Flushed away: God and H2O

Originally published in November 2007

OK, pay attention to this one you might need to concentrate cos I'm going to have to explain some science and you need to keep up.

When I was in sixth form I did a Chemistry A level; which wasn't a total waste of time cos I can now read the ingredients list on the back of shampoo bottles.

Teaching my class chemistry must have been like swimming through custard as - apart from 3 oxbridge candidates - no-one was really that interested and only really took the subject to fill gaps in our timetables. Our teacher - Dr Jackson - battled on in the face of adversity and managed to hold it together until the year after we left school when he had a nervous breakdown and retired. There was the incident when one of our class had worn his trainers without socks all summer, then wore them for school. His feet smelt so dreadful that Dr Jackson had an asthma attack and we all tried to get sent out to get away from the stench. When we came to sit our mock exams we all failed (apart from the oxbridge set) and had letters sent home by Dr Jackson saying that unless we passed the re-sit he would kick us off the course. I was the only person who passed the re-sit and no-one got kicked off.

The syllabus was split into 3 sections - organic chemistry, non-organic chemistry and physical chemistry and it's this last section my story is concerned with. Unsurprisingly I can't really remember what physical chemistry is but it's something to do with the structure of molecules.

Ok, this is the sciency bit that you need to listen to. In a physical chemistry lesson and Dr Jackson's explaining the transition of states to us. In other words freezing. When a liquid freezes its molecules lose energy and gradually vibrate less and less. This means that they can sit closer together resulting in the volume of the substance shrinking which in turn means that it's density increases. The colder denser liquid sinks to the bottom of whatever's containing it and the liquid freezes from the bottom up.

Are you still with me? Good that's the simple bit.

There is one liquid, explained Dr Jackson, that doesn't behave like that and it's water. What happens with water is that it behaves perfectly normally as you cool it down to 4°C and then the molecules start to form hydrogen bonds between them. Hydrogen bonds (if my memory serves me correctly) aren't proper chemical bonds, but a loose magnetic attraction that holds molecules together. When water gets to below 4°C the hydrogen bonds start to form and they make a bit more space between the molecules resulting in the volume increasing, the colder liquid rising to the surface and water freezing from the top.

But this quirk in the properties of water is hugely significant, Dr Jackson went on to explain. Imagine if you will a lake in the middle of winter. As the air temperature drops it cools the water until the water starts to freeze. If water behaved like every other liquid the ice would form from the bottom of the lake and the layer would get thicker and thicker until the whole lake was completely frozen. Instead the ice forms at the top of the lake producing an insulating layer which prevents the water below it from freezing. This is vitally important for aquatic life as if water conformed to normal behavior and the entire lake froze everything in it, fish, insects, would freeze to death. Very little (apart from viruses and bacteria) would be able to survive and considering that science tells us that life began in the water if water behaved as every other liquid then the evolutionary chain would have been stopped before it had chance to get going. Life on this planet just wouldn't happen.

So just as we're sitting there actually listening to Dr Jackson for once and trying to take in what he'd just explained to us he carried on. "I'm an atheist," he told us. "But if any one thing was going to convince me of the existence of God it would be that; that this simple quirk, this inexplicable quirk in the properties of water is absolutely essential for the presence of life on this – or any – planet."

Then someone farted and broke the mood.

Grimly Reaping: God & Mortality

Originally published October 2007

I'm not really into architecture or anything like that, but the structure that has impressed me most is the Glasgow Necropolis. I say structure; in truth it's many structures as the necropolis is a huge Victorian graveyard covering about 37 acres right in the middle of Glasgow. In it there are many mausoleums and monuments denoting the final resting places of Glasgow's dearly departed some designed by leading architects of the day. About 50,000 people are buried there.

The Victorians were fascinated by death. It was the hot topic of the time. It the years between then and now sex & death have swapped places. Death used to be discussed openly and in polite society, whilst sex was a very taboo subject. Whilst we now find it difficult turning on the TV or reading a magazine without encountering sexual content, death has become ignored and anyone who chances to mention it runs the risk of being accused of being morbid or depressing everyone.
But I'm not sure we should refuse so obstinately to talk about death. It is the only thing in life that is definitely going to happen to each and every one of us. Regardless of what we achieve in life, wherever we succeed or fail we will all die. So why do we stick our fingers in our ears and go, "La la la la la." When the subject's raised.

I actually quite like graveyards. I find them very quiet and relaxing. In the summer I sometimes go to a graveyard near where I work during my lunchbreaks to read. But I do sometimes explore old graveyards reading what's written on the gravestones and it makes me wonder about the lives of the people buried there; who were they? What became of the beloved wife they left behind? I try to find the graves of people killed in the world wars and wonder about what that person could have achieved had they not been called to fight, what the daughter left behind by lance-corporal-gunner Smith was told about the father she never met.
Does this speculation make me morbid? No, I don't think it does. In the spring & summer days when the sun is out, the birds are singing and the trees & flowers are in full bloom there is a juxtaposition between the graves and the abundance of life there is to be found in a graveyard which demonstrates the fragility and beauty of life and underlines the fact that I am alive and that I share the earth with those who went before me. "As for Man, his days are like grass, he flourishes like a flower in the field; the wind blows over it and it is gone, and its place remembers it no more."

