Comment

The European Constitution

Should God Be included in the European Constitution?Make Your Comment: click here!

"A lot of our values have been forged against the Church or the churches. We should remember the whole story: the massacres of the Crusades; the nights of St Bartholomew and the Inquisition's auto-da-fe; Galileo, the pogroms, and turning a blind eye to fascism. When it comes to democracy, human rights and equality, God is a recent convert. He was comfortable for centuries with slavery. Yesterday he still blessed Franco." Josep Borrell Fontelles Catalan Socialist Party

Should the new European Constitution be put to a referendum in all the member states?Make Your Comment: click here!

"There will be no referendum." Tony Blair British prime minister

Essays

Irish voters show the way forward for Europe Why Britain should join the Euro? The lesson from Argentina Europe: The New Evangelisation The disastrous consequences of ignorance
Irish voters show the way forward for Europe -Joyce McMillan, The Scotsman 2002
IT WAS a cold, brilliant morning last Friday in Stockholm, as a mixed crowd of academics, journalists, visiting Scots and British government officials gathered in the handsome library of the Swedish Institute for Foreign Policy to wait for the arrival of Scotland’s First Minister. The occasion was a conference on "New Politics and New Governance" in post-devolution Scotland, staged as part of last week’s major Scottish event in Sweden, designed to raise the country’s profile in areas from business and tourism to politics and culture. And although Jack McConnell’s 18-hour visit to Sweden was being kept to a brief minimum - dinner at the Embassy, an early-morning interview on the sofa at Swedish breakfast television, a 40-minute meeting with the prime minister - he was making time, before his dash back to the airport, to deliver a keynote address, and answer a few questions. But did the Swedes want to ask him about the economic and public service issues he raised in his speech, or even about his plight as the embattled leader of a new institution fighting for credibility in an age when the whole political profession is widely perceived, not without reason, as "bland, boring, and corrupt"? Not really. In fact, what interested them most was the future of Europe, and the role of major regions such as Scotland within the European Union. And since Jack the Lad is particularly well qualified to answer questions on this subject - both as a former minister for Europe in the Scottish Executive, and as a leading member of the EU’s Committee of the Regions - it has to be said that he gave an impressive performance, rolling out his points about the need for greater flexibility in the style of European legislation, and deeper consultation with the regions on how to implement the idea of "subsidiarity", in a manner that seemed to strike a strong positive chord. Which was just as well; for although Scotland, like any other nation, is bound to spend most of its political time navel-gazing over domestic problems and scandals, it’s worth noting that the EU project which now provides the broad political framework for the lives of a half a billion Europeans reached a critical turning-point this weekend. Saturday’s "yes" vote in the second Irish referendum on the Nice Treaty was a decisive one, and a generous gesture from a nation with little to gain and much to lose, in the short term, from the eastward expansion of the EU. But as Mr McConnell pointed out in Stockholm, last year’s "no" vote was equally important, a vital wake-up call, to the elites who run the European project, about the intense popular fears - of loss of democratic control, and of rising tides of migration - now being aroused by the deepening of Europe’s political and economic union. For the generation of leaders born before 1945, the memory of war in western Europe, of its horrors and its aftermath, was motivation enough to sustain the endless search for workable solutions in an ever-expanding Europe. But as those leaders pass out of active political life, we need more to carry us through the traumatic period of change the Union now faces; new visions, new dreams, and a new sense of what a European Union could mean in the 21st century. So here, as a contribution to the debate, are three thoughts on that vision. First, it occurs to me that what the EU needs now is something like a total reversal of its traditional way of working; that is, that it should consciously cease to be an elite project, barely tolerated by an apathetic European public, and begin to pride itself instead on waiting as long as it takes to build up a decisive weight of public support behind every new move towards union. A few weeks ago, at a Czech-British meeting in Prague on migration and identity in the new Europe, I heard senior politicians and experts from both countries discussing the EU’s policy of requiring candidate countries such as the Czech Republic to implement a British-style model of race relations and equal-opportunities legislation; and I was struck not so much by any criticism of the policy from the Czech side (there was none), as by the evident resentment of some of the older British representatives at the way in which this Roy Jenkins "multicultural" model had been imposed on British society itself. And although I strongly disagreed with what they were saying, I thought it represented a salutary warning, relevant to the current situation across the whole EU, about what happens in any community when major changes involving matters of power and identity are pushed through without adequate public debate and consent. Brussels control-freaks may have been irritated and alarmed by the stubbornness of the Irish in resisting EU expansion. But they should note that the candidate countries now have a resounding "yes" to their entry into the Union, from the ordinary voters of Ireland, that carries a hundred times more political and moral weight than any agreement hatched up in Brussels, and will ease their negotiating paths for months to come. Second, I think an expanding EU needs to rethink its conventional view of expansion as a process in which successful west European countries help less successful central and east European countries achieve similar levels of prosperity. The ten candidate countries now standing on the threshold of the EU - the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Malta, Cyprus and the three Baltic states - have between them a richness of cultural and historical experience which is not only an asset in itself, but which deeply informs their sense of what Europe is and what it should represent; and if we fail to listen to those ideas, we lose a hugely valuable resource. If there is any capacity-building to be done in the new EU, in other words, it also involves our western capacity to learn, to absorb change, and to truly appreciate cultural diversity. And as the Irish referendum debate showed, it’s only when politicians cede some real power to the people, and give them real decisions to make about the European process, that that learning-curve begins to drive upward, and the capacity of west European societies to deal creatively and generously with change really begins to build. And then finally, as the "war on terrorism" once again dominates our headlines, it seems to me that a coherent European Union, capable of generating a recognisable common security policy, is becoming almost essential to global stability. At the moment, the European position in global affairs somehow achieves the worst of both worlds; Europe grumbles and whines about American dominance and attitudes, but never takes full responsibility for formulating the kind of clear alternative position, backed by the full economic and military capacity of the Union, that would enable serious negotiations with Washington, and perhaps a re-energising of the Atlantic alliance on a 21st-century basis. The Cold War is over, in other words, and western Europe’s days as an indulged and well-protected buffer-zone are gone. And the pressure from the new candidate countries, as they begin to join us, will be to recognise that this is the moment when we must take up the ideal of peace through co-operation that grew strong in western Europe during those sheltered years; and find ways of making it work not only across our own continent, but - by our influence on global politics - across a planet of ten billion souls, in the century to come.
