And can it be that I should gain
An interest in the Savior’s blood?
Died He for me, who caused His pain—
For me, who Him to death pursued?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
Amazing love! How can it be,
That Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?
’Tis mystery all: th’Immortal dies:
Who can explore His strange design?
In vain the firstborn seraph tries
To sound the depths of love divine.
’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore,
Let angel minds inquire no more.
’Tis mercy all! Let earth adore;
Let angel minds inquire no more.
He left His Father’s throne above
So free, so infinite His grace—
Emptied Himself of all but love,
And bled for Adam’s helpless race:
’Tis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!
’Tis mercy all, immense and free,
For O my God, it found out me!
Long my imprisoned spirit lay,
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night;
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray—
I woke, the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
My chains fell off, my heart was free,
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
Still the small inward voice I hear,
That whispers all my sins forgiven;
Still the atoning blood is near,
That quenched the wrath of hostile Heaven.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.
I feel the life His wounds impart;
I feel the Savior in my heart.
No condemnation now I dread;
Jesus, and all in Him, is mine;
Alive in Him, my living Head,
And clothed in righteousness divine,
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Bold I approach th’eternal throne,
And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Friday, October 4, 2013
Though troubles assail
Though troubles assail,
And dangers affright;
Though friends should all fail,
And foes all unite,
Yet one thing secures us,
Whatever betide:
The Scripture assures us,
“The Lord will provide.”
The birds, without barn
Or storehouse, are fed;
From them let us learn
To trust for our bread;
His saints what is fitting
Shall ne’er be denied,
So long as ’tis written,
“The Lord will provide.”
His call we obey,
Like Abram of old,
Not knowing our way,
But faith makes us bold;
For though we are strangers,
We have a good Guide;
And trust in all dangers:
“The Lord will provide.”
When Satan appears
To stop up our path,
And fills us with fears,
We triumph by faith;
He cannot take from us,
Though oft he has tried,
The heart-cheering promise,
“The Lord will provide.”
He tells us we’re weak,
Our hope is in vain;
The good that we seek
We ne’er shall obtain;
But when such suggestions
Our faith thus have tried,
This answers all questions,
“The Lord will provide.”
No strength of our own,
Nor goodness we claim;
Our trust is all thrown
On Jesus’ dear name.
In this our strong tower
For safety we hide;
The Lord is our power,
“The Lord will provide.”
When life sinks apace,
And death is in view,
The word of His grace
Shall comfort us through;
Not fearing or doubting,
With Christ on our side,
We hope to die shouting,
“The Lord will provide.”
And dangers affright;
Though friends should all fail,
And foes all unite,
Yet one thing secures us,
Whatever betide:
The Scripture assures us,
“The Lord will provide.”
The birds, without barn
Or storehouse, are fed;
From them let us learn
To trust for our bread;
His saints what is fitting
Shall ne’er be denied,
So long as ’tis written,
“The Lord will provide.”
His call we obey,
Like Abram of old,
Not knowing our way,
But faith makes us bold;
For though we are strangers,
We have a good Guide;
And trust in all dangers:
“The Lord will provide.”
When Satan appears
To stop up our path,
And fills us with fears,
We triumph by faith;
He cannot take from us,
Though oft he has tried,
The heart-cheering promise,
“The Lord will provide.”
He tells us we’re weak,
Our hope is in vain;
The good that we seek
We ne’er shall obtain;
But when such suggestions
Our faith thus have tried,
This answers all questions,
“The Lord will provide.”
No strength of our own,
Nor goodness we claim;
Our trust is all thrown
On Jesus’ dear name.
In this our strong tower
For safety we hide;
The Lord is our power,
“The Lord will provide.”
When life sinks apace,
And death is in view,
The word of His grace
Shall comfort us through;
Not fearing or doubting,
With Christ on our side,
We hope to die shouting,
“The Lord will provide.”
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Elvis Presley
In a sermon “Interpreting Failures, Conserving Victories” , Ravi Zacharias quoted from a Albert Goldman article in Life Magazine about Elvis Presley.
Our society’s heroes tell us more about the society than it does about the heroes.
Presley’s daily regimen went this way. He had 3 or 4 attacks caused of drugs. At 4am, he would asked for an envelope from one of his aids and that envelope would consist of 11 different pills and 3 shots of Demerol, mainly downers and a lot of barbiturates. All of them were habit forming, increasing tolerance but not increasing the volume needed for a fatal dose. Says Goldman he risked his life everyday. That was at 4am. At 4.30am, just before it would take its effects, he will order his one main meal for the day which consists of three huge cheese burgers or six and seven banana splits.
The man’s life had become so erratic and so out of control. That was at 4.30. At 8.30am, in four hours, all those drugs would have stop taking their total effect because the tolerance was increasing. At 8.30, he would begin to stir his 250 pounds frame and then he would call for the second attack, administered by an aid. And then one and half hours at 10am , a third attack. By mid-afternoon he would be groggy and it would be time for him to wake up to get ready for some of his performances, an aid would come with cotton swaps , soaked it into liquid cocaine and plunge it into his nostrils and a handful of Desbutal to jumpstart his heart.
He needed drugs to wake him up, drugs to knock him out.
Finally, one of his friends look at him and said “Elvis, what are you doing to yourself?”
And he said this “I rather be unconscious than miserable.”
One pathologist described him as a pharmaceutical freak. In last two and a half years, he said he had 19,000 narcotics, stimulants and sedatives.
Dr Norman, the chief pathologist to compile the toxicology report said he had never seen so many drugs in one body.
When Goldman finished the article, what is a complete mystery to me is why a man whose life become so bizarre and out of control has still been such an idol to millions of people and synonymous with the urethra of the fifties and sixties as the idol winning the accolades of the millions. He said “So indestructible is Elvis that even a suicide and the details of his life are not able to destroy him,” and the article ends by saying “Even Elvis could not destroy Elvis.”
