FOREWORD

"Respect" is a topic which has exercised the minds of our legislators recently in Hollyrood and London, been much debated in the media and discussed wherever people meet together. How we treat each other is increasingly regulated by government legislation as it appears more of us than ever seem incapable of exercising personal discipline, whether wilfully or out of sheer selfishness or ignorance. This edition of "The Link" tries to reflect some of the concerns people are expressing about our general standard of behaviour, as individuals, as communities and as a nation. Essie Wise tries to account for the perceived

deterioration in social standards in her opening essay "Respect in an Age of Equality", "Anger" targets a particular aspect of personal relationships and in his "Moral Authority", Terry Skene takes a global view of interpersonal relationships. We also have a report on the Haughland Retreat from its founder, Lesley McKeown and an update from Jubilee Scotland of their plans for 2006. Scottish Unitarians were among the founding members of Jubilee Scotland

"The Link" is distributed quarterly, in March, July, October and December.

Back to contents

THE ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

The Annual General Meeting will take place at

11.00 am on Saturday 6th May 2006  in

Aberdeen Unitarian Church,

43a Skene Terrace, Aberdeen.

It would be appreciated if members who intend being present were to inform the Secretary beforehand.
The AGM agenda will include election of Office Bearers and Committee members, Financial Report, Editor's Report, policy revision and planning the next 12 months.

Back to contents

RESPECT IN AN AGE OF EQUALITY

by Essie Wise

The bus was crowded. A bulky, young woman came aboard, occupied the seat next to me and then most of mine. With one flick of her pelvis she shunted me hard against the side of the bus, and having settled my flesh and bones to her satisfaction, proceeded to eat a hearty meal from a cardboard carton as large as a fire-bucket. Extricating her fodder from its container was quite difficult. The movement of her right arm and hand was restricted by my inconvenient presence, so she was obliged to thump me in the chest every time she raised a forkful to her lips. Neither was she a delicate eater and from time to time bits of her meal would drop off her fork on to the shoulders of the lady sitting in front so that her coat soon looked as if it had been targeted by a squadron of seagulls. Fortunately, when two seats at the front became available she removed herself there where she could slurp and spray with greater freedom. At no time did it seem to occur to her that her behaviour was impinging upon the well-being of other people. In fact from her point of view, she was the sole occupant of the bus. 

On another bus journey recently, two elderly women were seated at the front where there is space for a wheel chair or pram and where there are seats set aside for the elderly and infirm. Two women with a two-seater buggy boarded in deep conversation. While one paid the driver, the other pushed the pram along the aisle and turned it sharply into the parking space. There was some obstruction. She pushed harder and the elderly woman shrieked in pain. The pram was withdrawn a few inches and then thrust forward again with even greater force against the older woman's legs. "You'll have to let me get up first," she said meekly. The pram was pulled back and the old woman whose legs were heavily bandaged struggled to her feet. As soon as she was out of the way the other woman parked the pram and took her seat. The pram contained not children but two bags of groceries. Not once did these women interrupt their conversation nor did they ever acknowledge the existence of the other by a word or look. She was a non-person.

As soon as they get on a bus, or train or plane, people exhibit a strong territorial instinct. They do their best to establish boundaries and if possible erect a buffer zone between themselves and the other passengers. Most people try to occupy two seats if they can. The traditional way is to sit on one seat and annex the other one for your luggage. There's a young woman who regularly travels on the same bus as me. She carries a little, pink handbag which usually reside on her lap. However, when a new person boards the bus, the handbag is deposited on the seat beside her, the new-corner passes by and her space remains inviolate, as if her handbag were a solid brick wall. The bus moves off and the handbag returns to her lap. Another effective stratagem is to sit on the outside seat and stack your bits and pieces on the inner and pretend the half dozen people standing in the aisle are on a different planet. Teenagers of either gender with hormone issues, always need two seats, one for their posterior and the other for their legs, while their feet shod in enormous, grubby trainers project into the aisle like the half barrier on a level crossing.

Having secured their own little world, some people like to retain its free-hold after they have departed, by leaving on the seat, a generous blob of chewing-gum, or a half-eaten pizza or a carton of chicken chowmein and, of course, the compulsory pool of spilt coke on the floor, to deter other passengers from entering their space.

We all seem to have withdrawn into our own little cell where we make all the rules and where no one else has any rights at all. People seem to be saying, "This is how I live; this is what I do. If you don't like it, sod off I'll shout and swear in public; I'll play loud music at three in the morning; I'll cycle on the pavement; I'll slam doors in your face; I'll shove you out of the way and jump to the head of the queue; I'll drop my carry-out and spit my chewing gum on the street; I'll skate-board through the shopping malls, so mind how I go; I'll spray your walls with offensive graffiti; if I hurt you, I won't apologise, if you help me, I won't thank you; I'll call you on the telephone at any inconvenient time from the ends of the Earth to sell you insurance; I'll park my four-by-four on the pavement to avoid double yellow lines and oblige you to step into the traffic to get past; and if you dare to complain, I'll abuse you, swear at you, threaten you, and if you seem to be frail and infirm, I may even slap you about a bit, because I'm above criticism of any kind!"

Rudeness, insolence, boorishness are the in thing at the moment. It is fashionable for TV and radio interviewers to treat their political victims with contempt, to browbeat them, to interrupt their answers, to repeat the same question over and over again, to accuse them of prevarication and even question their integrity and fitness to hold a great office of state. There are TV game-shows that set out deliberately to embarrass and ridicule people and sarcastic presenters achieve celebrity status because they can make the contestants look foolish. Insolence, impertinence and cheek are highly prized, by the media, on the stage and in sports arenas. Soap operas thrive because they portray dysfunctional people behaving badly, shouting, swearing and abusing each other; lying, cheating, stealing, threatening, hurting each other and destroying themselves in any number of ways to satisfy the current demand for gritty, real-life drama - so called. Gladiatorial contests for couch potatoes. Popular culture idolises rudeness, and is currently basking in a high-noon of scurrility.

How on earth did we get to this stage?

Equality is to blame. For more than two hundred years, the desire for equality has provoked revolutions, political, economic, sexual, social and over the past few years, we have been living through a revolution in human relationships, or if you like, in manners.

