Belief: Human or Divine?

What does it mean to believe? The neatly boxed up definition from the Oxford English Dictionary is that, “it is to accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.” But this limited explanation leaves no room for the many aspects and dimensions of what it actually is to believe in something.

Most children (but not all…) believe in the judgement of their parents. Intrinsically they come to accept that what is done for them is done out of protection and with their best interests in mind; it is simply the divine order of things that this is how a parent child relationship works.

What happens if a parent abuses and usurps the position of trust that they possess, what effect does this have on the child? It distorts their belief and thrusts them into a vortex of uncertainty, often culminating in their reassessment of the parent child relationship. They might question what it was they actually believed in; on some level they have been betrayed by the parent, yet it is the failure of the way things are supposed to be that does the most damage. The relationship is fatally flawed, the young person no longer has a complete and convicted belief in the actions of the parent and they come to question the trustworthiness of the relationship. They have been introduced to the reality of life; that unfounded belief, which is based on supposition and assumption, is brittle and prone to failure.

It is fair to say then that we are born with the inbuilt capacity to believe. We need to believe in something as a human being; it gives us some reason for existence. To believe affects every circumstance in life; we convince ourselves that there is a better quality of life, a better relationship out there, better employment prospects, that the world is full of good people or that circumstances are not as bad as they seen. Yet, think about it, often there are no grounds for such assumptions, we believe in these ideas to comfort ourselves.

Belief then is often a human coping mechanism. I’m not for one second saying it is wrong; self delusion is as much necessary for human happiness as anything else. If we didn’t believe we would find ourselves alone in a world of reality, and reality is not something that many of us wish to face.

If on many occasions, belief is often founded on less than solid merits then surely we must question it. Take religion for example. It is often said that on a patient’s deathbed they call for a priest or minister so that they can make their peace with God, even those having never believed in God at all. (My mother is a palliative nurse) Why is it in their most needy moment they chose to believe? Is it too much to assume that it is the very act of belief that offers comfort, and not the subject?

If this is so, then surely many of us should question the validity of our believing in a higher power. If a minister stood up on a Sunday morning and renounced his faith, tore shreds off the church and resigned himself to believing that there is no God after all, (perhaps it is that he is convinced and not in belief of this idea but that is another argument for another time), how many of his church would walk out and never return? What I’m saying is that sometimes it is the visual representative of religion that we believe in and when this is taken away we find ourselves with absolutely nothing to pin our belief to; religion becomes a belief because it provides feelings of safety, and not because we wholly believe that there is a greater power out there.

I assert that any belief should be pushed to the edge of reason. No one should be taken for a ride by any theme or ideology; in fact there is something totally sacred about questioning everything in life. Lets not find ourselves believing in something because of what the act of belief may offer us.

Call me cynical, but I would strongly advocate, at some time or another, walking away from any belief we hold. When we leave behind everything that causes us to believe, we are left with the very focal point of what we believe in. We become either persuaded beyond a shadow of a doubt that what we believe in is true and right, or we find that when all other attachments are stripped away, we are left with nothing but an empty idea. Either way, the outcome is positive; we deepen our belief or become disillusioned and enlightened.

So what I’m really trying to say is that we can easily believe in something for the sake of believing; to gain an identity or to experience a feeling of security. But lets not fool ourselves. Take a long look at where your beliefs lie, question and debate them until you are satisfied that beyond doubt they are founded in strong, convicted personal belief.

The Power of Youth

“Youth, more than ever, are at the forefront of global social, economic and political developments…” So say the United Nations in the preface to their document of Statistical Charts and Indicators on the Situation of Youth. And that was from 1980 – 1995. Little has changed in the years succeeding that.

It was an unknown 23 year old Tunisian, Mohamed Bouazizi, who was introduced to the world by setting himself on fire on the 17^th December 2010, sending a loud statement reverberating around the Arab world; a statement pitted against personal injustice inflicted on him by a municipal official, but more than this, a statement against Government tyranny.

