Given that the United Nations does not use the Bible to guide policy, it seems only sensible to weigh the suggestions they give against the truth we have in Christ (Colossians 2:8). It would be wrong to accept their message and deliver it in a church setting if the message does not agree with the Bible, and even if it does agree – yet it may be that it needs to be properly explained through the Bible.
In order to do this, I’ll ask three questions to start the discussion of ‘the interfaith question’. I’ll first ask whether the Bible supports an interfaith category; then what the Bible sets out as normal in terms of interfaith harmony, and finally the ways in which the Bible teaches us to approach the interfaith challenge.
Treat this as my thoughts on the matter – it is for you to review the scriptures yourself and see if you agree with the conclusions I have reached.

The Interfaith Category

If we are to discuss interfaith issues, we must first establish to what extent there is a category for interfaith issues. Interfaith issues are defined as those relations which one religion has with persons or institutions of other religions. In the Christian context, it becomes the relationship between Christianity and persons or institutions of religions other than Christianity.

This is where we encounter the first problem: the Bible does not differentiate between persons of other religions, or indeed of no religion. In terms of categories, a given person is either Christian – or he is not. A person is either ‘in the light’, or remains ‘in darkness’ (Ephesians 5:8). All those who deny the truth of God are under the wrath of God (Romans 1:18,22-23,28; Ephesians 2:3). The whole world, Paul writes, is accountable to God (Romans 3:19).

If there is no Biblical category for those of ‘other religions’, then it is important that in our discussion of the issues we remember to equally include those of no religion. In Biblical terms therefore the ‘interfaith question’ should be treated as the question of ‘the church and the world’. The way in which the Christian relates to those of other religions should not differ as a matter of policy or philosophy from the way in which the Christian relates to those of no religion at all – and so our questions must be likewise rephrased to talk not of those of other religions, but of all those who are not Christian – that is, the world.

Interfaith Harmony

Having seen that there is no Biblical category for ‘interfaith’ relations, and that in terms of doctrine it differs nothing from relations with the world – let us review the scripture and determine what it is that the Bible teaches about harmony between the church and the world. What should we expect, if we hold true to Christ?

First, it is worth noting that the division between the church and the world is more than mere membership; but is one of power and dominion. The world is described as under the power of Satan, whereas the church is under the power of God (Acts 26:18, Ephesians 2:2, 1 John 5:16).

As such, the world cannot but hate the church. If a man in the world were to receive the truth, then he would no longer be of the world, but of the church. To this point I bring the very promise of Christ, who declares “because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:19), and goes on to say that “they will also persecute you” (John 15:20).

Much scripture attests to this persecution, suffering and tribulation, by which we are assured that it is only through many tribulations that we must enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22), and directly told that “all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (II Timothy 3:12). So, “do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you” (I John 3:13).

As an example of a Christian life, one surely cannot better Christ himself. It is in Christ that we see persecution even to death, and teachings which were the occasion of great anger amongst those of other beliefs. Far from ensuring interfaith harmony, Jesus even caused a religious riot – such that the governor saw fit to put him to death to avoid further problems (Matthew 27:24). Was Christ wrong in proclaiming the kingdom of God – as he certainly foreknew that it would lead to religious confrontation?

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, did little better. He, carrying out his mission from Christ, encountered not religious harmony but was lead right into confrontation after confrontation. In Acts 17:5-8 we read of one such event in which there was not only rioting by those of other beliefs such that the whole city was said to be ‘in an uproar’, but also a mob attacking the house at which they stayed and dragging those they could find out. When Paul is later held before the governor Felix, the charge against him is nothing less than “one who stirs up riots among all the Jews throughout the world”!

Was Paul wrong in obeying God despite the fact that it would predictably cause a loss of religious harmony? Is it right to obey God, or to obey man (Acts 4:19)? We must obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29).

When we consider interfaith harmony then, we need to bear in mind that the Bible promises us persecution and hatred from the world. We are promised that if we are indeed of Christ and not of the world then we will be persecuted, rejected and hated. If we are able to set about a course of action which can remove this persecution, rejection and hatred then either we make the word of God a lie, or we are no longer Christian, nor are we living a godly life.

Thus, the second thing to conclude is that it is not possible for Christians to achieve interfaith harmony. Whilst Christians may not persecute or mistreat the world, yet the very promise of God guarantees that the world will persecute and mistreat Christians. This is a very significant thing to bear in mind – for it means that the UN message is promoting something we know is possible to achieve only if we abandon our Christian faith so that the world might love us.