Why Britain should join the Euro? The lesson from Argentina 2002
The UK is indeed doing fine by itself....for now. I hate to say it, but there will come a time when the Euro is stronger than the Pound. The protectionist attitude exhibited by a number of people in the UK is startling. It would appear that they would like to stick the UK into it's own little box and live happily ever after - Which I'm afraid won't work. Witness the current economic collapse in Argentina. Argentina made two key mistakes with their economy in the 80's and 90's. First, they linked the value of the Peso with American (Inflated) Dollar. This is itself was a poor choice considering their major trading partners (Chile, Brazil, Columbia) did not have link their currencies. When the other country's had devaluation occur, suddenly the Argentinian Peso was worth far too much compared to their rivals, which made the imported/exported goods FAR too expensive. I can see someone making an argument that "See, linking currencies destroyed Argentina's economy", however that would be incorrect. The beauty of the Euro is that there are 12 nations already linked and using it. That's 12 Countries (And 100's of Millions of People) working under the system. Even is "Outside" goods become too expensive, the "Inside" goods will always be competitive. In fact, if the UK does not adopt the Euro (And the Euro goes into the slide that most Brits think it will) the UK's economy will be devastated just like Argentina. All of a sudden goods are nice and cheap to buy, but you have no money to buy them with. And of course you have no money to buy them with because exports are so devasted (Undercut by the less expensive EU Exports) that unemployment increases. And the gradual and devastating cycle of "Boom and Bust" continues again and again. The Second mistake made by the Argentinian Government (Aside from widespread greed and theft) was it's protectionist policies. When Brazil devalued it's currency, the Argentina Gov't realized how much it would hurt their country's exports/imports. The solution was to Subsidize imports and Tarrif Imports in a ridiculous attempt to save the economy. When you subsidize an industry the money still needs to come from somewhere. (This is where the IMF helped destroy Argentina) And by applying tariffs to imports, they increased the cost to their own people, who were already suffering financially due to decreased exports. If Argentina had broken away from the US Dollar lock at this point, they likely would have rebounded. The bottom line is, the UK needs to jump in the pool. The fewer "Economies" there are in the world, the less Boom and Bust economics apply. (I can go on at length about this if you really want......) It's really a matter of the big fish survive and the little fish die off. And when the rest of Europe join in, the UK Economy will become a little fish. When that happens, it will only be a matter of time.....
Europe: A new evangelisation James Sweeeny CP,1986
An End and a Beginning In many parts of the world today there is a striking convergence on what the main focus of the Church's pastoral ministry should be. Throughout Latin America and Asia, as well as in many parts of Africa, this is clearly seen as the formation of basic Christian community, or new grass roots and cell like structures in which the People of God can live out their calling as community and effectively offer Christian service in society. It is a great strength for a local church to have such a clear goal in view, and by comparison the older churches of Europe appear almost direction-less, simply repeating long established patterns. At the same time, pastoral strategies do not necessarily travel well. Just as Latin America's liberation theology cannot be imported wholesale into the very different social and economic conditions of the industrialised West, so too the model of basic community which has its roots in the rural conditions of the Third World countries cannot be transplanted easily to the highly urbanised societies of Europe. This is not to say that liberation theology and basic community have nothing to teach Europe, but rather that they have to find their place within a specifically European context. It is the analysis of that context which is vital. A consensus seems to be emerging at the present time in the reflections of the European bishops, through the Council of European Episcopal Conferences (CEEC) of which Cardinal flume is president, on the central elements of a pastoral strategy for the continent. This may seem a rather grandiose conception, and more localised national and diocesan strategies may appear to have greater urgency and relevance. However, just as Medellin and Puebla proved such a stimulus to the Church throughout Latin 4merica, so too a greater continental awareness could be d spur to the local churches of Europe. The bishops' pastoral and theological reflection is converging on the need for a 'second evangelisation'. The last two symposia of the CEEC have dealt with the theme of evangelisation, in 1982 in relation to episcopal collegiality and in 1985 with the topic of 'Secularisation and Evangelisation in Europe Today'. Pope John Paul has also taken a lead here, insisting on the 'urgency of the task of evangelising, or rather re-evangelising, the Old Continent.1 The urgency arises from the pressures building up on the Church at the present time, four of which can be mentioned as particularly important. First, there is the general crisis of modern society and civilisation, seriously disrupting established patterns of life and calling traditional values into question, a process which inevitably spills over into the Church. Second, a steady erosion of the Church's strength has taken place over the last twenty-five years; church attendance has dropped and the public credibility of ecclesiastical authorities even in moral and doctrinal matters has suffered. Thirdly, an atmosphere of re-think is evident today twenty years after Vatican II, the most audacious change in pastoral policy for centuries, and at the same time the results of the 1985 Extraordinary Synod which reviewed the implementation of the Council are yet to become clear. Finally, we are approaching a new Christian millenium. The year 2000 beckons, a magic figure with the potential to spark off a multitude of reactions, religious, pseudo-religious and anti-religious, from the profound to the bizarre. In a sense, then, the struggle is on for the soul of Europe. Although, perhaps surprisingly, 75% of Europeans still believe in God, 85% see themselves as Christian and 58% are still churchgoers (according to the European Value Systems Study),2 the Church would be gravely mistaken to rely passively on its inherited historical position. The call for a second evangelisation provokes reflection on the nature of the first and why it has now, to some extent, run into the ground. One theory questions whether the European nations were ever converted to Christianity in any profound sense. Certainly the mass conversions of the Dark Ages or the religious wars after the Reformation – cuius regio eius religio – were a poor starting point for a deeply rooted personal faith. There was, moreover, an intermingling of Christian faith with native religious and cultural elements. David Martin takes a bluntly realistic view of English religious history: ‘I prefer to think of a common substratum of European folklore, which remains alive to the present day, overlain by three partial Christianisations: the Catholic, the Puritan and the Evangelical. This was supplemented by elements of ''civic religion", particularly in the 16th and 18th centuries. The degree to which Catholic and Orthodox Christianity has been fused with the civic cult and with folklore is always to be borne in mind'.3 It would not be hard to see the same tendencies elsewhere in European history. However, there is another way of looking at these things, and it is crucial to the contemporary debate on the nature and implications of evangelisation. The introduction of christianity calls for indigenisation finding an expression of christianity in and through a people's native cultural, social and religious values, rather than overthrowing and replacing these with an imported 'package deal' which includes cultural elements as well as faith. At the same time, the native culture itself is to be evangelised, a point often emphasised by the Pope, since faith has to address all dimensions of human existence in order that the Spirit might penetrate the total complex of factors which go to make up a concrete, historical human society. Cultures and societies, of course, are dynamic evolving realities and over time they change. Evangelisation, then, is never complete but is a continuous dialectic, a constant interchange between faith and life, christianity and culture. Whether the Europe of Christendom was every fully evangelised or not, it is obvious that today it is a different partner to faith than once it was. The new Europe is born out of the social change which for centuries has been transforming society, and which now appears to have reached a crucial stage, one manifestation being the profound crisis of religious awareness itself. Whereas the first evangelisation could presume a general religious consciousness the second has to present faith in a world where for more and more people the choice is not between different religious views but between a religious and an a-religious interpretation of life — although, in fact, the question is more often settled without ever being raised. This means that second evangelisation is a profoundly different kind of operation from the first. The crucial point here is that the 'loss of religion' is at least as much a cultural phenomenon as it is an issue of faith, it is a transformation of the cultural context, a change in faith's partner. This is not simply that the social reinforcements of religious practice have withered away. That also is true. But more importantly, modern consciousness is no longer religious in its cultural makeup in the way that once it was. Faith is meeting a culturally a-religious world. The modern, secularised society has a great, if often submerged, need for a religious dimension and awareness. While this has to be found in a deep continuity with the Christian tradition of the past, it must be expressed in more than merely the traditional formulae. It would be a major mistake to interpret second evangelisation as simply a drive to 're-convert' Europe, implying a once converted but now fallen away state. There is no lack of evidence to support such a view but nevertheless it is simplistic, and a superficial interpretation of the religious situation which arises as a result of the secularisation of society. It is easy to describe this in terms of unrelieved gloom, interpreting secularisation as a disaster which has befallen the Church and a manifestation of the corruption of society. In