This was not the act of a pyromaniac or a deranged man, but a one of desperation, a microcosm of growing recognition of the need for change; one which had been bubbling at the surface of civil society for some time. Bouazizi’s act became a catalyst for the revolution in Tunisia and indirectly lead to the Arab Spring uprising where thousands rioted against domination and authoritarian regimes. Young people at the forefront, they sought social and political change. As the rest of the globe looked on there was a sense that if Tunisia could do it, why couldn’t they?

Bouazizi’s self-immolation unwittingly gave rise to the appearance of Arab youth on a world stage for the first time as they began to represent change, saying never again to oppression. They moved from their roles as passive recipients of this autocracy to active leaders out of it. It’s a pity Bouazizi didn’t live to see it.

Similarly, think of Mark Duggan, a 29-year-old black man. Suspected of planning a revenge attack following the murder of a cousin, he was shot dead on 4 August 2011 by police attempting to arrest him in Tottenham.  His death sparked a reaction at a time where public relations were already volatile. Members of the community were outraged at the prospect of radical budget cuts and an ever widening societal division between the well off and the struggling (dare I say it..). They questioned the circumstances of his death and this, with already existing tension, escalated into wider riots, looting and arson.

So what is it that makes young people so instrumental in affecting social change?

Throughout the past century it is young people who have stood up as change agents and said no more to injustice. Consider the American Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s, Civil Rights marches in the 1960s in Northern Ireland which gave rise to thirty years of unrest; the riots against the hike in university fees in 2011; consider even the athletes in the Bahrainian national football team who challenged a Government crack down on free speech in 2010 and were subjected to imprisonment and torture as a result.

All of the above met Government opposition in one way or another, yet young people continue to be the ones to ask serious questions. I guess being a young person myself, we recognise when our liberties are being taken and possess the impetuosity of youth in taking steps, even breaking the boundaries of established societal rules, to challenge that injustice.

Young people carry with themselves a real sense of energy; we believe that nothing is impossible to achieve. We bank on this energy to attract others to these movements by offering other young people something to identify themselves with, and in carrying out dangerous acts of protest. As the movement advances, a collective identity grows and young people gather more and more support through various mediums like the internet.

Most of us have not been alive for long enough to encounter the absolute bureaucracy of any system of administration, marked by red tape and proliferation. We have not yet been suppressed enough in our beliefs that we just concede to Government control.  We see things in black and white; it is natural to protest against any miscarriage of justice. And it should be that way. Therefore, all the potential dynamism of youth is expressed in audacious acts which defy the conventions of society. Having little to lose, we ask questions of the powers that be.

We recognise the opportunity to produce a new identity for ourselves; to do something by which we will be remembered, something which defines our generation. The riots in Tottenham in the summer of 2011 may have been given press for despicable behaviour, but in reality the majority of people will remember them as a time where frustrated young people had their say. They recognised a future denied and were simply acting like there was no tomorrow. The riots renewed solidarity and awakened a new identity in the community.

Similarly, in the Arab world, it is the young, tech-savvy who want something better for their generation. They are willing to put their lives on the line for it. When is the last time any of us believed in something so deeply and so completely that we would willingly make great sacrifice? I’m not for one moment condoning the carnage. Rather, i’m saying that Government crack downs don’t fix things. Let young people have their say, with over 1.2 billion of us in the world imagine what change could be affected if every one of us were willing to do something to bring it about.

Media Ethics? What would we know...

SEX, DRUGS, ROCK AND ROLL... Have I got your attention? Not that I need it; those three words have probably done that for me. ‘Sensationalising;’ the idea that anything can be made attractive reading given a twist, mixed with something slightly ‘risqué,’ dark and uncomfortable.