The Interfaith Challenge

Notably, the Christian is not told to withdraw and remove himself from the world which certainly hates him. Rather, he is sent into the world, and with a purpose. When Christ offers up his prayer of John 17, although he knows the world has hated Christians for being not of the world (John 17:14), he does not ask the Father take Christians “out of the world” but that they be protected from falling into the hands of Satan (John 17:15). Christ has sent Christians into the world, just as he himself was sent into the world by the Father (John 17:18).

This sending out into the world is for a stated purpose, which is to proclaim the Gospel – and to do so to all creation. It will not be received by all, but yet it is to be proclaimed to all that those who believe will be saved (Mark 16:15-16).

The Christian is told not to be conformed to the world, but to be transformed by the renewal of his mind. He is to present his body as a living sacrifice to God, even though he is in the world (Romans 12:1-2). It is not an easy mission of worldly blessings that the Christian is sent upon, but one with adversaries, opposition, and suffering – sufferings which are experienced by Christians throughout the world (I Peter 5:9). The Christian indeed hopes for a future of peace and harmony, but is only promised that future with the return of Christ – the eternal glory to which we have been called (I Peter 5:9).

Meanwhile, the Christian is told not to be a friend of the world, indeed to do so is to be guilty of adultery towards God. As James teaches, “whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God” (James 4:4). We’re taught not to love the world or the things of the world – for as John reminds us, “if anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15).

Thus, there is a great danger that this quest for interfaith harmony in itself is an attack upon Christianity. If it is designed to promote friendship with the world (of which other religions are but a part), then it does wage war against the prohibition of scripture.

I suggest then that Christians focus not on ‘interfaith harmony’, but on that work to which we are all called by our Father in heaven, and upon which we are sent out by Christ himself – to proclaim the Gospel to all creation. To do so is the very highest form of love of God, and also the very greatest love of neighbour.

To refuse to bring the Gospel to your neighbours because it would disturb interfaith harmony is not to love your neighbours; as Paul asks – how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? (Romans 10:14) As for whether it is a case of waiting for a harmonious time – there may be merit in that in worldly terms – but our Lord teaches us that “no one works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world” (John 7:4), and again Paul exhorts Timothy to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season” (II Timothy 4:2). And yet, as we do go out, we do so in the full knowledge that to obey God means to be hated and persecuted by the world, going out knowing that we are as sheep to be slaughtered – to be killed all the day long (Acts 8:36).

What can we do for “interfaith harmony” in good conscience? Well, we are taught to live our lives in the world in order to proclaim the truth – to proclaim the Gospel – speaking it in love (Ephesians 4:15). When we are persecuted, we are even to bless our persecutors and not curse them (Romans 12:14), loving our enemies (Matthew 5:44), and again, doing good to them who hate us (Luke 6:27). All these and more I freely grant are absolutely required of us, and our Biblical contribution to the concept of “interfaith harmony”.

However, we must insist that no man can ever ask or require of us is to refrain from preaching the Gospel to all creation. We cannot even consider keeping the Gospel of the the death of Jesus Christ for our sins (I Corinthians 15:1-3) silent, or decide that in the name of interfaith harmony we will not proclaim it boldly to those of any given religion – or indeed to those of no religion. It is true that it is precisely this Gospel for which the world hates us, persecutes us and rejects us – but on this point it seems to me that we cannot compromise.

It seems to me that to remove the preaching of the Gospel to all creation, to all peoples of every nation, is to remove Christ and his work from our Christianity, and to choose for ourselves the world instead of the Kingdom of God.

I propose that he instead consider a real reform of the jury system, a very simple reform yet one which would bring about numerous real improvements to the fairness of trials.

This is that reform:
To conduct trials in the absence of the jury, and have the jury read the typed and anonymised record alone in order to make their decision.

Why do I suggest this? Five reasons, all being problems which can be solved by removing the jury from the courtroom.

Juror time dangers

First, most of the time a jury spends at a court is taken up with waiting. Factoring in all the waiting before the court, outside the courtroom, and inside the court, actual time spent listening to evidence and argument is dwarfed by waiting. Further, much that goes on in some cases is conducted in the absence of the jury – who often never know exactly what was said at those times.

Not only that, but the court holds itself able to tell jurors to ‘unlisten’ to things it has heard – declaring them invalid and that they must not influence the decision of the jurors; thus, the legal basis for the decision of the juror is not what the juror hears but a subset of what is presented. This being the case, the actual presence of the jury is an irrelevance – what actually matters is what is permitted to jurors to build their case.

