ADRIANS BLOG

Where The Tax Pounds Go

2012-02-02T02:56:00.000-08:00

Where The Tax Pounds Go

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/15/free-schools-creationism-intelligent-design

It was disappointing to watch the glee with which Richard Dawkins greeted the announcement of by Michal Gove who stated he will not fund any school with tax money that teaches anything about creation in a science lesson. (Guardian Jan 2012)

Disappointing too was the level of comment by most guardian readers to the article; the content was somewhat juvenile and ill informed, for example, “I don’t want my tax pounds to go towards teaching that rubbish!”

I, too, am a tax payer, and 53% of UK citizens think creation should be taught in school. Setting aside the rights and wrongs of the subject, there did seem to be the sound of the jackboot, which in fairness, some guardian readers did say that they could also hear.

I think I could also hear the Taliban style fervour coming from the atheistic religious lobby. Having been in discussion with some of these people not too long ago, on a news programme talking about evolution and creation, one kind man emailed me and said, “I should not worry, we are not anti God just anti creationism in Science.” You sir, were very kind, but in general that has not been my experience. In fact quite the opposite; not only would this lobby like to remove creation from being taught anywhere in any shape or form, but please, (although they almost never say please) you shall not mention God at all anywhere. We have seen this kind of thing before, in Albania, in Romania, in Russia and for decades in North Korea, and what accepting and balanced societies that attitude produces.

At least Richard Dawkins was honest when questioned about the morals of Hitler he replied "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath."^[1]

It’s the arrogance that I find so difficult to swallow: either you agree with me or you should be silent. And yes, I have been at the receiving end of such statements; I have been told by certain people that if they had the power they would do all they could to silence me. What are they so afraid of? Richard Dawkins seems to spend more time attacking a God in whom he does not believe than anything else.

A world view is bound to colour our expectations and the way we look at things, mine has been coloured and I freely confess to that. The problem is that the atheistic lobby admits no such colour; they are speaking truth, as they see it. They have been everywhere, understand all things and clearly there is no God. Should those who have met the God who is there, say anything that opposes this view they are ridiculed mercilessly, and told how stupid they are.

I recently listened to a radio four science programme in which two eminent scientists discussed a recent science exhibition. Towards the end of the programme the interviewer said in a friendly manner, “It’s quite interesting isn’t it that one of you is a Christian and one of you is an Atheist yet you are both equally qualified and in the same discipline.” He asked the Christian what he thought about that, the Christian replied, (and I paraphrase) “Well I am a follower of Jesus and that of course affects my world view.” He asked the same question to the Atheists who responded, “no person who says there is a God or calls themselves a Christian can be a genuine scientist.”

I wonder about these people, they are so sure there is no God and yet are afraid when we so-called idiots believe that God is there, and very involved in His world. Why do they get so hot under the collar when we believe God is behind the whole idea of Earth and human history. If it is all so terribly stupid why are there draconian attempts to regulate and silence us? Are we that fearsome?

I am finally reminded of the song writer in Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 Amp Ver. “The empty-headed fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”

Adrian’s Blog

Edited by Technicolour Text

W. 719

2012-02-02T02:40:00.001-08:00

Seething...
Am I?
www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

From The Rainbow to Icejacked to Red Dagger

2012-01-04T09:49:00.000-08:00

ASSIST News Service (ANS) - PO Box 609, Lake Forest, CA 92609-0609 USA
Visit our web site at: www.assistnews.net -- E-mail: assistnews@aol.com

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

From The Rainbow to Icejacked to Red Dagger
The fascinating story of Adrian Hawkes and how our lives have collided once again
By Dan Wooding
Founder of ASSIST Ministries

LONDON, UK (ANS) -- I first met Adrian Hawkes back in the mid-sixties in Birmingham, England, when he brought his Ribbons of Faith outreach team to my father's little church, the Sparkbrook Mission, in Birmingham, England.

Adrian Hawkes is Icejacked

The female members of his team from the Sparkbrook Elim Church seemed rather glamorous for this rather dour area of England's second city, wearing colourful sashes and singing modern songs, and then Adrian brought a challenge for our church start going out into the community with the Gospel.

We were so stirred up by his sermon, that soon my sister Ruth and myself, and my wife Norma, started The Messengers, which grew very quickly to about 60 members. We would go out each Saturday night to the local pubs and coffee bars with the Good News of Jesus Christ, and soon we partnered with the Ribbons of Faith, and other groups in Birmingham, to start the Late Night Special in the huge but empty Lloyds Bank Building each Saturday night.

Then Canon Bryan Green, a liberal evangelical who was sometimes described as "the Anglican Billy Graham," invited us to start a Sunday night outreach in St. Martin's Church in the Bull Ring, Birmingham called "The Late Night Special."

Adrian and Pauline on their wedding day. Dan Wooding is behind Adrian in the picture

When Adrian married Pauline, his lovely wife, he asked me to be best man at his wedding and, of course, I agreed.

Not long afterwards, Norma and I had become involved in working with drug addicts at All Saints Hospital in Winson Green, and this developed, with the help of some local businessmen, into the start of Hill Farm, Europe's first drug rehabilitation farm. We were Hill Farm's first wardens.

After we left the farm, our family moved to London in 1968 where I became the chief reporter with The Christian, Billy Graham's newspaper there and shortly afterwards, Adrian and Pauline moved to Middlesbrough to run an Elim Church there.

Then, in 1974 he and Pauline moved to north London where they took over the famous rock venue, The Rainbow, to establish a unique church there. The Rainbow had hosted hundreds of shows, including several of the Beatles Christmas concerts, and also had David Bowie performing as Ziggy Stardust, as well as Queen, Cat Stevens and Jimi Hendrix, to name just a few of scores of rock luminaries who performed there.

In June, 1982, Norma, myself, and our two boys, Andrew and Peter, moved to Southern California, but Adrian stayed in North London to pioneer a unique series of ministries, including those to asylum seekers in the capital city. He has also planted multi-racial churches all over the world. Having travelled extensively -- he has just returned from Venezuela -- he has started many schools, vocational training centers, orphanages and support for vulnerable people. He has ongoing work in Africa and Sri Lanka as well as working with leaders in many other countries.