Consumers of news are so much more likely to ‘consume’ it at the most superficial level; we (and I include myself for I have been at fault for reading stories that aren’t exactly gospel), ignore the truth in favour of a quick fix of scandal, a shot of gritty detail, or a tab of misfortune for some other poor soul. Let’s be honest, we like to make ourselves feel better about the elements of our life with which we are entirely dissatisfied.

Take the Leveson enquiry. I for one am in agreement that a self regulating industry such as the media are long overdue a good hauling in front of a jury and being made accountable for their actions. But this enquiry in itself opens more cans of worms than I believe is possible to address. Lets be honest, the power the media wield in every aspect of day to day life is immense; they know what makes the public tick and they are a formidable force to come up against. With that in mind, what exactly is Lord Leveson planning to change about the state of media ethics (or lack of…); I hardly think that the outcome of this enquiry is going to produce ground breaking new regulations.

Perhaps the Tories (I wont waste time in mentioning Nick), are on a(nother) new campaign to convince us that they do in fact have some element of control; they are not puppets to powerful industries and institutions like the media, no way! Furthermore, they will not tolerate naughty boys (and girls it would seem…ahem News International Executive Rebekah Brooks). Good effort lads, id expect no less than a slap on the wrist and no Christmas cards from number 10 next year for those boys down at the newspaper stand. As long as they are SEEN to be doing something. Sure public perception is everything these days, we don’t care about ethics.

Here comes the link. So if the majority of people reading newspapers are looking for sensational stories to make themselves feel much better, or less guilty, about their own lives, surely that means that secretly we all rather enjoy hearing about those things that may delve in to the private lives of said celebrities. I’m not for one second saying it is right, i'm saying that Murdock and buddies will sell a lot less newspapers if they’re seen without some tantalising front page blurt.

Put these two ideas together and in my head we very soon come up with a moot point. Yes, do stop the media from slandering unsuspecting celebrities, forcing their way into houses, hounding the families of victims. But heaven help all of us if we open the newspaper on a Sunday morning and there are no one liners of chastisement and accusation. Furthermore, is there really any difference in what the Leveson enquiry is targeting, and a tabloid who takes pictures of a celebrity out buying a loaf for breakfast? At the very core of the issue probably not; we might complain about the stories but we’re the ones reading them.

To stretch this out further, why is it that we clearly like to read superficial stories that have no consequences? Comfort food in words. Probably because it is just that, no guilt if we didn’t take the snaps, we can smooth that over with a quick tut and a turn of the page. We really can’t be bothered reading something that just might tug our consciences. Lets not talk about ethnic cleansing in South Sudan; famine relief in the horn of Africa is soo 2011 it is unreal, and where’s Haiti? Hold on until I get my dust covered map out.

Perhaps, media psychology plays a part. We do not want to read about despicable goings on like those mentioned above. Call it child-like but no person wants to admit to the capability of human cruelty. The power of self deception allows us to forget that these atrocities ever occurred, even though we know they go on, there is no ‘evidence’ in the news, therefore they aren’t happening. In this way our bubble stays air tight.

This questions the very reason for the media. Is it to regulate our moods and boost us when life is not so easy? Fanciful and superficial stories clearly sell better in a recession where we do not want more bad news of the world.

This brings me back to the first point I made. Sensationalising stories in the media draws attention. We won’t read about the civil war between north and south Sudan because for one thing it rarely makes the news at 10, and for another we are tired of hearing about war and famine and the struggle in Africa. Sure we did our bit for the nation in the 80s with the AIDS problem and big Bob with his genius publicists. Sorry, Bob and his massive heart (and wallet). Who cares if one child still dies every three seconds while just 1% of the world’s population have a university degree? The point is that the news isn’t really that edgy anymore. Give us something exciting, something like the latest celebrity to eat a hamburger or something. That’ll soon feed our appetites for scandal.

Forget the media; let’s ask where our compassion is. We are all human beings, even the celebrities asking for privacy, even those living on less than a $1 a day…..