MINDFULNESS & MORALITY 10: JEWISH PERSPECTIVE

At Christchurch, Clarendon Park Road it's the tenth session in the Mindfulness and Morality course offered by Christians Aware as part of their Faith Awareness programme.

We're ready for the Jewish presentation this evening, but our scheduled facilitator has let us know that he is unwell and unable to attend. He hasn't been able to provide any materials for us to use.

We start off in three small groups, reading and discussing the Council of Faiths leaflets on the Jewish community. From what we know about Jewish belief and practice, what do we find of interest in terms of ethics and morality?

While we do this, Beate Dehnen comes to the rescue, carrying out some speedy research on just such issues (using books, I should stress, not online - and books in German, at that - which she translates so effortlessly that we'd never have known they weren't in English!). Beate is on the left in the photo above, with Kevin Commons (one of the course facilitators, from the Zen Serene Meditation Group) to her right.

Kevin has with him a few back-up moral dilemmas, prepared for this sort of eventuality; however, the material that Beate shares with us is more than sufficient to see us through to the end of the session.

We discuss how our historical and contemporary understanding, experience and aspirations related to justice, fairness and human rights are related to Judaism - to the people and/or State of Israel. Some people in the room this evening have visited Auschwitz; inevitably, that comes into the discussion too.

Something of a DIY session this evening, then, but enjoyable and instructive nevertheless.

As a small group of us are leaving Christchurch shortly after 2100, we're buttonholed (in the most courteous manner) by a woman called Becca, who asks us what we're doing. She says that she passes the church (of which she's a parishioner) the same time every Monday evening and sees people from our group coming out, chatting and laughing. We tell her about the course, I give her my card and direct her to the blog. That's a nice way to end the evening.

MINDFULNESS & MORALITY 9: MUSLIM PERSPECTIVE

At Christchurch, Clarendon Park Road this evening for the ninth session of Mindfulness and Morality, a twelve-week course offered by Christians Aware as part of their Faith Awareness programme.

This time a Muslim perspective is presented by Dr Asaf Hussain, Chair of the Society for Intercultural Understanding in Leicester (in the photo above with his wife, Freda, a founding member of Women for Interfaith Understanding and former Head Teacher at Moat Community College).

He speaks about how Islam is both a religion and a civilization. Taking a societal approach, rather than the individual, Asaf shows us a process that doesn't focus on the well-known Five Pillars of Islam. He describes how faith (iman) leads to action (amal), the principal action being the establishment of community (ummah) which is built on the twin foundations of justice (adl) and knowledge (ilm). Moral standards and ethics emerge, Muslims work out how they should live together, as do individual values. Asaf discusses how these ethics have operated in commerce, politics and warfare. His thesis is that today's apparently all-consuming moral dilemmas for Muslims arise from the fact that they are alienated from Islam. Such  alienation takes two forms: estrangement and powerlessness, which characterise Islam until the worldwide Muslim community can reconnect with the source of their faith and the wellspring of their civilization. That would be the "mindfulness" dimension of this session, then.

There are 13 here tonight (including Asaf). We split into three groups of four for discussion, which takes a form different to the way we've done it in previous sessions. Asaf hasn't given us a dilemma, as our previous facilitators have done, so what we do is devise our own dilemmas based on what we've heard this evening. We come up with the questions this time rather than answers. three such dilemmas, originated by the groups are shown below:

Fatima is Head Teacher at a secondary school in England that has a large number of Muslim students on the roll. One day two parents bring their daughter, who is wearing the full veil, to an interview with a view to enrolling her in the school.  Fatima suspects that the “girl” is actually an adult and beyond the age range of the school. She wants to check this out by seeing the prospective student’s face but asking the girl to show herself could be seen as being disrespectful. What should Fatima do? Would it make a difference if the Head Teacher were male? Would it make a difference if she were not a Muslim herself?

Dr Hart is a practising Christian who went to live in a Muslim country to work as a general medical practitioner for the local community. This was working well until a local political change brought in a Muslim fundamentalist who told the doctor to convert to Islam or leave the area. If he continues to work as a doctor and a Christian his life may be in danger! What should he do?

Ali is a prolific writer on Islam, who focuses on teachings in the Koran that stress how religious faith should be accompanied by good actions aimed at building up harmony, not only between Muslims of different schools but also between Muslims and people of other faiths. He is nearing completion of his latest book challenging Islamic fundamentalist practices. He receives a letter telling him not to publish this new work or he will be killed. What should he do?

MINDFULNESS & MORALITY 8: JAIN PERSPECTIVE

Session eight of this twelve-week course at Christchurch, Clarendon Park Road. Mindfulness and Morality is offered by Christians Aware as part of their Faith Awareness programme.

This evening the Jain perspective is presented by Smita Shah (in photo above with Gerry Gardiner, one of the regular attendees). Smita is President of Jain Samaj Europe, the first woman to hold this position. She is also Treasurer of Leicester Council of Faiths.

