Prisons, Luxury and Reoffending:

If you had a look at this article or this article which analyse the state of Norwegian prisons...

 

...you would see they are attempting to draw a positive correlation between the quality of care in prisons and low reoffending rates.

One inmate comments that being given: "trust and responsibility" allows the inmates to become more socially aware and therefore nurtures a community spirit.

"The reoffending rate for those released from Bastoy speaks for itself. At just 16%, it is the lowest in Europe. But who are the prisoners on Bastoy? Are they the goodie-goodies of the system?"

In the UK where our prison system costs us in excess of £3b per annum. Ammounting to £37, 163 per prisoner. Although these figures (2010-11) have decreased from last year by 2.5% they are still higher than the GDP per capita in the UK: £23, 560.

A rigorous daily activity schedule and apprentiship programs help to keep prisoners happy, relaxed and less aggressive, according to one source.

What do you think? Do you believe that if we increased our expenditure to make prisons more hospitable we might see reoffending rates drop to as low as 16%, from 26.8% in March 2011?

Do we actually need a prison reform, categorically yes. If we as a nation are spending more than our GDP per capita on prisoners then something must be wrong.

When reoffending statistics say that over a quarter of all prisoners in the UK reoffend, then clearly our system can learn something from the Norwegians.

STUDENT ARTICLE: Is it fair to differentiate between religious characters in the media?

In this blog post we are going to discuss whether it is unfair to show important religious figures in a different manner, like how we can casually show and mock Jesus Christ on shows such as Family Guy, but be incredibly strict on not showing Muhammed (pbuh). Is it right that TV shows Mock religion? Is it okay for religious activists to scare companies out of making fun of them?

It is clear that the only reason shows such as Family Guy rarely mock Islam is due to fear of extremist reaction. This is completely different to how they mock Christianity, repeatedly featuring Jesus Christ in their show as a comedic character. Is it right that Seth MacFarlane does not mock Islam out of fear? Is it fair to make fun of religion and religious figures?

South Park have only once made fun of Muhammed (pbuh) which was during the 200^th episode where they claimed he was the man wearing a teddy bear costume, but never actually showed what Muhammad looked like out of fear.

Seth MacFarlane openly made fun of Jesus Christ in his show, Family Gguy, and made his miracles seem like a joke by having him perform trivial tricks such as making Louis’ breasts grow and turning dinner into ice cream sundae’s. Jesus is fully shown in detail even though it is different to the description given in the Bible.

(watch from 6 minutes)

If you ever had this game you would remember the last level where you had to face off against God. In the cut scene God is portrayed as a lazy gamer and given human characteristics which cannot be applied to him. He is also given the standard long hair and beard combination which is an image of God and therefore idolatry in the Christian faith. Is it acceptable though just because his face isn’t shown?

STUDENT ARTICLE: Should teachers be allowed to openly express their religion?

This is a very controversial issue and has split communities and schools alike. In public schools in America there are rules about what a teacher can wear and what they can’t wear, but teachers are allowed express their religious views in the way of a religious necklace like one with a cross on it. Teachers are not allowed to wear some religious clothing in maintained schools because the schools must stay secular, or at least open to all faiths. Teachers are not allowed to advocate or try to convince students in any way to join a certain religion. A detailed look at what a teacher can or cannot wear and what they are allowed to say.

Many people have very different views on the subject on whether teachers should be allowed to openly express their religious views. Generally religious people are very pro teachers being allowed to express their religious views and atheists being very much against it.

A Christian might say that teachers expressing their religion will teach students about different religions and cultures. It will widen their knowledge and more them understanding of people beliefs. How can something that broadens pupils' horizons and teaches them about the world, be construed as a bad thing? Is not the reason for schools in the first place is to educate?
An atheist might believe that teachers should not be allowed to express their religion, because it is forcing religion on the students. They believe that it is not teaching the about the world and how the world came about because God does not exist. All it teaches you is how certain religions express their faith something that will not be very useful for an atheist.

You also have to take in to account what teachers are allowed to wear in comparison to students. There has been a lot of talk in the press about whether students should be allowed to wear religious symbols in school because it is not part of the school uniform. There have been many high profile court cases on if pupils are allowed to wear religious symbols. Like the case of SarikaSingh, where she was excluded from school for wearing a religious bangle (Kara: one of the 5Ks in Sikhism) because it broke their no jewellery rule. Although, at these same schools teachers are allowed to wear religious dress and jewellery themselves. How can this be fair, what gives the teachers the right to wear religious symbols if the students are not allowed to do the same? In faith schools it is clear that religious expression is advocated.