Cover of Adrian's novel

Adrian is the author of five other books, but now our lives have collided again as both of us have recently released our first novels. Mine is called Red Dagger (www.lulu.com/product/11050174?cid=060610_en_email_SUMMERREAD305 ) and Adrian's is called Icejacked, which you can get at his website --www.adrianhawkes.co.uk.

So why did he write it?

"I am fascinated at the way that things are changing in our world with items like mobile phones and the Internet, and how they quickly have become part of our normal world as if they had always been there and always will be," he said.

"In my travels I was captivated by how those who have not seen new technology, or young people who have lived in third world situations and never been to a big city or flown on a plane, nevertheless when they do get the opportunity within days they are using it all like it was normal.

"I often see refugees in their first two day coming into the UK with nothing, being absorbed by everything they see, and in one week their whole dress style has changed a mobile phone is on hand and they want to learn to access the Internet.

Cover of Dan's novel

"I am very aware that sometime fiction is more persuasive in changing things and I remember that some books have had powerful effect on nations and cultures. Take 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' for starters; that fiction book had a powerful effect."

So bearing that in mine, Adrian told me about the plot:

"An Iceman is found, and he is thrown into a new environment; a world that he does not understand; and he finds everything very strange," he said. "But alongside that, he is holding onto values that do not change because of technology and advancement, are his value real and lasting.

"Also alongside that is the hidden plot of that asked the question: have some things really changed as much as we think they have, such as slavery? Where are we with that today? One of the central characters is trying to work it out in the middle of that are those who seem so genuine, but are they really cheats?"

Our novels are both very different, as mine is partly based in Gaza, but I am delighted that Adrian has also been able to try his hand at fiction. So again, if you would like to get a copy of Icejacked, just go to: www.adrianhawkes.co.uk

Dan Wooding, 70, is an award winning British journalist now living in Southern California with his wife Norma, to whom he has been married for 48 years. They have two sons, Andrew and Peter, and six grandchildren who all live in the UK. He is the founder and international director of ASSIST (Aid to Special Saints in Strategic Times) and theASSIST News Service (ANS) and was, for ten years, a commentator, on the UPI Radio Network in Washington, DC. He now hosts the weekly "Front Page Radio" show on KWVE in Southern California which is also carried throughout the United States. The program is also aired in Great Britain on Calvary Chapel Radio UK and also in Belize and South Africa. Besides this, Wooding is a host for His Channel Live, which is carried via the Internet to some 200 countries and also provides a regular commentary for Worship Life Radio on KWVE. You can follow Dan Wooding on Facebook under his name there or at ASSIST News Service. He is the author of some 44 books. Two of the latest include his aut obiography, "From Tabloid to Truth", which is published by Theatron Books. To order a copy, press this link. Wooding, who was born in Nigeria of British missionary parents, has also recently released his first novel "Red Dagger" which is available this link.

2012-01-04T09:30:00.001-08:00

Me and one of my best mates both write a fiction book in the same year. How strange is life. www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

2011-12-31T10:28:00.001-08:00

Happy New Year All......

Justice

2011-12-21T05:49:00.001-08:00

Justice

Locked away

Looking for better

Listening to untruths about you and me

Learning that what is in, is more important that what is out

Loving the fact that YOU are here and nothing can change that

Loosed to fly, and bars, and prisons cannot hold, I’m away

Living in the space of your freedom

Adrian Hawkes

www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

W. 60

2011-12-21T05:48:00.001-08:00

As its the Holiday season just a short one on the blog for you, www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

2011-12-21T05:46:00.001-08:00

Happy Christmas and Great new year especially to my Blog followers... www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

Cuts,Care and Development (Children in the Looked after system)

2011-11-21T03:09:00.001-08:00

Cuts, Care and Development (Children in the Looked after system)

In what direction is the care area in the UK heading? The current government promised that it would not cut front line services particularly for those most in need I am sure you will agree that those who are on the ‘at risk register’ or those actually in the Looked after system of the UK are very vulnerable and in need. One London borough actually said it was going to cut foster care rates by half. That seems to me to be moving in the opposite direction of what has been announced. When I contacted central government on this issue I was told, very sorry but this is a local decision, nothing to do with us!

There is a vast burden of regulations imposed on those who care enough to foster or to adopt. Many of the regulations are very good but like all things human, they work at the whim of the humans applying the regulations. There are excellent social workers out there who I would say have the ability to apply the CS factor, that is, common sense, (which often seem to be very uncommon). However, in my experience, there seems to be many social workers for whom the ‘power’ of being a social worker has gone to their head and they treat all others as lesser mortals. I overheard a conversation recently between a key worker for vulnerable adults and a social worker. The key worker has good university degrees and is a good worker, with experience and expertise. I noted that the key worker was being very polite and patient. When the social worker had finished and left, I said “are you all right?”

“Yes I am I suppose,” was the response, “but why is it that social workers think that I am stupid, when I am not, and think that it is ok to treat me in that way and talk to me like dirt beneath their feet.”

It isn’t acceptable, but many social workers seem to display that attitude. Why is it? Is it the training, or is it the pressure of the job, is it perhaps that they are insecure? I don’t know why it is but I wish it would stop.

I do not believe the code of practice is the problem, below are some extracts:

The General Social Care Council (GSCC) codes of practice

Social care workers must:

• Protect the rights and promote the interests of service users and carers;

• Strive to establish and maintain the trust and confidence of service users and carers;

• Promote the independence of service users while protecting them as far as possible from danger or harm;

• Respect the rights of service users whilst seeking to ensure that their behaviour does not harm themselves or other people;

• Uphold public trust and confidence in social care services; and (i.e. in their dealings with other professionals and working collaboratively)

• Be accountable for the quality of their work and take responsibility for maintaining and improving their knowledge and skills.

But talk is cheap or rather the words on the page are not worth a jot if they are not observed.

Then there is the element of need; the number of looked after children is around 64,400 on 31^st March 2010 according to government statistics. That does not include those on the at risk register, which is probably about the same number, this brings us to an approximate total of 128,000 children in need of care. Can we afford to cut our service delivery in such areas? Or should we be improving the delivery and the training of those who are willing to foster or want to adopt. Alongside the compelling argument to avoid cuts perhaps we should also be looking at the reasons why we have so many children in such need.

