Monday, 19 July 2010
Monday, 12 July 2010
'The problem isn't beef, bananas, cultural diversity or the patenting of life. The problem is the WTO'
Leading development analyst Susan George on why the world trade talks in Seattle next week won't help the great majority of people or the environment
The ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks, which open next Tuesday in Seattle, is being blandly presented as a straightforward negotiation on international trade in which everyone will have to make a few concessions. The WTO message, however, is not getting through, and mass demonstrations are planned to greet the delegates and the lobbyists from the multinationals.
Europe has already had to contend with bananas, hormone-fed beef and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), all of which have helped to mobilise opinion against the tyranny of any international organisation that thinks it is a cut above everyone else. But how have things come to such a pass?
Since 1947, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt) had been working discreetly to get customs duties on all kinds of goods reduced. Following the eighth round of talks in Uruguay (1986-93), that came to fruition. In March 1994, ministers gathered in Marrakesh to sign the document that created the WTO. Its 800 pages gave world trade a framework far more constraining than the feeble Gatt.
The lobbyists of transnational corporations, who had long had the ear of official negotiators, rubbed their hands with glee: the WTO gave them the ideal tool to complete their globalisation and impose their own rules on all human activities now defined as objects of "trade".
The WTO, which, unlike Gatt, has the status of an international organisation, has 134 member states and 30 observers. Its headquarters in Geneva are home to Gatt, which is still responsible for liberalising trade in goods, and a dozen other agreements. Among the most important of these are those on agriculture and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (Gats), which covers more than 160 sectors and sub-sectors, including education, health and the environment. The agreement known as Trips governs intellectual property - including biotechnology and the patenting of micro-organisms and microbiological processes - while the Trims agreement is concerned with "trade-related" investments.
One of the WTO's tasks, the elimination of non-tariff barriers to trade, is performed in part through two other agreements. The agreement on technical barriers to trade and the one on sanitary and phytosanitary measures each claim to "harmonise" standards and rules for the protection of the environment, public health and consumers. In practice, "harmonisation" imposes ceilings that effectively reduce national laws to the lowest common denominator and dispenses with the precautionary principle. Anyone who refuses to import a product on the grounds that it may be hazardous to health or destructive to the environment must provide scientific proof. One of the battles between WTO countries will be over the principle of on whom the burden of proof lies.
Formerly, when Gatt wanted to penalise a country that was not playing by the rules, every member had to agree, even the one that was to suffer the penalties. As a result, Gatt carried little authority. The WTO, with its implacable discipline, is the opposite. If its dispute settlement body orders sanctions, the members - including the plaintiff - must be unanimous if the sanctions are not to apply. Hence the undeniable right of the US to penalise roquefort cheese, foie gras and Dijon mustards by imposing prohibitive customs duties. If the Europeans refuse to import hormone-fed beef, despite the WTO ruling, no matter. They must then compensate the US and Canada every year for their lost earnings.
The conditions under which the WTO's panels, which have settled more than 170 disputes, are appointed are obscure. The names of the "experts", who meet behind closed doors and who hear no outside witnesses, are not made public. This impenetrable procedure is astonishingly quick: disputes are generally settled in 12 months, 18 at the most. Canada, the world's biggest asbestos producer, hoped to take advantage of this to force Europe to import the carcinogen again.
Without warning, the WTO has created an international court of "justice" that is making law and establishing case law in which exist ing national laws are all "barriers" to trade, and is sweeping aside all environmental, social or public health considerations.
In so doing, it is merely following the principles that govern all its activities. For example, the "most favoured nation" clause demands equality of treatment for similar products from different member countries. With the banana decision, the WTO was able to deny the EU the right to have a foreign policy. In the WTO's eyes, a banana is only a banana, be it from Ecuador or the former European colonies.
The national treatment clause prohibits any discrimination affecting products of foreign origin, especially on the basis of the human or ecological conditions under which they were produced. In other words, no account may be taken of the "processes and methods of production". No reference may be made either to sustainable development or to human rights, and trading partners may not be rewarded or punished on the basis of their respect for those ideas. The article on "eliminating quantitative restrictions" penalises quotas and the refusal to import or export. This provision could invalidate many multilateral environmental agreements and some social conventions.
How, then, are we to prevent trade in endangered species or toxic waste? How can we limit exports of cereals when there is a national food shortage, or of tree trunks when the forests are being laid waste? The agreements on technical barriers and sanitary and phytosanitary measures reinforce this legal arsenal. An incalculable number of national standards, rules or laws could easily be classed as "barriers to trade".
These are just a few of the pitfalls along the road to the meeting of the WTO's supreme body, the ministerial conference in Seattle. The previous conferences have set the agenda: to review the agreements on agriculture, services and intellectual property. Seattle will decide the precise content of what Sir Leon Brittan has pompously termed the "Millennium Round".
It is planned to conclude the round with a global agreement in three years' time. The talks will move liberalisation forward and prevent any backtracking; that is how the WTO does things. And the US is reluctant to see the Trips agreement and GMO controversy re-opened, especially as the African countries have declared their opposition to the patenting of life.
A battle to the death is looming between the Cairns group of major agricultural exporting countries (Argentina, Australia and Brazil) and the US on one side, and Europe and Japan, which are considered too protective of their farmers, on the other. The Cairns group simply wants agricultural products to be allowed to compete like any other merchandise. Under pressure from France, the EU stresses the "multi-functionality" of agriculture as protecting diversity, the environment and rural life. Producers in the US, though, are urging their government "to resist any attempt to introduce the concept of multifunctionality".
We do not yet know the order in which the fields covered by the agreement on services will be tackled. If the word "horizontal" is heard, however, it is time to show one's claws: in WTO parlance, it means that a liberalisation measure accepted in one field must be extended to all. A liberalisation applied to banks or insurance, for example, would also have to be applied to education and health.
If governments have their priorities, business has its own. The US Coalition of Service Industries stresses distribution, finance, information technologies, telecommunications, tourism and health. The European Service Leaders' Group, presided over by the chairman of Barclays Bank, is concerned with 21 sectors.
The US Coalition of Energy Services is calling on the US special trade representative and chief negotiator, Charlene Barshevsky, to get their activities added to the agreement on services. The coalition - whose 27 members represent hundreds of billions of dollars - looks as if it will get its way. Brazil, France and Norway, which still regard these areas as public services, have been identified as "possible opponents".