fact, it is a large scale historical process which inevitably accompanies the development of science, technology and the rationalisation of the social structure. Indeed, it is argued that the roots of secularisation are to be found in the rational bias of the Judeo-Christian religion itself. At the same time, secularisation does produce a transformation of the religious dimension, putting it in severe crisis. Nevertheless, it is becoming clear in sociological analysis that religion, simply as a human phenomenon, has a good deal more resilience than was once predicted. While it may move to the fringes of the social structure, thereby causing religious leaders considerable problems, it is clearly not set for inevitable decline or extinction. The culture as such may become a-religious but deep currents of religious feeling and perception still run through it. The unique contribution of Europe to the Church universal may well be in wrestling with this cultural transformation and its implications for Christian faith. The lessons learned will have much wider application as other societies undergo similar developments. At the beginning of this new stage of evangelisation Christian faith has little need to feel threatened by the encroachments of secular society. This is rather a new opportunity for faith to rediscover its true self and to offer its collaboration in the building up of a truly human Europe. It is a question of a 'new' rather than a 'second' or 're-evangelisation', the opening of another chapter rather than a beginning from scratch in the long involvement of European society with Christian faith. Faith, Religion and Culture ‘For the first time in the history of the Church a Council is meeting in an age of atheism'. This statement made by Bishop Schmitt of France during one of the debates on the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, highlights a specific characteristic of modern, western society — atheism. The Council chose to adopt a pastoral and sympathetic attitude to atheism, moving away from a stance of aloof superiority and hostility, and even recognising the role of a certain kind of impoverished religious living in its genesis (GS 19-21). 'Atheism is accepted as a partner in dialogue with religious faith, although the warning is sounded that such a dialogue must be "sincere and prudent".' (GS 21). It could be added that it has to be exceptionally clearheaded as well, since both religious faith and philosophical atheism offer holistic interpretations of human existence which appear to be mutually exclusive. This could tempt each side to swallow the other, Christians maintaining that atheism's commitment to human values is really an implicit faith and atheists saying that the faith is really an inessential addition to the religious person's concern for others. Such stratagems negate dialogue, which is based on acceptance of one's partner and openness to the truth offered and presented, without presuming that one already possesses it. By opening a dialogue with atheism faith is meeting the secularised society at the point where its a-religious character is most apparent, and this is crucially important for evangelisation in Europe since it confronts the key issue in the dialectical relationship of christianity and culture. The Pope in his letter to the European bishops refers to the need to 'face the consequences of the efforts made to eradicate from the spirit of Europeans Christian convictions and even religious sentiment itself'. This has the ring of experience about it, particularly as regards the Eastern European countries. However, there is more to atheism than can be laid at the door of such determined efforts to eliminate the Church. The Pope goes on to comment on how 'atheism has spread in an impressive way through the Continent' and describes it as 'a phenomenon of vast proportions'. To analyse it we have to distinguish between Christian faith on the one hand and religion and culture on the other. Faith is not susceptible to neat definition, but we can point to it as that attitude, arising from a personal relationship with Christ, in which all things are made new and we ourselves and our relationships are transformed and which opens up for us the mystery of transcendence. In this sense faith lies beyond its formulations in credal statements. It arises from the initiative of God at the deepest levels of personal experience and creates in the believer a fundamental attitude to reality in all its dimensions. Faith as such, then, is not an ideology competing with other ideologies but can address all ideologies from within its own terms. Culture is equally difficult to tie down. Here we are not thinking of 'high culture' — classical music, poetry and the like — nor any particular expressions of culture — working class, ethnic, subcultures and so on. More fundamentally, culture is the amalgam of processes by which particular values, ideas, social procedures, institutional and group relationships come together to form the concrete historical identity of a nation or people. In this process religion plays a vital role. Human societies in coming into existence and maintaining themselves have to articulate their fundamental values in symbolic form and through various ritual practices. Traditionally, the Christian church and the other institutionalised forms of religion have been the principal agencies for these socio-cultural functions. It is a matter of major sociological debate today how the socio-cultural religious function is fulfilled in pluralistic secularised societies where institutional religion has been largely marginalised. According to one theory an 'invisible religion' develops using non-religious images and symbols — portraying consumer values of the good life, pop stars and media personalities as role models, psychology as the road to liberation, technology as holding out the promise of salvation from the afflictions of life, and such like and investing these with the significance which once were held only by the great traditional religious teachings and symbols. Such a secular 'religion', of course, is highly amorphous and splinters into a variety of different teachings or ways, with themes borrowed eclectically from the religious tradition of the past, from Eastern religions and the newer movements and cults, as well as from the modern humanistic philosophies. This produces a 'market place of religions', which fits in very well, and even too well, with the modern consumer society, in which the individual can make a highly personalised choice. In addition, there are elements particular to the nation or people and which ritualise their identity; ie, 'civic religion', made up of national days, folklore, state and civic occasions, legal procedures and so on. The point to be made here is that religion is an aspect of culture as well as being an expression of Christian faith. This distinction enables us to interpret the modern European religious and cultural situation and how it relates to the mission of the Church. It is clear that the Europe of Christendom was religious in a largely socio-cultural sense. This does not devalue that expression of christianity in any way but simply acknowledges its time conditioned nature. In the context of the new evangelisation for today, however, the cultural world of Europe is marked by an a-religious character, which paradoxically includes both the 'impressive spread' of atheism and the burgeoning of new religious themes and sects, the dominance of scientific rationalistic modes of thought and the development of humanistic substitutes for traditional religion. It is this world, with atheism as its most challenging feature, that Christian faith has to encounter in the dialogue of evangelisation. Can Christianity and atheism ever really dialogue? Can the Church and the secularised world avoid attempting to 'conquer' one another? Should the Church, in fact, not be precisely about that — conquering the world for Christ? Does the Church not end up losing out in attempts to 'meet the modern world', swallowed up in the rising tide of secularism? These questions are very much alive in the present atmosphere of re-think in the post-Vatican II/preVatican III Church. The basic question is how, in an age of secularisation, are we to define evangelisation? This is a new question, not faced by the Church in previous ages, since the modern day secularisation of society — 'the age of atheism' — is historically unique. But, it might be said, does it not have parallels in the irreligion, the hedonism and scepticism of previous times — of antiquity as well as of more recent centuries? Can the Church not see off these modern heresies and idolatries just as it has always done in the past? The danger of such assertions is their failure to take the particular characteristics of our present day society and culture into account. For a large number of reasons, all of them subject to a variety of sociologically nuanced interpretations, institutionalised religion has become more or less 'un-coupled' from the other dimensions of our society — from economic and working activity, the political and legal process, scientific endeavour, educational and welfare provision, family life and norms, even from the articulation and establishment of values. Religion — as a cultural dimension of society — has been privatised. It no longer has the social significance it once had. While the churches may still exert considerable social influence, and in fact do, the social structure would not be appreciably altered if they were to disappear. The churches have been relegated to the status of private associations on a rough par with benevolent societies. The new evangelisation is for a post-religious world, with atheism as its dearest ideological expression. If Christian faith were to continue presenting itself in terms of a culturally religious social structure — where religious symbols and interpretations provide the totally cohesive framework of the life of a people then it would be operating at a serious distance from the language and codes and assumptions of the times. If, however, christianity can manage to re-discover its own uniqueness, not as a religion but as 'faith ', and if it can also find the language to express this in terms intelligible to contemporary experience, then it surely can enter into a dialogue with the emerging European culture which will enrich both society and the Church, christianity and culture. In a real sense christianity needs atheism as a dialogue partner — to teach it the values and truths that atheism historically has learned, but also so that the church might learn what it means to be the Church and to live by faith in these times which, in the end, have been given to us by God. Evangelisation and Britain Today It is necessary to have a reasonably clear picture of the starting point from which a new evangelisation might set out in our own country. Surveys in recent