faith organisations and green groups.

I don’t like the name but I do support the idea.

The campaign is calling on the leaders of the UK’s main political parties to support a global financial transaction tax on banks – of around 0.05% – to help repair damage caused by the global economic crisis, to protect public services at home, fight poverty abroad and help foot the bill for climate change environmental measures.

Financial transactions are one of the few transactions that aren’t taxed.  You pay tax on the interest you earn on your bank account and on almost everything you buy.

Commenting on the moral imperative for such a tax, the Revd John Marsh, Moderator of the General Assembly of the United Reformed Church said: “The human suffering caused by the global financial crisis has been immense and the impact on vulnerable households in the UK and abroad devastating.  Whilst it cannot restore lost jobs and livelihoods, this global financial transaction tax will go a long way to restoring public trust in financial institutions by raising up to £250 billion a year to fund critical development programmes here and abroad.”

Mr Marsh concluded: “Implementation of the global financial transaction tax would also serve to shift the public discourse from blame and retribution to hope: a governmental commitment to the common good is desperately needed in these stark times.”

In November 2009 the United Reformed Church adopted a motion in support of the financial transaction levy (the forerunner of the proposed global financial transaction tax).  The adopted motion highlighted the United Reformed Church’s concern over the impact of the economic recession on the poor and vulnerable; the possibility of cuts to social benefits and public services being advocated by political parties in the lead-up to the General Election; and the likely impact the enormous deficit in public finances will have on the UK’s commitments to international development and climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Why not sign the petition and show your support for the Robin Hood Tax.

Today Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  He was apparently chosen as the recipient just two weeks into his presidency when he had achieved… nothing.  When he had brought peace to… nowhere.  It seems like this was an award for potential.

I like Obama.  I think he has courage and vision and a sense of justice and humility that we haven’t seen in an American president for years.  But good intentions don’t bring peace.  They might create a climate where peace could flourish but that’s not the same thing.

It seems amazing to me that the President of a country currently involved in two wars and that STILL has an illegal detention centre where captives are still held without trial could even be in the running for the Nobel Prize.

Obama’s own response seems to point to some of his reservations about receiving the award:

“Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations. To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize.”

America’s leadership has us involved in two wars and the bogus war on terror.  Those aren’t my aspirations Mr Obama.

How about you give it back Mr Obama?

How about you tell the committee that when real lasting peace is achieved, that when America has closed Guantanamo and withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan and helped make peace between Israel and Palestine instead of blindly supporting Israel’s continued expansion into the West Bank and violent oppression of the Palestinians then you’ll be a worthy recipient?

I’m not American so you might wonder what possible interest I have in their health care system?

Well, the debate that is raging just now seems to have spilled to this side of the pond with an explosion of love for the NHS which is a nice change.  Sometimes you only realise what you have when someone else tells you that they’re OK with 46 million of their fellow citizens having no health care.

I like politics.  I like to think about ideas and to talk them through with people I disagree with because it helps me to understand things.

Today has brought lots of thoughts and discussion on the health care debate in America through a Twitter conversation, a blog post and the most ridiculous news segment I’ve ever seen!

the Twitter conversation

I tweeted about my gratitude to the NHS for just some of the care that my family have received over the years.  The 14o character limit meant I didn’t get beyond FREE… to mention ‘at the point of delivery’, a fact which Peter helpfully corrected for me.

But what happened next was more interesting.  @Krisstea, a ‘devoted wife, mother and Conservative writer’ living in Georgia in the USA (who lists her website as Heritage.com) engaged me in conversation about health care reform in the States.

Apparently, the reason public health care was a bad idea is that America (and the UK) is full of ‘illegals’ and she doesn’t want to pay for their health care.

Aren’t immigration and health care two separate issues?  I know one will have an impact on the other but making a decision based on that kind of logic seems to make no sense to me.  You won’t fix health care by fixing immigration, but it might help reduce the strain.  You won’t fix immigration by fixing health care but you might stop people dying.  Following @Krisstea’s logic getting rid of illegals is more important than stopping people dying.  That doesn’t make sense to me.

But perhaps it doesn’t have to make sense…

The Blog Post

Seth Godin writes about ‘willfully ignorant v aggressively skeptical‘ on his great blog.  He doesn’t get into the health care debate, rather, he comments on how people aren’t having a discussion, they are screaming at people they disagree with.

The screaming is a key part, because screaming is often a tool used to balance out the lazy ignorance of someone parroting opposition to an idea that they don’t understand.