What I say to you is this: look at the heroes that we have today. Turn on your television screen and see the heroes. People in the entertainment media or leadership media whose lives in private betray standards that ought to be abort by civilisations. But somehow politicians go into great bastion of power and believe their private lives has nothing to do with their public lives.
Ladies and gentleman, how you and I live in private has everything to do with what we present ourselves in public. If it does not, it ought to. And the reason for that is there is unifying threat in reality and God say it’s spirituality. Have you ever realised that the very word universe is looking for unity, the very word university is looking for unity in diversity. And God say the unity for all diversity is spiritual strength that a person has.
Our society’s heroes tell us more about the society than it does about the heroes.
Presley’s daily regimen went this way. He had 3 or 4 attacks caused of drugs. At 4am, he would asked for an envelope from one of his aids and that envelope would consist of 11 different pills and 3 shots of Demerol, mainly downers and a lot of barbiturates. All of them were habit forming, increasing tolerance but not increasing the volume needed for a fatal dose. Says Goldman he risked his life everyday. That was at 4am. At 4.30am, just before it would take its effects, he will order his one main meal for the day which consists of three huge cheese burgers or six and seven banana splits.
The man’s life had become so erratic and so out of control. That was at 4.30. At 8.30am, in four hours, all those drugs would have stop taking their total effect because the tolerance was increasing. At 8.30, he would begin to stir his 250 pounds frame and then he would call for the second attack, administered by an aid. And then one and half hours at 10am , a third attack. By mid-afternoon he would be groggy and it would be time for him to wake up to get ready for some of his performances, an aid would come with cotton swaps , soaked it into liquid cocaine and plunge it into his nostrils and a handful of Desbutal to jumpstart his heart.
He needed drugs to wake him up, drugs to knock him out.
Finally, one of his friends look at him and said “Elvis, what are you doing to yourself?”
And he said this “I rather be unconscious than miserable.”
One pathologist described him as a pharmaceutical freak. In last two and a half years, he said he had 19,000 narcotics, stimulants and sedatives.
Dr Norman, the chief pathologist to compile the toxicology report said he had never seen so many drugs in one body.
When Goldman finished the article, what is a complete mystery to me is why a man whose life become so bizarre and out of control has still been such an idol to millions of people and synonymous with the urethra of the fifties and sixties as the idol winning the accolades of the millions. He said “So indestructible is Elvis that even a suicide and the details of his life are not able to destroy him,” and the article ends by saying “Even Elvis could not destroy Elvis.”
What I say to you is this: look at the heroes that we have today. Turn on your television screen and see the heroes. People in the entertainment media or leadership media whose lives in private betray standards that ought to be abort by civilisations. But somehow politicians go into great bastion of power and believe their private lives has nothing to do with their public lives.
Ladies and gentleman, how you and I live in private has everything to do with what we present ourselves in public. If it does not, it ought to. And the reason for that is there is unifying threat in reality and God say it’s spirituality. Have you ever realised that the very word universe is looking for unity, the very word university is looking for unity in diversity. And God say the unity for all diversity is spiritual strength that a person has.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Justices Show Reluctance for Broad Marriage Ruling
U.S. | MAR 28, 2013, 09:33 AM GMT+08:00
Justices Show Reluctance for Broad Marriage Ruling
By Jess Bravin
WASHINGTON—Two days of arguments on same-sex marriage revealed a Supreme Court uneasy about making sweeping moves on gay rights and holding doubts about whether the cases belonged before the justices at all.
The arguments also brought to life more familiar fissures between the court's liberal and conservative wings. On Wednesday, liberal justices suggested that a 1996 federal law denying benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples was motivated by animus against gays, while Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, challenged assertions that gays and lesbians need judicial protection from repressive majorities.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as a pivotal vote, gave gay-marriage proponents some hope by suggesting the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act might infringe on states' rights to make their own marriage rules. That suggested at least five justices—Justice Kennedy plus the court's four liberals—might be ready to strike down the law.
But questions about whether the court could properly hear the case made it hard to predict any outcome.
Decisions are expected by late June on the Defense of Marriage Act case as well as the case the court heard Tuesday on California's 2008 voter initiative prohibiting same-sex marriage.
The arguments highlighted a point in common between the two cases. Normally, federal courts require two adverse parties before they can decide a case. Strikingly, however, both the federal and state governments agree with the plaintiffs that the challenged laws are unconstitutional, and have declined to defend them on appeal.
Other groups have stepped in to defend the laws banning gay marriage—the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives for the Defense of Marriage Act and the private citizens who officially sponsored Proposition 8.
But justices of different ideological stripes were wary of litigants without clear legal standing, even though advocates on both sides were eager for vindication in a roiling culture war.
"I can't think of another instance where that's happened," said Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal, referring to the House's intervention in the federal marriage law case. "I'm afraid of opening that door."
The Obama administration calls the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, agreeing with the ruling of lower federal courts.
Nonetheless, it asked the Supreme Court to approve those rulings, an additional level of review Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan said reflected the administration's "respect" for the judiciary's role.
Chief Justice Roberts called that stance "totally unprecedented," in one of several remarks criticizing the Obama administration.
If the justices decide that neither the Obama administration nor the House had reason to bring the federal marriage case before the high court, that would keep in place two lower-court rulings nullifying the law.
Although it would create no precedent on sexual-orientation discrimination, such an outcome likely would lead the Obama administration to cease enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act, effectively extending federal marriage benefits to same-sex spouses in states that recognize such status, currently nine plus the District of Columbia, as well as for spouses of federal employees.
Moreover, more than 1,000 federal laws in some way affect people based on marital status.
A similar outcome in the Proposition 8 case, finding that the initiative's sponsors lack standing to appeal a federal district court ruling, would nullify California's gay marriage ban without providing the U.S. Supreme Court's guidance on the core constitutional issues.