years have charted the developments in religious practice and, more importantly, in attitudes and beliefs. This abundance of research material should enable the Church to reach a fairly sophisticated understanding of the religious situation in contemporary Britain. It is often a puzzle to sociologists, however, why church people react so defensively to such apparently valuable and useful information. Perhaps it is simply a facet of the fashionable debunking of all things sociological, although it is more probably an unwillingness to be faced with uncomfortable facts, compounded by religion's conviction that it is dealing with timeless realities which are not really open to sociological inspection. What is required, of course, is a frank openness to the concrete trends together with an in-depth theological and pastoral interpretation of them. The UK Christian Handbook 1985/86 calculates the total Christian community in the United Kingdom as 36.6 million people. Of these, it estimates that 10 million are active and 25.6 million are nominal church members. In addition, 19.3 million people regard themselves as outside the Christian community. Therefore, leaving Northern Ireland aside, about 16% of the population of Britain can be considered actively practising Christians, 47% in varying degrees of nominal attachment, and 37% as non-Christian including, of course, adherents of other faiths. Church attendance figures, this time broken down for the different parts of the country, reveal a similar pattern. Adult weekly churchgoers: England 9% of total adult population Wales 13% of total adult population Scotland 17% of total adult population Children weekly churchgoers: England 15% of total child (under 15 years) population Wales 21% of total child population Scotland 20% of total child population The figures for the Roman Catholic population (all ages) reveal that 47% attend church regularly (England 48%, Wales 53%, Scotland 45%). This seems impressively higher than the national average, but it has to be balanced by the fact that at the present moment there is a more marked tendency for Catholics to drop out of active church membership than for members of other churches. Re nominal membership has increased over a four year period by 8% (England 9%, Wales 7%, Scotland 2%); while the change in nominal membership in the other churches in the same period has been, Church of England -6%, Church in Wales -14%, Church of Scotland -6%.4 Church attendance statistics are notoriously difficult to Interpret on their own, and can only be taken as signposts to a problem. They provide some sort of map by which we can mark out the contours of the ground for evangelisation, but they do not fill in all the details we need to know. The striking fact, however, is that, leaving aside actively practising Christians and adherents of other faiths, up to 80% of the population is at varying degrees of distance from the Christian religion. These are the 'lapsed' and the 'unchurched', although to lump them together under these headings is too simple. There are at least five categories which need to be kept in mind: Those who feel they 'ought to be at church', are probably irregular attenders, believe, pray personally, try to live gospel values; i.e., the lapsed. Those with a certain level of Christian faith (some sort of belief in Jesus, personal prayer, Christian moral living) but who feel no need to join actively in the church community; i.e., the 'Christian unchurched'. Those without a recognisable Christian faith, but still with a religious sense (belief in God, some practice of prayer, desire to live a good life); i.e., the 'non-Christian unchurched'. Those who formally or informally adhere to some kind of secular-humanist: 'religious' substitute; i.e., agnostic and atheist. Those without any interest, who have lost all religious sense; i.e., practical and formal atheism. It is hazardous to try to specify the size of these groups, but the research on attitudes and religious beliefs allows us to make a rough and ready 'guestimate'. According to one report, Attitudes to Bible, God and Church, (1983), 81% of the English (and the proportion of the Scots and the Welsh would be no less) look to the Church to provide the rites of passage: christenings, weddings and funerals. This undoubtedly includes many who are hardly recognisable as Christians in other ways. We can conclude, then, that the other 19"70 roughly make up categories d) and e). Given that 16% are practising Christians and 47% nominal (categories a and b), then the proportion of category c) is around 18%. The contours which emerge on our religious map, then, are of approximately one half of the population in various degrees of nominal adherence to christianity, and three other groups of roughly equal size — each somewhere between a sixth and a fifth of the population — practising Christians, non-Christians but with a sense of God, and the non-religious in any traditional sense. These proportions will, of course, vary in different parts of the country. We also have to include a small but significant and rising number of adherents of other faiths. The tendency of mission conscious Christians at this stage is to see such facts as a call to launch a new campaign of evangelism. However, experience teaches that useful as such initiatives might be in themselves they have little lasting effect in terms of attracting the outsider into the Christian community. The social privatisation of religion, reducing its status to that of a leisure pursuit, tends to make mass evangelism appear like the religious variant of media advertising. Such campaigns, as also the traditional parish mission, can be strategies to contact the lapsed but not yet unchurched. Anyone with experience of organising them can testify that it is an uphill task, and the longer people have been away the less likely they are to see the relevance of becoming actively involved in the church community. There are, however, other questions to be asked about the Church's mission of evangelisation, which are raised most clearly by the 37% or so of the population who formally lie beyond the church. This is mission territory indeed, but what kind of mission? In these groups — from the still religiously sensitive right through to the formal atheist — the Church meets the post-Christian society. This 37% was once at least culturally Christian, and the most committed among them would have been enthusiastically so. The question they raise is whether evangelisation simply foresees their reconversion? Is that what evangelisation is about? Is it only about that? Quite apart from the extreme difficulty of reconverting these post-Christians we can question whether this is the single aim of the Church's ministry. 'For the Church, evangelising means bring the Good News into all the strata of humanity'. (Evangelii Nuntiandi, 18) The personal confession that Jesus is Lord is, of course, at the heart of evangelisation, but it should not be thought of as its exhaustive expression. Pope Paul VI goes on: 'The Church evangelises when she seeks to convert, solely through the divine power of the Message she proclaims, both the personal and collective consciences of peoples, the activities in which they engage, and the lives and concrete milieux which are theirs'. (EN, 18) In some instances personal conversion is more a final flowering than an immediate aim and requires first the evangelisation of the broader culture. Karl Rahner in the late 1950's published his famous article on the future of the Church as a diaspora community. By this he meant that in an age when the sociocultural supports of faith have withered away the Church must inevitably be reduced in size and come to comprise only those with real personal faith. Introducing this concept Rahner distinguished between 'what ought to be' and 'what has to be'. Undoubtedly, all people 'ought' to share the blessing of belonging explicitly to the community of salvation which is the Church; but historically and in the mysterious designs of providence not all are given this opportunity, and this 'has to be' — just as the Passion of Jesus ought not to be but 'had to happen'.5 This insight is of central importance in defining the parameters of a new evangelisation in Europe. We have to avoid nostalgia for Christendom, and must not seek to reproduce the kind of response which may be possible' in the more religiously orientated cultures of other parts of the world. Europe must seek its own expressions of faith. To do so it first needs to accept, albeit in a critical way, the fact of its culturally a-religious milieux. Is this a counsel of despair? A timid capitulation to merely secular realities? It would surely be such if the Church were simply to turn its back on the post-Christian society and its non-believing multitudes. However, if the Church resolves to meet, accept and understand the experience of this post-Christian era, if it enters into a real dialogue with atheism, then it can hope to find that a new path of evangelisation opens up. Dialogue is the necessary condition for evangelisation in Europe today, not only for the practical reason that erstwhile Christians will be unimpressed by crude attempts at their conversion, but more profoundly because the gospel and culture relate in a dialectical way, each clarifying and enriching the other. Pastoral Strategies for Evangelisation Pope John Paul in his letter to the European bishops advises that the situation of Europe 'could not be faced unless the energies of each local Church were coordinated in a common plan of action'. The Extraordinary Synod,·picking up suggestions of Cardinal Hume and Archbishop Winning among others, made the same recommendation in order to give new impetus to the implementation of Vatican II. The concrete details of such pastoral plans have yet to become clear, but the Pope states that, as regards Europe, 'what is in question is a new evangelisation of culture, in which there must be sown once more those "seeds" of Christianity which in the past produces such a wonderful blossoming'. The perspectives of a new evangelisation go beyond a campaign of evangelism aimed at the individual believer. One dimension of catholicity is to be universal in outreach. It is a matter not just of incorporating everyone in the same church but also of having the ability to relate to everyone and to every situation. A truly catholic evangelisation will have to reckon with the widely different 'publics' to which the Good News speaks. This requires a major effort to understand different situations. First of all, those who are close, the practising Christians; then those who have drifted, the nominal or lapsed. Of course, the differences between these might not always be vast; many of the practising share some attitudes of the lapsed — what has been termed 'half-belief', an inability to commit oneself fully to what the Church appears to teach and stand for and yet a conviction that somehow truth is here. Evangelisation has to find ways of dealing delicately with this phenomenon, which can be the prelude to a more personally integrated faith. Then there are the various categories of 'unchurched'; those in the spiritual no-man's land of vague post-Christian religious belief, the 'seekers' who follow secular substitutes of religion, and formal atheists and those who have lost all religious sense. Here one has to recognise the wide spectrum of reactions expressed to the Church and christianity — from openness and interest to indifference, hostility and even virulent opposition — and the implications of those for our practice of dialogue. Then there are the believers in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and the other world religions, who contribute to us simply by offering another perspective to our common religious search. In addition to these distinct 'publics' there are the different 'sectors' of human life and society addressed by the Good News — work, family, international relations, national and local political life, education, welfare, human rights and values, all that the Pope terms 'culture'. 