These lengthy periods of waiting just in order to be physically present in the courtroom mean that jury duty takes days if not weeks. Every day that passes increases the chance of the internet research that the Chief Justice is worried about because jurors of necessity go home. We’re adding to the chance of jury manipulation just in order to see the jury lined up at court.

Presenting the jurors with the typed record would allow them to do nothing but read what was presented. No waiting around, and no having to forget disallowed or invalid statements. They’d not even need to know how many times the case had been adjourned or otherwise – the jury would only need to be called to the court complex once the record is completed and compiled.

I would hope that most records could be read within a day by the jurors and decided in the early evening. A one day jury service means no risk of outside communication or research whatsoever. It also means only one day’s disruption for the jurors.

Racial, gender and other prejudices

We try to deny it, but race, gender and other prejudices do influence jurors. We cannot prevent them from knowing these details of the parties involved if the jurors are physically present as they speak – however, in the typed record, not even an accent remains to give away prejudicial information. Jurors will no longer be charmed by a nice suit, nor will they be prejudiced against the defendant having a skin colour or religious garment other than their own. They’ll not be influenced by these things because they will never know them. Only if race, religion or otherwise is of specific, clear and material bearing upon the case will it need to be disclosed.

Further, jurors are known to be influenced by tone of voice, emotions displayed, bearing of the person, and even nervous ticks. These things should not be allowed to influence the juror – they are not permitted to have mercy upon a person, or to vindicate someone because they seem emotionally crushed. The jury is to come to a decision based only upon the legally admissible evidence. Whether tears, grins or anger – all these become invisible to the juror if all they see is the typed record.

So, the typed record should be anonymised as far as is possible, with names and places changed wherever they do not have a specific bearing on the case. It should not matter to a juror the area in which the defendant lives, works, or allegedly committed crime – the law must be blind to such things – and so it is fitting that the law deliberately blind the jurors to them.

The use of a typed record thus solves much of the problem of prejudice in a way that is otherwise impossible.

The Intimidation of Jurors

If the parties involved are unaware of the identify of the jurors nor have any way to contact them or discern even their names, then there can be no intimidation. If communication is strictly one-way, through the written record, the jurors can come to their decision without having to fear any form of reprisal.

Further, because the record given them will be anonymised, it will be hard to even accidentally disclose their role – knowing neither names nor places. The intimidation of jurors would be a thing of the past if jurors were removed from the courtroom entirely.

Regional Harmonisation of Decisions

In some areas the general population will find acceptable certain behaviours which are seen as criminal in others. These views unavoidably influence the decision of jurors – such that the application of law ends up being variable according to the location of the case. When something is ‘technically’ illegal but culturally accepted then jurors will often try to avoid coming to a decision according to the law. However, it is clearly wrong for the law as applied to one area to be differently applied in another – the law being the same then too the application of the law must be the same.

This problem can be removed through the use of the written record simply by picking jurors from across the country. Because there is no requirement for physical presence in the courtroom, the written records can be sent out to multiples court complexes, such that each juror will report to his local court. Secured electronic delivery makes this very simple. By doing this it means that the jurors are entirely unaware of the local circumstance, culture and history. They don’t even have to know what region of the country the case arose in, or what court is hearing it. These things are irrelevant and only serve to prejudice the juror.

If this very beneficial step is taken then it should be noted that some form of communication between jurors must be put in place for use in coming to a verdict. This could be as simple as a secure teleconference. It is probably worth having the jury decide their initial verdicts independently, only entering into any form of discussion if agreement has not already been reached.

1. First year from home

The first year of most degrees is basically knowledge acquisition. It can be feasibly completed using downloadable videos of lectures and through the study of textbooks, as distance education degrees demonstrate.

The cost of the first year of a degree can thus be drastically cut if the government commission best-in-class lectures to be used across the country in each field. Instead of tens of thousands of students paying for hundreds of lectures on Engineering Mathematics 101, one single lecturer can be paid once to record a series to be used by students of every university Engineering course in the nation.

A single common examination for students of all universities can be supervised in the evenings, or during term breaks, at local comprehensive colleges and forwarded to their respective universities for marking. Thus, the university with which the student is registered is responsible only for answering questions (via an internet interface/forum) and marking examination papers.