It may seem like a strange thing to say, but I think death can bring out the best in people. To be more precise, losing someone close can. I think that sometimes our grief and loss can strip away any pretensions we may hold about ourselves and in our pain there is reflected our true selves; delicate, maybe somewhat diminished, but an honest image of who we are. Families will often pull together to help each other through a difficult time where maybe they don't often communicate with each other, differences can be put aside as each person reflects and takes stock of their own life, held in relief against the passing of the one they've lost.


I've been to some great funerals. I've been to some awful ones too where peoples grief has erupted been very angry, but I've been party to some real celebrations. Because people are already emotional that emotion can be turned into something approaching a really happy time. People can reminisce and tell anecdotes and laugh and sing at funerals. Sometimes the grief can be forgotten for a few hours. It doesn't necessarily dishonour the memory of the deceased, I think most people would say they want people at their funeral to celebrate their life rather than mourn their death. I'd say that 2 out of the 10 best nights out I've had have been after funerals.


When I left school I took the first job that was offered to me, which was catering in a nursing home. I ended up working there for 5 years during which there was a steady turnover of residents as one by one they shuffled off this mortal coil and others moved into the home. In my first year of working there an old couple made a big impression on me. Horace & Esther were probably well into their 80's and were newly weds. They'd met a few years earlier, fallen in love & got married. They lived in the nursing home in the room opposite one of my kitchens in the only room with a double bed rather than a hospital bed as they both had mobility problems and Esther had a bad heart. They were very funny together and a favourite of the nursing staff. One morning when I'd worked there for about 6 months an ambulance had to be called as Horace was in terrible pain. He was taken into hospital where he died the same day. Esther was devastated. Over the week that followed the nursing staff had to spend a lot of time with her consoling her and just keeping her company. On the day of his funeral the home was filled with their families and Esther put on her best suit and was taken to say goodbye to her husband. The next day when the nursing staff went to get her out of bed they discovered that she'd died in her sleep. It was as if she'd just been waiting until she knew he was safely tucked in, then she checked out herself.
A strange notion - for an 18 year old - that you could have some say in when you die, but one I saw a few times whilst I was there.

So how do I feel about my own death? How does my own mortality sit on my shoulders? Well, I'd like to deserve a well-attended funeral and positive obituary. I'm not sure that I'd get them now so would rather not die just yet. I think I'm ok with the fact that I will die, but I'm not really looking forward to the possibility of one of any number of nasty ailments that could finish me off in old age – if I live that long. And after my funeral I want those who attended it to go to the pub and have more than one drink. I want them to raise a toast; not to me – I'll be dead – but to themselves to celebrate the years they've out-lived me by.

Chain Reaction - The Prequel: God & Slavery

Originally published September 2007

On March 10th 1983 MTV premiered Michael Jackson's song 'Billie Jean'. From the perspective of 2007 that may seem only note-worthy because it remains one of Jackson's biggest hits, but it actually is an event of huge cultural significance and another nail in the coffin of the legacy that slavery left behind it. Slavery was abolished in 1833 in the UK and 1865 in the US, so how does Michael Jackson singing about a nutter stalker whilst dancing around like he needs a wee affect anything?

Unsurprisingly the slave trade had a devastating effect on Africa. We can only estimate how many Africans were taken into slavery; the highest estimate I've seen is 20 million people. These people would have been fit & healthy, at the prime of their lives. They should have been working for their own families and communities. Instead of which they were taken to work for the benefit of another country, and all their descendants were lost to Africa also. The removal of such numbers would have meant that agricultural land couldn't be cultivated properly, and this would have affected the basis for economic development that the African countries had. Many slaves were given by the tribe leaders to the traders in exchange for guns. The presence of guns changed and escalated the wars between tribes and lead to further loss of life and further crippled Africa's development and potential trade. At this time when Africa could have formed a basis for trade with Europe and America, its workforce was stolen. Many of the economic problems faced by modern day Africa can be traced back to the slave trade and how we treated African citizens.

The legacy of slavery is also felt in the countries where the slaves were taken. Slavery was abolished around the world over the course of many years. Often very reluctantly slaves were freed and Governments compensated the former owners for their losses. But the slaves themselves were often no better off. They were given nothing. They were free, but in name only. Most had no option but to continue in the employment of their former masters. They were paid for their labour, but often the pay they were given was pitifully small and barely covered the rent on the accommodation their former masters provided them with. The law still treated former slaves as second-class citizens, and with the vast majority of them unable to read and write and no education on offer to them they lacked the basic skills needed to escape from the poverty they faced. The emancipation of the slaves created a massive underclass that was slave in all but name.