Differentiation by birth has all but disappeared and been replaced by differentiation by wealth, and as wealth is more likely to have been gained by merit or good luck rather than by inheritance, it is accepted as part of the wider democratic landscape. Thus everyone is equal under the law; worth is a function of being human. In absolute human terms, no one is more or less worthy than anyone else.

"My culture, lifestyle, values and table-manners are as worthy as anyone's and are no-one's business but my own. This view gives me the right to behave in any way I like and relieves me of any obligation towards anyone else. I am not obliged to defer to anyone; nor do I owe anyone any respect. That's what equality means to me."

The formal, social etiquette of the past has been discredited as it belonged to a class conscious and unequal society. Gestures of deference, such as doffing one's hat, bowing, curtseying, standing back in favour of our betters, using appropriate form of address, opening doors for ladies, expressions of gratitude in receipt of a good turn, apologising, wearing appropriate clothes, are the discarded rituals of an unfair and unequal society.

The elaborate table manners of the 19th century were the preserve of an elite society, and like a kind of shibboleth, were intended to unmask interlopers, who would certainly choose the wrong knife at the wrong time and would probably drink from the finger bowl. Table manners, even reduced to basics, are still suspect by egalitarians who prefer to eat with their fingers, drink from bottle and tip their leftovers on to the pavement, to show they are nobody's lackey.

I am not claiming that good manners are a monopoly of the virtuous confidence tricksters, traitors and wife-beaters may in their time have been as punctilious as a butler in their observation of table etiquette but that good manners are the basis upon which other virtues may be raised.

Politeness, is not only the lubricant that facilitates easy social relationships, it is the outward expression of our respect for another person. Respect, however, appears to have been a casualty of our failure to persuade ourselves that we are indeed the equal of anyone else; and to convince ourselves that we are, we have to show that we don't care what other people think of us by behaving badly towards them. In order to feel equal we have to show that we are more equal than others. Bad behaviour is the defence of the insecure.

Lack of respect has infected our society like a virus. Once we have convinced ourselves that other people don't matter all that much, they lose their identity as persons and become means rather than ends in themselves. They become merely customers or clients or consumers or even just a market for goods, or a constituency, or a social grouping to be manipulated, or exploited, or misled, or courted, or ignored, or kept waiting in a queue or on the telephone, whatever happens to suit the ends and convenience of the agency dealing with them. Deny a person his/her rightful respect and we deny his/her rights as a person; and once over that hurdle, assault, theft, torture, and murder become much easier to perpetrate.

Lack of respect also eventually leads to social fragmentation. People form themselves into defensive groups to protect themselves and sometimes react violently against insults and in civilities they think are directed at them. The Moslem response to the Danish cartoons, is a case in point. Incivility also threatens to undermine the right to freedom of speech because it is assumed that once the barriers of deference have been trampled down then anything is fair game, so that right to free speech is prostituted as the right to insult gratuitously or stigmatise anyone or anything on a mere whim, or in pursuit of notoriety or commercial gain.

As an antidote to this practice we have been prescribed "Political Correctness" (P.C.), a kind of semantic etiquette of increasing potency, and created the litigious or "no win, no fee" society and as a result respect is no longer a matter of personal responsibility but a point of law to be argued over by lawyers.

The Government has connived at this by taking responsibility for how people behave towards each other, by threatening to punish them if they don't. Recently they equipped local authorities with ASBO's, (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders), to join the vast collection of laws already shelved in their legal larder, such as anti-litter laws, anti-dog-fouling laws, antismoking laws, road-traffic laws and so on, and they are even now cooking up another batch of laws to compel us to be nice to each other. To be fair to the government, they have to be seen to be doing something about this problem of anti-social behaviour since clearly it is now a major political issue and legislation is their principal instrument for achieving change.

But we can't make people respect each other by law. In spite of existing legal restraints, anti-Semitism, it is claimed, is on the increase; ethnic communities claim they are regularly abused and they live in fear of attack; the gay community claims they are "discriminated against and are subject to assault; knife-crime terrorises our streets; many women and old people are / frightened to go out alone, particularly at night, and so on. In many communities respect is achieved through terror. Violence is the chief tool of terror, and, as violence is illegal, the more lawless a person is, the greater the respect he earns. Hard men scoff at the law.

 Legislation treats the symptoms not tae cause; we have a behavioural crisis on our hands because we lack moral leadership. The Government is aware of this and has suggested as role models for young people, footballers, athletic stars, and pop-singers; but many sports people are driven and aggressive individuals, and pop-singers have a reputation for iconoclasm and anarchy, not the paragons of civility the situation requires

 In 1986, a Congregational Minister, from Stoke-on-Trent, The Revd. Ian Gregory, set up "The Polite Society" the aim of which was to promote civility and good manners. Although it attracted many members, the media regarding it as out-of-step with the generally brash and macho mood of society, tended to ridicule it, and denied publicity and financial support, it has languished since. It is now called the Campaign for Courtesy and tries to promote a National Courtesy Day. This year it falls on the 20th of May.

In fact we need to persuade the opinion makers and life-style gurus, the media moguls who influence every aspect of our lives, to support such initiatives, and to make a stand against incivility; to curb rudeness, swearing, violence and gratuitous humiliation in their products and show that equality starts with respect for self and others. We all need respect, but this is earned by acknowledging the worth of other people not by terrorising them.

Civility creates a tolerant community that behaves well to itself. Each individual has an intrinsic value which everyone else acknowledges and each person, irrespective of religion, race, culture and financial status has his/her human rights guaranteed. This is true equality. This is the foundation of all morality. This is the caring community that religious bodies have been advocating for thousands of years, but have signally failed to establish. If we wish to continue to live in a civilised community, it is time we had .another go at it.

Back to contents

ANGER

by Bill Stephen

When I was at school, we had a geography teacher who suffered from titanic bouts of anger. Usually he was good humoured and relaxed and enjoyed pleasant, friendly relationships with his pupils. In fact he was one of the most popular teachers in school. However, once or twice a year he would be possessed by a raging fury that was alarming to witness.

