Friday, 18 January 2013
The Hollow Statue was written as a first draft a long time ago.
I wondered at that time what a society would look like in which everyone had that same blind faith in the authorities. Then I combined this with some apocalyptic themes.
What emerged was not particularly beautiful, but it was honest about my feelings at the time. If I wrote it again I would try to balance the darkness with more light.
The other story, Stranded in Eternity was written over a long period and after many drafts. It began at a writers workshop where everyone was given a first line to use to write a story. My first line was 'He revived with a smile on his face'.
A little while later I went to church and heard a sermon about how indescribable heaven will be. That it would be beyond imagination. So I thought I would try to imagine a version of heaven, beyond the idea of fluffy clouds. I also introduced a few other themes which interested me. And most importantly I selected a Christian as the hero - I did this on purpose because there are so few positive portrayals of Christians.
There was a lot more to the writing of both stories, but this was how they came to be written in the first place. They are written only for readers to enjoy and have no hidden message.
Both stories are available in the science fiction anthology Otherwhere and Elsewhen.
Tuesday, 15 January 2013
Christians lose and win their protests at the European Court of Human Rights.
British Airways employee Nadia Eweida has won her fight at the European Court of Human Rights. But nurse Shirley Chaplin has lost her protest.
Nadia Eweida and Shirley Chaplin were disciplined by British Airways and the NHS respectively for wearing crosses at work.
This is from the press release from the European Court released on Tuesday January 15:
Right to manifest religion at work is protected but must be balanced against rights of others.
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Eweida and Others v. the United Kingdom the
European Court of Human Rights held:
by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 9 (freedom of religion) of
the European Convention on Human Rights as concerned Ms Eweida;
unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 9 of the European Convention,
taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination), as
concerned Ms Chaplin
Ms Eweida, a British Airways employee, and Ms Chaplin, a geriatrics nurse, complained that their employers placed restrictions on their visibly wearing Christian crosses around their necks while at work.
The Court did not consider that the lack of explicit protection in UK law to regulate the
wearing of religious clothing and symbols in the workplace in itself meant that the right
to manifest religion was breached, since the issues could be and were considered by the
domestic courts in the context of discrimination claims brought by the applicants.
In Ms Eweida’s case, the Court held that on one side of the scales was Ms Eweida’s
desire to manifest her religious belief. On the other side of the scales was the employer’s
wish to project a certain corporate image. While this aim was undoubtedly legitimate,
the domestic courts accorded it too much weight.
As regards Ms Chaplin, the importance for her to be allowed to bear witness to her
Christian faith by wearing her cross visibly at work weighed heavily in the balance.
However, the reason for asking her to remove the cross, namely the protection of health
and safety on a hospital ward, was inherently more important than that which applied in
respect of Ms Eweida and the hospital managers were well placed to make decisions
about clinical safety.
See my blog entry 'Show 'em Your Cross' for comment on this.
Also see eChurch blog for more comment.