Costs saved:
All lecture hall facilities and lecturer costs for all first year students; additionally, students themselves save on accommodation and transport costs
Release of academic staff now not needed for first year teaching
Additional benefits:
The greater portability of modules completed
Better teaching for all, because the very best lecturer in the country can be used (even third-rate university students can listen to first-rate lectures)

2. Pooled laboratory facilities

Undergraduate laboratory and related practical facilities are an essential part of many degree programs, however the facilities required are very expensive. These high costs can be offset by pooled regional facilities. A regional center can be designed for almost 100% utilisation by scheduling students from different universities at different times of the year, as well as allowing students to live at home whilst attending a center near them. Universities routinely use research assistants and tutors to supervise laboratories, only rarely using teaching staff anyway – so the outsourcing of this should not be a problem at all.

Costs saved:
Universities no longer need to build or maintain undergraduate laboratory facilities which are empty or end up being used by postgraduate/research staff much of the year
Regional centers can compete against each other on price as each offers the same agreed service
Students are able to stay at home during laboratory periods, saving accomodation costs
Additional benefits:
Bulk purchase power is greater at regional centers
Release of buildings and land in universities for sale or redevelopment

3. Honest grading and portability

One of the biggest barriers to the portability of modules between universities is the large difference in quality that exists between establishments, e.g. 82/100 should mean the same everywhere. If modules were all marked against a common scale shared by all universities then it would allow much greater portability. This can be achieved by benchmarking, moderation or the use of a common examination – or a mix of these three. The great cost benefit comes with this greater level of interchangeability.

Honest grading means universities can be asked to open up the module market to competitive offerings. A university, college of further education, or commercial enterprise might develop modules and market them individually. Thus, a student might mix-and-match modules, such that he is able to take advantage of cheaper offerings, and distance education modules, where they exist. It should be possible for a student to complete two years via distance education and local commercial offerings, then transfer to a traditional university for his final year on exactly the same footing as those who have been at the university throughout. Similarly, a student should be able to choose to pay for a module from a local, commercial or distance option in place of one offered by his university, receiving a proportional discount of university fee for that module.

Costs saved:
Universities no longer need to offer all the modules of a course, but can concentrate on the core offerings – students can go elsewhere or use distance learning to add in topics not offered
Commercial competition means that there will be pressure on a module-by-module basis to keep down costs, forcing innovative teaching methods such as digital delivery and e-texts
Students are able to opt out of their university for courses they think to be well taught elsewhere at lower cost
Additional benefits:
The proper benchmarking and honest grading of modules will benefit employers massively because it means they will be able to compare candidates according to the grades obtained without having to guess at current relative grading standards of one university over another
Schools and local colleges will be able to offer individual university level modules where they have sufficient expertise, saving accommodation costs for nearby students and bringing in additional funds to those organisations

4. Remote Students

Is it actually necessary for students to attend lectures in person? Most laptops (and many mobile phones) are able to provide video streaming and conferencing without difficulty. This means that it is entirely feasible for students to stay at home and attend lectures via the internet. The cost saving here is twofold; first, it cuts down the required size of lecture theaters (if all students are remote, lectures can even be given from staff offices or even homes), and second, it means students do not have to pay for expensive accommodation at a university. Coupled with pooled laboratory facilities (item 2), and the remotely administered examinations (from item 1), this idea could mean that many students never actually need to spend time at their university.

Costs saved:
Removes the necessity of providing lecture theater seats for all students
Removes the requirement for university accommodation in many cases
Additional benefits:
The recording of streamed lectures means automatic flexibility for students who have clashing modules or are fitting their university studies around paid employment

5. Final Examination

Much of what has already been suggested has a tenancy to reduce the difference between universities, and this should be a good thing provided the standard that is converged upon is the top-end standard and not the average. However, to preserve university variation and allow for verification of the overall competency of a student, it is suggested that finals are reintroduced.

At the end of a degree, all students could be asked to sit for a single day-long examination covering the entire degree course, and making up a substantial portion of the final grade (e.g. 40%). This examination might combine multiple papers, and could include verbal examination. Thus, the integrity of a degree comprised of modules from different providers would be verified, and the university able to confidently grant the final degree based upon an overall assessment rather than a mechanical addition of module marks.

Cost saved:
Permits the more effective implementation of former ideas, which save costs
Additional benefits:
Employers will know that the student has retained the entire degree course, and has not just learned each module in turn and forgotten it once examined

It’s interesting then to see much the same take place in the writings of St. Paul, particularly in his letter to the Romans. As he had not previously visited the church in Rome he carefully designed his letterhead to not only identify himself but to give the reader important information about what he is, what work he undertakes, and what beliefs and values he holds.