Should the justices take that path, they will defer their own entry into the culture wars over marriage, perhaps for years. And when the next same-sex marriage case arrives, a national consensus on the issue could be clearer. To be sure, the justices could end up brushing aside the concerns about legal standing and end up ruling on the merits of the case. Even then, the court seemed to lean toward cautious language rather than a ringing declaration about the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection as applied to gays and lesbians. Roberta Kaplan, the lawyer challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, argued that gays were the type of long-oppressed minority group that the court has traditionally acted to protect. "No other group in recent history has been subjected to popular referenda to take away rights that have already been given or exclude those rights, the way gay people have," Ms. Kaplan said. "Until 1990, gay people were not allowed to enter this country."
But Chief Justice Roberts didn't accept that assertion.
"You don't doubt that the lobby supporting the enactment of same sex-marriage laws in different states is politically powerful, do you?" he told Ms. Kaplan. "As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case."
Justice Elena Kagan quoted from a House report from 1996 when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. The report said the law was intended "to express moral disapproval of homosexuality," she said, eliciting a gasp from the spectators' gallery.
"If that's enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute," replied lawyer Paul Clement, who was defending the law. But the motivations of lawmakers shouldn't matter, he continued, if the measure was justifiable for other reasons, such as establishing a uniform definition of marriage for federal benefit purposes.
When Justice Kennedy expressed concerns about the Defense of Marriage Act, he did so on grounds of states' rights, not equal protection. The law poses a "real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody," Justice Kennedy told Mr. Clement.
Mr. Clement disagreed, saying that the law simply clarified the meaning of marriage for federal purposes, without supplanting separate state law.
And on this point, Mr. Clement's principal adversary, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, agreed. Typically for government lawyers, Mr. Verrilli resisted conceding that the federal government categorically lacked authority to legislate in a particular field.
Mr. Verrilli repeatedly tried to lead the discussion into the Constitution's equal-protection principles, only to be drawn back by justices who were seeking other grounds to evaluate the law.
Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
Corrections & Amplifications The 'Shifting Support' chart had incorrect figures with an earlier version of this article. It incorrectly said 32 current members of Congress voted against the bill (31 Democrats, one independent) and 99 for it (40 Democrats, 59 Republicans), with 32 of those now supporting same-sex marriage. The correct figures are 29 voted against (28 Democrat, one independent) and 87 for (36 Democrats, 51 Republicans), with 29 of those now supporting same-sex marriage.
Justices Show Reluctance for Broad Marriage Ruling
By Jess Bravin
WASHINGTON—Two days of arguments on same-sex marriage revealed a Supreme Court uneasy about making sweeping moves on gay rights and holding doubts about whether the cases belonged before the justices at all.
The arguments also brought to life more familiar fissures between the court's liberal and conservative wings. On Wednesday, liberal justices suggested that a 1996 federal law denying benefits to lawfully married same-sex couples was motivated by animus against gays, while Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, challenged assertions that gays and lesbians need judicial protection from repressive majorities.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as a pivotal vote, gave gay-marriage proponents some hope by suggesting the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act might infringe on states' rights to make their own marriage rules. That suggested at least five justices—Justice Kennedy plus the court's four liberals—might be ready to strike down the law.
But questions about whether the court could properly hear the case made it hard to predict any outcome.
Decisions are expected by late June on the Defense of Marriage Act case as well as the case the court heard Tuesday on California's 2008 voter initiative prohibiting same-sex marriage.
The arguments highlighted a point in common between the two cases. Normally, federal courts require two adverse parties before they can decide a case. Strikingly, however, both the federal and state governments agree with the plaintiffs that the challenged laws are unconstitutional, and have declined to defend them on appeal.
Other groups have stepped in to defend the laws banning gay marriage—the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives for the Defense of Marriage Act and the private citizens who officially sponsored Proposition 8.
But justices of different ideological stripes were wary of litigants without clear legal standing, even though advocates on both sides were eager for vindication in a roiling culture war.
"I can't think of another instance where that's happened," said Justice Stephen Breyer, a liberal, referring to the House's intervention in the federal marriage law case. "I'm afraid of opening that door."
The Obama administration calls the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, agreeing with the ruling of lower federal courts.
Nonetheless, it asked the Supreme Court to approve those rulings, an additional level of review Deputy Solicitor General Sri Srinivasan said reflected the administration's "respect" for the judiciary's role.
Chief Justice Roberts called that stance "totally unprecedented," in one of several remarks criticizing the Obama administration.
If the justices decide that neither the Obama administration nor the House had reason to bring the federal marriage case before the high court, that would keep in place two lower-court rulings nullifying the law.
Although it would create no precedent on sexual-orientation discrimination, such an outcome likely would lead the Obama administration to cease enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act, effectively extending federal marriage benefits to same-sex spouses in states that recognize such status, currently nine plus the District of Columbia, as well as for spouses of federal employees.
Moreover, more than 1,000 federal laws in some way affect people based on marital status.
A similar outcome in the Proposition 8 case, finding that the initiative's sponsors lack standing to appeal a federal district court ruling, would nullify California's gay marriage ban without providing the U.S. Supreme Court's guidance on the core constitutional issues.
Should the justices take that path, they will defer their own entry into the culture wars over marriage, perhaps for years. And when the next same-sex marriage case arrives, a national consensus on the issue could be clearer. To be sure, the justices could end up brushing aside the concerns about legal standing and end up ruling on the merits of the case. Even then, the court seemed to lean toward cautious language rather than a ringing declaration about the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection as applied to gays and lesbians. Roberta Kaplan, the lawyer challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, argued that gays were the type of long-oppressed minority group that the court has traditionally acted to protect. "No other group in recent history has been subjected to popular referenda to take away rights that have already been given or exclude those rights, the way gay people have," Ms. Kaplan said. "Until 1990, gay people were not allowed to enter this country."
But Chief Justice Roberts didn't accept that assertion.
"You don't doubt that the lobby supporting the enactment of same sex-marriage laws in different states is politically powerful, do you?" he told Ms. Kaplan. "As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case."
Justice Elena Kagan quoted from a House report from 1996 when Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. The report said the law was intended "to express moral disapproval of homosexuality," she said, eliciting a gasp from the spectators' gallery.