'Truly catholic evangelisation is a dialogue between the faith of the Gospel and all these facets of human life, a dialogue in the strict sense, not seeking to take over but rather to enrich and complement. Obviously, a new evangelisation which seeks to be catholic in this sense depends on the whole church community rather than on selected missionaries. It is the totality of the Church's life and activities which evangelises, establishing a dialogue with the world and its peoples. It is here that the fundamental dilemma of the Church becomes clear. Its mission calls it to dialogue with society, but the Church today is caught up in a social process in which it is steadily being marginalised. Modern society uncouples the religious dimension from the rest of life, bringing about what Paul VI called the 'split between the Gospel and culture (which is) without a doubt the drama of our time' (EN 20). It is well to remember that this happens not because individuals forget the practical implications of their faith, but as a result of social developments which have privatised institutional religion and reduced it to being merely another charitable organisation. Society has dispensed with religious language to express its identity and goals because it believes this to be anachronistic in an era of rational thought. Thus, the Christian today more than ever inhabits two worlds. A gap opens up between the faith he professes and the concrete realities of daily social life. The language of faith and the language of 'ordinary' life become disjointed. This is not a gap the individual Christian can close by 'trying harder'. It is a reflection of the sociocultural conditions of religion in the modern world. The pre-requisite of a new evangelisation, therefore, is a re-ordering of the Church's relationship to society. The Church is seeking a new vantage point from which it may discharge its mission to the world at large. It is here that we begin to see the role and function of basic Christian communities in the specifically European context. In other places these are the focus for a socio-political involvement since the immediate challenge is the liberation of a people from oppressive economic conditions. While this also may be a factor in Europe, the problems here are not so easily summed up in this one clear-cut issue. Moreover, in the more religious cultures the Church often retains a considerable social role and influence — as we have seen recently in the Philippines. For Europe, however, it is a question of finding public and social expression for religious experience itself. European basic communities must first enable people to grapple with the problems which arise as a result of the collapse of traditional religious explanations. There is little doubt that the rationalistically ordered society experiences a serious crisis of meaning. The way back to its religious past is barred by its own technological progress, the present lacks any compelling sense of purpose or direction, and religion is often experienced as too marginal to be an effective influence in the creation of a meaningful world. However, when Christians learn new ways of integrating the various social, cultural, personal and religious dimensions of their lives, faith takes on a new power. Typically, this happens in the small group context, where Christians can experience a deeper solidarity with one another, which in turn enables a new synthesis to come about between religion and everyday life. Where the impersonal institutional face of the Church leaves them cold, and contributes further to the alienation of religion, the human dimension of basic Christian communities sets in train another dynamic in which religion and life exercise a mutual influence. Christianity becomes leaven. Small groups have emerged in recent years — discussion groups, prayer groups, justice and peace action groups — as a central focus, alongside the more traditional organisations, of the wider involvement of lay people in the life and mission of the Church. These groups are likely to form the basis of a new more communally structured parish. For this to happen, however, they will have to broaden their concern from immediate or single issue tasks — prayer, education, action — and adopt a broader ecclesial consciousness. Working with groups is already a familiar part of the Church's pastoral strategy, and is recognised as a specially effective means of providing pastoral care. It is also the basis of a new evangelisation. In fact, groups have to be concerned both with Church life and with outreach to the world. Otherwise they run the risk of introversion. They can end up accentuating the privatisation of religion, transferring it from the parish church to the living room. They need to develop a sense of the Church and its mission to the whole of society, and consciously identify themselves as the focus through which Christianity can be the leaven in the wider world of work, politics, culture. Narrowed merely to the personal concerns of the members such groups quickly fall in upon themselves. They also run the danger of developing a sect like existence, seeing themselves as the preservers of truth and goodness in a hostile and evil world. Part of the Christian tradition leans in this direction, and the Gospel assures us of its validity as a dimension of Christian witness. However, it has to be counterbalanced by a genuine Christian universalism, an openness to the fundamental goodness of the wider world. Otherwise it degenerates into a 'Christian paranoia’; a fixed sectarian opposition to the forces of evil which are spied everywhere outside the closed circle of the elect. The dangers of small groups, however, are far outweighed by their values. They are the new vantage point from which the Church can relate to society at large. With the transformation, and relative collapse, of the Church's institutional role in society there is need for a new way of being Church, and a new way of evangelising. This is the potential of the small community model. It provides the indispensable community context in which Christians can experience their faith, and at the same time it re-inserts the Church in the public socio-cultural world. It does so in a new way and at a new level. The Church now shows the world the face of interpersonal community rather than that of institution. There are various practical models for the operation of basic Christian community. Some communities centre round special interests, others are neighbourhood groups, and others lay communities in a residential, commune-like setting. In some cases a high level of personal commitment — of time, personal involvement, finance — is demanded from the outset. Other approaches envisage the slow growth of communities through a process of building relationships and gradual sharing at both material and spiritual levels. This new direction in pastoral strategy raises many questions. Is it realistic? Is it likely that the Christian community will take a new small group model seriously? Everyone knows how difficult it can be to involve people in parish activities. Will they agree to re-organise themselves in such a radically new way? Will they move over from being Sunday Massgoers to become deeply involved in group life? It would be foolish in the extreme to suggest that much can be achieved overnight. But there is a deep hunger today for community and a sense of belonging. The fundamentalist sects owe much of their success to their ability to respond to this need, and there are lessons here which the mainline churches should learn. What is clearly required is a long term pastoral strategy. This should be aimed at enabling the People of God in the parishes to develop neighbourhood groups made up of families and individuals in a given area, and kept to a manageable size of between twenty and thirty adults. Eventually such communities will become the basic units of the parish structure. Rather than view the parish as one community it is better to see it as a communion of small Christian communities. It is in these communities that Christians will have the genuine opportunity to share and celebrate their lives together on the human level, worship in a truly communal way and explore the meaning of faith for life in modern society. This will require new structures, new forms of leadership, and, above all, new efforts at education particularly at the adult level It also has to be recognised frankly that such a community model, since it generates a much wider participation, is likely to provoke demands by lay people for a greater say in how Church affairs are managed. It spells the end of the passive laity. Undoubtedly this will generate tensions, and will require great efforts at listening, above all by those in authority positions in the Church In the final analysis, however, there is really no other direction in which the Church can go if it is to remain an effective spiritual force. As it turns out, the challenge of a new evangelisation for a post-Christian Europe meshes closely with the needs of the Church itself. To evangelise, the Church must present itself as community to and for the world. To be the Church, it must re-structure and create the context where faith can be experienced in community. Pastoral strategies for evangelisation have to keep these central goals in view. Although they present a formidable challenge, the groundwork is already being done in the great variety of pastoral renewal programmes which are being so effective in many parishes today. A new Church and a new pastoral strategy are emerging. In the end, it is a matter of faith. God leads His people, in new ways, and for new purposes. If the Lord places the challenge of a new evangelisation before us then we must believe that He also equips us for the task.