Thus, he gives his name and appends his chosen tag-line as follows:

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, ²which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, ³concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh ⁴ and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, ⁵ through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, ⁶ including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ:
Romans 1:1-6

Paul's letter to the Romans comes complete with a detailed letterhead

Let’s take a closer look at Paul’s letterhead, bit by bit:

¹ Paul
First, like all good letterheads, he states his name – Paul; a name which in itself makes a statement, for Paul was once a Jew by the name of Saul, and was a violent persecutor of the Christian church (Acts 8:1-3). It was after he was intercepted by the resurrected Jesus that he started using the name Paul, although the way in which he gained the new name is not known today (Acts 9:1-6).

a servant of Christ Jesus
Notice, Paul does not describe himself as a Christian, but uses perhaps a better name, that of ‘a servant of Christ Jesus’. He defines himself not by the power he has, or those under his authority, but by the humility he has, and the authority to which he submits in servitude.

called to be an apostle
Jesus had given Paul the task of being an apostle to the Gentiles; an appointment which essentially involves bringing the Christian faith to non-Jewish people (Acts 9:15-16). It brings Paul into the group of twelve apostles who had first been sent out with authority from Jesus to all Israel (Matthew 10:1-4), of whom one had betrayed him and had taken his own life. Back when the apostles were first sent out to proclaim the good news, they had been told in no uncertain terms to only bring the message to Israel – not to the Gentiles, nor to Samaria (Matthew 10:5-6).

set apart for the gospel of God
So Paul himself, just as the earlier twelve apostles, has been set apart for the gospel (the specific good news) of God; but unlike the other apostles, he was sent not to Israel but to the Gentiles. Interestingly, this fulfils the promise of Jesus, who said that his message would go first to Jerusalem, then to Judea and Samaria, and then to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Paul, as servant of Christ, explains the matter of his work as being the gospel of God; and by his terms ‘chosen’ and ‘set apart’, attributes his very involvement to God.

²which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures
Next in his tag-line, Paul starts to lay out bullet-points regarding this gospel that he works for. First, it’s not a new-fangled idea, but one which was planned and announced long ago. Indeed it is true to say that this message regarding the good news was both foretold and believed even 2000 years beforehand, and many times between times (Genesis 12:3; Galatians 3:8).

³concerning his Son
The next bullet point tells us simply that the gospel is about God’s Son (Psalm 2:7); setting out the divinity of Jesus Christ, not merely a prophet or a man made a mouthpiece of God, but actually God.

who was descended from David according to the flesh
Almost anticipating our thoughts, we then read of the humanity of Christ: Paul tells us in unambiguous terms that Jesus was descended from King David by means of normal human descent, that which we term ‘flesh and blood’. Further, his descent from King David fulfills the promise of God to raise up a king to an eternal throne from his seed (II Samuel 7:12-13).

⁴and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead
However, these things are not merely believed because Jesus said them, but also proven; for this same Jesus after being crucified, after having died, and been buried, was then raised from the dead. Such power is only attributable to the Spirit of God himself, and by this act, all that which Christ claimed receives irrefutable testimony and witness from God. Paul rests his faith on this point, saying in another letter, “if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain” (I Corinthians 15:14).

Jesus Christ our Lord
Paul now takes us full circle, for having opened by telling us he is a servant of Jesus Christ, having explained that he is set aside for the Gospel of the Son of God, he returns by declaring the name of the Son, Jesus Christ. Not only does he do this, but he also writes that Jesus Christ is our Lord; by which in the first instance we are to understand that Jesus Christ was the Lord of Paul and the Christians in Rome, and by application to us as Christians, then also our Lord. Although this bullet-point almost duplicate Paul’s claim to be a ‘servant of Christ Jesus’, yet this change in perspective serves to exult the name of Jesus above all others – as Lord of all, just as the earlier statement humbled Paul as a servant.

⁵ through whom we have received grace and apostleship
Continuing his repetition of key points in his message, Paul returns to the theme of apostleship; again working hard to be absolutely clear that it is something which God has given to him, not something he has asked or earned of God. Thus, he links grace and apostleship, the first being the favour of God towards mankind, and the second the response to which Paul was called by this grace. Having set out the Lord he serves and the nature of his service, the next point is to explain what the end of his labour is, and how his work is relevant to the recipient.

to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name
This he achieves through a short but powerful statement, showing that his work of bringing the message of the Gospel is so that people will obey by having faith in it. Further, as it is the honest design of every loyal servant to labour for the sake of his Lord, so too the end of Paul’s work is for the sake of Christ, to the praise and glory of his name.

among all the nations, ⁶ including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ:
Finally, he closes the address block by explaining what all this has to do with the Christians in Rome. Simply put, he states that his mission is to the nations (that is, away from Israel), and that this includes those in Rome. Yet, he does not finish the exercise without pointing out that even his recipients owe their faith and salvation in Christ not to their own work, but to the grace of God which has called them.