I wonder also if smaller agencies might actually deliver a better service for less cost, particularly if the checking procedures were strengthened that are currently delivered by OFSTEAD

Since the ‘60s the whole adoption scene has changed dramatically, at that time single parenting was much less common and abortion and birth control where only just commencing. There were 27,000 adoptions in 1968; large numbers of children were released to adopters, many almost straight from birth. That whole scene has now changed, now the children who require adoption are more likely to come from parents that have been neglectful or abusive, either physically, sexually, or by the use of substances that damage the children as well as themselves. Adoptive parents can often face the choice of waiting for years for a young single child or months for older sibling groups. The reality being that as those children get older their experiences of neglect and abuse are likely to be significantly higher due to the length of time they have remained with neglecting parents. The knock on effect is that adoptive parents are often left to clean up the emotional fallout of their adopted children plus the support is minimal and not a statutory requirement. The training for adopters’ remains negligible, often has not changed much since the 60’s; and I would reiterate that the kind of children coming into the adoption system has changed dramatically. Should this be more of a priority in designing the way we help these vulnerable children and how we guide those adopters? The number of children available for adoption has, of course, dropped as single parent families have become more culturally acceptable. There are now around 3,500 children each year who go from care to adoption To make matters worse, those in the know tell me that of current adopters, something like 1 in 4 situations break down, in other words the child goes back into foster care, or back into a children’s home. The high emotional and public cost of this surely needs investigating.

And where are we going with the large and unwieldy social service department. Sometimes, just because of their size, they seem to treat the children, the foster carers and the adopters more like a commodity than like people. I wonder if smaller agencies might actually deliver better service for less cost, particularly if the checking procedures that are currently delivered by OFSTEAD were strengthened.

These big departments are being hit by cuts whatever central government is saying to the contrary; departments have been slimmed down, in some instances this may be the right decision, but in light of the cuts can they still deal effectively with those 64,000 children in a manner that does not increase the damage that all agree should be avoided. The fact remains that those in the looked after system are less likely to leave school with good qualifications, are often more likely to end up in the prison system, with all the ensuing expense, or, as Big Issue founder John Bird likes to say, they could become “….a great ‘big issue’ seller!”

It is also still true that if you are part of the black and ethnic minority, your chances of being in care are greater and your chance of finding an adoptive parent is less likely.

26% of children within the English child care system were from a black or ethnic minority origin in 2010 as compared to 11% within the general population (Department for Education, 2010; Office of National Statistics, 2010). Frazer and Selwyn (2005) noted that in 2003 only 10% of approved adoptive families were of Black, Asian or mixed parentage and in the same time period only 13% of all the children adopted were from a black or ethnic minority origin.

Maybe smaller units of foster care, and a better training programme for adopters would be a step in the right directions. I know that a lot of work has been done in this area in the past, and of course tragic events like baby P make us all want to see change, however after the press fever has died down we go back to doing what we did and sort of forget. These young people can be a great resource to the nation; we should not short change them. And the current round of cuts should make us take a fresh look at how we can improve their life situations. (25,000 children leave care each year)

Further reference:

Frazer, L. and Selwyn, J. (2005) ’Why are We Waiting? The Demography of Adoption for Children of Black, Asian and Black Mixed Parentage in England’, Child and Family Social Work, Vol 10, pp135 – 147.

Great Britain. Department of Health (2010) DfE: Children Looked After by Local Authorities in England (including adoption and care leavers) - year ending 31 March 2010 [Online]. Available at: http://www.education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000960/index.shtml (Accessed: 23rd April 2011).

Office of National Statistics (2010) Adoptions. Available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=592 (Accessed: 12th April 2011).

Figures quoted are usually for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate statistics.

Adrian Hawkes

With Help from Al Coats

31^st May 2011

For Blog and Wider distribution

Edit - Technicolour Text

W. 1512

2011-11-21T03:05:00.001-08:00

Cuts, Care and Development (Children in the Looked after system) www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

Morals and Conscience - Do we have them? Where do they come from?

2011-10-13T03:34:00.001-07:00

Morals and Conscience – Do we have them? Where do they come from?

This is the third time I have written about this subject from which you will gather that I think it’s important, especially in the light of some the recent events in the UK, such as the riots. However I believe they are only a symptom of something deeper.

Politicians, of all shades, including the prime ministers are discussing this subject and it is playing central stage on many TV and Radio Programmes. Perhaps, then, it really is important. There is also deep concern about our schools and our young people – how, the politicians and TV pundits ask, can we install morals into young people so that they do not smash up our streets and destroy our society?

Many responses to my blogs can be summed up as follows, ‘Morals don’t need to come from the Bible, The Koran, or from a god, they surely can come from within ourselves?’ to which I answer, ‘yes of course they can but what sort of moral guide would that be?’

We need to go one step back and ask, why we need to have morals at all, and what is it that propels us to even ask these questions? My answer encompasses the whole issue of conscience.

What is conscience? What is our conscience? My argument would be that conscience is a part of us that we are all born with. Some people disagree with this concept and say that we don’t have a conscience, but I strongly believe that we do. We each have our own individual conscience, unique to us personally. That means that it only works for us, it doesn’t work for anyone else. What it instils in us is the general sense of right and wrong. In a nutshell, right and wrong for you might be different to the right and wrong for me, but there will, most definitely, be a personal right and wrong. This concept is far beyond the idea that we do things because they are convenient or inconvenient or because we know we can ‘get away with it’.

How does conscience work, well for the individual, and I do stress the individual in any given situation it will say to the person, ‘yes that is right do it,’ or, ‘No, that is wrong! You should not do it.’ You conscience does not impel you, it does not force you in any direction, it will only hint at the decision you should make, the final decision that decides the action is the result of your decision making process, which I would call the will. When you have carried out an act, you know if it is wrong without anyone telling you, you will feel uncomfortable and disturbed; the pendulum of your conscience has swung into the negative zone. For many people when they obey their consciences and do what they feel is right they often say they feel good, when they disobey their conscience they feel bad, or despondent, but the feeling does not prevent them from disobeying.