"If that's enough to invalidate the statute, then you should invalidate the statute," replied lawyer Paul Clement, who was defending the law. But the motivations of lawmakers shouldn't matter, he continued, if the measure was justifiable for other reasons, such as establishing a uniform definition of marriage for federal benefit purposes.
When Justice Kennedy expressed concerns about the Defense of Marriage Act, he did so on grounds of states' rights, not equal protection. The law poses a "real risk of running in conflict with what has always been thought to be the essence of the state police power, which is to regulate marriage, divorce, custody," Justice Kennedy told Mr. Clement.
Mr. Clement disagreed, saying that the law simply clarified the meaning of marriage for federal purposes, without supplanting separate state law.
And on this point, Mr. Clement's principal adversary, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, agreed. Typically for government lawyers, Mr. Verrilli resisted conceding that the federal government categorically lacked authority to legislate in a particular field.
Mr. Verrilli repeatedly tried to lead the discussion into the Constitution's equal-protection principles, only to be drawn back by justices who were seeking other grounds to evaluate the law.
Write to Jess Bravin at jess.bravin@wsj.com
Corrections & Amplifications The 'Shifting Support' chart had incorrect figures with an earlier version of this article. It incorrectly said 32 current members of Congress voted against the bill (31 Democrats, one independent) and 99 for it (40 Democrats, 59 Republicans), with 32 of those now supporting same-sex marriage. The correct figures are 29 voted against (28 Democrat, one independent) and 87 for (36 Democrats, 51 Republicans), with 29 of those now supporting same-sex marriage.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
A Point Of View: The Trouble With Freedom
BBC News
MAGAZINE
24 August 2012 Last updated at 17:15 GMT
A Point Of View: The trouble with freedom
We've come to believe that freedom is the natural human condition, which only tyrants prevent everyone from enjoying - but when a tyrant is toppled, we can't know what will come next, says John Gray.
In February 1917, a young boy was reading a Russian translation of one of the books of Jules Verne in a street in St Petersburg (at the time called Petrograd) where a bookseller had laid out his stock in the snow.
The boy heard a commotion and, looking up from the book, saw a terrified man being frog-marched down the street. The ashen-faced figure was one of the city's policemen, who were among the last functionaries of the Tsarist regime to remain loyal.
Discovered hiding on the roof of a building, he had been brought down to be taken to what he evidently feared would be his end. What happened to the man cannot be known, but his deathly white face as he was marched away made an enduring impression on the boy who witnessed the scene.
Aged seven at the time, the young boy went on to be the philosopher and historian of ideas Isaiah Berlin, who spoke of the episode repeatedly in conversations I had with him towards the end of his life. He often contrasted the mood of optimism that accompanied the February revolution with the darker atmosphere that followed the Bolshevik coup in October of the same year.
Yet the incident occurred during the first of these upheavals, and it was clear that the impact it had on him had nothing to do with any differences between the two revolutions. As noted by his biographer, the episode left Berlin with a dread of violence that stayed with him after he left Russia in 1921 with his mother and father for a life in England and right up to his death in Oxford in November 1997. But I believe there may have been a subtler effect on Berlin's thinking, which has something important to say to us today.
Not long after the start of the 21st Century, we like to tell ourselves an uplifting story in which freedom expands whenever tyranny is overthrown. We believe that freedom and democracy are inseparable, so that when a dictator is toppled the result is not only a more accountable type of government but also greater liberty throughout society.
This belief forms the justification of the repeated attempts by Western governments to export their own political model to countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. In this simple and seemingly compelling story, freedom and democracy are a package that can be delivered anywhere in the world. An older generation of thinkers recognised that freedom and democracy don't always go hand in hand. The 19th Century liberal John Stuart Mill was a life-long campaigner for greater democracy, but he also worried that personal liberty would shrink once governments could claim to express the will of the majority.
Born in 1872 and dying in 1970 at the age of 98, Mill's godson Bertrand Russell agreed and shocked many people when he observed that while Britain after World War II was a more democratic society than the one he'd grown up in, it was also in some ways less free. For Russell, as for Mill, liberty was one thing, democracy another. It's a deeply unfashionable view, but I think essentially correct.
Where this older generation differed from many today is that they thought of freedom as a lack of restriction on how we can act. Being free meant simply the absence of obstacles to living as we choose. While it's a view that's been criticised because it seems to see individuals as being separate from society, it seems to me to capture better than any other what freedom means and why it's important for every human being.
We need freedom because our goals and values are highly diverse and often quite different from those of the people around us. Having a voice in collective decisions - the basis of democracy - is a fine thing, but it won't protect your freedom if the majority is hostile to the way you choose to live.
Many will tell you that this danger can be dealt with by bills of rights that put some freedoms beyond the range of political interference. But politics has a habit of finding ways around the law, and when the state is weak declarations of rights tend to be unenforceable.
Once you think of freedom as living as you choose, you'll see that it's not just tyrants that stand in its way. The world is full of failed and enfeebled states in which the main threats to freedom come from organised crime, ethnic conflict and militant sectarian groups.
If you live in some provinces of Mexico, you're likely to be more afraid of ruthless drug cartels than of corrupt and ineffectual governments. In parts of the Balkans in the 1990s, you'd be afraid of lawless militias, operating on ethnic lines but often intertwined with organised crime. In these cases, it's a condition of near-anarchy rather than tyranny that threatens freedom.
In other cases, it's the power of fundamentalism that can most threaten your freedom.
Think of Iraq. You only have to consider what happened to the Marsh Arabs, whose ancient way of life was destroyed by draining the marshlands and blowing up villages, or the use of chemical weapons against Kurds, to recall how severe Saddam's repression could be. Yet freedom wasn't enhanced for everyone once the dictator had been removed.
Today, if you're an Iraqi woman and opt for a lifestyle that fails to square with a narrow interpretation of religion, you're at risk of violent attack from fundamentalist groups. If you're known to be gay, you risk being hunted down and killed.