Nobody knows what other sectors might be added to the agenda. The Europeans want the list to be as long as possible. For them, anything is useful in establishing a better balance of power with Washington.
The US negotiators prefer not to include investment, lest they reawaken the citizens' movement that scuppered the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in October last year. In any case, agreement on services would open up many advantages for investors. Neither do the Americans want to include electronic commerce: they want this virgin sector to remain a green pasture of zero customs tariffs. Public contracts, which account for 15% of most countries' gross national product, are clearly a juicy target that the US would like to see included.
The Americans, however, will be adamant that the so-called accelerated tariff liberalisation initiative (ATL) be placed on the agenda, defining as it does eight disparate fields in which zero tariffs should quickly become the norm. Alongside jewellery, toys or medical equipment, we find forestry and fishery products - fields in which zero tariffs would accelerate the destruction of these non-renewable resources. In this, Washington has the support of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference, whose member countries account for 60% of world trade.
Where are the countries of the southern hemisphere in all this? The EU says that they deserve special care. Many of them have no ambassador to the WTO, and complain that they have made concessions without getting anything in return - especially in the field of textiles and clothing. Their priority is to see the commitments given to them in the Uruguay Round enacted. They are also suspicious of the European and North American desire to discuss ecological or social clauses. They see this as protectionism in disguise.
The movement that brought down the MAI has quickly mobilised itself again, this time against a WTO that is anti-democratic and destroys freedom and the environment. Accused by the partisans of free trade of wanting to take the world back to the 1930s and the trade wars, the movement replies that international trade needs rules, but not those of the WTO. There is another international law - that of human rights, multilateral environmental agreements and labour law, to which trade should be subordinate. The economy should serve the people and their natural environment, not the other way round. Too much liberalisation spells death to freedom.
The protesters, who will be many in Seattle, are united around one certainty: the need to fight for each other - failing which all will be defeated.
The problem isn't beef, bananas, cultural diversity or the patenting of life: the problem is the WTO.
• Susan George is president of the Observatoire de la mondialisation (Globalisation Observatory) and associate director of the Transnational Institute (Amsterdam).This is an edited extract of an article in the November edition of Le Monde Diplomatique. To subscribe to the English version, published jointly with the Guardian Weekly, phone 0161-832 7200 x 8712, or email gwsubs@guardian.co.uk
* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
The ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks, which open next Tuesday in Seattle, is being blandly presented as a straightforward negotiation on international trade in which everyone will have to make a few concessions. The WTO message, however, is not getting through, and mass demonstrations are planned to greet the delegates and the lobbyists from the multinationals.
Europe has already had to contend with bananas, hormone-fed beef and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), all of which have helped to mobilise opinion against the tyranny of any international organisation that thinks it is a cut above everyone else. But how have things come to such a pass?
Since 1947, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (Gatt) had been working discreetly to get customs duties on all kinds of goods reduced. Following the eighth round of talks in Uruguay (1986-93), that came to fruition. In March 1994, ministers gathered in Marrakesh to sign the document that created the WTO. Its 800 pages gave world trade a framework far more constraining than the feeble Gatt.
The lobbyists of transnational corporations, who had long had the ear of official negotiators, rubbed their hands with glee: the WTO gave them the ideal tool to complete their globalisation and impose their own rules on all human activities now defined as objects of "trade".
The WTO, which, unlike Gatt, has the status of an international organisation, has 134 member states and 30 observers. Its headquarters in Geneva are home to Gatt, which is still responsible for liberalising trade in goods, and a dozen other agreements. Among the most important of these are those on agriculture and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (Gats), which covers more than 160 sectors and sub-sectors, including education, health and the environment. The agreement known as Trips governs intellectual property - including biotechnology and the patenting of micro-organisms and microbiological processes - while the Trims agreement is concerned with "trade-related" investments.
One of the WTO's tasks, the elimination of non-tariff barriers to trade, is performed in part through two other agreements. The agreement on technical barriers to trade and the one on sanitary and phytosanitary measures each claim to "harmonise" standards and rules for the protection of the environment, public health and consumers. In practice, "harmonisation" imposes ceilings that effectively reduce national laws to the lowest common denominator and dispenses with the precautionary principle. Anyone who refuses to import a product on the grounds that it may be hazardous to health or destructive to the environment must provide scientific proof. One of the battles between WTO countries will be over the principle of on whom the burden of proof lies.
Formerly, when Gatt wanted to penalise a country that was not playing by the rules, every member had to agree, even the one that was to suffer the penalties. As a result, Gatt carried little authority. The WTO, with its implacable discipline, is the opposite. If its dispute settlement body orders sanctions, the members - including the plaintiff - must be unanimous if the sanctions are not to apply. Hence the undeniable right of the US to penalise roquefort cheese, foie gras and Dijon mustards by imposing prohibitive customs duties. If the Europeans refuse to import hormone-fed beef, despite the WTO ruling, no matter. They must then compensate the US and Canada every year for their lost earnings.
The conditions under which the WTO's panels, which have settled more than 170 disputes, are appointed are obscure. The names of the "experts", who meet behind closed doors and who hear no outside witnesses, are not made public. This impenetrable procedure is astonishingly quick: disputes are generally settled in 12 months, 18 at the most. Canada, the world's biggest asbestos producer, hoped to take advantage of this to force Europe to import the carcinogen again.
Without warning, the WTO has created an international court of "justice" that is making law and establishing case law in which exist ing national laws are all "barriers" to trade, and is sweeping aside all environmental, social or public health considerations.
In so doing, it is merely following the principles that govern all its activities. For example, the "most favoured nation" clause demands equality of treatment for similar products from different member countries. With the banana decision, the WTO was able to deny the EU the right to have a foreign policy. In the WTO's eyes, a banana is only a banana, be it from Ecuador or the former European colonies.
The national treatment clause prohibits any discrimination affecting products of foreign origin, especially on the basis of the human or ecological conditions under which they were produced. In other words, no account may be taken of the "processes and methods of production". No reference may be made either to sustainable development or to human rights, and trading partners may not be rewarded or punished on the basis of their respect for those ideas. The article on "eliminating quantitative restrictions" penalises quotas and the refusal to import or export. This provision could invalidate many multilateral environmental agreements and some social conventions.