After lunch one day, clumsy, gawky, excitable thirteen -year-olds, we' made our usual noisy invasion of his classroom. There was the usual banging of desk lids and benches, the scraping and thumping of tacketty boots on the bare, wooden floor, pushing and shoving, the kind of commotion that is fairly routine when thirty-odd teenagers try to squeeze themselves and their belongings into the limited space afforded by the old-style Victorian school desk. On this occasion our chaotic arrival triggered some deep-seated resentment or indignation and he erupted into a storm of wrath that was volcanic in its intensity. Never had we seen him so angry. He rampaged up and down the aisles banging desk lids, shouting out, "I'll teach you to bang desks!", kicking school bags out of his way, strewing books and jotters and papers all over the class-room. Overcome by rage, one little lad yelled out, "Hey that's my French homework!" as his exercise book went skidding along the dusty floor. "Pick it up, then!" shouted 'Tarzan' our nickname for him - he was a big chap.

"No! You kicked it out of my schoolbag!" came the wrathful accusation!

"That's no way to speak to me. Come out here!" shouted Tarzan.

He went to his table and yanked the drawer clean off its runners. The contents all spilled out, including a heavy metal cash-box in which he kept his leather belt. The box fell cornerwise on his instep. He yelped in pain and promptly sat down. The pain immediately brought him to his senses. He looked at us and eventually said, "Now you know why you should never get angry. It does no good at all. It is entirely destructive. In two minutes I have wrecked my class-room, make a spectacle of myself, and probably broken a bone in my foot! And all for nothing! Let this be a lesson to all of you! Particularly to you," he said pointing to the boy with the French homework. "Never respond to anger with anger! It usually ends in violence. Now, come out here!"

Anger is all around us! We all experience anger. It is part of our emotional make up. It is part of our culture. It permeates almost every aspect of our day-to-day life. It appears in newspapers, on television, in films, plays, novels and songs, in drawings, in cartoons, paintings, posters and TV advertisements. It usually creates misery, ruins relationships, causes strife and ends in violence of one kind or another and even provokes war. Yet we are addicted to it. We never seem to learn our lesson.

Anger is part of our evolutionary survival kit. It is an emotional state that can vary in intensity from irritation to raging fury, releasing a flood of adrenaline, accelerating our heart rate, elevating our blood pressure and giving us immediate access to energy in order to attack or to retreat. It is an instinctive response to any form of threat and triggers defensive or aggressive behaviour. The threat may come from other people or circumstances outside ourselves but may also come from within us, a deep-seated anxiety about personal problems, or a memory of some unresolved injury or humiliation or a feeling of unjust treatment or frustration that refuses to be set aside.

There is a vast literature dealing with anger, dating from the earliest days of writing to our own time, when anger management has become a major industry producing courses, books, videos, DVD's, CD's, magazines and newsletters, all counselling us on how to handle our angry moods. Strangely enough among the most ancient religious and philosophical writing and the modern psychological self-help media, there is general agreement about the nature of anger, its effects and dangers and about its management. Buddhist, pagan, Christian and secular psychology all agree that anger is generated by the absolutism of self; that is we all have a view of how things ought to be and of how people should behave towards us but without regard to how things really are. Put simply, we get angry when things don't go our way.

Few commentators have a good word to say for anger, the consensus being that it is a destructive, self-indulgent emotion that oversets rational thought, confines the agent in a narrow emotional prison, achieves nothing and satisfies no one.

The third century BC, Greek philosopher, Aristotle, while acknowledging that 'anger is a burning desire to pay back pain' argues that it also has a rational dimension, that it has a specific focus, a will to hurt the~ attacker. He associates anger with fear. It anticipates pain; and the hurt person in order to rid himself of the fear of pain if he retaliates, invokes anger which overrides any rational fear of pain. He also suggests that anger, which may even be seen as a heroic quality by certain cultures, provides the energy and self-confidence to defend oneself against an attack but the Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca and his contemporary, Jesus of Nazareth, will have none of it. Seneca says that anger oversets all reason and once released cannot be controlled nor its consequences predicted. One person's anger en flames that of another and there is no saying what it may lead to. Anger never gets things right. It is a two-edged weapon which will injure both combatants. Injustice, aggression, injury of any kind are all better dealt with coolly, considerately and rationally. as are vengeance, punishment and redress. This requires of the injured party, great forbearance, courage, self-control, wisdom and the endurance of pain and humiliation.

He suggests a therapy for anger based upon his stoic beliefs. Human-kind is perfectible, because each person shares in the pure reason of Zeus, the king of the Gods, and, therefore, each person through self-discipline and the understanding of self and the nature of anger can conquer it.

Although Seneca and Jesus never met and each was probably totally unaware of the other, their views are remarkably similar. Jesus, as reported in Sf. Matthew's Gospel, approaches anger as a spiritual problem. In the 'sermon on the mount' he describes the Kingdom of Heaven, the state of perfect blessedness which will be enjoyed by the poor, not the rich, the peace-makers, not the conquerors, the meek, not the proud, the persecuted, not the tyrants, the merciful, not the cruel. This vision of a happy, contented existence is attainable by those who can overcome all feelings of arrogance, aggression and anger at a spiritual as well as at a physical level. His anger management is to internalise the struggle; and this will take enormous courage and wisdom.

To be free of anger one has to dismiss it from the mind completely: one must not think angry thoughts or even utter an angry word. Every intimation of anger must be confronted and overcome in the mind before it has a chance to develop, and then first of all, transformed into tolerance, and then into compassion and love.

"But I say unto you, do not resist an evil doer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek turn the other also and if anyone wants to take your coat gave him your cloak as well.....I say unto you Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect."

Five hundred years earlier Buddha was saying the same thing. All suffering, he claims, is caused by our mental addiction to delusion and ignorance. The delusion or mistaken view is that the self is absolute, that it is self-contained and independent of everything else, and as it expects everything else to behave according to its wishes, finds itself in conflict with everything else. Inevitably people, events, conditions and situations do not behave as we would wish them to, as we have in fact very little control over them. Nothing is a absolute; everything is provisional; things are always changing. Our particular view of how things ought to be is not likely to be shared by others who will have their own agendas and ambitions and visions; nor by Nature which controls our physical existence, such as heredity, illness and life-span; nor by the elements; nor indeed by the global economy. If we insist upon having our own way, the chances are, therefore, we will be disappointed and anger will follow. According to Buddha everything is interconnected and depends upon everything else. Nothing is exclusive. However, there is a good side to this state of flux. Because nothing is fixed for ever, or, indeed at all, there are no restrictions on the ability of the human spirit to grow and develop towards perfection. One may start off mean and selfish and ignoble, and then gradually grow to become tolerant, compassionate, generous, thoughtful, understanding and wise. One can grow into enlightenment and spiritual perfection. This is the ultimate conquest of self.