If you belong to a religious minority such as Christians or Mandeans (a branch of Gnosticism that was practised in the region for about 2,000 years), you face persecution and the risk of extinction. The country has a type of democratic government, but the state is too weak and fractured and politics too dominated by sectarianism to prevent these assaults on freedom. Syria is different from Iraq in many ways, but it's hard to avoid fearing that a similar pattern may be emerging there.
In the reassuring story we like to repeat to ourselves, the emergence of these new threats is just a phase - in time these countries will achieve the type of freedom-loving democracy that we believe we enjoy. But we can say this only because we've forgotten our own history and neglect the dangers we currently face.
The democratic nation-states that exist in Europe today came into being in a process - extending from the French revolution through the collapse of the Habsburg empire after WWI to the break-up of former Yugoslavia - that included repressing the freedom of minorities, and the process hasn't ended with democracy and freedom co-existing in harmony as we like to think.
The far right is on the march in many European countries, using its rights to attack minorities. The dictatorships of the 1930s are unlikely to return, but toxic democracies based on nationalism and xenophobia could emerge in a number of countries and be in power for long periods.
Coming from Russia, where the despotism of the Tsars was replaced by a far more repressive system of government, Isaiah Berlin didn't need English liberal thinkers to teach him that the overthrow of tyranny doesn't by itself expand liberty. Where he was at one with them was in understanding that liberty is a fragile achievement that can be undermined in many different ways.
We've come to believe a story in which freedom is the natural human condition, which only tyrants prevent everyone from enjoying. The reality is that when a tyrant is toppled we can't know what will come next.
When we tell our tale of freedom spreading across the world, we might pause to think for a moment of the young boy who looked up from his book to see a terrified policeman being dragged off to an unknown fate.
Here is a selection of your comments.
Mankind seems to have made less progress in taming the inate savagery potentially in all of us and concentrated more on systems to codify how society operates. How little encouragement there is for ethics, standards and compassion, the true values.
Peter Mounsey, Harlow, Essex
I would propose another principle: that freedoms flourish in social environments where power is spread most widely and equally. I have met a former German concentration camp prisoner, a refugee from Georgia in the Breznef era, a Kurd from eastern Turkey in a time of military dictatorship and a Ugandan who fled his homeland because of repression by Idi Amin. Also one of my former colleagues lost some friends in Tianamen Square. These were victims of "strong government". We should oppose the concentration of power wherever it occurs. Power brings responsibilities to the governed, unbridled power brings evil.
John Price, Bath
There are many countries better of with a dictator than without such as Iraq, Libya,... and yes, dictators will abuse power and target certain groups of people but at least they in general control the majority of people from targeting others that are not like minded. This is what happened in DR Congo and it's neighbours after Mobutu was gone, all these different tribes try to eradicate each other over thousand year old feuds and in the process slaughter each other in the most cruel ways. Sometimes you just need one man to stop the masses from taking others peoples freedom.
Manu Henrotte, Bali
The democracy here in Australia functions almost exclusively on economic rational; putting matters of finance above the matters of individuals. The competition for work is so intense that people quickly fall into any position available and often one far below that which their qualifications truly merit. The majority of us end up working in positions (through the necessity to provide for ourselves and our families) that actively support the very causes we are stand against. We are only as free as Weber's cage allows us.
Chris Tope, Sydney
Democracy has been hijacked by so called freedom. Freedom has come to mean the freedom to exploit. Individual freedoms such as religious, sexual are just a pretence at freedom. Institutions have the freedom to exploit in a democracy as is evidenced by these pay day loans at exorbitant interest rates that can only be described as usury. In other cultures they may have more repressive regimes in terms of religious or sexual freedom but sharia law protects people from the worst excesses of usury. What you win on the swings you lose on the roundabouts.If we could just combine the best of both then we might have freedom with responsibility.
Jane Jackson, Ireland
I returned to New Zealand about 7 years ago after 25 years overseas, having lived and worked in a number of places across Europe and Asia. Rather than feeling freer than for a very long time (there's only 4m of us in a very large, mostly empty country), I feel more restricted than at any time in my life. I may be in a country that runs a proportional representation system, but unless I subscribe wholeheartedly to one party's particular point of view (and most have a relatively narrow political agenda), I have no voice. All of our parties are remarkably conservative and not one, indeed not even a single politician, can be singled out as a champion of individual freedoms or liberal ideas. Layer onto that an extensive and all-encompassing bureaucracy, and to a truly amazing extent so much of our everyday living is dictated by "others". The final straw for me living in Christchurch has been the absolute powers assumed by Authority following the Christchurch earthquake which have seen (and continue to see 18 months after the last sizeable 'quake) individual rights and freedoms trampled over with no avenue for appeal whatsoever. Much as I love my my friends and my corner of NZ, the overriding power of "Democratic" government and the absence of respect for individual freedoms will take me and my family away forever as soon as we are reasonably able.
Brian Anderson, Christchurch
There is no such thing as Freedom, unless you are marooned, alone, on a desert island. To live with another individual you have to subjugate some of your or their desires and wishes. In large Societies, the freedom of the individual very much depends on the beliefs, values and capabilities of the ruling elite. In a democracy, this tends to be a reflection of the beliefs, values and capabilities of the voting majority. Thus, in a democracy, the majority get the government they deserve.
Steph, Pershore
Democracy is certainly not synonymous with freedom. For the most part, democracies are controlled by those people with the financial means to run for office or by those people who are backed by some external power. While we would like to believe that our votes count and that our voice is heard, for the most part, people find themselves increasingly told what to believe by those who have the money or power to have their message heard. If the people who represent us in the government are nothing like us, how can they represent us. They can't. However laws have been passed to make it difficult for anyone without the necessary capital or connections to run for any office for the most part. When the majority of us are slowly regressing towards poverty and the rich have absolute power and influence through both the people who represent us and through the power of lobbies then it is time to examine our options. We are essentially not free. We have been brainwashed into believing we are through the illusion of a vote and an elected government.