How, then, are we to prevent trade in endangered species or toxic waste? How can we limit exports of cereals when there is a national food shortage, or of tree trunks when the forests are being laid waste? The agreements on technical barriers and sanitary and phytosanitary measures reinforce this legal arsenal. An incalculable number of national standards, rules or laws could easily be classed as "barriers to trade".
These are just a few of the pitfalls along the road to the meeting of the WTO's supreme body, the ministerial conference in Seattle. The previous conferences have set the agenda: to review the agreements on agriculture, services and intellectual property. Seattle will decide the precise content of what Sir Leon Brittan has pompously termed the "Millennium Round".
It is planned to conclude the round with a global agreement in three years' time. The talks will move liberalisation forward and prevent any backtracking; that is how the WTO does things. And the US is reluctant to see the Trips agreement and GMO controversy re-opened, especially as the African countries have declared their opposition to the patenting of life.
A battle to the death is looming between the Cairns group of major agricultural exporting countries (Argentina, Australia and Brazil) and the US on one side, and Europe and Japan, which are considered too protective of their farmers, on the other. The Cairns group simply wants agricultural products to be allowed to compete like any other merchandise. Under pressure from France, the EU stresses the "multi-functionality" of agriculture as protecting diversity, the environment and rural life. Producers in the US, though, are urging their government "to resist any attempt to introduce the concept of multifunctionality".
We do not yet know the order in which the fields covered by the agreement on services will be tackled. If the word "horizontal" is heard, however, it is time to show one's claws: in WTO parlance, it means that a liberalisation measure accepted in one field must be extended to all. A liberalisation applied to banks or insurance, for example, would also have to be applied to education and health.
If governments have their priorities, business has its own. The US Coalition of Service Industries stresses distribution, finance, information technologies, telecommunications, tourism and health. The European Service Leaders' Group, presided over by the chairman of Barclays Bank, is concerned with 21 sectors.
The US Coalition of Energy Services is calling on the US special trade representative and chief negotiator, Charlene Barshevsky, to get their activities added to the agreement on services. The coalition - whose 27 members represent hundreds of billions of dollars - looks as if it will get its way. Brazil, France and Norway, which still regard these areas as public services, have been identified as "possible opponents".
Nobody knows what other sectors might be added to the agenda. The Europeans want the list to be as long as possible. For them, anything is useful in establishing a better balance of power with Washington.
The US negotiators prefer not to include investment, lest they reawaken the citizens' movement that scuppered the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in October last year. In any case, agreement on services would open up many advantages for investors. Neither do the Americans want to include electronic commerce: they want this virgin sector to remain a green pasture of zero customs tariffs. Public contracts, which account for 15% of most countries' gross national product, are clearly a juicy target that the US would like to see included.
The Americans, however, will be adamant that the so-called accelerated tariff liberalisation initiative (ATL) be placed on the agenda, defining as it does eight disparate fields in which zero tariffs should quickly become the norm. Alongside jewellery, toys or medical equipment, we find forestry and fishery products - fields in which zero tariffs would accelerate the destruction of these non-renewable resources. In this, Washington has the support of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference, whose member countries account for 60% of world trade.
Where are the countries of the southern hemisphere in all this? The EU says that they deserve special care. Many of them have no ambassador to the WTO, and complain that they have made concessions without getting anything in return - especially in the field of textiles and clothing. Their priority is to see the commitments given to them in the Uruguay Round enacted. They are also suspicious of the European and North American desire to discuss ecological or social clauses. They see this as protectionism in disguise.
The movement that brought down the MAI has quickly mobilised itself again, this time against a WTO that is anti-democratic and destroys freedom and the environment. Accused by the partisans of free trade of wanting to take the world back to the 1930s and the trade wars, the movement replies that international trade needs rules, but not those of the WTO. There is another international law - that of human rights, multilateral environmental agreements and labour law, to which trade should be subordinate. The economy should serve the people and their natural environment, not the other way round. Too much liberalisation spells death to freedom.
The protesters, who will be many in Seattle, are united around one certainty: the need to fight for each other - failing which all will be defeated.
The problem isn't beef, bananas, cultural diversity or the patenting of life: the problem is the WTO.
• Susan George is president of the Observatoire de la mondialisation (Globalisation Observatory) and associate director of the Transnational Institute (Amsterdam).This is an edited extract of an article in the November edition of Le Monde Diplomatique. To subscribe to the English version, published jointly with the Guardian Weekly, phone 0161-832 7200 x 8712, or email gwsubs@guardian.co.uk
* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
Saturday, 10 July 2010
RACHEL CORRIE: A DIFFERENT KIND OF LIBERATOR
Dr. James J. Zogby ©
President
Arab American
A very different kind of American liberator was tragically killed last week, days before the Iraq war began.
Rachel Corrie, a 23-year-old student from the state of Washington, was murdered by an Israeli bulldozer driver in Gaza. She was part of a courageous group of activists who have come to Palestine from all over the world to provide non-violent assistance to the Palestinian people.
During the past few years, these peace activists have: placed themselves between Israeli tanks and Palestinian demonstrators; worked to stop Israeli bulldozers from destroying Palestinian homes; and provided eye-witness testimony to Israeli behavior at checkpoints and other human rights violations.
Without any official support and often times ignored even by the international media, this band of civilian liberators has bravely risked their lives to support the Palestinian people's struggle for freedom.
Last week, Rachel, who had taken six months off from her college work to go to Gaza, became the first of these international peace activists to be the victim of what appears to be a cold-blooded murder. The Israeli bulldozers had arrived in Rafah to demolish the home of the Samir family. After a two-hour argument and standoff between Rachel and the vehicle's driver, Rachel sat down refusing to allow the bulldozer to move on the house. The driver drove right over Rachel and then reversed and drove over her again. Her body was crushed and though rescued by her colleagues-she died from massive injuries a short while later.
The story of Rachel spread like a wildfire throughout the United States. Newspapers featured the story and websites of dozens of organizations showed pictures of this young woman's courageous standoff with the machine that ended her life.
Many of these websites have carried Rachel's extensive writings about her experiences in Gaza and her growing understanding of the Palestinian situation. She was an extraordinarily, perceptive young woman and gifted writer. In one of her letters from Gaza she wrote:
February 7
No amount of reading, attendance at conferences, documentary viewing and word of mouth could have prepared me for the reality of the situation here. You just can't imagine it unless you see it - and even then you are always well aware that your experience of it is not at all the reality: what with the difficulties the Israeli army would face if they shot an unarmed US citizen, and with the fact that I have money to buy water when the army destroys wells, and the fact, of course, that I have the option of leaving. Nobody in my family has been shot, driving in their car, by a rocket launcher from a tower at the end of a major street in my hometown. I have a home. I am allowed to go see the ocean. When I leave for school or work I can be relatively certain that there will not be a heavily armed soldier waiting...