That brings us to the end of Paul’s letterhead. It would be nice to think you might have learned something good about branding and marketing, but I suspect that might be better studied elsewhere. On the other hand, I hope you have learned a little about Paul, and the Gospel regarding Jesus Christ which he served with such passion and determination. The actual body of Paul’s letter to the Romans is considered by some to be the central book of the Bible, and with good reason; so please do have a read of the rest, if you’ve not done so recently.

Despite what we read in certain tabloids, most of our communities usually do a good job of being a nice neighbourhood. Things do get dealt with, given time, and where there are people or places in real need help does arrive from one place or another. We have charities addressing all kinds of local social ills, hospitals with an increasingly patient focused ethos, schools, benefit payments and all kinds of other means by which things really do hold together.

In another part of your neighbourhood

I can say this with absolute certainty. These people are in your neighbourhood, you just need to open your eyes and understand that the boundaries of your neighbourhood are not geographic but moral. Our duty to be a good neighbour is summed up in the simple words of Moses “you shall love your neighbour as yourself” ^{Lev 19:18}.

Jesus explained it, much later, in answer to question. Someone asked him “who is my neighour?”. In response, a story was told ^{Luke 10:29-37}, and like all good stories it has a moral behind it.

A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead.
Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.

But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’

The question Jesus asked in order to illustrate the moral of the story was: “Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbour to the man who fell among the robbers?”. The man answered him “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

We can all learn a lot from this, today especially. Our modern societies are increasingly divided and subdivided; not only do we have very little awareness of those some distance away, but we often don’t know those who live just a few paces from our door. We may never look outside our class, club and profession – whole communities can live in the same town with almost no interaction.

Everyone here on Earth today is your neighbour, and my neighbour; and the entire globe is our common neighbourhood. Remember what St. Paul writes: “Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor.” ^{1 Cor 10:24} — let’s try to improve parts of our global neighbourhood that don’t directly improve our own quality of life or property value.

Comments welcome

Let’s ask a searching question about EU membership by comparing two past applicants. One of them was accepted, the other was not.

	Applicant A	Applicant B
Distance to Maastricht treaty member	19km	210km
Inflation rate	2.32%	7.71%
Unemployment rate	2.1%	3.6%
Median age	24.7	37.3
Population density	71	93.1
Free market reform since	1976	1989
Democracy since	1956	1989
Religious freedom since	1912	1960
Colour of people	???	???

Which would you have chosen, given those statistics? Naturally, B, the one with rampant inflation, an aging population, high unemployment, relative overcrowding and which is a long way from any core EU country?

Foreground: Spain (EU); Background: Morocco (denied membership)

What does that really mean? To me, that is pure racial discrimination. Remember that Turkey and large parts of southern Spain have far closer cultural ties with Morocco than they have with Germany.

Is there a real reason other than disguised racism for denying Morocco entry whilst allowing Serbia, Romania and Turkey?

Could it really be that the racist leaders of EU member states are unwilling to allow Moroccans to benefit from the EU purely because they are not white? Could the EU which is happy to admit people from so many states really not want to allow this country with mostly non-white people in it to gain the freedom to live, move and work in EU member states?

Do you agree and feel that the EU is institutionally racist? Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Comments particularly welcome!

At least now when the joke election comes the world will have this latest abuse fresh in its mind. Whether the Junta believe that they have silenced the opposition through this I do not know, but I am certain that nobody outside Burma will give them any credit whatsoever when the joke democracy comes to pass.

Aung San Suu Kyi

Now, let us hope that the situation does not erupt into violence but instead that the cry of the people will be heard by God who will certainly repay them for their loss and bring those responsible to justice in this world or the next.

Let us all pray that all those who flee the repressive conditions in Burma are given a chance to make a new life outside of the country by the nations to which they escape. It is bad enough to be abused and persecuted in your own country, but to then have the same treatment where you flee for refuge is truly terrible.

Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor
will himself call out and not be answered.
(Proverbs 21:13)