Interestingly the Bible does have some comments on this. John 1:9 is obviously talking about Jesus the Christ, but also the implication is that there is a ‘light’, or the word I use, conscience that is there in every person, and Romans 2:14 says this, “for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves.” In other words we all have it, and we use it, our conscience, personally.

This means that we will have different views of right or wrong according first of all to us, and then as we grow and develop, according to what we learn from our family and surrounding culture and education. The problem is that we all break our own rules, and go against our own conscience.

Conscience can of course be educated and that is where the moral discussion enters the stage. Who will define that moral code, will it be just me, will it be my culture, or will it be God? It is possible for our conscience to be developed and refined by all sorts of external things, including education.

But who should define the moral code, which one will we adopt? We need to understand that the moral code that Jesus defines is quite amazing in that it is contrary to all other moral codes that I know anything about, but please tell me if you know something different. Think about some of those moral imperatives and how counter-culture they are; ‘love your enemies, do good to those who do bad to you,’ for starters. What sort of Moral code do you want young people to follow? What moral code is required for our culture to follow and for you personally?

Adrian Hawkes

www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

W. 821

Edited: Technicolour text

2011-10-13T03:30:00.001-07:00

If it feels good, and you can get away with it, go for it! http://lnk.ms/33Nm6

Riots

2011-09-19T03:26:00.000-07:00

RIOTS

Now that the riots have calmed, and the papers and newscasters have left the subject behind, I have some questions about it all.

I have listened to the Prime Minister and various Politicians all talking about the fact that this was just gang culture, it is robbery, and that is it. I did hear a couple of people asking what the causes are of what is going on. But not a lot of comments were coming back on that score. Some have cited cuts and closures but I would like to ask some other questions and I think my questions just might touch on causes.

The last government spent a large amount of money on trying to cut down underage and very young age pregnancies. They failed, the figures went up.

Question one: How many of our rioters come from very young mothers who really are possibly only children themselves?

We have terrible figures for marriage breakdowns, I note that the prime minister said, lots of the rioters have come from dysfunctional families, maybe, and if so…

Question two: What make those families dysfunctional?

I noted that the Education Minister was saying that it isn’t education that is to blame.

Question Three: If you are taught that you are just a machine, or a collection of genes that all arrived by accident, is there really any need to take responsibility for my actions? Just asking.

Question Four: Jim Wallis in his book Why the American Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get it - states that a budget is a moral document, is he right?

Question Five: And talking of Morals, where do they come from? Are they truly there, and if so can we talk about them? Is there a law giver and ultimate judge? Can I make my own mind up as to what is right and wrong? And if I should decide that looting is right who is to say I am wrong?

One young lady with a tee shirt covering her face when asked by a reporter,”How do you feel about robbery, do you feel good about what you have just done?” Replied, I’m only getting some of my taxes back!”

Question Six: Many have said, these rioters have nothing to lose, maybe they haven’t if they are just machines in an accidental universe, which is what they have been ‘educated’ to believe. Are they right?

Just in case you think I live in an ivory tower, I actually live in Wood Green, many of my family live in Tottenham, I am white, but personal friends who are black had to take their small child and run from their flat just above the first carpet shop that went up in flames in Tottenham!

Also I am involved in trying to help NEET young people (Not in Education Employment or Training) and its true that many of them have given up on themselves, do not know where they fit in, or feel they do have not stake in society and nothing to contribute. Not knowing that God loves them and regards them as highly valuable, and has purpose for their lives.

Question Seven: All the politicians and police have talked about the fact that this is gang related. I meet some of the gang youngsters who are afraid to go out of their post code in case they get attacked because they are in the wrong place. Our training centre is in the wrong place for some of them and we have had to give them rides to and fro so they can improve their education. But here is the question, why are they in those gangs? Is it because their family is dysfunctional and family life is not there and so they need to belong, they need a family even if that family is a gang?

Question Eight: Is it my imagination or am I right in thinking that if you talk about right and wrong, or dare I say Evil and Good, or worse still Sin, then the PC crowd and government is on it like a ton of bricks, telling you, ‘No its just behavioural; and you should not talk in those terms!’

Question Nine: Dr Donald Howard an American Educationalist said that discipline is not something you do TO someone; it is actually something you do FOR someone. Am I right in thinking that this is now out of fashion, discipline that is, and very un PC?

Question Ten: Do we need to find a purpose in life, do we need to look for a lawgiver, is it possible that even though our families are dysfunctional there is a family that wants to include us, and bring us into responsible relationship?

I look forward to your comments.

Adrian Hawkes

For Blogspot.com

Edit: Technicolour Text

11^th August 2011

W. 823

2011-09-19T03:14:00.001-07:00

Some questions that people forgot to ask following the riots. http://lnk.ms/33Nm6

Morals,Where Do They Come From?

2011-09-01T07:13:00.000-07:00

Morals, where do they come from?

Looking up something recently on Wikipedia I discovered lots of comments about myself in discussion with Richard Dawkins. Many of the comments following on from the discussion are statements like, ‘how ridiculous to think that morals come from any kind of God’.

Usually, in this kind of debate, there is a tendency to ridicule things that I have said, well that’s fine, I guess it goes with getting involved and not being afraid of what I believe and understand and being sure that it holds water and can stand up to cross-examination.

I suppose I do get somewhat irritated in debates when people tell me what I believe and then tell me how ridiculous it is to believe it and attempt prove how stupid I am. But all the time I am thinking, ‘I never believed that in the first place, and you have not given me space to say what I really do believe, or think.’ It’s what I call destroying straw men, you put up an argument and then knock it down, but if it was no argument in the first place what is that?

In TV debates, especially those that are not live, there is the possibility that what was said is on the cutting room floor. I remember in one debate with Richard Dawkins, he said to me that he was more moral than me because he did not rape or pillage and he did not need a God to stop him doing those things whereas I did. My reply, which I think must be on the cutting room floor was, ‘bully for you, you ought to watch the news more often.’