February 27
Sometimes the adrenaline acts as an anesthetic for weeks and then in the evening or at night it just hits me again - a little bit of the reality of the situation. I am really scared for the people here. Yesterday, I watched a father lead his two tiny children, holding his hands, out into the sight of tanks and a sniper tower and bulldozers and Jeeps because he thought his house was going to be exploded.
...If any of us had our lives and welfare completely strangled, lived with children in a shrinking place where we knew, because of previous experience, that soldiers and tanks and bulldozers could come for us at any moment and destroy all the greenhouses that we had been cultivating for however long, and did this while some of us were beaten and held captive with 149 other people for several hours - do you think we might try to use somewhat violent means to protect whatever fragments remained? I think about this especially when I see orchards and greenhouses and fruit trees destroyed - just years of care and cultivation. I think about you and how long it takes to make things grow and what a labor of love it is. I really think, in a similar situation, most people would defend themselves as best they could.
...This is what I am seeing here. The assassinations, rocket attacks and shooting of children are atrocities - but in focusing on them I'm terrified of missing their context. The vast majority of people here - even if they had the economic means to escape, even if they actually wanted to give up resisting on their land and just leave (which appears to be maybe the less nefarious of Sharon's possible goals), can't leave. Because they can't even get into Israel to apply for visas, and because their destination countries won't let them in (both our country and Arab countries). So I think when all means of survival is cut off in a pen (Gaza) which people can't get out of, I think that qualifies as genocide.
On March 16, Rachel's pen stopped writing. Her parents in their horror and pain reacted bravely. In a statement they issued after visiting members of Congress who promised to work for an investigation into the cause of their daughter's death they said:
We are speaking out today because of Rachel's fears about the impact of a war with Iraq on the people in the Occupied Territories. She reported to us that her Palestinian friends were afraid that with all eyes on Iraq, the Israeli Defense Forces would escalate activity in the Occupied Territories. Rachel wanted to be in Gaza if that happened.
...In the last six weeks, Rachel became our eyes and ears for Rafah, a city at the southern tip of Gaza. Now that she's no longer there, we are asking members of Congress and, truly, all the world to watch and listen.
...We are asking members of Congress to bring the U.S. government's attention back to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis and to recognize that the occupation of the Palestinian territories is an overwhelming and continuous act of collective violence against the Palestinian people.
...Rachel would not want her death to overshadow that of others. In barely glancing at headlines since word came of Rachel's death, I note that many have died this week in the Occupied Territories - one a four-year-old child. I would like to be able to hold the mother of that child and to have her hold me.
Rachel and her parents make me proud to be an American. They represent a uniquely American spirit. Rachel should not be forgotten, as the war with Iraq steals the world's headlines and attention. Many Americans have come together to support Rachel's parents' call to Congress to: provide protection both for international volunteers who are in Palestine to promote human rights and justice and for the Palestinian people as a whole during these difficult times.
We are also calling for a complete investigation into Rachel's murder. Finally, we are working to establish a scholarship in Rachel's name so that her memory and her commitment to human service and liberation lives on.
Washington Watch
March 24, 2003
Thursday, 8 July 2010
How the Church of England became the Church of State
A dispute between Henry VIII and the Pope over the legitimacy over divorce led to a new church under the monarch
The Church of England's position as the country's established church dates back to the upheavals of the 16th century Reformation.
The disagreement between the English monarch and the Vatican saw the church gradually emerge out of Henry VIII's dispute with the papacy over his right to divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon.
The king used the split from the Catholic church to divorce his fourth wife, Anne of Cleves, too, having seen his second beheaded, and third die.
The monarch became the supreme governor of the state church and its doctrine was officially defined through the 39 Articles in the reign of Henry's daughter, Elizabeth I.
The church's continuing privileged position gives 26 of its bishops seats as a right in the House of Lords, gives institutional rights on state occasions, including the coronation of the sovereign, and protects it through a complex and ancient web of legislation.
Among the historic legacies are such archaic hangovers as the Act of Settlement, preventing the monarch from being – or marrying – a Catholic: a 300 year-old piece of legislation that some bishops still defend to this day.
As part of the modern constitutional tie-in, the church's synod can create legislation determining its affairs. The resulting legislation then has to be approved, but cannot be amended, by parliament.
In return, the Church of England maintains a presence in every parish in the country, runs a network of state-funded schools, claims to be available to all and insists that it speaks on behalf of faith communities on spiritual and religious matters.
It also maintains the upkeep of many of the country's most historic buildings.
Senior church appointments are still nominally made by the sovereign on the advice of the prime minister based on recommendations by the church.
Nominations can be vetoed or altered at the behest of Downing Street.
Critics allege that the church can no longer claim public influence and authority because only about half the population identify themselves as Anglicans, and very few go to church. Unravelling the church's established status would be complex and time-consuming: it took parliament 70 years to disestablish the much smaller church in Wales.
* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
The Church of England's position as the country's established church dates back to the upheavals of the 16th century Reformation.
The disagreement between the English monarch and the Vatican saw the church gradually emerge out of Henry VIII's dispute with the papacy over his right to divorce his first wife, Catherine of Aragon.
The king used the split from the Catholic church to divorce his fourth wife, Anne of Cleves, too, having seen his second beheaded, and third die.
The monarch became the supreme governor of the state church and its doctrine was officially defined through the 39 Articles in the reign of Henry's daughter, Elizabeth I.
The church's continuing privileged position gives 26 of its bishops seats as a right in the House of Lords, gives institutional rights on state occasions, including the coronation of the sovereign, and protects it through a complex and ancient web of legislation.
Among the historic legacies are such archaic hangovers as the Act of Settlement, preventing the monarch from being – or marrying – a Catholic: a 300 year-old piece of legislation that some bishops still defend to this day.
As part of the modern constitutional tie-in, the church's synod can create legislation determining its affairs. The resulting legislation then has to be approved, but cannot be amended, by parliament.