The Disasterous Consequences of Ignorance, Rudiger Paul Dorsch
What role do information play in our every day- lives? Let us first of all define the meaning of the words ignorance and stu-pidity. Ignorance basically implies that a person is unaware of certain information, facts or occurrences, be it one of a real or an abstract nature. The reason as to why a person is ignorant or unaware of things around her/him, can either be ascribed to a lack of individual interest, a mental concentration on specific things, which keep the mind occupied and thus not allowing other impressions to filter through (mental preoccupation), or simply a rigid, mental attitude which prescribes not to see, absorb and process any prevailing facts, which somehow might collide with the persons rigid, established opinions. Stupidity, on the other hand, should be described as a physical inability to see and absorb facts and occurrences. Thus one could describe ignorance simply as a form of voluntary stupidity, and stupidity itself as involuntary stupidity, derived from a limited mental capacity. The outcome of both, ignorance and stupidity must be the very same for, in neither case does such a person allow information to flow to the memory. The voluntary form of ignorance however, is most lamentable, because it is quite obviously most unwise to consciously deprive oneself of valuable information which are absolutely essential for ones personal decision-making process, personal learning process and intellectual growth. It is therefore most surprising that most people - paradoxically, especially intellectual people - quite voluntarily prescribe to such incongruous practices on an every day basis. The reasons for this illogical practice is basic creature jalousie. Once we have formed a plausible, comfortable, personal opinion of a certain subject with the help of the incomplete information at our disposal, we tend to want to keep and guard it from the influences of other peoples opinions as best we can. We feel, that by discarding or amending our opinion, we are subjugating ourselves personally to the person with the better opinion. Especially between men, the holding on to ones opinion represents the adhesion to ones pride and male dignity. Even when we are convinced that our opinion is flawed or even totally incorrect, we defend it at all costs. This is indeed a true victory for stupidity and ignorance, because we are in any case all taking in opinions, knowledge and wisdom from other people, past or present, on a daily basis. Where else could we get our information and our knowledge from if not from other people? The indifference to matters happening around a person is equally unwise and, to say it bluntly, possibly more unwise and inane than a person who is merely ignorant due to his mental limitations. One could therefore safely say that, any display of indifference in the occurrences hap-pening around us - and especially the metaphysical ones - must be equally labelled as pure foolishness. This might sound a harsh judgement but an intelligent person, who is to-tally disinterested in the effects of his presence and his actions on oth-ers, as well as in the effects upon himself, might be termed "existing in-telligently", but, on the other hand may hardly be termed "living" a worthwhile human existence. In other words, the executing of certain actions, without considering the origins and consequences thereof, can consequently not be classified as "intelligent human life" in the true meaning of the word. When one reads the last paragraph one tends to immediately disassociate oneself from it. We do think that, whatever action we execute, has been duly mentally and intelligently processed and evaluated according to the possible effect on others and its outcome. Unfortunately this is not so. In fact it hardly ever happens at all with most people (including myself). I maintain that the vast majority of all our actions lack total prior consideration and are merely born and exe-cuted out of instinct and habit. Let me quote some examples to illuminate this statement: The concept of a truly socialistic or even communistic society has been conceived and propagated hundreds of times throughout the ages of mankind. During this century it had eventually been implemented with some nations, e.g. USSR, the so-called Eastern Block countries, Cuba, China and some other parts of Asia. The population of those countries choose to accept this concept in total ignorance, since they, themselves had not formed any personal opinion of this system. They blindly believed in the propaganda and their hopes for personal betterment and progress dictated their personal opinion of socialism and communism, as well as capitalism. Few people took the time to analyse the obvious disadvantages and most probable outcome of such policies and ideologies. It sounded good and the promised prospects of future prosperity and harmony sufficed to help implement this sys-tem enthusiastically. The very basic fact that the elemental human being is selfish and that it wants to own things, as well as the fact that this very deep rooted human desire must be considered the motor and the initiator of progress and wealth, was totally ignored. The consequences of this omission are now very apparent in the former communist countries. It is unfortunate that even after this became very obvious for the world to see, there are still nations who are willing to go the same way, worse, people who have spent a life-time of suffering under such a system are still demanding its reinstallation after its collapse. Ignorance - Stupidity. One does not even have to go as far as that. We can just look at a few of our daily actions which demonstrate quite clearly that no intelligent thinking process takes place prior to their execution.. A person mentions to one of his/her colleagues confidentially that he/she intends leaving the firm. The next moment this person has access to one of the superiors, he/she will undoubtedly convey this knowledge. Did he/she ask himself/herself why he/she did that, or what possible profit he/she, himself/herself would gain from telling the boss? Did he/she tell the boss out of a feeling of loyalty or duty? Did he/she think for a moment how this information would affect the relationship between the colleague and his/her employer? I claim, that no intelligent thought- process has taking place in this example at all. I think that an instinctive desire to endear himself/herself to the superiors, a desire to belong, was the only initiator. Here too was no intelligent consideration exercised prior to passing on the acquired knowledge. One just has to look at the traffic situation. Few people give way, hardly anybody voluntarily lets you join the flow of traffic. Every day I witness how mo-torists are wilfully driving onto an already blocked crossing with no chance whatsoever of clearing it before the traffic from the other direc-tion proceeds to negotiate the crossing. The result is always the same. Total congestion for both sides. Was the thought of rolling onto the crossing and blocking it, a thought borne out of intelligence, or was it just the instinctive desire to proceed with the crossing because the traffic light was green and he had the right to go and never mind the consequences? There are, of course, hundreds of similar examples to be found in the exe-cution of our daily lives. In fact, the majority of our decisions (espe-cially those which involve other people) are not based on an antecedent, in-telligent thinking process but often find their roots in primal, often negative impulses instead. We all seem to do that. We are after all biological beings, conceived and developed from and by nature and thus almost totally subjected to the rudi-mentary laws of nature. Ideally, human intelligence would stand on its own, independent of any other forms of known, terrestrial in-telligence. There is the intelligence of nature which was originally conceived and in-stalled by the supreme being of the Creator. (Unless one chooses to believe in the coincidental creation of the universe). This complex intelligence is such, that it permanently keeps acting intelligently. Life itself, its origin, and development, the eternal cycle of adjustment, of renewal, this incredible intelligence which has set the cycle of life into perpetual motion and which keeps maintaining it, is the one sovereign intelli-gence in our world. The second intelligence - human intelligence - sprang from the first one. It seems that the proper use of intelligence requires intelligence itself. God obviously had that power, whereas we seem to lack it almost entirely. We do not seem to have the intelligence to use our given intelligence in-telligently. Furthermore, our intellect is strongly influenced by the laws of the first intelligence and we often forsake our own intellect and prefer to follow the pre-conceived pattern of natures intelligence instead. Like I said before, intelligence must stand on its own. It has the power of thought, of reasoning and can thus create its own environment, just as God created the earth and life. Since we live, however, in an environment created by another intelligence and we are yet unable to create our own physical world to sustain our physical requirements, we have no choice but to primarily use our intellect to work along the lines of the laws of the original intelligence, e.g. we should apply our intellect to support the laws of nature and to improve on them rather than interfere, or even destroy them, as we are in the process of doing. When an unsophisticated intelligence like ours attempts to work in contradiction to the original and perfect intelli-gence, the result must logically be disastrous. (as we are all experiencing now.) A truly thinking person, a "genuine" HOMO