Clearly, then, anger and how to cope with it has been an on-going philosophical and spiritual problem for thousands of years, so why is it generating so much concern and intellectual and commercial activity now?
I think it's because anger, one of St Augustine's 'seven deadly sins', has suddenly become more deadly. The cult of individuality, of self-expression and self-fulfilment of 'me-ism' has persuaded us to see ourselves as absolute, finite identities with our own exclusive agendas and wish-lists that exist. in a world created for our particular convenience We are, in Buddhist terms, addicted to this delusion.

This is of course the antithesis of Stoic, Christian and Buddhist enlightenment. You may be thinking I exaggerate, but bear in mind that a few months ago a woman of thirty attacked a woman of sixty, threw her on the ground, kicked her in the face and beat her so severely that she died a few hours afterwards of a heart attack. And the cause of the fracas; an argument over possession of a parking space at a car boot sale. The lives of two families ruined over such a trite episode. But we all have experience or knowledge of instances of road rage where one person feels his rights as a human being have been infringed by another who happens to be in his way. The tyranny of the unrestrained self.

This kind of behaviour is bad enough at individual level but when it appears at international level, the cold-war principle of 'peaceful coexistence' becomes an incomprehensible, archaic notion which has no place in a world which is not only polarised but antagonistically so. Now we have protagonists who declare the opposition has no right to exist. Extremism, absolutism is rampant. Hamas says the State of Israel should be destroyed. The President of Iran says America and Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. The President of America says anyone who is not with us is against us and compiles a list of terrorist states. The West says Iran cannot undertake nuclear research. The Iranian say, "0 yes, we can!" And both sides threaten each other.

Osama Bin Laden wishes to make the whole world Moslem. George Bush wishes to make Islamic states into democracies on the American model. Neither adversary is prepared to adjust his ambitions in the light of reality. Each has his own exclusive vision - or delusion of what the world should look like. Recently, certain Moslem clerics called for a 'Day of Anger' against the West, because a Danish newspaper, some months ago, stupidly, and divisively published a series of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist. Once again the media was swamped by images and accounts of thousand upon thousand of angry Moslems the world over, threatening the Western democracies with violence. So now we have anger employed as a weapon to stir up hatred, confirm existing division and perhaps justify increased enmity. Because extremist speaks only unto extremist, we get the impression from our media that the more we know about each other, the less we like each other. It is a strange perversion that greater knowledge leads to less enlightenment. That I suppose is how the propagandists prefer it!

So what do we do? We take the advice of Buddha, Seneca, Jesus and the dozens of self-help books on the . market. We recognise that anger is a divisive and destructive emotion which may be exciting to experience at the time, but which leads nowhere. It is entirely negative and therefore must be controlled at the outset. This takes discipline and will-power but it can be achieved.

Anger results from our own fear of being hurt or slighted or humiliated or of losing face and our desire to have our own way at all costs. If we care about our core values of tolerance, human rights and compassion, then, I think we have to regard the angry response as irrational and un enlightened and be prepared to endure the unpleasantness of another person's anger while attempting to negotiate the point at issue. "Jaw, jaw, jaw" as Winston Churchill remarked, "is better than war, war, war." And this would be the case no matter how unjustified or irrational the views of the other seemed to be to us. The opposition is no doubt as committed to its view as we are to ours, and reconciliation can only be accomplished by negotiation, no matter how galling or tedious that may be.

Our day-to-day existence is, after all, a process of negotiation; we negotiate with ourselves, our friends and family, the weather, our physical condition.....There is only one thing that resists negotiation, the only. power that has a real claim to absolutism and will brook no denial, no opposition before which we all lose face....the grim reaper. When extremists extend their absolutism into warfare they should bear that in mind.
My geography teacher, 'Tarzan' refused to discuss our noisy behaviour with us, because he, as teacher, the absolute authority in his class-room, was above any such thing. He discovered however, that the absolute power was in fact his own anger, which condemned him to hobble about on two sticks for several weeks, while the broken bones in his foot healed. Wisdom is a destination we reach, if ever, after many wrong turnings.

Back to contents

CORRESPONDENCE

MARCH 2006

Lesley Mckeown
Haughland House
Shapinsay
Orkney
KW17 2DZ

To all my Unitarian friends

We are now on the final leg of the beginning of a long journey to establish a Retreat Centre with a Unitarian ethos in the Orkney Islands- due to open on March 25th by Rev Brian Cockcroft.

Building work to convert farm outbuildings into accommodation for up to eight people using the traditional sandstone is complete, however the Chapel which is to be converted from the stable, and the landscaping of the gardens is still to be done.

We had expected that a loan applied for some time ago would have paid for this but this, we have just heard, has fallen through.

The Chapel, which I think will be extra special as the sacred centre of our Retreat and a focus of Unitarianism for the community, will not cost a great deal as all the materials accept the window are on site. We will be re-using slates for the roof taken off the byres and using red clay from the garden to point the walls, as would have been traditionally used when the stable was built in 1900. Part of the window will be of stained glass with a picture of the flaming chalice which I am going to make at a glass workshop in Shapinsay, recycling some of the weathered glass taken of the old skylight in the barn. There will be no electricity in the chapel just candles and paraffin lamps and a harmonium for music.

Outside there is rubble to clear and paths and car parking spaces to be made, some work on the trees and garden and dry stone walling. We already have a circular walled garden with seats set into the wall and there are plans for a "Buddha" garden amidst our few trees and a labyrinth plus a vegetable plot and fruit trees.

We need for this final push around £5000 to complete the whole project.

The Retreat will be managed by The Haughland House Trust that was recognised as a Scottish Charity in March 05, and affiliated to the SUA,( to be ratified in May).

We have been supported in this project by Orkney Enterprise, Orkney Islands Council, The Inlight Trust, The Tay Charitable, and The Unitarian Millennium Fund with grants, PLUS donations and loans from 64 Unitarians, 4 districts, family and friends!

If you feel you are able to help with a donation or a loan please get in touch and intimate whether you are a tax payer as we can claim gift aid, THANK YOU.