In return, the Church of England maintains a presence in every parish in the country, runs a network of state-funded schools, claims to be available to all and insists that it speaks on behalf of faith communities on spiritual and religious matters.
It also maintains the upkeep of many of the country's most historic buildings.
Senior church appointments are still nominally made by the sovereign on the advice of the prime minister based on recommendations by the church.
Nominations can be vetoed or altered at the behest of Downing Street.
Critics allege that the church can no longer claim public influence and authority because only about half the population identify themselves as Anglicans, and very few go to church. Unravelling the church's established status would be complex and time-consuming: it took parliament 70 years to disestablish the much smaller church in Wales.
* guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
What every couple should read before getting married
Kate Figes has, in the nicest possible way, made a career out of being a nosy parker. For her latest book, Couples: The Truth, she spent three years asking 120 people questions about love, about sex, about who does the washing-up and who pays the mortgage, about children, about infidelity, about living happily, and unhappily ever after.
Awkward questions, asked in the twinkliest way imaginable, are her speciality. (Though sometimes she gets an answer to an entirely different question. 'Many of the men assumed I was referring to their sex lives when I asked them how love had changed through their relationship,' she says.)
And now here is the 52-year-old author – who in the past has delved into other dark corners such as female bullying, and the alienation that can reside at the heart of motherhood – twinkling her way through an interview of her own, in a cosy north London kitchen, with the odd interruption from her GCSE-ridden younger daughter, Grace, and her blind dachshund, Rollo.
'What I was most surprised by when researching the book was, given this notion there is today that marriage is miserable, mundane, troubled, how many people do make it work,' she tells me. 'We are all doing much better than we give ourselves credit for. When you talk to people and listen to their stories most people want to make relationships work. We know in our heart of hearts they are good for us.'
Why then is there so much negativity, fear even, around the topic of modern marriage? 'We like to look at the disasters more than at happiness. Also you only tend to hear about other people's relationships once they have broken down. Very few people want to talk about what is going on inside their marriage. It is like the "glass shade" that EM Forster writes about that cuts off married couples from the world. Which means you have no way of judging whether what you are going through in your own marriage is normal, or abnormal, and what you should do about it. And so then all you ever see are the disasters. And you think, aahhh, divorce is some kind of car crash that is going to happen to you, but you have no real idea how to stop yourself from getting there.'
It seems paradoxical that the more fearful we become about marriage, and its failure, the more expensive our weddings become (now £18,500 on average). Yet Figes believes the two are connected. 'We need to put marriage on to a pedestal, to show that we value it, because we want to believe that love can last a lifetime. And many of us feel that if we spend enough on our wedding then maybe we can beat the odds on divorce. But also we love the traditions of the wedding day – even though many of them are not age-old but 20th century. And we believe that, by buying into these "old" traditions, we are getting married in the right way and increasing the odds on marriage lasting "like it used to".'
Figes, who has herself been happily married to Christoph, a teacher, for more than 20 years, and with whom she has two daughters, identifies the current period as one of almost elemental renegotiation between men and women, particularly in the sphere of cohabitation and parenting. She writes that 'couples are arguing their way, often ferociously, towards a more democratic fairness, compromised by the assumptions they have grown up with about how men and women should be as "husbands" and "wives".'
Yet, as she observes to me now, there remains 'this idea that love will just see you through, that you meet this person and that it is all going to be all right. There is very little discussion. I was surprised by the number of people who don't talk about basic things like whether or not you want children, or where you want to live. There is this notion with relationships that somehow you trust an external force – love, or the institution of marriage, or romance – to keep you together when it is the two of you that have to do it. All I wanted to do with the book was to say to people, "Take responsibility for your relationship."'
But can relationships skills really be learnt? 'If you take a heart disease metaphor we know you shouldn't eat too many saturated fats and that you should exercise to keep healthy, and I think you could say there are similar things in relationships.'
And what are those things? 'A sense of individual self and respect for the other person's sense of self. That is the number one thing, because from there everything else flourishes. The courtesies of daily life – good manners, tolerance, forgiveness, a sense of humour. Then there is the ability to talk when you are unhappy about something before it becomes too entrenched a resentment. To accept imperfections, to be realistic as to what a relationship can offer – not expecting it to make you secure, rich, happy. It can't do all those things – those things have to come from yourself. And finally, when you have difficult times, to learn from them.'
Figes has robust views on 'learning from' infidelity in particular. 'Couples betray each other in all sorts of ways. Why is it that a sexual thing is more of a betrayal than, you know, lying about the fact that you haven't been paying the mortgage? Infidelity is going to be the subject of my next book. Most people have affairs for complex relationship or personal reasons. It is not just necessarily that they are not getting enough sex in their marriage. If you address that then you have a chance to rebuild your relationship on a better footing. I think that from the research – the stuff I am looking at now for the new book – most people who do forgive affairs move on to something better as a result.'
In Couples she refers disapprovingly to how, from the 1970s onwards, agony aunts have become more likely to counsel not forgiving your husband for an affair. 'I think we have become more sanctimonious about it. There is a notion that because marriage is a relationship we perceive as being less stable, because the social sanctions seem fewer, less reliable to us, fidelity has become more of a symbol of trust and commitment.'
Has she experienced infidelity herself? 'No. I have been married for 21 years and, no, I have never wanted to, and so far as I know neither has my husband. But both of us had lots of sex before we got married; we had lots of other partners.' Her own marital challenges have been her struggles with undiagnosed postnatal depression – which prompted her to write Life After Birth – and a period when her husband Christoph was out of work for 18 months, 'a hugely challenging period for us both'.
Perhaps the biggest hurdle was to get married in the first place. Her mother, Eva Figes, the author of the feminist tract Patriarchal Attitudes, divorced her father when Kate was five, and never remarried. 'My parents made all the mistakes that couples made at that time, when divorce was rare. You don't want to enact the same things on your children as were enacted on you.'
She spent much of early adulthood in a series of destructive relationships and, while she says she consciously chose Christoph 'because he was completely unlike the people I'd had relationships with before … someone I could be content with', she only agreed to marriage at his insistence, and 'spent the first 10 years wondering when he was going to leave me'.
(Figes's only sibling, the historian Orlando Figes, was himself recently the subject of a gripping marital melodrama, when his wife stepped in to cover his tracks after he had been posting laudatory comments about his own books online, and derogatory ones about other historians. Figes tells me she can't comment for legal reasons.)