If you watch the news you can see that there is an awful lot of inhumanity and suffering in the world, I live in one of those areas where young people can be stabbed or shot just because they happened to have strayed into the wrong post code area. My questions are; Why are we so awful to each other? And what has happened to a moral basis? I would argue that as we move away from an understanding of a God, who ultimately will judge and question our life responses, then we become more selfish and less inclined to care for each other or have any basis for moral decisions, our moral compass deteriorates.

The humanist argues that our morals come from the fact that we are simply human, and it develops out of our selfishness and survival needs, or as Richard Dawkins would argue the selfish gene is simply protecting itself by being moral towards others.

I often ask the question why do we have right and wrong, where do we get such concepts. The arguments on Wikipedia, in answer to what I said about morals, seem to conclude that it’s just because we are human, I’m sorry, but that just will not do. If doing wrong gives me an advantage and I can avoid getting caught why not go ahead and do it. Morals like that don’t seem to me to be moral at all.

In a discussion on morality, Richard Dawkins was asked: "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”

Dawkins replied, "What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."

Richard Dawkins' commentary on Adolf Hitler

Essay: Richard Dawkins' comment concerning Adolf Hitler http://conservapedia.com/Richard_Dawkins

Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism

It brings us back to the question, who is the law giver? If there is no ultimate lawgiver, or God, then morals become irrelevant; we are left with anarchy. If we can get away with it then why not? Whatever it is right and wrong are just words with no meaning. What is right for you might be wrong for me, but so what!

Dr. Bahnsen says that, “if the God of the bible does not exist, all principled or moral complaint about what Hitler did to the Jews is irrelevant. In a godless universe, what one “animal” does to other “animals” is ethically irrelevant. There is no basis for indignation or outrage. What happens happens: period. We are left with others feelings and desires versus the feelings and desires of Hitler – with neither having any more “right” than the other.”

If we support liberal freedom, then in a true atheist worldview we should defend Hitler’s freedom to do as he desired!

Dr. Bahnsen sets forth a rational, objective case for the existence of the Christian God, a case which fully takes into account the crucial function of one’s worldview in his reasoning. He is quoted in the tabloid for the Tabash debate as saying: “Pursued to their consistent end, the pre-suppositions of unbelief render man’s reasoning vacuous and his experience unintelligible; in short, they lead to the destruction of knowledge, the dead end of epistemological futility, and to utter foolishness.” http://www.tabash.com/

I question here the argument that atheists and humanists do as much good in the world as the likes of Robert Raikes, Wilberforce, Shaftsbury, Cadburys, Fry’s, Rowntree and the reality is that the Christian ethic, the moral bias of serving a living God gives us great reason to care for His world and the people created in His image. Interestingly Dinesh D'Souza took Richard Dawkins to task for engaging in historical revisionism when it comes to the atrocities of atheist regimes and declared Dawkins, "reveals a complete ignorance of history".

In a recent interview D'Souza declared:

“Richard Dawkins argues that at least the atheist regimes didn't kill people in the name of atheism. Isn't it time for this biologist to get out of the lab and read a little history? Marxism and Communism were atheist ideologies. Stalin and Mao weren't dictators who happened to be atheist; atheism was part of their official doctrine.

It was no accident, as the Marxists liked to say, that they shut down the churches and persecuted the clergy...

”

Dinesh D'Souza stated in another interview:

	“As one writer put it, “Leaders such as Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups, not in a bid to expand atheism, but as a way of focusing people’s hatred on those groups to consolidate their own power.” Of course I agree that murderous regimes, whether Christian or atheist, are generally seeking to strengthen their position. But if Christian regimes are held responsible for their crimes committed in the name of Christianity, then atheist regimes should be held accountable for their crimes committed in the name of atheism. And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheist.” Joseph Stalin's atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people. The thing that I noted most as I looked through Wikipedia and other web sites and the arguments against my moral perspective was that no one seemed to talk about ‘conscience’, that strange inner-voice with which we are all born. No one asked, “where does that come from?” The Bible says in John chapter 1 that there is, “…a light that lights every man.” John is talking about Jesus in his Gospel, however there is also that ‘conscience’ light that every person has, and why would that be a surprise? If, as I believe, we are made in the image of God, why would it be strange that there is that a part of us that is God-like, telling us about good and bad, right and wrong? Conscience is a strange thing, it tells us these things but does not make us do the right thing or stop us from doing wrong. Dinesh D’ Souza says it much better than me:
		The Surprising Fact of Morality Evolutionists have some ingenious explanations for morality. But do they work? Morality is both a universal and a surprising fact about human nature. When I say that morality is universal I am not referring to this or that moral code. In fact, I am not referring to an external moral code at all. Rather, I am referring to morality as the voice within, the interior source that Adam Smith called the “impartial spectator.” Morality in this sense is an uncoercive but authoritative judge. It has no power to compel us, but it speaks with unquestioned authority. Of course we can and frequently do reject what morality commands, but when we do so we cannot avoid guilt or regret. It is because of our capacity for self-impeachment and remorse that Aristotle famously called man “the beast with the red cheeks.” Aristotle’s description holds up very well more than 2,000 years later. Even people who most flagrantly repudiate morality — say, a chronic liar or a rapacious thief — nearly always respond to detection with excuses and rationalizations. They say, “Yes, I lied, but I had no alternative under the circumstances,” or “Yes, I stole, but I did so to support my family.” Hardly anyone says, “Of course I am a liar and a thief, and I don’t see anything wrong with that.” What this means is that morality supplies a universal criterion or standard even though this standard is almost universally violated. Morality is a surprising feature of humanity because it seems to defy the laws of evolution. Evolution is descriptive: It says how we do behave. Morality is prescriptive: It says how we should behave. And beyond this, evolutionary behaviour appears to run in the opposite direction from moral behaviour. Evolution implies that we are selfish creatures who seek to survive and reproduce in the world. Indeed we are, but we are also unselfish creatures who seek the welfare of others, sometimes in preference to our own. We are participants in the fame of life, understandably partial to our own welfare, while morality stands aloof, taking the impartial, or “God’s eye,” view, directing us to act in a manner conducive to the good of others. In sum, while evolution provides a descriptive account of human self-interest, morality provides a standard of human behaviour that frequently operates against self-interest. So if we are mere evolutionary primates, how to account for morality as a central and universal feature of our nature? Why would morality develop among creatures obsessively bent on survival and reproduction? Darwin himself recognized the problem. In The Descent of Man, Darwin argued that “although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet . . . an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another.” Darwin’s point is that a tribe of virtuous patriots, with each of its members willing to make sacrifices for the group, would prove more successful and thus be favoured by natural selection over a tribe of self-serving individuals. This is the group-selection argument, and for many decades it was considered an acceptable way to reconcile evolution with morality. But as biologists now recognize, the argument has a fatal flaw. The question we have to ask is how a tribe of individuals would become self-sacrificing in the first place. Imagine a tribe where, for instance, many people shared their food with others or volunteered to defend the tribe from external attack. Now what would be the fate of individual cheaters who benefited from this arrangement but hoarded their own food and themselves refused to volunteer to fight? Clearly these scoundrels would have the best deal of all. In other words, cheaters could easily become free riders, benefiting from the sacrifices of others but making no sacrifices themselves, and they would be more likely to survive than their more altruistic fellow tribesmen. So do I still think morality or conscience is something that comes from the ‘God who is there,’ after reading all that is said about my opinions in the various discussions, Wikipedia and otherwise? Even more so! Adrian Hawkes For: adrianhawkes.blogspot.com W. 2133 Editor: Technicolour Text