SAPIENT, should not make the same mistakes twice, because the mistakes we ourselves or others are making, must be turned into the positive by learning from them and later avoiding their re - occurrence. The mistake is basically the catalyst to the path of recognising right and wrong and an initiator to guide our life physically, spiritually and mentally towards human intelligent living. When I sometimes ask people to compare themselves with the animal kingdom and to explain the basic differences, I see nothing but utter surprise and indignation on their faces. It became clear to me, that every person I thus challenged, was of the opin-ion, that people generally regard the human existence as so far higher a level that even the mention of such - in my view fair and just - comparison is often taken as a personal insult. My further experience was - paradoxically - that, the more primitive a sub-ject was, the more he was insulted by my question and the more he thought of himself as being farther advanced from the ani-mal life. On the other hand, very intelligent, educated people who appeared to have done at least some superficial philosophical thinking of their own, took my query more light-heartedly and often admitted, that there was in fact hardly such a great difference after all. That sounds terrible, doesn't it? And yet, when we put aside our rigid ,self pleasing, subjective opinion, we fabricated for ourselves, and let the analytical mind take over for a moment, we will see, that, in fact there is hardly any difference at all. Usually Religion comes here to our rescue. Although hardly anybody prac-tices religion seriously anymore, we are quick to hide behind the belief that we are in fact different, because we have a immortal soul. This, in it-self is no argument, since we did not arrive at that conclusion through in-telligent probing, but rather are repeating what we have heard when we learned our catechism. If one probes further and asks, where and what exactly this soul is, where it is situated, what its function is, and what happens to it once the body dies, we will find, that we either once more escape into religion or find another way to dodge this unpleasant question. Shall we dare and put an open comparison between human life and our fauna on paper? Humans move Humans generally in a upright position, Humans eat basically all organic, biological foodstuff that animals eat. However, we tend to decorate our food, cook it and do not only ingest in order to satisfy our physical needs but we also consume it in a more refined manner. Also, we do not simply eat to sustain our biological life and to satisfy an urge, we also eat just for the pleasure of eating. We make love and reproduce in very much the same way as most other mammals. Some people might object to this statement and say, that we do not just make love to satisfy our lust or physical needs, or merely to reproduce; and also that our act must have an element of purest love, but, without admitting anything, please, search your mind and try to find your personal and honest opinion on this matter. We have created things with our minds that no animal can ever create. That is certainly true. I have never doubted that we possess a superior intelligence. The material and artistic things we have achieved prove that without any doubt. No animal would create something, either just for the pleasure of creating or, create something of no practical use for the sustenance of life. (Art) We wear cloth to protect us from the elements, just as animals 'wear' their hides, furs and feathers. However we have been indoctrinated to hide our genitals and to wear cloth to increase our external attractiveness and also, to express thus our position and status in life. We can reason, plan, create abstract matters, read, write, speak, sing, dance, work, study, memorise things expendable for basic life sustenance. Thus we see that our superior intellect is the basic difference between ourselves and the animal. I feel, however, that this unique gift should not only be restricted in its use to merely achieve physical and mental pleasures and ends. As I pointed out before, it should rather be used to govern the entire spec-trum of life intelligently. It should be recognised, that the intellect was basically given to us to preserve and improve life and environment of the entire planet. It should therefor ideally be used to create almost divine global harmony amongst all living and non living matter. The most important application however, should be the discovery of our soul, its purpose within the divine scheme and the subsequent approach towards the creator. We must use the intellect to find out the reasons behind the creation of this, our universe and finally, with or soul and mind become once more one with creation and life itself. The bulk of our brain power should not be directed towards the personal im-provement of earthly things. (or even their destruction) It should be directed towards the achievement of chiefly spiritual fulfilment of the now and of the hereafter. How much of our intellect have we devoted towards this goal? I think that we are all guilty of mismanagement of brain power. I am of the opinion that the chief purpose of our existence here is to utilise whatever was given to us in a sensible and constructive manner and that our purpose here - next to reproduction - must be to LEARN, firstly to be able to achieve this global harmony and secondly to achieve spiritual harmony and understanding of the true purpose of human life. When one does not learn well at school and omits exercising and thus developing ones brains, mind and think-ing power will be kept underdeveloped and one will suffer during school as well as in the subsequent adult life. The same applies for life itself. When one rejects constantly the input of new information, own or foreign ideas, etc. and rather wastes ones intellect on defending ones own incomplete or faulty ideas and convictions,( or simply wastes it on immaterial matters,) one will equally suffer during life and - most likely even more so- in a possible life thereafter. Fellow human notice very quickly their opposite members obvious intelligence or the lack or even absence of it. We should be attracted by intelligent people, because they are the ones who can help as to complete our intellectual status and to grow mentally as well as spiritually. An yet, we often feel intimidated by such people and prefer to challenge them, because we perceive them subconsciously as being stronger. We often seek therefor the company of people with equal mental capabilities (they do not threaten us) or even people with a lower I.Q and knowledge, in order to make ourselves feel superior, which in turn, invariably strengthens our half-cooked opinions and perceptions. I realise that it is hard to think about (conscious) life and its thereaf-ter, because it is so terribly abstract. We often prefer therefore to rather hide behind atheism, and quickly channel the mind power into lanes we are feel more comfortable with, and then call that constructive thinking. There is however the very strong possibility that there does indeed exist a form of after- life, though we find it difficult to imagine what that existence could look like. It is most likely indeed that at the moment of our physical death our "soul energy" (remember that energy can never get lost) travels to a point where it might meet up with similar entities. This "soul energy" or soul consists of our personality which, in turn was shaped and developed by acquired and experienced knowledge during the life time. It is indeed most distressing to know that, basically the vast majority of this world's evils must be linked to an lack of constructive thinking, or simply to stupidity. With proper thinking, there could clearly be no evil committed. There would, by necessity, be harmony in the home and in the country and thus in the world. To prove this last point I may ask you to simply think back at some par-ticular problems and misfortunes you may have experienced in your own life. You must admit then, that most hardships were caused by fellow humans. When you think back at the reasons as to why those people had been acting in a negative manner towards you, you will not find a sensible explanation for their actions, and neither will they. I maintain that we act more than 90% of times from un-scrutinised instinct and out of habit rather then from any form of intellectual evaluation and reasoning. How often have you properly analysed the good or the bad that happened to you, be it for its origin or for its educational value? How often do you stop and really think before you deal with people, either by simply opening your mouth or otherwise, what harmful consequences the words you are going to speak or the deed you are going to commit, will be brought about and inflicted onto the other person? When we are really here to learn and to grow as human beings, and when we are evaluated at the end, according to how much good we have done and how much we have learned, what do you think the result of an ordi-nary person would be? I dare say it would not be very flattering. Have you ever met many old people who were oozing wisdom of life? Or at least knew what life was all about? I think that old people are very often just as dumb and confused about the human liv-ing of a life than anybody else living between birth and death; and that may well apply for all preceding generations as well. A sad result indeed. Even sadder when one has no real hope of ever changing this pattern of ignorance and stupidity since we have never throughout history mastered the art of assimilating the gathered pieces of life-wisdom from one old person and subsequently built on to it during ones own life time. On the other hand, where we have been