That seems to an outsider what’s going on.  There must be some informed debate going on somewhere but it’s not making it to the news because someone screaming at a congressman is much better TV.

Then the ‘News’ segment

But then, who needs informed comment when you have Fox News???  Have a look at this stunning piece of ‘journalism’.

If this is the kind of racist, ill-informed garbage that people are getting instead of facts and reasoned discussion then what hope is there for the democratic process?

And don’t think that this is the only example of idiocy on the go…

As Mr Obama presented the US’s highest civilian award, the Medal of Freedom, to Professor Hawking in a ceremony at the White House yesterday, Investor’s Business Daily declared the disabled scientist would not receive treatment under Britain’s health care system.

‘People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn’t have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless’

Hawking Cited in Healthcare Debate, The Australian

Stephen Hawking IS British and says he owes his life to the NHS.  Enough said.

There are two sides to this debate.  The NHS isn’t by any means perfect but neither is a system that allows people to suffer and die because they can’t afford insurance.  The only way this discussion will move forward is if people talk about the ISSUES rather than trying to scare people with the bogeymen of higher costs, illegals taking advantage and public health care being a recruiting ground for terrorists.

Come on America.  You can do better than this.

I’m working on a sermon for Sunday.  A couple of things have been swirling around my brain for a while.

The first is Shane Claiborne’s ‘Jesus for President’ stuff where he talks about the revolutionary kingdom.  The subversion of the Gospel of the Caesars and Mark’s mocking of Caesar in the way he depicts the Crucifixion as a coronation.

The video I posted of Rob Bell sharing his thoughts on the Good News echo these thoughts.

So that’s where Sunday’s sermon is going.  The kingdom of God is a subversive revolution.

I remember the fuss about this picture of Jesus depicted as Che Guevara, the revolutionary who was a key player in the Cuban revolution.  People were genuinely outraged.  I hope it was because they wouldn’t associate Jesus with violent revolution but I have more than a sneaking suspicion that people just don’t see Jesus in the revolutionary role.

So, what do you think?  was Jesus ‘meek and mild’?  Or is there more to this Gospel than that?  Is the Gospel political?  Is it a call to subversive living?

I doubt there is anyone who travels to the Holy Land without experiencing ‘the wall’.  I’m sure there are lots of tourists who travel up and down the motorways and wonder why the roadside barriers are 10 feet tall but you can’t ignore it.  I’m no expert.  These are just my thoughts and reflections.  If I’m wrong, tell me.  If I’m right, tell me too.

Nothing really prepares you for ‘the wall’.  I’ve seen pictures, news reports and read other people’s blogs about it but that’s not the same as standing at a checkpoint watching people coming and going, or being turned away for no reason other than the soldier feels like it.

The Israelis call it the Security Wall.  The Palestinians call it the Segregation Wall.

I understand why Israel wants to keep who would blow up or shoot people out.  But what I don’t get is the way in which they seem to have completely forgotten their history as a people.  The very reason for the modern state of Israel’s existence was the Holocaust.  In many cities throughout Europe the Nazis rounded up the Jews and forced to live in ghettos, walled in to separate them from everyone else.  I’m not suggesting that Israel has set about the systematic extermination of the Palestinians but there are times when they seem to have come perilously close.

I always thought ‘the wall’ was a border.  It’s not.  The wall zig-zags across the country, separating people from each other, farmers from their fields, families from their relatives and workers from their workplaces.

Israel has deliberately fractured Palestinian society.  People are caged in.  Stopped from travelling.  People who are not Jews have no status in Israel.  They don’t get passports.  They have ‘temporary residence cards’ instead, even those who have lived there all their lives.  They are not allowed to build homes.  If they do the army come along and bulldoze them.

All of this doesn’t seem to be a recipe for peace.  Separation breeds mistrust.  Walls build division.  Guns bread fear.

And what have the Christian Church to say about all this?  Well we make pronouncements.  We support initiatives.  The Church of Scotland has an £8million 5 Start hotel.

In the Holy Land there seem to be two kinds of Christian.  The ones who live there who are mostly Arabs and the ‘professional Christians’ who are stationed in Jerusalem or at other Holy Sites.  The sad thing is that the Professional Christians seem more interested in fighting over who owns which bit of which Holy Site than actually contributing to the peace process.