Lesley Mckeown, Haughland House Shapinsay, Orkney KW17 2DZ, please make out cheque to The Haughland House Trust.

Back to contents

HAUGHLAND HOUSE

Programme for 2006

The Retreat House is open all year and welcomes individuals and groups to an ongoing flexible programme of meditation from various traditions, which> will include visualisation, guided, and walking meditations as well as periods of silence, and just "being". Also chanting, music, poetry, storytelling, and circle dancing, plus an opportunity to have a go at the traditional crafts of spinning, weaving and straw work and other fibre crafts. There are also workshops in Gentle Yoga, and Reiki sessions for those who wish it. We are earth spirited following the Celtic wheel of the year and the natural flow of life. When the weather is fine you can relax in the walled garden, and "Buddha" garden amidst our few trees, or walk the labyrinth, and explore the shore and heather moorland. The following are some special events and workshops that are already planned for 2006. However they are subject to change, depending on bookings.

MARCH
Monday 20th - Monday 27th . The Spring quarter of Imbolc brings gifts of insight and inspiration and is the time of beginnings and of essential truthfulness. We will celebrate the Spring Equinox on 21st with the Official opening of Haughland House on Saturday 25th and Chapel blessing on Sunday 26th.

APRIL
Friday 7th - Monday 10th . Making Music Weekend, fiddle workshops with Polly Cheer, plus singing, percussion, and a music therapy session.
Friday 14- Monday 18th . Creating a vegetable garden, and compost space, also an opportunity to try . some Dry Stone walling, As this is a working weekend there will a reduced charge of £50.

MAY
Monday1st.  Greeting Beltane, day Retreat
Friday 5th - Monday 8th. Celebrating Beltane with ritual, circle dancing, chanting and workshops.
Friday 12th - Monday 15th.  Walking weekend, walking meditations, bird watching from an Artists perspective, and some drawing.

JUNE
Monday 19th - Monday 26th.  Celebrating the summer Solstice, with ritual, circle dancing, chanting and workshops.

JULY
Friday 7th - Monday 10th.   "Creation Stories" with Merryn Dineley archaeologist.

AUGUS
Friday 4th -Monday 7th.  Bread making, poetry and a dash of philosophy

SEPTEMBER
Friday 1st - Monday 4th.  Circle dancing the "hairst (harvest) of the year" with Karen Michaelsen from York, also Mandalas for meditation.
Friday 22nd -Monday 25th.  Celebrating the Autumn Equinox with ritual, music, dancing, painting and colour therapy.

DECEMBER
Monday 18th - Friday 22nd.  Celebrate the return of the sun at the Winter Solstice.

We look forward to welcoming you.

Also if you wish, groups can book the Retreat House for their own programme or enjoy what the House has to offer. Please contact Lesley Mckeown at Haughland House, Shapinsay, Orkney KW17 2DZ. or Tel 01856 711 750, or Email for specific programme details.

Tariff

All the food for your stay is provided but in order to keep the costs at a reasonable price we ask that you prepare breakfast and lunch yourselves in the kitchen provided. However, the evening meal will be cooked for you.

In addition: Day retreats are available, you are welcome to join in any of the workshops or events for only £15 a day including lunch, tea and coffee. £10 if you wish to bring your own lunch.

How to get here;

BA flights from Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Inverness daily to Kirkwall, the airport bus will take you to the Shapinsay ferry or into town.
Northlink Ferries operate from Aberdeen to Kirkwall, Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and Sunday, and daily from Scrabster to Stromness.
Pentland Ferries operate a daily service from Gills Bay to St Margarets Hope. Trains to Thurso and City link bases connect up with Ferries.
John O'Groats Ferry operates from May 1st to September 30th from John O'Groats to Burwick daily with connecting buses from Inverness and Burwick to Kirkwall.
Orkney Ferries The Shapinsay operates six return trips a day during the week, varies at weekends depending on the time of the year.

Website: www.visitororkney.com         Email: info@visitororkney.com
     "       www.ridgewaytravel.co.uk         "    ridgeway@globalnet.co.uk

Haughland House, Retreat Centre
Charity No 031613
Booking Form

Name  ...........................................................................

Address  ......................................................................

              .....................................................................

Tel.   ..................................................................

Email   ................................................................

Do you have any particular dietary requirements?.....................................
Special needs, please specify.........................................
Accommodation in single or a shared room is simple and comfortable. We have an open fire in the meditation room and where possible the food we use is local produce, including some home grown vegetables.
Date and time of arrival ....................................
Date of departure ...................................
Name of event or workshop if applicable ...................................
Number of people if a group booking ......................
Please tick if interested in the following workshops and treatments
Gentle Yoga □           Reiki  □        Kinesiology  □
Have you a talent or skill you would be prepared to share?...............................................
 Bring books, CD's or cassettes you think may be of interest and if you play a musical instrument please bring it with if you are able to.
Do you need transport from the ferry in Shapinsay...................................                   
Please return the form with a non returnable deposit of £20pp made out to Haughland House Trust and post to Lesley Mckeown, Haughland House, Shapinsay, Orkney KW17 2DZ, or Email to 

Thank you.

Back to contents

HOLLYWOOD & THE LIBERAL AGENDA

By Terence Skene

The liberal Hollywood conscience has risen to the surface once again in two films featuring George Clooney and currently on release in this country, "Good Night and Good Luck" and "Syriana". Both films reflect the deep unease felt by American liberals about the political state of the nation at home and the effect of White House policy in the Middle East.

Photographed in harsh, uncompromising black and white, "Good Night and Good Luck", may be set in the 1950,s but the parallels with the contemporary American political scene are very obvious; and in case any viewer may have missed the point, a news-reel clip at the end of the film, showing a close-up of the deeply lined and shadowed face of President Eisenhower reminding his audience that America stands for human rights and freedom from unjust incarceration, as guaranteed by the Habeas Corpus Act, makes it clear that this film is about the here and now. The prison camp at Guantanamo Bay is fifty years in the future, as is the new anti-terrorist legislation, the so-called "Patriot Act", and the Eisenhower speech is the bridge that carries the message from his present to our present and justifies the film.