Smita asks for a show of hands from those of us who have previously encountered Jainism or Jains. Since this is a relatively knowledgeable and experienced group, everyone raises a hand. She asks us to keep our hand up if we've visited the Jain Centre on Oxford Street; very few hands go down.

Mention is also made of the current exhibition at Phoenix Square Film & Digital Media Centre: "Let's Celebrate 365" contains some striking photos of Jain festivals in India, which have never before been seen on this scale in Leicester. Smita takes a moment to explain the significcance of the images on show there. In amongst the photos of far-flung places, "Let's Celebrate 365" also contains a photograph taken in Leicester's Jain Centre, during the celebration of Diwali there.

Most of us here this evening (20 in all) have already been given a copy of the Council of Faiths leaflet on Jains, which we're expected to have read in preparation for this session. Smita reiterates some central principles and practices of Jain belief and lifestyle, all of which serve to move the individual soul closer to moksha (liberation from the recurring cycle of life, death and rebirth) and nirvana (enlightenment, eternal bliss). These include:

• Ahimsa: non-violence
• Satya: telling the truth
• Asteya: not stealing
• Aparigrapha: minimisation or non-accumulation of possessions
• Anekantvad: belief that multiple viewpoints are the true picture

Among these principle and practices, ahimsa is paramount. It extends beyond human life alone, to encompass all creation. It is based on what Jains call paraspargroho jivanan - interdependence of all life.(I wonder if it could be said to be analogous to "biophilia" - a term I heard for the first time earlier today.) Ahimsa entails more than just staying one's own hand from committing harm. It's deeper, more subtle and more profound than that. It encompasses violence or harm done by speech or thought, including hypocrisy, back-biting and the like. Ahimsa also requires us to refrain from encouraging, condoning, celebrating or applauding any kind of violence by anyone on any other forms of life.

In a social and political sense, the most significant contribution ahimsa has made in history would arguably be when Mahatma Gandhi adopted it as the foundation of his campaign to free India from British rule.

While the core principles of Jain life are applicable at all times and in all places, exactly how they are put into action may vary. Smita acknowledges the effect of such factors as historical context, geographical setting, cultural influences, family background and the influence of different kinds of people on our upbringing - all these would play a part in the moral and spiritual dimension of our lives. A Jain approach to life acknowedges the tension between the physical and the spiritual. There is clear differentiation among Jains between monks, nuns and saintly individuals on the one hand - who are strictly committed to an absolute code of practice - and lay people and householders on the other, who have to live in a more pragmatic fashion, often making conscious and informed compromise with their principles for the sake of daily living in the material world.

Jains believe in reincarnation - that the individual has to go through 84,000 life cycles. Deeds determine the condition into which one is born, according to karmas stored up from lives already lived that attach themselves to the soul. The four arms of the swastika (a tradition Jain symbol) represent the four potential realms for rebirth: heaven, hell, the human or animal kingdoms.

Bearing in mind these various principle and practices, Smita asks us to consider the following moral dilemma:

A Jain family lives in the UK and has a toddler in the house. Their household is infested with pests - mice in paticular, which can be dangerous for the baby. What should the famiy do? How do they get rid of the mice? Would it be any different if there ws no baby in the house or if it was infested with ants rather than mice?

Here are some of the comments arising from the group discussions:

Since Jains believe in reincarnation and the transimgration of souls, you might be killing your grandmother if you were to kill the mice; or in the next life, it might be you going into that mousetrap.

One should do one's best to do the right thing, but still one has to be pragmatic.

Some present describe how they've dealt with similar problems and consider how what they did might match up to the demands of Jainism.

Even the idea of moving away and leaving the problem to the next occupiers of the house would not be in accord with the law of ahimsa, since all you'd be doing would be to pass on responsibility to others for the harm that will be done.

There's some discussion about the relative worth of different kinds of life - for example, the need from other cultural and spiritual perspectives to eradicate disease and eliminate bacteria, viruses etc. there's no time to go into that tonight, but the potential for longer and deeper discussion is recognised.

The most extreme form of the question immediatly above arose in one of the groups where it was mentioned that a scientist had recently published a paper claiming to have identified fossil microbes in meteorites. NASA and other scientific and astronomical agencies are investigating this claim. If this were to be proved and it were to become commonly accepted that meteorites could carry this basic form of life around the solar system - and a large one was found to be on a collision course with Earth, would a firm Jain position prohibit us from attempting to avert this collision as it might destroy the microbes, while risking the death of countless creatures on earth, perhaps even risking human extinction?

Many Jains are known to work in medicine; how does ahimsa impinge upon following that sort of career or study path? Would a Jain doctor, nurse or consultant seek to work in a particular field that doesn't involve the destruction of other organisms in order to improve the health of patients?

As a closing note, Smita tells us that the sincerity of penitence for having to do harm to other creatures in a situation like this has, of itself, led to the liberation and enlightenment of individuals, through ego-less empathy with the suffering of another creature.