The Christians who live in the Holy Land seem stuck.  They are stuck between the Jews and the Muslims.  Because they are Arabs they don’t have the same rights as Jews in Israel.  Because they are not Muslims they are often treated with mistrust in Palestine.  They are stuck in the middle.

But maybe the middle is a good place to be.  Maybe the middle is the place that Jesus calls them to be.  Blessed are the peacemakers after all.  I wonder how we can help?  I wonder how we can stand there in the middle with them?

Any ideas about solving the world’s longest running conflict?

I’m thinking getting rid of ‘the wall’ might be a start.

I’d like to hear Gordon Brown speak like this more often.  The biggest criticism of him is that he doesn’t communicate well and that he has no vision.  If this is anything to go by then he has plenty vision and his communication skills aren’t bad either.  But then foreign policy doesn’t seem to win (or lose) elections!

The other day I blogged about the lack of participation in the political process.  Last night those fears were confirmed as the Labour vote in the European elections collapsed to just 15%.  The map of British politics was changed last night with the Euro-sceptic UKIP coming second behind the Tories and the BNP winning two seats, the far right party’s first ever in a national election.

The BNP’s share of the vote didn’t go up, but the lack of support for Labour allowed them to win two seats in the north of England.

So it seems silence IS consent.  The problem is you don’t always know what you are consenting to.

As an aside, we were talking about the circumstances in which Scotland might vote for independence.  A Tory government and England winning the world cup were the perfect storm but I wonder how Wales voting Tory and England electing racists will play in the Scottish political arena?

So here’s the thing about democracy… it only works if people participate.

It’s fine to be appalled at the behaviour of our MPs but what do you expect?  Around 60% of us voted in the last election.  A third of the population just couldn’t be bothered.  Voter turnout INCREASED from the previous election.

Democracy needs us to find out who we are electing, what they believe, and then to hold them accountable.  When we don’t participate then people think they can do what they want. When we don’t participate minority parties who say they will represent you grow.  When you don’t participate you can’t then turn round and complain!!!

Tomorrow the European Elections take place.  Take part.  Vote.  if you don’t want to vote for anyone on the ballot then spoil your paper.  These are counted.  If you don’t vote then you get what you deserve.

As I sat at my desk yesterday afternoon another spectacle unfolded before my very eyes.  The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland webstream was on my desk top and the Council of Mission And Discipleship were presenting their excellent report on Singleness, asking that it be disseminated for study.

What followed was simply remarkable.  Speaker after speaker condemned the report and one went as far as to move that the report should be received but not sent out.  Why? What could the controversy be?  Well,  the report says that some people have sex outside marriage.  I know.  I was shocked by this revelation.  Who knew???

This is the body that only the day before had said that it wants to have an open and frank discussion about sexuality and was now chastising Peter MacDonald for having the nerve to a) admit to pre-marital sex with his wife of 26 years and b) be funnier than them.

There is a serious underlying issue at play in all of this though, and the proposal to supress this report is just a symptom of it.  Over the course of the past week the Church of Scotland has, in my opinion, trampled all over the human rights of all of its office bearers.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 19 states that

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

On Monday the General Assembly banned anyone subject to its courts (all ministers and office bearers) from making public statements about the ordination of gay ministers. (UPDATE: the final wording of the motion was: Instruct all Courts, Councils and Committees of the Church not to issue press statements or otherwise talk to the media or to make decisions in relation to the contentious matter of himan sexuality, with respect to the Ordination and Induction to the Ministry of the Church of Scotland, until 31 May 2001.)

Article 30 states that

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

So, congratulations to the Church of Scotland.  You must be very proud.  Contravening at least two articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in one day and that’s before we even get started on the employment rights of gay ministers which were curtailed by the moratorium on them moving charge for 2 years.

What on earth do you think you are doing?

Do you think that avoiding the debate, the fight, the argument, the falling out is the best way?  At any cost?

Or is their another way?  Is it not possible just to agree to disagree?  To give congregations the right to call who they want to be their minister?  If they want to call a minister who is gay, let them.  If you don’t want that then don’t call a gay minister.

Would that be so hard?  To agree to disagree?  To be grown up about it?  To recognise a genuine difference of opinion which will NEVER be resolved no matter how may Special Commissions and gagging orders you issue.

Looking for something to guide you through Lent?  Join Christian Aid on a virtual Pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

This isn’t about simply watching a story being told.  This journey is also about challenging ourselves to think, to reflect, to pray, and to take action.

So, I’ve found my thing to take up for Lent.  Why not join the journey?