Jimmy Arthur, Jakarta
I see the definition of freedom as simply an absence of restrictions as an essentially immature or 'teenage' view of freedom. A more mature view view of freedom accepts a trade-off, in some ways a form of delayed gratification: in return for payments of various taxes we loose the freedom to spend all our money as we like, but gain health care and retirement benefits, etc. If we accept driving rules, we enjoy greater 'freedom' to travel further than if there were no rules at all. Some may also argue that if we voluntarily accept some restrictions on sexual behaviour, we may enjoy deeper and more fulfilling relationships.
Paul Saunderson, Aalesund
Democracy is the rule of the mob. When the mob votes to spend money they don't have, on fripperies they don't need, this is legalised theft. In spite of all my "freedom" I can't travel abroad without government-approved identification, own a firearm without approval, set up a business without interference, or live in a caravan on privately owned land. My earnings are taxed at source while corporations and individuals end up with 0% and even negative tax rates. It is true that our freedom is an illusion. We have two dozen coffee shops, a dozen bakeries, seven or eight religions, hundreds of TV channels, but only two political parties. How is that freedom of choice?
Colin C, Barnsley
What we have to thank the wretched barons of 1215, or the slave-holder/founding fathers of the US, for is not "democracy" but the fact that the power of the state can be limited. Guarantees for the weak were a while coming, admittedly.
Karen Ray, Colerain, US
I am often surprised how 'The West' thinks the process of liberalisation can be short-cut simply by installing democracy, and assuming everything else will fall into place. I am not at all sure such a quick process has any precedent anywhere in history. As the author mentions, the formation of the liberal democracies in the west took time "extending from the French revolution...". In the case of England, I would go even further back. One could use Magna Carta as a convenient start point (issued in 1215, limiting the interference of the state in the affairs of the individual), and the process continued at varying rates over the next 800 years. England did not emerge suddenly from "the horrors of tyranny" in 1928 with the advent of universal suffrage. As for the future of this "democratisation". Even the UK may not be immune to the ill effects of the assumption that "greater democracy leads to greater freedom". The recent moves towards a fully elected House of Lords seem a case in point. There are obvious problems of two houses being selected in the same democratic way, and then being expected to act differently. However, due to a belief in maximal democracy being a good thing, most politicians appear to support such a change nonetheless.
Ian, Manchester
BBCBBC © 2013 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
MAGAZINE
24 August 2012 Last updated at 17:15 GMT
A Point Of View: The trouble with freedom
We've come to believe that freedom is the natural human condition, which only tyrants prevent everyone from enjoying - but when a tyrant is toppled, we can't know what will come next, says John Gray.
In February 1917, a young boy was reading a Russian translation of one of the books of Jules Verne in a street in St Petersburg (at the time called Petrograd) where a bookseller had laid out his stock in the snow.
The boy heard a commotion and, looking up from the book, saw a terrified man being frog-marched down the street. The ashen-faced figure was one of the city's policemen, who were among the last functionaries of the Tsarist regime to remain loyal.
Discovered hiding on the roof of a building, he had been brought down to be taken to what he evidently feared would be his end. What happened to the man cannot be known, but his deathly white face as he was marched away made an enduring impression on the boy who witnessed the scene.
Aged seven at the time, the young boy went on to be the philosopher and historian of ideas Isaiah Berlin, who spoke of the episode repeatedly in conversations I had with him towards the end of his life. He often contrasted the mood of optimism that accompanied the February revolution with the darker atmosphere that followed the Bolshevik coup in October of the same year.
Yet the incident occurred during the first of these upheavals, and it was clear that the impact it had on him had nothing to do with any differences between the two revolutions. As noted by his biographer, the episode left Berlin with a dread of violence that stayed with him after he left Russia in 1921 with his mother and father for a life in England and right up to his death in Oxford in November 1997. But I believe there may have been a subtler effect on Berlin's thinking, which has something important to say to us today.
Not long after the start of the 21st Century, we like to tell ourselves an uplifting story in which freedom expands whenever tyranny is overthrown. We believe that freedom and democracy are inseparable, so that when a dictator is toppled the result is not only a more accountable type of government but also greater liberty throughout society.
This belief forms the justification of the repeated attempts by Western governments to export their own political model to countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. In this simple and seemingly compelling story, freedom and democracy are a package that can be delivered anywhere in the world. An older generation of thinkers recognised that freedom and democracy don't always go hand in hand. The 19th Century liberal John Stuart Mill was a life-long campaigner for greater democracy, but he also worried that personal liberty would shrink once governments could claim to express the will of the majority.
Born in 1872 and dying in 1970 at the age of 98, Mill's godson Bertrand Russell agreed and shocked many people when he observed that while Britain after World War II was a more democratic society than the one he'd grown up in, it was also in some ways less free. For Russell, as for Mill, liberty was one thing, democracy another. It's a deeply unfashionable view, but I think essentially correct.
Where this older generation differed from many today is that they thought of freedom as a lack of restriction on how we can act. Being free meant simply the absence of obstacles to living as we choose. While it's a view that's been criticised because it seems to see individuals as being separate from society, it seems to me to capture better than any other what freedom means and why it's important for every human being.
We need freedom because our goals and values are highly diverse and often quite different from those of the people around us. Having a voice in collective decisions - the basis of democracy - is a fine thing, but it won't protect your freedom if the majority is hostile to the way you choose to live.
Many will tell you that this danger can be dealt with by bills of rights that put some freedoms beyond the range of political interference. But politics has a habit of finding ways around the law, and when the state is weak declarations of rights tend to be unenforceable.
Once you think of freedom as living as you choose, you'll see that it's not just tyrants that stand in its way. The world is full of failed and enfeebled states in which the main threats to freedom come from organised crime, ethnic conflict and militant sectarian groups.
If you live in some provinces of Mexico, you're likely to be more afraid of ruthless drug cartels than of corrupt and ineffectual governments. In parts of the Balkans in the 1990s, you'd be afraid of lawless militias, operating on ethnic lines but often intertwined with organised crime. In these cases, it's a condition of near-anarchy rather than tyranny that threatens freedom.
In other cases, it's the power of fundamentalism that can most threaten your freedom.