Set in New York, this is a 'docu-drama' that focuses tightly on a series of events between October 1953 and March 1954 dealing with the TV trial of strength between the communist witch-hunter, Senator Joseph McCarthy and Edward Murrow, anchorman of the CBS nightly news programme ,"See it Now". In October 1953, Murrow features the case of Navy Pilot, Milo Radulovich who has been dismissed the Service, with out a trial as a security risk. No evidence is ever offered for this action officially, but it is alleged that Radulovic senior, the Pilot's father, may have had communist sympathies. Murrow and his programme is attacked by the military and eventually by Joseph McCarthy for supporting and giving comfort to the enemies of the State. For Murrow, the issue concerns personal rights and  liberties and the freedom of speech; for McCarthy it is an opportunity to smear the liberals as unpatriotic and even accuse them of treachery. Murrow exposes McCarthy's lies, innuendos and bullying tactics and shows him to be an opportunist, using fear to further his political ambitions; McCarthy appears on TV, shouting and blustering, hinting that Murrow has communist sympathies, employing his witch-hunting tactics but with no evidence to support his accusations.

By 1954, McCarthy's power was already on the wane and he himself was the subject of a Senate investigation. His downfall followed quite soon after his joust with Murrow. However, Murrow and his team also suffered. One of them committed suicide rather than face an accusation of left wing sympathies in the 1930's. A married couple was sacked on a technicality, "See it Now" was scrapped and Murrow was relegated to a Sunday afternoon politics show. Although the stand against McCarthy had been vindicated, CBS network claimed sponsors were unwilling to support crusading journalism, no matter how justified, on the basis that viewers were generally very complacent, were indifferent to news programmes and preferred to be entertained rather than informed.

The film opens and closes with excerpts from a speech delivered by Ed Murrow in 1958 in which he expresses his concern about the fact that Television, the greatest opportunity for education and information ever given to humankind, would be prostituted in the name of commercialism and entertainment. The role of Ed Murrow is superbly played by David Strathairn, but Joseph McCarthy is represented by himself in TV recordings and film clips. George Clooney, who directed the film, plays the subordinate role of Fred Friendly, producer of "See it Now".

The film has been criticised for underplaying the depth of fear and the misery created by Senator McCarthy and his Committee for Un-American Activities, and for understating the unhealthy influence of commercial interests on Television programmes. However, such aims are beyond the film's remit. Its purpose is to draw our attention to the corrosive effects of fear' deployed as a political strategy upon an ill-informed and self-obsessed community and the need for a perceptive and vocal opposition to alert the nation to the danger to its rights and freedoms inherent in such a situation. Within this self-imposed narrow remit, "Goodnight and Good Luck" is eminently successful.

SYRIANA

While "Goodnight and Goodluck" - Ed Murrow's signing off phrase - is strictly factual, "Syriana" is fictional, but closely based upon "See no Evil", the memoirs of Robert Baer, a veteran CIA agent whose career was largely spent in the Middle East, and informed by recent research conducted by the writer, Stephen Gaghan, and Robert Baer in several Arab states.

This is a complicated film with five closely related plots, set in the USA, Spain and various countries in the Middle East, skipping rapidly from one to another like a flat stone over a pond, and making enormous demands upon the viewer's concentration. George Clooney plays the role of Bob Barnes (Robert Baer) a CIA agent who after assassinating a gang of gun-runners in Tehran, is commissioned to murder the second son of the Emir of Syriana, an Arab state, rich in oil, and an ally of the USA. Oxford educated, idealistic and liberal, the young prince wishes to renounce the conservative policies of his father and elder brother, employ the oil revenue to help their impoverished subjects and increase it by selling to the Chinese who offer a much larger price than the Americans. The Texas oil interests, with close links to the CIA , decide to neutralise the prince so that they can continue to enjoy Syriana's oil at a discounted price and at the same time hamper China's economic development. Other plots lead us into a tangle of corruption, intrigue and shady deals .as the wheelers and dealers of the American oil industry try to outwit their competitors in the bidding game to drill for oil and exploit new prima producers. Another strand depicts the fate of immigrant oil-refinery workers fro Pakistan, made redundant overnight by a change of ownership. At first they occupy themselves drinking, playing cricket and football on dusty waste land, but then they are addressed by an Islamist activist who introduces them to a Koran school. By a very gradual, almost imperceptible, process, two brothers, heretofore non-political and concerned only about their own family, are eventually radicalised and are persuaded to become suicide bombers, their mission to blow up a new, state-of -the art, oil loading jetty, built by the Americans. Bob Barnes, out-manoeuvred by the Chinese, fails in his attempt to assassinate the prince and is badly injured in the process. On his return to the United States to recuperate, he realises he is to be made a scapegoat for CIA activities in the Middle East, apparently in the name of democracy and open government, but in fact as part of another shady deal between the CIA and the oil companies. He also discovers another attempt is to be made on the life of the prince, and so, in an effort to redeem himself in his own eyes, he sets off for Syrian a to warn the young man. This film is a detailed expose of super-power real-politik, masquerading as a tense fast moving thriller. As one incident crashes into another and raw edged scenes proliferate, we eventually become aware that the motivating force is a selfish, arrogant attitude that has contempt for law, recognises no moral restraints and adopts any means to achieve its ends. As long as a superficial appearance of legality is maintained, and the odd anomaly can be explained away, any skulduggery is justified to gain the objective.

"Syriana" leaves us in no doubt that the evil poisoning relations between the West and the Middle East, is the competition to control the supply and distribution of oil and that the greed for oil in the USA will make this struggle ever fiercer and ever more dangerous for the rest of the world.

Both films have been attacked by right wing politicians and commentators in America, but particularly "Syriana" for its apparently sympathetic treatment of suicide-bombers and its exposure of the corrupt practices employed by the great oil corporations and their influence upon powerful government agencies. As a result of this sustained criticism, it may be that the films will suffer at the box-office. However, they were clearly not intended to be 'blockbusters' but to demonstrate that even in Hollywood, there are serious-minded people who can see beyond their next lucrative contract to the real world and be deeply troubled by what they observe.

In March 1954, at the end of his final McCarthy programme, Ed Murrow reflecting on the perceived world-wide menace of communism, said, "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home." The inclusion of this speech is obviously intended to be a wake-up call to all who profess liberal views in our own time.