MINDFULNESS & MORALITY 7: HUMANIST PERSPECTIVE

Session seven of the Mindfulness and Morality course at Christchurch, Clarendon Park Road, offered by Christians Aware in their Faith Awareness programme.

This evening, Dr Allan Hayes presents a Humanist perspective. Allan (on the left of the photo above, with Ian Grayling) is Humanist Chaplain to the Lord Mayor of Leicester, a Trustee of the British Humanist Assocation and immediate past President of Leicester Secular Society.

Allan defines "Atheist", "Agnostic" and "Secularist" for the beneift of those of us who can't tell the difference. Allan tells us that he prefers to define himself as a Humanist. He shows us some texts that have been influential in helping him form his opinions over the years, starting with a book he says he first read in 1957 (when he was in the third year of his PhD - and three years before I was born). The Family of Man is a collection of photographs of anthropological interest, published by the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA), New York to commemorate an exhibition there in 1955 (and it's still in print). He has also brought along DVD boxed sets of Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man and Carl Sagan's Cosmos for the same reason.

Allan outlines how a Humanist would approach the topic of morality in general and highlights basic differences between that position and those of some of the religious people who have spoken in earlier sessions. While he is happy to admit that we'll all have learned a lot from previous speakers, it can't justify religion(s) being afforded the privileges of organs of state. Allan sides with the Scots philosopher David Hume (1711-76) in seeing that emotions tend to lead the intellect, rather than the other way round. Therefore, we need to understand the emotional foundations of people's behaviour; although the intellect is used to hone one's position or define a public stance on issues. Feelings are supported and refined by intellectual analysis.

Humanism is the opposite of a materialist, intellectualised view of life which disregards what some would describe as the "spiritual" dimension of life. But since Humanists don't believe in an afterlife, all good must be done in this life. Our commitment has to be to this life: there is no other and there is no other chance. Advances in science and technology have made life at one and the same time simpler and more complex. There remain the mysteries of consciousness and (of particular relevance to our discussion this evening) of free will. If we can't use our imagination, understanding will power and intelligence to deal with the bigger problems we all face then we will not continue to be here. Building humanity is the heart of the issue.

Here are a number of principles that we may assume when encountering Humanism and Humanists:

• that people are essentially good; not totally good, but there is enough goodness in us that we can offer good will, expect and accep good will;
• that one should promote the Golden Rule (roughly summed up as "that one should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself") without expecting reciprocity;
• that morality and values are entirely human constructs and are not laid down by any other entity (e.g. "God") or derived from some extra-human realm (e.g. Plato's forms);
• that what is right and what is wrong are decisions made by human beings, for themselves and for other human beings;
• that in personal and interpersonal relationships there is an emphasis on enjoying life together;
• that there is an emphasis on certain vital collective enterprises, such as the upbringing of children - there's a collective responsibility to tell our children our common human story (what we are, how we came to this point and what we might become - to instil what it is to be human);
• that there's much to learn from religions and from the religious, but it must always be borne in mind that "The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath";
• that all human beings are of intrinsic worth, not for some other reason (e.g. all being children of the one God);
• that we have to work to ensure that we obtain, preserve and progress the Good Society (through the arts of learning by disagreeing, testing and being wrong; through engagement and significant dialogue; through welcoming diversity as bringing greater input to the life and thought of the community);
• that political rights have had to be fought for and - as we see today in many parts of the world - still must be fought for;
• that we have to treasure what has been achieved already (e.g. Islamic civilisation in Medieval times)
• that humanity is a part of nature, rather than apart from it.

For the final half hour or so of this session, we occupy ourselves with the moral dilemma Allan gives us, which is described below:

In the coming Census the following question will be asked:


What is your religion? (This question is voluntary)

• No religion
• Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations)
• Buddhist
• Hindu
• Jewish
• Muslim
• Sikh
• Any other religion, write in 

1. Matthew practises a religion (but is opposed to faith schools)
2. Mark believes in his religion but does not practise it (and is opposed to faith schools)
3. Luke no longer believes in the religion he was brought up in but feels culturally attached to it (and is opposed to faith schools)
4. John is completely non-religious (but is in favour of faith schools)

What should each of them do?

Here are some of the comments from the groups in which we discussed this dilemma:

Completion of this question is a small act and most respondents won't think twice about it. then again, that's where the "mindfulness" in which we're interested is to be found.

Most people won't think about how information gathered in the Census is used and will do it as a civic duty (one fo the few that is incumbent upon us). Even the fact that it's a voluntary question may not register with many respondents.

Question of abiding by the law versus the privacy of the individual. Can one be a conscientious objector to the Census?

Comply now - campaign later!

Concern was raised over the fact that the contract for collecting the Census information has been given to the US firm, Lockheed. It was felt that this might well be a source of anxiety to Muslims.

People feel unhappy about a question like this, with personal implications, so perhaps there could be part of the Census questionnaire that could be detached and separated. This would allow other sensitive questions (e.g. about sexual orientation) to be asked.