She moves on to one of her favourite themes, the importance of difference, of space, in a relationship. 'There is the idea in this confessional culture that you have to be everything to each other, so therefore we are very confused about where the borderline lies between being totally honest, and holding back. We don't know where that line lies. In fact, it is important to preserve your own separate sense of space. Your partner has no right to know everything in your head. The most successful relationships consist of two autonomous grown-ups who are able to be together, respect each other's autonomy, and be apart, and trust when they are apart that the foundations are still solid. It is a very unromantic notion in a way that you should be these two separate beings but that it is how it is more flexible.'
Figes says that the strongest marital structure is that of a triangle. 'We may be each other's most important person, but that does not mean we do not need anyone else.' That said, she tells me that she was struck, during her research interviews, 'by how many different ways there are of being a couple'.
She is particularly optimistic about the rise of the so-called 'peer marriage', in which the importance attached to work is similar, domestic responsibilities are fairly evenly split – though at 60-40 the woman is still doing the lion's share – and both partners have equal influence over key decisions.
'Research shows that when couples feel more equal, when they are able almost to replace each other, then they are happier. They are more invested in each other's emotional contentment. What's more, the whole stability of a relationship often depends upon how much a man is willing to accept his partner's influence.' So the sensible husband will let his wife get her own way? 'If a man wants to stay with his partner it is in his best interest to listen to what she wants and change. Women are more likely to end a relationship.'
Figes observes that most divorces are triggered by 'disappointment rather than irretrievable breakdown'. She quotes statistics that suggest it takes couples six years to go to counselling for a particular problem, by which time it is usually too late. Figes advises, 'At the first hint of trouble, such as that you are arguing badly, just go to someone who interprets what you are both saying, so you really understand each other.'
Do people give up too readily on marriage? 'There are people who do divorce too easily. It is a bit like moving house – you don't realise what you have lost until you have moved. Shared history and a shared understanding can matter hugely. But then the other side of the coin is that there are people who don't divorce who should. So there is that question of how unhappy do you have to be. Only you can work it out but at least try and go into it with your eyes open.'
Of course we, as a society, are much exercised by our see-sawing rates of marriage and divorce, and what they may say about us. Yet fascinatingly, Figes points out that prior to 1850 it was only the wealthy, prompted by dynastic and inheritance concerns more than anything, who chose to marry. 'Up until the end of the 19th century many more people cohabited in common-law unions than married, just as they are beginning to do today.'
What is more, the average length of the modern marriage – about 13 years – is the same as throughout much of history. According to the historian Lawrence Stone, it was only between 1920 and 1950 – 'when death rates of young adults had dropped precipitously and divorce had not yet taken on a major role' – that the average marriage lasted much longer.
So our collective sense of failure in marriage and personal relationships is based on a historical misapprehension? 'Yes. This has been instilled in us by the 1950s – it is amazing how powerful that decade and its values are. That ethos that we think has been with us for ever – men as the breadwinner, women at home – it wasn't like that in the past. Yet we think that is the norm, and that we are all betraying old values.'
What about the role of children in marriage? 'For my husband's parents, for that generation, the marriage came first and the children were second to it, and it has completely flipped. We now have control over when we have children, so you therefore have to justify that choice. But I also wonder how much we have replaced … your children are for ever … your husband may leave, and you can't trust that love in a marriage will last forever but you can trust that children will, or at least you think you can. I think women do that, they over-invest.'
The fact is, says Figes, that whatever happens to rates of marriage and divorce our commitment as human beings to commitment itself remains undiminished. 'These relationships matter to us as much as they ever did, in terms of support, care, community, love. And this is reflected in the industry of marital guidance and "How To" books. Where we haven't quite yet made the leap is to taking responsibility ourselves for everything, even divorce. People behave so badly: they will give all their money to solicitors rather than sort it out amicably. We have got to be much more grown-up: there is no reason why you can't separate sensibly when it has come to an end, however hurt you may be.'
Endearingly, for Figes herself, endings are the last thing on her mind. 'The thing which for me is incredibly life-affirming, and which I was reminded of through talking to people for the book, is how you have the chance to grow up again. Even if you had bad childhood experiences, as I did, if you go into your relationship with your eyes open you can be reborn, through the stability and nourishment and love that you get.'
Or as she puts it, with moving absolutism, in Couples: 'I can say with complete confidence that an intimate, committed relationship holds the power to heal old hurts.'
'Couples: The Truth' (Virago, £14.99), by Kate Figes, is available from Telegraph Books (books.telegraph.co.uk; 0844 871 1515;) at £12.99 plus £1.25 p&p
Awkward questions, asked in the twinkliest way imaginable, are her speciality. (Though sometimes she gets an answer to an entirely different question. 'Many of the men assumed I was referring to their sex lives when I asked them how love had changed through their relationship,' she says.)
And now here is the 52-year-old author – who in the past has delved into other dark corners such as female bullying, and the alienation that can reside at the heart of motherhood – twinkling her way through an interview of her own, in a cosy north London kitchen, with the odd interruption from her GCSE-ridden younger daughter, Grace, and her blind dachshund, Rollo.
'What I was most surprised by when researching the book was, given this notion there is today that marriage is miserable, mundane, troubled, how many people do make it work,' she tells me. 'We are all doing much better than we give ourselves credit for. When you talk to people and listen to their stories most people want to make relationships work. We know in our heart of hearts they are good for us.'
Why then is there so much negativity, fear even, around the topic of modern marriage? 'We like to look at the disasters more than at happiness. Also you only tend to hear about other people's relationships once they have broken down. Very few people want to talk about what is going on inside their marriage. It is like the "glass shade" that EM Forster writes about that cuts off married couples from the world. Which means you have no way of judging whether what you are going through in your own marriage is normal, or abnormal, and what you should do about it. And so then all you ever see are the disasters. And you think, aahhh, divorce is some kind of car crash that is going to happen to you, but you have no real idea how to stop yourself from getting there.'
It seems paradoxical that the more fearful we become about marriage, and its failure, the more expensive our weddings become (now £18,500 on average). Yet Figes believes the two are connected. 'We need to put marriage on to a pedestal, to show that we value it, because we want to believe that love can last a lifetime. And many of us feel that if we spend enough on our wedding then maybe we can beat the odds on divorce. But also we love the traditions of the wedding day – even though many of them are not age-old but 20th century. And we believe that, by buying into these "old" traditions, we are getting married in the right way and increasing the odds on marriage lasting "like it used to".'