Teachers should not be allowed to express their religion in the cases where their schools are meant to be religiously neutral, but some people believe that being secular can be fundamental to an open and sharing educational community. However, teachers should be allowed to express their religion because if all religions are expressed and celebrated the school is not prioritising one religion over another.

Your view on whether teachers should be allowed to openly express their religion depends on whether you believe that a student can learn from the teachers expression of their religion and if you believe that someone that a child looks up to like teacher expressing a religious could change the students religious view. Personally I believe that it is fine for a teacher to express their religion through their dress and by stating their religion, but I don’t think a teacher should be allowed to go any further than that.

STUDENT ARTICLE: Is Christianity portrayed positively in the media? If so, how?

Christianity has no united doctrine or opinion about the media. For example, there are some Christian denominations such as the Amish Mennonites that do not approve of any type of civil entertainment, while there are individual Christians who have erected huge media empires. However, there are many ways in which Christians attempt to portray their religion positively in different forms of media.

When Evangelical Churches direct their religious advertisement towards younger audiences, they tend to use drama, different forms of art and books. They believe that Christianity is exciting; therefore they should use appropriate media to show this message, for example comics. Many churches use religious musical events to get together and celebrate their beliefs with a wider community. However these aren’t the usual ways in which the Church communicates its message.

A lot of the time, there are portrayals that are biased towards Christianity, which is never accurate for everyone because it’s a personal opinion:

All different areas and cultures of the world see different religions in different ways so obtain different opinions. For example, here is a video where Omid Djalili, Iranian-born comedian, shows this - Christianity in the Middle-East. Conflicts that are seen between religions are usually as a result of wars between countries.

STUDENT ARTICLE: Is same-sex marriage becoming more socially acceptable?

Anyone who has been keeping up with current affairs would know about the recent draft  that has just been passed at the second reading by the House of Commons to legalise same-sex marriage. It is a debate that has been raging for much of the recent past and is one that is still causing a division within political parties and also in society.

Prime Minister David Cameron has pioneered the proposition for same-sex marriage saying that marriage should be inclusive and open to anyone; homosexual, heterosexual or transgender.  However despite its leader being a major advocate for same-sex marriage, the issue has caused a major rift within the Conservative Party, with 136 of the 175 MPs who voted against the bill being Conservatives. Therefore, although the majority of 225 votes in favour of the same-sex marriage bill show that as a society we are becoming more accepting of gay marriage, the 175 who voted against the bill do show that society is still divided on the issue.

In fact, there is said to be a 60:40 split in society in favour of same-sex marriage. One way of looking at this is to say that as 40% of society opposes same-sex marriage, it is therefore not socially acceptable and that we as a society are still a long way from equality. However, on the other side, many would argue that a 60:40 split is a great improvement, and that we have come a long way as a society in acceptance of homosexuality. To think that 13 years ago, people who were openly homosexual were not allowed to serve in the armed forces, and before that gay people were being persecuted daily in society shows how far we have come as a society in the acceptance of homosexuality.

However many would say that the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage shows just how far away we are from social acceptance. The Pope has frequently made his opinion known that homosexuality is an abomination unto God in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Catholics refer to Leviticus in the Bible where it details that a man should not lay with another man as he does a woman. The Church of England will also refuse to conduct same-sex marriages and will in fact be banned by the Government from conducting these services. A recent article on the Church of England website highlights its position on the matter. As well as this, there has been further opposition to the bill by the new Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby (pictured right). He has affirmed the Anglican Church’s position by saying that marriage should be ‘between a man and a woman’. In fact the only Christian denomination to support same-sex marriage are the Quakers.

For many, this opposition indicates that same-sex marriage still has a long way to go before it is fully accepted. However I believe that the ever greater acceptance of homosexuality, and same-sex marriage shows that society is definitely coming round to the idea and that it is no doubt becoming more socially acceptable.

STUDENT ARTICLE: Homosexuality

Nowadays some Christian denmominations tend to steer clear from the topic of Homosexuality. It seems that they are scared to consider anything other than a heterosexual marriage.