Back to contents

MORAL AUTHORITY & RECONCILIATION

by Terrence Skene

The recent worldwide demonstrations and rioting over the Danish cartoons deemed to be offensive to the international Moslem community, once more demonstrates not only the exclusive and absolutist attitude of religious and moral insti1tions, but also their suspicion of and refusal to be reconciled to each other There are thousands of different moral codes in the world and trying to achieve some form of unity among them. probably impossible, but sooner or later a sustained attempt along these lines should be made, if we are ever going to find a peaceful solution to chronic world tensions.

At the heart of the problem is the issue of moral authority. Who or what has the final say about what is right and what is wrong; what is good and what is bad. On the one hand it is possible to identify several different authorities; on the other hand it may be argued that there are none at all. Many religions claim that their God or prophet or holy book is the final judge of what is right and wrong and as long as all the believers accept that this is the case and they do not encounter members of another faith, the system works well enough. But as soon as there is dissension among the members, or they collide with devotees of another faith, conflict frequently follows. Conflicts between Hindus and Moslems led to the partition of India in 1947and the resulting nations have not been over friendly towards each other since, and control of Kashmir, a mixed religious community, results in military engagement from time to time.

Differences of opinion within one moral or religious framework are often branded by the ruling powers as heresies, and Christianity has a long history of dealing harshly with heretics. Even this year, Unitarians are denied permission to conduct the GA annual service in Chester Cathedral because they are still regarded as heretics by the Statutes of the Anglican Church.

Furthermore, there are deep divisions in the Anglican community about the ordination of women Bishops and of gay priests and Bishops. Christianity has fractured into many different sects, each claiming to have discovered the ultimate religious and moral truth as justification for their existence.. There is no doubt in the mind of the new Pope, Benedict, that absolute ethical authority is the monopoly of the Roman Catholic Church. Moral standards should be perfect and unchanging. In his final sermon before being elected to the Papal throne, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger declared, "We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognise anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires." He means that if his Church loses its authority, then moral standards become a free for all. In this desire for an absolute moral authority he is supported by Plato, the Athenian philosopher, who claimed he "sought one true opinion, real knowledge, real authority" .

Logic, however, dictates that there can only be one absolute authority and, therefore, only one of the claimants, if any, can possibly be right. So, the question remains, wherein lies ultimate moral authority?

Other thinkers, of course argue against the notion of there being one absolute moral code that is universal and unchanging. The 5th century BC philosopher, Protagoras famously declared, "that man is the measure of all things" and this idea is continued by his contemporary, the historian, Herodotus, who observed, that each society thinks its own belief system and way of doing things are best in contrast with that of others, a view that is still current today in the Conservative party, whose former leader, Michael Howard, spoke up recently for "traditional British values" which he claimed were "being trashed". David Hume, the philosopher of the enlightenment, denied there was any objective, universal standard for morality and for good measure added that the Universe is indifferent to our preferences and to our troubles. And echoing Herodotus, the late Ruth Benedict, the anthropologist, said there are no morals, only customs, and cautioned everyone not to use their own moral standards when evaluating those of other cultures. In other words there cannot be any objective, absolute standards pertaining to values, because values are not facts and cannot be measured, but are expressions of preferences which are entirely subjective.

We live in a multi-cultural world, and one defining feature of each culture is its moral code, and frequently there is no agreement among these diverse value systems. What is taboo in one culture may be readily acceptable in another. Hunting and killing whales is anathema to most of the civilised world, for instance, yet the Norwegians and the Japanese claim there is no harm in it and defiantly persist in the practice. In western Europe strenuous efforts are made to protect children from every possible danger; but elsewhere in the world, in Asia and South America, children are exploited, or sold into slavery, or cast off to care for themselves on the streets where they may be exterminated as vermin by city authorities. During the twentieth century, so called civilised cultures thought it right to unleash the holocaust upon innocent Jews, kill millions of innocent people in Communist purges, impose the Apartheid system of government in South Africa, and indulge in slavery, genocide and terrorism. We live in a world in which there is no consistency about what constitutes a right or a wrong action.

Ethical and cultural differences become more contentious when people of very different traditions live in very close proximity to one another, as is the case in Britain. We live in a pluralist society, that is a nation in which many different races, language, cultural and religious groups of widely divergent life and educational experiences and outlooks live together on an equal footing under the rule of law. Britain apparently is the most culturally diverse country in the world. This is an amazing achievement, but there are inevitably tensions, some of which are caused by cultural antagonism.

While the religious groups lay their conflicting claims to moral authority, the rest of the Western world denies the existence and influence of any absolute authority at all. Our world is a secular world, and, increasingly, a state regulated world, so that if there is any absolute authority at all, it is the rule of law, enforced by various punishments, and responding to the priorities of a democratic society, otherwise each individual is left to his or her own devices.

Those of us who have lived that long are aware that in the past sixty years, our society has undergone a sea change, as Shakespeare expresses it, and we are living in a totally different world from the one that we were born into. As a consequence of the egalitarian legislation of successive Labour governments, and the influence of the philosophical ideas of the logical positivists, the existentialists and the post-modernists, social and moral restrictions have been steadily removed, so that the moral structures of the 1920's and 30's have all but been dismantled, and at the level of the individual, there is now a multiple choice morality. Decisions about right and or 'I'll admit to a mistake on this occasion when it will cause me no embarrassment, but next time, I may have to blame someone else, if the situation demands it,' and so on. This constant re-adjustment of moral values in the individual is a most undesirable practice because it becomes impossible to gain any kind of a consensus and the community loses confidence in its ability to make a stand on any ethical issue. The greater the indecision on the part of the authorities, the greater opportunity for controversy and dispute and the further disruption of society. The delay in arresting Abu Hanza is a case in point, where the authorities appear to have been uncertain as to the rights and wrongs of detaining him.

This "laissez faire" approach to ethical standards afflicts governments as well as individuals. On several issues recently the government's moral values have been found wanting, in the illegal invasion of Iraq and in condoning the so-called secret, rendition flights operated by the USA. to name but two. By making security their priority they are prepared to sacrifice values of humanity and justice upon which our reputation as a free and liberal society depended.