Figes, who has herself been happily married to Christoph, a teacher, for more than 20 years, and with whom she has two daughters, identifies the current period as one of almost elemental renegotiation between men and women, particularly in the sphere of cohabitation and parenting. She writes that 'couples are arguing their way, often ferociously, towards a more democratic fairness, compromised by the assumptions they have grown up with about how men and women should be as "husbands" and "wives".'
Yet, as she observes to me now, there remains 'this idea that love will just see you through, that you meet this person and that it is all going to be all right. There is very little discussion. I was surprised by the number of people who don't talk about basic things like whether or not you want children, or where you want to live. There is this notion with relationships that somehow you trust an external force – love, or the institution of marriage, or romance – to keep you together when it is the two of you that have to do it. All I wanted to do with the book was to say to people, "Take responsibility for your relationship."'
But can relationships skills really be learnt? 'If you take a heart disease metaphor we know you shouldn't eat too many saturated fats and that you should exercise to keep healthy, and I think you could say there are similar things in relationships.'
And what are those things? 'A sense of individual self and respect for the other person's sense of self. That is the number one thing, because from there everything else flourishes. The courtesies of daily life – good manners, tolerance, forgiveness, a sense of humour. Then there is the ability to talk when you are unhappy about something before it becomes too entrenched a resentment. To accept imperfections, to be realistic as to what a relationship can offer – not expecting it to make you secure, rich, happy. It can't do all those things – those things have to come from yourself. And finally, when you have difficult times, to learn from them.'
Figes has robust views on 'learning from' infidelity in particular. 'Couples betray each other in all sorts of ways. Why is it that a sexual thing is more of a betrayal than, you know, lying about the fact that you haven't been paying the mortgage? Infidelity is going to be the subject of my next book. Most people have affairs for complex relationship or personal reasons. It is not just necessarily that they are not getting enough sex in their marriage. If you address that then you have a chance to rebuild your relationship on a better footing. I think that from the research – the stuff I am looking at now for the new book – most people who do forgive affairs move on to something better as a result.'
In Couples she refers disapprovingly to how, from the 1970s onwards, agony aunts have become more likely to counsel not forgiving your husband for an affair. 'I think we have become more sanctimonious about it. There is a notion that because marriage is a relationship we perceive as being less stable, because the social sanctions seem fewer, less reliable to us, fidelity has become more of a symbol of trust and commitment.'
Has she experienced infidelity herself? 'No. I have been married for 21 years and, no, I have never wanted to, and so far as I know neither has my husband. But both of us had lots of sex before we got married; we had lots of other partners.' Her own marital challenges have been her struggles with undiagnosed postnatal depression – which prompted her to write Life After Birth – and a period when her husband Christoph was out of work for 18 months, 'a hugely challenging period for us both'.
Perhaps the biggest hurdle was to get married in the first place. Her mother, Eva Figes, the author of the feminist tract Patriarchal Attitudes, divorced her father when Kate was five, and never remarried. 'My parents made all the mistakes that couples made at that time, when divorce was rare. You don't want to enact the same things on your children as were enacted on you.'
She spent much of early adulthood in a series of destructive relationships and, while she says she consciously chose Christoph 'because he was completely unlike the people I'd had relationships with before … someone I could be content with', she only agreed to marriage at his insistence, and 'spent the first 10 years wondering when he was going to leave me'.
(Figes's only sibling, the historian Orlando Figes, was himself recently the subject of a gripping marital melodrama, when his wife stepped in to cover his tracks after he had been posting laudatory comments about his own books online, and derogatory ones about other historians. Figes tells me she can't comment for legal reasons.)
She moves on to one of her favourite themes, the importance of difference, of space, in a relationship. 'There is the idea in this confessional culture that you have to be everything to each other, so therefore we are very confused about where the borderline lies between being totally honest, and holding back. We don't know where that line lies. In fact, it is important to preserve your own separate sense of space. Your partner has no right to know everything in your head. The most successful relationships consist of two autonomous grown-ups who are able to be together, respect each other's autonomy, and be apart, and trust when they are apart that the foundations are still solid. It is a very unromantic notion in a way that you should be these two separate beings but that it is how it is more flexible.'
Figes says that the strongest marital structure is that of a triangle. 'We may be each other's most important person, but that does not mean we do not need anyone else.' That said, she tells me that she was struck, during her research interviews, 'by how many different ways there are of being a couple'.
She is particularly optimistic about the rise of the so-called 'peer marriage', in which the importance attached to work is similar, domestic responsibilities are fairly evenly split – though at 60-40 the woman is still doing the lion's share – and both partners have equal influence over key decisions.
'Research shows that when couples feel more equal, when they are able almost to replace each other, then they are happier. They are more invested in each other's emotional contentment. What's more, the whole stability of a relationship often depends upon how much a man is willing to accept his partner's influence.' So the sensible husband will let his wife get her own way? 'If a man wants to stay with his partner it is in his best interest to listen to what she wants and change. Women are more likely to end a relationship.'
Figes observes that most divorces are triggered by 'disappointment rather than irretrievable breakdown'. She quotes statistics that suggest it takes couples six years to go to counselling for a particular problem, by which time it is usually too late. Figes advises, 'At the first hint of trouble, such as that you are arguing badly, just go to someone who interprets what you are both saying, so you really understand each other.'
Do people give up too readily on marriage? 'There are people who do divorce too easily. It is a bit like moving house – you don't realise what you have lost until you have moved. Shared history and a shared understanding can matter hugely. But then the other side of the coin is that there are people who don't divorce who should. So there is that question of how unhappy do you have to be. Only you can work it out but at least try and go into it with your eyes open.'
Of course we, as a society, are much exercised by our see-sawing rates of marriage and divorce, and what they may say about us. Yet fascinatingly, Figes points out that prior to 1850 it was only the wealthy, prompted by dynastic and inheritance concerns more than anything, who chose to marry. 'Up until the end of the 19th century many more people cohabited in common-law unions than married, just as they are beginning to do today.'
What is more, the average length of the modern marriage – about 13 years – is the same as throughout much of history. According to the historian Lawrence Stone, it was only between 1920 and 1950 – 'when death rates of young adults had dropped precipitously and divorce had not yet taken on a major role' – that the average marriage lasted much longer.