utilising the accumulated scientific knowledge of our forbears or contemporaries, we have indeed managed to achieve vast progress. It would be unthinkable if one would ignore any fundamental scientific knowledge and "rediscover " it with every new generation. Here, we accept proven knowledge, absorb it and then try and build further on its foundation. Every student accepts willingly a Mr Einstein's and Newtons mathematical formulae principles and theories and no student would want to rediscover them for himself. When it comes to the equally important formulae, concepts and theories of the human life however, all experiences (of people who have gathered those experiences) are flat-out rejected by young people, usually on the premise, that times have changed and that such experienced people are ill informed and outright stupid. The usual excuse in such cases is that people demand the right to make their own mistakes. One just has to take the example of a father telling his son about the importance of discipline and studying; or a parent telling the teen -aged daughter that the choice of her future husband was not a wise one. In fact any valuable life experience issued by experienced people is generally rejected by young or inexperienced people. The question now is, why is that so? Why do people accept all other knowledge and are prepared to build on it, but reject all established and proven knowledge referring to their own personal lives. The answer to this most perplexing and frustrating question , which must have driven parents throughout the ages into desperation, is rather simple. This obvious abstinence ( which experienced people would call "stupidity" ) is one of natures programs. The very learning progress of life itself, all the pain, hurt, disappointments, ups and down, pleasures, discoveries etc. constitute human life. Take the first discovery of the opposite sex. It is one of the most exiting experiences possible throughout a human life. If an old and experienced person would express his/her opinion about the other sex towards a younger person, and the child would understand and adopt this knowledge, it would invariably deprive itself of one of life's most interesting and emotion filled experiences. A human role here is obviously to experience, learn and grow. One cannot take one of these verbs away, especially when there is no scope of growing and learning more about a subject. If one were to assume that a child would accept the knowledge of an experienced person and learn all about the opposite sex (robbing him of the delicious personal experiences), where would the growing process lead to? What more is there to learn about that subject? Thus I must conclude that, where there is growth potential one should accept established knowledge and attempt to improve on it. ( e.g. accept the concept of a petrol engine, but improve on it.) However, the foregoing should not be used as a general excuse for rejecting proven knowledge and also to refuse to accumulate information which is so very vital for the formation of any opinion. If one takes the question of the existence of a God or a life hereafter, it would be stupid to assume that there is can be neither, because nobody has seen Him and nobody has yet returned from the dead and had thus had the opportunity to report about heaven or hell. It would be equally stupid for each new generation of people to think about this question and to establish new theories. It would be far more logical to gather as much information as possible from the fruits of the thinking processes of previous (or more educated) people and then to try and to conjure a personal theory about this topic. One can only speculate on the effects on our general development if we had not concentrated our intellectual powers on subjects which were inspired by laziness, greed and power ( All technical progress was most likely inspired by those three drives), but rather on the development of human existence and the untapped forces lodged within the human mind and spirit. One must wonder whether such efforts would not have brought about a much more advanced "technical" development. Is it not conceivable that millennia of concentrated, human intellect and effort would have made obsolete all our present technical achievements altogether? Perhaps our technical achievements would be entirely superfluous? Perhaps the present modes of transport would have been replaced by (environment friendly) tele transportation, Television, Cinema, Theatre, Holidays, Books and other forms of present entertainment would have been achieved by "virtual realities", of which we know now that they are just as "real" as the "real" thing. Perhaps we would heal our sick people (if there were any) rather with mental instruments then with scalpels, laser beams and chemicals? Theoretically, it could be so easy to change our attitudes and our thinking. We just have to remove some of our arrogance and restrict our thinking process not only to academic subjects but rather direct it to all other aspects of life as well. A pleasant theory of mine is that, just one person in the world would have to find a way to use his mind, to overcome his negative, unintelligent per-ceptions and feelings and thus to act intelligently. This one person then would have to convince another person of this secret to life, who would in turn also act accordingly and - most importantly would find and convince a further person, and so on. From there on, the law of the chain reaction would take over. I myself have discovered all this at an early stage of my life and since I was so young and inexperienced, I presumed that my idea had to be wrong. And yet the simplicity of this fundamental realisation is breath- taking. It became clear to me that only thus can we live as proper spiritual entities, as we were meant to live. I have discovered the universal system of reward and punishment and I could have been the one to set this all changing ac-tion into motion. Alas, there have been the two eternal problems hampering my efforts. I have only met with mental laziness ignorance and stupidity in other people, who were at the same time totally prejudiced towards this concept. The people I talked to about my theory acted truly to form. They just would not want to believe someone from their own circle and with a similar back ground, who dared to claim to be cleverer than they themselves. None of them bothered to even evaluate this vital premise. Another victory for ignorance. I have never managed myself to live as I preach. Although I am fully aware of the necessity of absorbing and analysing knowledge offered to me, laziness pride and personal preoccupation made me abstain from acting as I preached. I do not possess the mental stamina to deal with and overcome the continuous human stupidity, ignorance and indifference I encounter within myself and in others. On several occasions I discussed abstract ideas with some very educated people. Along the way I got them to confirm each step of my theory. At the end there was just one logical conclusion to be drawn, which happened to be my concept of that idea we had discussed. Although there was absolutely no other way but to admit the viability of my premise and despite their admittance to everything we had said before, the only logical conclusion was rejected nevertheless. Naturally no one in that room could offer any reasonable explanation for the rejection, nor could any one come up with a new alternative. They had all simply abandoned the reasoning of their brains and fled instead into comfortable ignorance. I feel that we are still situated too low on the ladder of evolution. The basic, primal existence, the almost exclusive concentration on material matters, (to survive, feed, copulate, gain material things, gain power and dominance), the unwillingness of shifting ones attention to metaphysical matters, the firm hold of our basic instincts, all that does not permit the development and furtherance of our intellect. We must want to develop it, realise that we have not done so yet, and try to escape the grip of our primal instincts. Today, many years later, I might again have to admit that there is another obscure law of nature, which, at a first glance , appears to us to be illogical and counter productive. (to keep us stupid in order to have more from life. SUMMARISATION; Thus I must conclude firstly that we do have an unique intellect, but that we are too unintelligent to use it intelligently. Secondly, that our in-tellect has not learned to master and overcome ignorance. We are still unable to see the obvious consequences of ignorance. How sad God must be when he sees us - the ones with a soul, those spiritual beings he had created in his own image - who are not living their lives in any better way than the animals He created for us. How sad He must be when he sees how the most intelligent among the fauna are wasting the greatest gift He ever made. How sad it is, that such intelligent and advanced being has basically learned very little in all those millennia, has never managed to shed its animal past, has never even understood the necessity to employ this unique, great gift of life to progress and advance above the physical needs and exis-tence, but has instead used this great intellect to destroy the divine design, together with its vehicle (earth) itself. Will we eventually acquire the insight and strength to break the vicious circle, to give hope to ourselves and our brothers and sisters, to give a little hope and perhaps reward to our merciful creator? Will we one day find the only way onto the wonderful path of learning and improvement, of harmony and fulfilment so that we might see what creation had in mind for us? All we have to do is to take the time and analyse the awful consequences of our ignorance.