2011-09-01T06:29:00.001-07:00

There is no such thing as right or wrong! http://lnk.ms/33Nm6

2011-09-01T06:27:00.001-07:00

There is no such thing as right or wrong! http://lnk.ms/33Nm6

Morality

2011-08-15T07:52:00.000-07:00

Morality.

The subject I observe presents such problems.

I was part of a government think tank looking at OFSTEAD inspections of schools; one of the things they look at is the moral part of the schools ethos. My problem is how does one obtain morals? In my small discussion group there where Moslems, Catholics, Jews, Evangelicals, and humanists; all of us apart from the humanist agreed that morals have to come from some kind of Law giver, and actually in all of our thinking that must be God, apart, that is, from the humanist, who said there isn’t a God so morals must come from somewhere else.

I went on to argue that in terms of generosity, in such things as tsunamis, famines and the like the UK is actually quite generous in its giving, I put this down to the Judeo Christian influence in the background of the nation. The humanist said, “now don’t be silly, its due to the fact that we were once great colonists.” To which I responded, “I thought that was about greed, trade, and getting lots of things for ourselves?”

I was one of those interviewed by Richard Dawkins for his ‘Religion is the root of all evil’ programmes. After which I found stuff all over the internet, usually from many of the so called ‘learned’ atheists poking fun at my opinions. Funnily enough I have read Richard’s book, The God delusion, and one of the things that struck me is how often the base of whom we are and where we are comes down to ‘luck’, at least according to that book. God seems a better thesis to me.

And of course both in the programme, on the net, and definitely in Wikipedia comes the discussion of mortality. I am amused that in at least one article, the fact that we live in a moral universe and one ‘without God’ according to the ‘atheists’ is argued from the fact that some fish have a symbiotic relationship with ‘cleaner’ fish, the action of the one fish on the other fish actually protects them; therefore arguing that we don’t go around on our streets killing each other because it’s wiser not too. One of the things that Richard Dawkins said to me in the interview for his programme, (which I have not seen on the programme or the Utube repeats, so I guess it’s on the cutting room floor), was, Richard said “I am more righteous than you. “ I of course said, “Oh and how is that?” to which he replied, “I don’t go around pillaging and raping, and I don’t need a God to stop me, you need one to stop you.” To which I answered, “bully for you, you maybe ought to watch the news!”

One Swallow does not a summer make.

Richard Dawkins often says that being an atheist is not one with a depressing philosophy, actually he say it makes one appreciate life more and love life. Again I say, ‘bully for you’, the problem is that you don’t have to travel very far to find people who are starving, people who have been enslaved, people who have every reason not to love life, if you now want them to believe that this atheism is the truth, and not be depressed by such a philosophy all I can say is HELP! It’s the most depressing view of life that I can imagine;

So where does morality come from, I note that even some of the comments on what I think that are listed in Wikipedia note that I am saying that we live in a moral universe, and there is a base line for morality and that comes from somewhere, God I would say. Yes that is what I am saying, morality without a giver is craziness, it is not morality; as Charles Finny would have put it: “Opposed to this is willing self-gratification; a practical treating of self as if the gratification of our own desires, appetites, etc., were of supreme importance. Now in this ultimate choice of the good of universal being, or of self-gratification as an ultimate end, moral character must reside. Primarily, surely, it can reside nowhere else. It is this ultimate choice that gives direction and character to all the subordinate actions of the will; that gives direction to the volitions, the actions, and the omissions of all our voluntary lives. This ultimate choice is the root or fountain from which all volition and all moral action spring.”

I guess even Richard would agree with some of that, as the basic premise is that morality only comes from our own selfishness to survive or not be killed that is why we don’t have mayhem on the streets. Although I wonder if we perhaps do, I live in an area where we have postcode crime, knife and gun crime, so the morality is you don’t live in my postcode area, you are there so you need killing. That seems a great morality!

Going back to that statement I made earlier, ‘bully for you’, seems to take no note of the Hitler’s, Pol Pots, and Stalin’s of this world, which again makes me think if morality is only up to our moving to a value system that selfishly benefits us only, and we can get around it, then why not? If it is to my benefit to circumvent the law? If there is not ultimate sanction or moral law giver?

It has always interested me that the Bible talks about giving ‘light’ to every person who comes into the world. What is that light? Personally I have always seen that light as being that conscience that dwells in each and every person. We can obey it or disobey it, it is, if you like, a little bit of God in us, if we obey it we feel good, if we disobey it we feel bad, but it does not force us either way, we have the freewill, we have choice. Again to quote Finny on conscience, he talks about moral insanity:

“Moral insanity, on the other hand, is will-madness. The man retains his intellectual powers unimpaired, but he sets his heart fully to evil. He refuses to yield to the demands of his conscience. He practically discards the obligations of moral responsibility. He has the powers of free moral agency, but persistently abuses them. He has a reason which affirms obligation, but he refuses obedience to its affirmations”.