The idea of absolute moral authority has probably had its day. Values, as has been demonstrated, are purely subjective and are related to a particular time and place. The possibility of discovering a set of objective moral rules which would operate throughout the world and be acceptable to every tradition, culture and religion, seems very remote indeed, however, some effort to bring about a degree of consensus is necessary. If we set aside the commandments of conflicting Gods and Holy Books, and instead focus on human needs and nature and make that the basis, we may get nearer to establishing an objective moral code. David Hume admits that some of our human sentiments are universal and many philosophers have attributed to mankind a moral instinct, evolved from our need to live in mutually supportive communities. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed human nature was inherently good, and Ayn Rand that morality derives from each one of us exercising our own free rationality. so perhaps the time has come to place some trust in our own nature. This in the light of 20th century experience may appear more an article of faith than a realistic assessment of human capability, but we have to start somewhere.

A modern philosopher, currently teaching in Dublin, Maria Baghramian, has suggested that a universal assessment of any action may be whether or not it advances human wellbeing, or as she calls it, 'human flourishing'. Therefore, murder, torture, deprivation, lack of freedom of speech, human rights etc. all hinder human flourishing and destroy human well being and would be universally condemned and outlawed.

She is of course, thinking here of cultures rather than individuals, but a similar measurement can be proposed for personal behaviour; instead of deciding to act on the basis of our own convenience we first think of the effect of our action on other people, then we may add to the sum total of happiness in the world rather than increase the amount of pain and suffering.

What we have in common is our humanity. We are aware that our addiction to selfish and absolutist attitudes towards other people and other cultures causes strife and that we ought to take ourselves in hand to sort it out, but in spite of our intelligence, our rationality and our spiritual aspirations, we cannot shake ourselves free of our primitive desire to dominate.

Perhaps if we all agreed that the golden rule, "Do unto others that which you would have them do unto you", to which no-one could take exception and which is well within the understanding of everyone, were to become the overarching principle of all interpersonal and inter-cultural and international negotiation, then we might begin to find a solution to this fraught problem of moral authority.

Back to contents

JUST A THOUGHT

By Bill Stephen

The growing light over the past few weeks has brought new life to the surface of the earth. Snowdrops and crocuses are raising their heads to the sky and everywhere sharp green spears and the red and brown capsules of resurgent growth are pushing through the soil in search of sunlight. Seeds are undergoing a miraculous transformation as the new season's garden plants and wild flowers start their progress from potential to actual.

Not all of the many billions of seeds resting in the darkness will escape from oblivion to the light of day.. Only a few will make that transition from hypothetical to substantial, the few that germinate and flower and in their turn set seed; the rest, will remain dormant in the soil, 'might-have-been' s, losers in the lottery of existence.

Much the same can be said of the human race. The human reproductive capacity is enormous but of the many billons of potential people who might have been conceived in any generation, only a small proportion ever are and are thus allowed the privilege of life. In so far as no-one asks to be born, life is a gift, gratis and unsought, an opportunity to be aware of the astonishing fact of existence, that there is something rather than nothing, and to experience the infinite bounty of the universe. On a cosmic scale there are billions of planets most of them hostile to any form of life, yet by chance, our planet happened to be in the right place at the right time for life to develop and so we are here and the odds against anyone of us being here must be well-nigh incalculable.

In addition to life we have intelligence and the awareness that accompanies it. A few weeks ago I was walking through a neglected 19th century arboretum among the fruits of the plant collectors' industry, Douglas firs, redwoods, Chilean pines and ancient beech trees, John Keats's 'green-robed senators', giants in our time, flourishing still, two hundred years since that first shoot escaped from its seed case. Two hundred years of life, reacting with the environment, but two hundred years of unknowing. It's probably jejune to think it and anthropomorphic and sentimental to feel it, but what a deprivation to be alive in the world and not to know it! Human beings have life; but we also have the privilege of knowing it.

What a privilege it is to be aware, to be conscious, not only of our own thoughts and feelings, not only of our physical environment, but also of the very realisation of existence, which in one lifetime allows us to glimpse the eternal and the infinite. We know there is a past, some of which scholars and scientists have uncovered for us; we know there will be a future about which we may speculate to our heart's content; past, present and future are all comprehended in us, and in this way the universe becomes aware of itself.

Whatever our spirituality consists of, it must include the wonder of our awareness, and our endless quest to understand the awe-inspiring fact of existence.

Buds are swelling, the jackdaws and oyster-catchers are surveying nesting sites and song birds are finding their voice again. Life is renascent and we are here to observe it. Let's make the most of it!

 Back to contents

JUBILEE SCOTLAND

How do we follow 2005? A quarter of a million people marching in Edinburgh to Make Poverty History. It was the biggest ever demonstration of public opinion in Scotland and the biggest public demonstration on global poverty that the UK has ever seen.

This year Jubilee Scotland will be following on from the successes and the disappointments of 2005. We are launching our NEW campaign CUT THE STRINGS which demands an end to attaching harmful conditions to debt relief.

These strings force countries to privatise services, cut public spending on health and education and harm their farmers by opening their markets. They undermine democracy, delay debt relief and harm fragile economies. We are inviting you to join us in our campaign to demand an end to this.

Tanzania was forced to privatise the state run water company in its capital Oar es Salaam as a condition of debt relief. The reforms led to higher prices and a worse service and last year the Tanzanian government was forced to cancel the contract with Bi-Water the UK company, who was the private contractor.

Zambia has been forced to stop hiring new teachers in order to qualify for long-delayed debt relief. Zambia has around 9,000 teacher vacancies and 9,000 newly qualified unemployed teachers. This farce has come about because international donors have told Zambia to implement a wage and hiring freeze.

WHY WE MUST CUT THE STRINGS.

These conditions harm.

Countless studies have shown that strings attached to debt relief and aid have harmed indebted countries.

They Undermine democracy.

Countries often resist implementing these policies but are forced to adopt them even when their people protest and their parliaments oppose them.

They are inconsistent with UK statements.

The UK government has promised NOT to tie strings to the aid it gives poor countries. Join us in demanding that they take a lead by agreeing to cut the strings attached to debt cancellation.

WHAT YOU CAN DO?

Join the campaign! No matter how little (or how much) time you have, you can take action to strengthen our call - by signing a luggage label action card, sending an email or writing to your MP.

Please contact our Campaign office for a campaign pack, more information, materials, speakers and activities.

Tel: 0131 225 4321 Email: mail@jubileescotland.org.uk or visit our website www.jubileescotland.org.uk

Back to contents