Of course there are Christian denominations that have come to terms with homosexuality, homosexual marriage etc. Denominations such as the Church of England, the Methodist Church and Quakers. In my opinion homosexuality should be allowed in the Christian Church, it shouldn't even be an issue. However I have no place to tell the billions of practising Christians that there are on the planet, to stop going to church or teaching ancient outdated concepts. It seems that the people who wrote the Bible didn't tolerate homosexuals.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21346220

Luckily the power of the Christian Church doesn't influence governmental policy any more. The Government doesn't speak out about their views on homosexuality as openly or offensively as some others. Although the most recent issue on Gay marriage divided the Conservative party. Seemingly as David Cameron is a Roman Catholic, does this mean that he is against homosexuality? He most recently voted "for" allowing Gay marriage in the UK, so who knows.

STUDENT REVIEW: Philosophy, Theology & the Bishop of Woolwich

When the Reverend’s invitation reached the ears of the Rt Hon Bishop of Woolwich (Michael Ipgrave) I doubt he truly was prepared for the incredible range of questions and topics that he would have to discuss with the Remove Philosophy and Theology. Everything was discussed from Hume and George Berkeley arguments from experience and perception respectively, Freud’s Oedipus complex, sexual guilt and repression arguments, the colour of Bishops and reverends shirts and the recent controversial vote of the synod on the future of women bishops. As the Bishop of Woolwich and having been a priest for 30 years this summer, he is in charge of around 105 churches and around 130 priests, an influential man to say the least, and in his own words he goes around, helping others to do good things. However as a father of three sons I think he was well prepared for our questions as he said he was very interested in hearing our views on our studies in New Testament theology and philosophy.

First up was a question from J who asked a question of religions such as Islam that might argue that people of other religious faiths are evil or lesser than those of their own particular religion. Surprisingly one couldn’t have asked a better man as before becoming a bishop our speaker was involved in Christian-Jewish and Christian-Muslim interfaith dialogue. He argued from the point that it comes down to ones interpretation of texts and how one perceives their meanings and what actions should come of those meanings, giving prime examples not only from the Qur’an by heart but from the book of Joshua in the Bible describing it as, some pretty blood thirsty stuff in there. Also mentioning an anecdote on meeting a Buddhist monk in Japan giving him a Bible and the next morning being told that the monk had never read such a bad tempered book in his life.

Next was an arguably more challenging question addressing the works of the founder of Psychoanalyses Sigmund Freud, specifically that argument that religion was a manifestation of trauma in the form of a collective neurosis? Having read a lot of Freud and Marx’s as an undergraduate (for maths?), he argued that the context of Freud’s life that his Jewish upbringing and life in middle Europe in the early 20^th century but none the less he argued that religion as a symbol to some people, especially those who suffer from mental instability can be a very destructive power and a very healing power referencing the arguments of Jung that religion can be beneficial.

Having battled valiantly through the troubles of the German psychoanalyst’s work on fear and funf and what lies in after, came the cosmological argument specifically the bishop was asked how he would rebuttal the argument from David Hume that God cannot exist as we have no experience of him as God is not able to be experienced through the senses. He argued through George Berkeley work on perception how to be is to be perceived and God though he cannot be arguably sensually experienced he can be perceived and therefore be. He further extended the argument to say that if the world must exist there must be an eternal entity, responsible for its existence and that must be God which quietened the praying thoughts of the philosophy class who had maybe underestimated their speaker.

Having briefly discuss the roles of preaching in modern society, Darwin’s theories on evolution and the legacy that has left on religion, the role of the Virgin Mary in the Anglican Church and why bishops and higher powers in society wear the colour purple, we moved on to discuss the so far avoided topic of the vote on women bishops by the Synod, he primarily came across emphasising the importance that it was, not a good thing to have happened, explaining the three groups of voting, (lay people, clergy and bishops) and how each one required a minimum 2/3’s majority he also emphasised the fact that the clergy and bishops almost all voted for the women bishops and in the house of laity it failed by five votes due to a particular piece of legislation that did not allow for women to become bishops. He went on to say that the Anglican Church had gone into a state of paralysis due to the failure of a system, which it had relied upon to result in women bishops coming to be.

To conclude having been almost interrogated by a philosophy class this humble and intellectually stimulating bishop had argued successfully for and against on the importance of acceptance of other religions, Freud’s arguments’ on religion, the cosmological argument and the role of women in the church and what is to come on that matter. One must say that it was a thoroughly enjoyable and stimulating discussion and one which neither the class or Bishop of Woolwich will forget any time soon.