So where do I think morality comes from? I think it comes from the law giver - God, he has created, and designed a moral universe, a universe that ultimately works towards the best good for all, the created order, us, and God too. We can pretend it is not there, we can work against it, we can listen to our conscience, we can ignore it, but none of those things make it not there.

Adrian Hawkes

For Wikipedia

For Adrian’s Blog

Edited by: Technicolour text

W. 1175.

2011-08-15T07:29:00.001-07:00

If we can be morally bankrupt, from where did the moral bank originate? http://lnk.ms/33Nm6

The London Training Consortium (College) Story

2011-07-22T08:41:00.000-07:00

The London Training Consortium (College) Story

In 2005 Phoenix Community Care formed a new company called London Training Consortium. The reason we formed the company was due to misinformation from an accountant. We were told that we needed to take this action in order to register for VAT purposes, in the end turned out to be incorrect, but by this time, the company was already up and running.

PCC was already addressing some of the needs of the young people for example, looking after unaccompanied minors, foster children, vulnerable adults and young people who had been through the care system and were moving on to independence.

We quickly understood that many of those we were seeking to help needed to be able to speak English to progress in the UK and so English Speaking for Other Languages (ESOL) classes were born. During the seven years since the inception of the London Training Consortium (LTC) we have seen many young people helped by these classes.

We have run the classes and somehow found the money to pay the staff, although most of the time I have no idea how, (probably God knows). At other times we were fortunate enough to receive grants from the European Social Fund via the London Development agencies. Each year we wonder how we will find money to train the next batch of students.

In spite of the challenge of ongoing funding, the college has expanded its services and now helps those young people, who the government euphemistically calls NEET (Not in Education Employment or Training). We have helped many to access further education, enter into employment, and often most importantly, change their attitude to life, success and progress. I remember the whole office applauding one young man on achieving his Oxford Cambridge Royal Society of Arts (OCR) certification in Literacy and Numeracy; which is equivalent to a General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE). He was full of delight by the fruits of his hard work.

LTC is registered as an examining body for various courses leading to qualifications such as OCR, ASDAN, City and Guilds and ICCE, and there is an enduring thrill observing young people, who thought they could never achieve such qualifications, smile confidently as they receive their certificates.

We are still talking to the people who offer grants, and filling in their application forms. Each year, in excess of fifty students undertake the various courses offered by LTC. The courses are tailored to get the best for the individual concerned. I don’t know about you but I am fascinated by statistics and thought perhaps you would like to see some, and even if you don’t, I am going to show you them anyway.

First of all here are the various nationalities that have gone through our college, it reads a bit like United Nations doesn’t it? The interesting thing is; you can often tell where the wars are by looking at our statistics:


	Afro-Caribbean		3
	Afghanistan		84
	Albania		22
	Algeria		1
	Bangladesh		6
	Britain		71
	Burundi		1
	China		21
	Congo		12
	Eritrea		25
	Ethiopia		1
	Gambia		1
	Guinea		3
	Iran		6
	Iran (Kurdistan)		8
	Iraq		5
	Iraq(Kurdistan)		8
	Ivory Coast		2
	Korea		1
	Kosovo		3
	Kurdistan		11
	Kuwait		1
	Pakistan		1
	Poland		3
	Romania		2
	Sierra Leone		2
	Somalia		10
	Sudan		4
	Switzerland		1
	Turkey		7
	Uganda		3
	Vietnam		1

Here are all the qualifications that the students gained. Almost all students leave LTC with some certification.

Finally we seem to be more than just a training college, helping many of the students to fill in forms, find housing, offering help and support with the many challenges that life brings. Many of the students are without family or relatives to help them with these issues. As one staff member commented recently, “ I often feel less like their tutor and more like their Mother,” she went on to say, “what most of these young people are looking for, what they really need to progress is someone to sit and listen to them.” And that’s what we do; it’s called going the extra mile. The reward for us is their success.

One of the most special elements of being involved in LTC is that some young people who commenced as students ended up as long term friends.

Adrian Hawkes

For Adrian Blog spot

W. 735

Edit: Technicolour Text

2011-07-22T08:23:00.001-07:00

Big oaks from little acorns, Phoenix expands into education http://lnk.ms/33Nm6

Bureaucracy and Pendants

2011-07-13T12:25:00.000-07:00

The Phoenix Community Care story - Chapter two

Bureaucracy and Pedants

Someone said they liked the first chapter of the story and asked, “When is chapter two coming?” I thought, ‘Sounds like an interesting idea, I’ll give that a go.’

PCC was originally formed as a ‘not for Profit’ company, in June 1999; During those first few months, after Pauline’s conversation with the local authorities, making connections and moving forward were not at all easy. As I have already mentioned, our youngest daughter had donated her flat for the first clients, once she and her family move out we then took on the mortgage, this was in October. The local authorities kept telling us, “There are lots of young girls we will want to place with you.” But then we began to encounter the vast and sometimes overwhelming bureaucracy. And one of the top priorities was an inspection of the house, to ensure it was safe. Pauline kept me from contact with the inspector, due to his pedantic approach; I am not a violent man, but she feared I might thump him! I nicked-named him ‘Mr Sniffy’ because every time we felt we had met their requirements, he would say, with a sniff, “not good enough!”

Although the house was supposed to be homely, and feel just like an ordinary, normal home, the list of requirements was long. For example door closers should be fixed to every door in all rooms, just like everyone has in their home? I think not! The way Mr Sniffy tested the doors was to place a piece of thin paper between the door jamb and the top of the door and then close the door, if it paper slid down Mr Sniffy would sniff and say,’ failed’ with a subtle hint of glee.

Just imagine the cost of doing the work, secondary lighting, door closers, interactive fire alarm system, and the list went on and on. Mr Sniffy had a field day. Finally after much expense and many sniffy failures, we finally got our certificate. It was now late November, we were rather swamped with bills and the monthly mortgage repayments, but at least we were ready to help.