Think of Iraq. You only have to consider what happened to the Marsh Arabs, whose ancient way of life was destroyed by draining the marshlands and blowing up villages, or the use of chemical weapons against Kurds, to recall how severe Saddam's repression could be. Yet freedom wasn't enhanced for everyone once the dictator had been removed.
Today, if you're an Iraqi woman and opt for a lifestyle that fails to square with a narrow interpretation of religion, you're at risk of violent attack from fundamentalist groups. If you're known to be gay, you risk being hunted down and killed.
If you belong to a religious minority such as Christians or Mandeans (a branch of Gnosticism that was practised in the region for about 2,000 years), you face persecution and the risk of extinction. The country has a type of democratic government, but the state is too weak and fractured and politics too dominated by sectarianism to prevent these assaults on freedom. Syria is different from Iraq in many ways, but it's hard to avoid fearing that a similar pattern may be emerging there.
In the reassuring story we like to repeat to ourselves, the emergence of these new threats is just a phase - in time these countries will achieve the type of freedom-loving democracy that we believe we enjoy. But we can say this only because we've forgotten our own history and neglect the dangers we currently face.
The democratic nation-states that exist in Europe today came into being in a process - extending from the French revolution through the collapse of the Habsburg empire after WWI to the break-up of former Yugoslavia - that included repressing the freedom of minorities, and the process hasn't ended with democracy and freedom co-existing in harmony as we like to think.
The far right is on the march in many European countries, using its rights to attack minorities. The dictatorships of the 1930s are unlikely to return, but toxic democracies based on nationalism and xenophobia could emerge in a number of countries and be in power for long periods.
Coming from Russia, where the despotism of the Tsars was replaced by a far more repressive system of government, Isaiah Berlin didn't need English liberal thinkers to teach him that the overthrow of tyranny doesn't by itself expand liberty. Where he was at one with them was in understanding that liberty is a fragile achievement that can be undermined in many different ways.
We've come to believe a story in which freedom is the natural human condition, which only tyrants prevent everyone from enjoying. The reality is that when a tyrant is toppled we can't know what will come next.
When we tell our tale of freedom spreading across the world, we might pause to think for a moment of the young boy who looked up from his book to see a terrified policeman being dragged off to an unknown fate.
Here is a selection of your comments.
Mankind seems to have made less progress in taming the inate savagery potentially in all of us and concentrated more on systems to codify how society operates. How little encouragement there is for ethics, standards and compassion, the true values.
Peter Mounsey, Harlow, Essex
I would propose another principle: that freedoms flourish in social environments where power is spread most widely and equally. I have met a former German concentration camp prisoner, a refugee from Georgia in the Breznef era, a Kurd from eastern Turkey in a time of military dictatorship and a Ugandan who fled his homeland because of repression by Idi Amin. Also one of my former colleagues lost some friends in Tianamen Square. These were victims of "strong government". We should oppose the concentration of power wherever it occurs. Power brings responsibilities to the governed, unbridled power brings evil.
John Price, Bath
There are many countries better of with a dictator than without such as Iraq, Libya,... and yes, dictators will abuse power and target certain groups of people but at least they in general control the majority of people from targeting others that are not like minded. This is what happened in DR Congo and it's neighbours after Mobutu was gone, all these different tribes try to eradicate each other over thousand year old feuds and in the process slaughter each other in the most cruel ways. Sometimes you just need one man to stop the masses from taking others peoples freedom.
Manu Henrotte, Bali
The democracy here in Australia functions almost exclusively on economic rational; putting matters of finance above the matters of individuals. The competition for work is so intense that people quickly fall into any position available and often one far below that which their qualifications truly merit. The majority of us end up working in positions (through the necessity to provide for ourselves and our families) that actively support the very causes we are stand against. We are only as free as Weber's cage allows us.
Chris Tope, Sydney
Democracy has been hijacked by so called freedom. Freedom has come to mean the freedom to exploit. Individual freedoms such as religious, sexual are just a pretence at freedom. Institutions have the freedom to exploit in a democracy as is evidenced by these pay day loans at exorbitant interest rates that can only be described as usury. In other cultures they may have more repressive regimes in terms of religious or sexual freedom but sharia law protects people from the worst excesses of usury. What you win on the swings you lose on the roundabouts.If we could just combine the best of both then we might have freedom with responsibility.
Jane Jackson, Ireland
I returned to New Zealand about 7 years ago after 25 years overseas, having lived and worked in a number of places across Europe and Asia. Rather than feeling freer than for a very long time (there's only 4m of us in a very large, mostly empty country), I feel more restricted than at any time in my life. I may be in a country that runs a proportional representation system, but unless I subscribe wholeheartedly to one party's particular point of view (and most have a relatively narrow political agenda), I have no voice. All of our parties are remarkably conservative and not one, indeed not even a single politician, can be singled out as a champion of individual freedoms or liberal ideas. Layer onto that an extensive and all-encompassing bureaucracy, and to a truly amazing extent so much of our everyday living is dictated by "others". The final straw for me living in Christchurch has been the absolute powers assumed by Authority following the Christchurch earthquake which have seen (and continue to see 18 months after the last sizeable 'quake) individual rights and freedoms trampled over with no avenue for appeal whatsoever. Much as I love my my friends and my corner of NZ, the overriding power of "Democratic" government and the absence of respect for individual freedoms will take me and my family away forever as soon as we are reasonably able.
Brian Anderson, Christchurch
There is no such thing as Freedom, unless you are marooned, alone, on a desert island. To live with another individual you have to subjugate some of your or their desires and wishes. In large Societies, the freedom of the individual very much depends on the beliefs, values and capabilities of the ruling elite. In a democracy, this tends to be a reflection of the beliefs, values and capabilities of the voting majority. Thus, in a democracy, the majority get the government they deserve.