So our collective sense of failure in marriage and personal relationships is based on a historical misapprehension? 'Yes. This has been instilled in us by the 1950s – it is amazing how powerful that decade and its values are. That ethos that we think has been with us for ever – men as the breadwinner, women at home – it wasn't like that in the past. Yet we think that is the norm, and that we are all betraying old values.'
What about the role of children in marriage? 'For my husband's parents, for that generation, the marriage came first and the children were second to it, and it has completely flipped. We now have control over when we have children, so you therefore have to justify that choice. But I also wonder how much we have replaced … your children are for ever … your husband may leave, and you can't trust that love in a marriage will last forever but you can trust that children will, or at least you think you can. I think women do that, they over-invest.'
The fact is, says Figes, that whatever happens to rates of marriage and divorce our commitment as human beings to commitment itself remains undiminished. 'These relationships matter to us as much as they ever did, in terms of support, care, community, love. And this is reflected in the industry of marital guidance and "How To" books. Where we haven't quite yet made the leap is to taking responsibility ourselves for everything, even divorce. People behave so badly: they will give all their money to solicitors rather than sort it out amicably. We have got to be much more grown-up: there is no reason why you can't separate sensibly when it has come to an end, however hurt you may be.'
Endearingly, for Figes herself, endings are the last thing on her mind. 'The thing which for me is incredibly life-affirming, and which I was reminded of through talking to people for the book, is how you have the chance to grow up again. Even if you had bad childhood experiences, as I did, if you go into your relationship with your eyes open you can be reborn, through the stability and nourishment and love that you get.'
Or as she puts it, with moving absolutism, in Couples: 'I can say with complete confidence that an intimate, committed relationship holds the power to heal old hurts.'
'Couples: The Truth' (Virago, £14.99), by Kate Figes, is available from Telegraph Books (books.telegraph.co.uk; 0844 871 1515;) at £12.99 plus £1.25 p&p
Monday, 5 July 2010
Jesus did not die on cross, says scholar?
Jesus may not have died nailed to the cross because there is no evidence that the Romans crucified prisoners two thousand years ago, a scholar has claimed.
The legend of his execution is based on the traditions of the Christian church and artistic illustrations rather than antique texts, according to theologian Gunnar Samuelsson.
He claims the Bible has been misinterpreted as there are no explicit references the use of nails or to crucifixion - only that Jesus bore a "staurus" towards Calvary which is not necessarily a cross but can also mean a "pole".
Mr Samuelsson, who has written a 400-page thesis after studying the original texts, said: "The problem is descriptions of crucifixions are remarkably absent in the antique literature.
"The sources where you would expect to find support for the established understanding of the event really don't say anything."
The ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew literature from Homer to the first century AD describe an arsenal of suspension punishments but none mention "crosses" or "crucifixion."
Mr Samuelsson, of Gothenburg University, said: "Consequently, the contemporary understanding of crucifixion as a punishment is severely challenged.
"And what's even more challenging is the same can be concluded about the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. The New Testament doesn't say as much as we'd like to believe."
Any evidence that Jesus was left to die after being nailed to a cross is strikingly sparse - both in the ancient pre-Christian and extra-Biblical literature as well as The Bible.
Mr Samuelsson, a committed Christian himself, admitted his claims are so close to the heart of his faith that it is easy to react emotionally instead of logically.
Mr Samuelsson said the actual execution texts do not describe how Christ was attached to the execution device.
He said: "This is the heart of the problem. The text of the passion narratives is not that exact and information loaded, as we Christians sometimes want it to be."
Mr Samuelsson said: "If you are looking for texts that depict the act of nailing persons to a cross you will not find any beside the Gospels."
A lot of contemporary literature all use the same vague terminology - including the Latin accounts.
Nor does the Latin word crux automatically refer to a cross while patibulum refer to the cross-beam. Both words are used in a wider sense that that.
Mr Samuelsson said: "That a man named Jesus existed in that part of the world and in that time is well-documented. He left a rather good foot-print in the literature of the time.
"I do believe that the mentioned man is the son of God. My suggestion is not that Christians should reject or doubt the biblical text.
"My suggestion is that we should read the text as it is, not as we think it is. We should read on the lines, not between the lines. The text of the Bible is sufficient. We do not need to add anything."
BNN June 27, 2010
The legend of his execution is based on the traditions of the Christian church and artistic illustrations rather than antique texts, according to theologian Gunnar Samuelsson.
He claims the Bible has been misinterpreted as there are no explicit references the use of nails or to crucifixion - only that Jesus bore a "staurus" towards Calvary which is not necessarily a cross but can also mean a "pole".
Mr Samuelsson, who has written a 400-page thesis after studying the original texts, said: "The problem is descriptions of crucifixions are remarkably absent in the antique literature.
"The sources where you would expect to find support for the established understanding of the event really don't say anything."
The ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew literature from Homer to the first century AD describe an arsenal of suspension punishments but none mention "crosses" or "crucifixion."
Mr Samuelsson, of Gothenburg University, said: "Consequently, the contemporary understanding of crucifixion as a punishment is severely challenged.
"And what's even more challenging is the same can be concluded about the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. The New Testament doesn't say as much as we'd like to believe."
Any evidence that Jesus was left to die after being nailed to a cross is strikingly sparse - both in the ancient pre-Christian and extra-Biblical literature as well as The Bible.
Mr Samuelsson, a committed Christian himself, admitted his claims are so close to the heart of his faith that it is easy to react emotionally instead of logically.
Mr Samuelsson said the actual execution texts do not describe how Christ was attached to the execution device.
He said: "This is the heart of the problem. The text of the passion narratives is not that exact and information loaded, as we Christians sometimes want it to be."
Mr Samuelsson said: "If you are looking for texts that depict the act of nailing persons to a cross you will not find any beside the Gospels."
A lot of contemporary literature all use the same vague terminology - including the Latin accounts.
Nor does the Latin word crux automatically refer to a cross while patibulum refer to the cross-beam. Both words are used in a wider sense that that.
Mr Samuelsson said: "That a man named Jesus existed in that part of the world and in that time is well-documented. He left a rather good foot-print in the literature of the time.
"I do believe that the mentioned man is the son of God. My suggestion is not that Christians should reject or doubt the biblical text.
"My suggestion is that we should read the text as it is, not as we think it is. We should read on the lines, not between the lines. The text of the Bible is sufficient. We do not need to add anything."
BNN June 27, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)