We contacted the local authority and said, “Okay, we are ready!”

Their response was, “It’s nearly December and we don’t do much in December.”

“Are there no refugees in need?” We asked.

“Well yes there are, but it’s the processing,” they said, “and December is a holiday month.”

Finally January came, but apparently the December holiday continued well into January. No one in the department answered the phones, or responded to us at all. Eventually, towards the end of January we had a phone call and the department asked us to take the first young lady, the one that I told you about in chapter one. The placement was on 1st February 2000.

Pauline said, “I don’t know how we will pay the bills, the mortgage is due and the bank account is bare. It’s great we are helping, but how do we survive financially?” The department would be paying us for the work with the young lady, but we had no idea when, and thereby we discovered the next hurdle.

We contacted the department and they explained the system for payment, “You will give us an invoice at the end of February for the people we place in that month, however you will have to give us thirty days credit, so we will pay you on the last day of March As it happened, we were not paid until the second week of April. We survived, but I still am not sure how.

Momentum began to pick up, and soon we received a call for the placement of a sixteen year old young lady, she came to us as a frightened and confused teenager. But several years on, she has a degree in modern languages, speaking four of them fluently and is still our friend; her husband and baby are an integral part of our community.

The process continued, until the house was full and we saw the urgent need for another house. My daughter purchased a house, renovated it and then moved her and the family to another home, and as before, we took over, ready to expand and help more people.

One of the things that sticks in my mind was Mr Sniffy’s attitude The first house was full and the second one had not yet passed the expensive inspection process. However the department called up and said, “We have a young lady, she is sleeping on a park bench and is very vulnerable, can you help us? We cannot find any other accommodation.”

We explained our position, “The problem is we only have a box room left in the house and it does not meet your inspection standards for size. We have a bed in it, a chest of draws, a TV, and bedside cabinet, but I think its six inches smaller than Mr Sniffy’s regulations.” (I hasten to inform you that didn’t call him Mr Sniffy to the department.)

“But this is an emergency!” They said. Hence we agreed to get the room ready to receive the new placement.

The young lady was pleased to have her own room, with a bed, TV, and a place to eat which was out of danger and away from the park bench. But Mr. Sniffy had other ideas

He did a spot check in the middle of the second week she was there. He phoned us straight away, “Get that girl out of that illegal room or I will close you down!” He sniffed, “I will be back at the end of next week to check you have moved her.”

We got people working like mad on house number two and managed to re-accommodate the young lady in a regulation sized room, but it still strikes me that in these situations the bullying bureaucratic regime has no compassion, no common sense, and takes no account of a very real and urgent need.

I am reminded of what the Bible says in Galatians chapter 5 verse 22, ‘…that there is no law against ‘kindness, goodness (benevolence)…’ (Amplified Bible) and I to wonder to myself if Paul, the writer, ever met a first century version of Mr Sniffy!

Adrian Hawkes

Edit: Technicolour Texta

W 1071

2011-07-13T12:17:00.001-07:00

Phoenix Community Care, the story continues…… http://lnk.ms/33Nm6

What Were We Made For?

2011-07-05T05:35:00.000-07:00

What were we made for?

When I was a little boy, not so long ago, I regularly visited my Grandparents house with my sisters and cousins; the house was big and so was the garden.

There were many trees in the large garden and in the spring lots of birds made their nests in them. Occasionally there would be a family tragedy in one of the feathered families. A small bird would fall out of a tree and could not get back to its nest, or a bird would end up with a damaged wing and be unable to fly.

My cousins, siblings and I loved this situation, we would rescue such a bird and take it to my Grandfather, he knew about these things He would disappear into his Tardis like garage, and reappear with an old cage into which he gently placed the lost or wounded bird. We would then add some water to the cage and find some way of feeding the bird, usually with bread soaked in milk, the occasional worm, and they also seemed to like cat food! We kids learned to feed the bird with a match stick with tiny morsels of food on the end.

Obviously we got very attached to the bird in the cage, it became a family pet. We enjoyed watching it grow, and get stronger, and loved feeding it. Often the bird would become quite tame and sit on our hand and take food from us. We carried out similar bird rescues many times; the trouble was it always ended the same way. There would come a day when my Grandfather would say,

“OK this bird is now strong and well and it’s time to set it free.”

And as usual us kids would also cry out, “No Grandpa, this bird likes us it wants to stay with us, it doesn’t want to be free!”

Grandfather never listened, he would take the cage to the top of the garden with a bunch of kids in tow and putting the cage down on the grass he would then open the cage door. Often at this stage a funny thing would happen, the bird would hop out of the cage, as it had done before on many occasions, onto our hands; then the bird would hop around the lawn and to our surprise, go back into the cage. Its funny how we are drawn back to familiar things, even a prison or a cage.

Grandfather would then give us a lecture on what birds were made for, “Birds are made to fly, birds are made to be free, and birds are not made to be in a cage,” and so on.

We kids of course responded with ,“but this bird likes us, this bird wants to stay with us, please let us keep it Grandpa.”

As I remember those birds it does set me thinking about what we humans are here for? What are we made for? What things we should be free from? What should be leaving behind but find that we still go back too? What is the environment that we should fly in?

Grandfather would then do something that would make us kids cringe and cry out, “No Grandpa! That’s too cruel!”

He would cup the bird gently in his very big hands, move to the centre of the garden, swing his arms low, then as hard as he could he would swing his arms forward and up into the air, releasing his hands at the highest point and throwing the little bird as high into the air as possible. The little bird would often flutter down, catch the air in its wings, and then begin to fly. Sometime it would fly around the garden a couple of times, perhaps sitting for a few moments on one of the branches in our apple tree, then to our dismay it would fly off to join the other birds; gone, as far as we kids were concerned, for ever.

Grandfather would console us by saying, “It’s where it should, be free to fly, free to be a bird, and birds are not meant for cages.” And neither are we!

For Adrian’s Blog
Edited by: Technicolor Text
13^th May 2011
W. 711

2011-07-05T05:29:00.001-07:00

Birds were meant to fly, and so are you, or perhaps you like your cage... http://lnk.ms/33Nm6