Steph, Pershore
Democracy is certainly not synonymous with freedom. For the most part, democracies are controlled by those people with the financial means to run for office or by those people who are backed by some external power. While we would like to believe that our votes count and that our voice is heard, for the most part, people find themselves increasingly told what to believe by those who have the money or power to have their message heard. If the people who represent us in the government are nothing like us, how can they represent us. They can't. However laws have been passed to make it difficult for anyone without the necessary capital or connections to run for any office for the most part. When the majority of us are slowly regressing towards poverty and the rich have absolute power and influence through both the people who represent us and through the power of lobbies then it is time to examine our options. We are essentially not free. We have been brainwashed into believing we are through the illusion of a vote and an elected government.
Jimmy Arthur, Jakarta
I see the definition of freedom as simply an absence of restrictions as an essentially immature or 'teenage' view of freedom. A more mature view view of freedom accepts a trade-off, in some ways a form of delayed gratification: in return for payments of various taxes we loose the freedom to spend all our money as we like, but gain health care and retirement benefits, etc. If we accept driving rules, we enjoy greater 'freedom' to travel further than if there were no rules at all. Some may also argue that if we voluntarily accept some restrictions on sexual behaviour, we may enjoy deeper and more fulfilling relationships.
Paul Saunderson, Aalesund
Democracy is the rule of the mob. When the mob votes to spend money they don't have, on fripperies they don't need, this is legalised theft. In spite of all my "freedom" I can't travel abroad without government-approved identification, own a firearm without approval, set up a business without interference, or live in a caravan on privately owned land. My earnings are taxed at source while corporations and individuals end up with 0% and even negative tax rates. It is true that our freedom is an illusion. We have two dozen coffee shops, a dozen bakeries, seven or eight religions, hundreds of TV channels, but only two political parties. How is that freedom of choice?
Colin C, Barnsley
What we have to thank the wretched barons of 1215, or the slave-holder/founding fathers of the US, for is not "democracy" but the fact that the power of the state can be limited. Guarantees for the weak were a while coming, admittedly.
Karen Ray, Colerain, US
I am often surprised how 'The West' thinks the process of liberalisation can be short-cut simply by installing democracy, and assuming everything else will fall into place. I am not at all sure such a quick process has any precedent anywhere in history. As the author mentions, the formation of the liberal democracies in the west took time "extending from the French revolution...". In the case of England, I would go even further back. One could use Magna Carta as a convenient start point (issued in 1215, limiting the interference of the state in the affairs of the individual), and the process continued at varying rates over the next 800 years. England did not emerge suddenly from "the horrors of tyranny" in 1928 with the advent of universal suffrage. As for the future of this "democratisation". Even the UK may not be immune to the ill effects of the assumption that "greater democracy leads to greater freedom". The recent moves towards a fully elected House of Lords seem a case in point. There are obvious problems of two houses being selected in the same democratic way, and then being expected to act differently. However, due to a belief in maximal democracy being a good thing, most politicians appear to support such a change nonetheless.
Ian, Manchester
BBCBBC © 2013 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!
Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!
E'en though it be a cross that raiseth me;
Still all my song shall be nearer, my God, to Thee,
Chorus: Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!
Though like the wanderer, the sun gone down,
Darkness be over me, my rest a stone;
Yet in my dreams I'd be nearer, my God, to Thee,
Chorus
There let the way appear steps unto heav'n;
All that Thou sendest me in mercy giv'n;
Angels to beckon me nearer, my God, to Thee,
Chorus
Then with my waking thoughts bright with Thy praise,
Out of my stony griefs Bethel I'll raise;
So by my woes to be nearer, my God, to Thee,
Chorus
Or if on joyful wing, cleaving the sky,
Sun, moon, and stars forgot, upwards I fly,
Still all my song shall be, nearer, my God, to Thee,
A sixth verse was later added to the hymn by Edward H. Bickersteth, Jr. as follows:[2]
There in my Father’s home, safe and at rest,
There in my Savior’s love, perfectly blest;
Age after age to be, nearer my God to Thee.
E'en though it be a cross that raiseth me;
Still all my song shall be nearer, my God, to Thee,
Chorus: Nearer, my God, to Thee, nearer to Thee!
Though like the wanderer, the sun gone down,
Darkness be over me, my rest a stone;
Yet in my dreams I'd be nearer, my God, to Thee,
Chorus
There let the way appear steps unto heav'n;
All that Thou sendest me in mercy giv'n;
Angels to beckon me nearer, my God, to Thee,
Chorus
Then with my waking thoughts bright with Thy praise,
Out of my stony griefs Bethel I'll raise;
So by my woes to be nearer, my God, to Thee,
Chorus
Or if on joyful wing, cleaving the sky,
Sun, moon, and stars forgot, upwards I fly,
Still all my song shall be, nearer, my God, to Thee,
A sixth verse was later added to the hymn by Edward H. Bickersteth, Jr. as follows:[2]
There in my Father’s home, safe and at rest,
There in my Savior’s love, perfectly blest;
Age after age to be, nearer my God to Thee.
I Will Sing of My Redeemer
I will sing of my Redeemer,
And His wondrous love to me;
On the cruel cross He suffered,
From the curse to set me free.
Sing, oh sing, of my Redeemer,
With His blood, He purchased me.
On the cross, He sealed my pardon,
Paid the debt, and made me free.
I will tell the wondrous story,
How my lost estate to save,
In His boundless love and mercy,
He the ransom freely gave.
I will praise my dear Redeemer,
His triumphant power I’ll tell,
How the victory He giveth
Over sin, and death, and hell.
I will sing of my Redeemer,
And His heav’nly love to me;
He from death to life hath brought me,
Son of God with Him to be.
And His wondrous love to me;
On the cruel cross He suffered,
From the curse to set me free.
Sing, oh sing, of my Redeemer,
With His blood, He purchased me.
On the cross, He sealed my pardon,
Paid the debt, and made me free.
I will tell the wondrous story,
How my lost estate to save,
In His boundless love and mercy,
He the ransom freely gave.
I will praise my dear Redeemer,
His triumphant power I’ll tell,
How the victory He giveth
Over sin, and death, and hell.
I will sing of my Redeemer,
And His heav’nly love to me;
He from death to life hath brought me,
Son of God with Him to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)