Over and above this dreadful poverty, the ex-slaves had to contend with people's prejudices. The slave trade had relied on people believing that the Africans were sub-human, not worth the same as them and therefore it was perfectly alright to treat them as badly as they did. Even the British abolitionists weren't immune from this attitude; the black abolitionists were never invited to speak at the meetings of the Society for the Abolition of Slavery. When they were asked to attend functions they were seated apart from the white supporters. While laws across the world changed and made slavery illegal it was much harder to change people's hearts and minds. What had been the problem of slavery fast became the problem of racism, and the economic & social disadvantages that the ex-slaves faced seemed to add weight to the belief that the Africans were less intelligent and less human than the white population. In the Southern states of the US the black population became subject to laws of segregation that lasted until the 1960's. These laws governed all walks of life – job entitlement, eating in restaurants, riding on a bus, mortgage eligibility – an ensured that the ex-slave population was prevented from escaping poverty. It provided institutional support for injustice and against this the Ku-Klux-Klan was able to pursue its course of violence and murder in its struggle to prevent black economic advancement, education and voting rights. Right across the world and right up to the present day ex-slave populations have had to fight for the right to be treated as equal in the countries they live in.

So what of Michael Jackson? How does he fit in? Well, in 1983 Michael Jackson was black. The Jacksons had become international phenomena and were rich beyond their wildest dreams. Their musical prowess had elevated them far above their impoverished origins and their story had become an inspiration to black communities across America struggling against poverty and discrimination. When Michael went solo his music was guaranteed a huge audience.

But it wasn't guaranteed much exposure. Despite Billie Jean being at number one in the singles charts for seven weeks there was one major avenue that remained closed. The spectacle of Jackson trying to ease his bladder problem was kept off what was fast becoming an increasingly influential marketing tool. MTV refused to air, not only Jackson's videos, but all videos by black performers. Jackson was signed to Epic, which is a subsidiary of CBS – a huge record label – and it took CBS president Walter Yetnikoff threatening to refuse MTV permission to play any of it's white artists (which included Ozzy Osbourne & Billy Joel) and denounce the channel as racist to make MTV yield. And so on March 10th 1983 Jackson became the first black artist to be played on MTV. 1983, that's only 24 years ago. I find it hard to believe that the aftermath of slavery could have been demonstrated so blatantly so recently, but the evidence is there. The evidence and the legacy of the slave trade is all around us. As much as we try to ignore it, it remains. There have been many programmes created to make reparations to the African countries and deal with the bad taste in the mouth that slavery's left, but these need to continue and we need to be a part of that process.

Holy Ice Caps: God & the climate.

Originally published in June 2007

Years ago when Helen & I still lived in Harrogate we went to Knaresborough for the evening and we went to feed the ducks. We went to a little viewing platform dug out of the riverbank along the small waterside road and hunted for hungry looking birds to take the bread we'd brought them. Except we were too late, as it was nearing dusk the ducks had gone to roost for the night and the river was bare. So we contented ourselves with sitting on a bench watching the lazy driftwood float past. We'd been sitting there for a short while when we noticed a mouse sticking it's nose out from a little hole in the wall, so we decided that as there were no ducks to feed we'd feed the mouse. We gently tossed a small piece of bread in the direction of the mouse's hole and after a short while it crept out, picked the bread up and carried it back to it's hole. After repeating the process a couple of times we decided to lay a trail of bread between the mousehole and where we were sitting in order to see how close to us the mouse would dare to come. We watched it come and go fetching chunks of bread back to it's hole and gradually coming closer and closer to where Helen & I were sitting when something unexpected happened. 4 people came down the stairs onto the platform. They were 2 men & 2 women, they looked as if they'd been on a business dinner, but maybe they hadn't. They walked to the far end of the platform, stood for a few minutes (possibly looking for ducks) then turned and went. In their curt businesslike manner they barely acknowledged that Helen & I were on the platform let alone noticed our mouse. They didn't even notice the remainders of the trail of bread and trampled it. After they left the mouse didn't emerge, so we too left and probably went to the pub.

I remember being quite cross about those people and their attitude to nature. They wanted to see ducks, and if ducks weren't there then there was nothing to see, but the more I thought about it the more I realised that it wasn't just their problem.

Ever since Humankind have walked on 2 legs we have invented and developed and improved life for ourselves, over the last 100 years the rate of change has grown exponentially. As time has rolled on we have congregated more and more into towns and cities and distanced ourselves from Nature developing more 'sophisticated' ways of earning a living. Only a minority of people in this country now engage with nature to earn a living, and the majority of those are working in the tourist industry. We have sought to separate ourselves from our planet. We have built concrete cities and industrial sprawl and pushed the natural world so far out of view that the most some of us engage with it is when we reach for the can of flyspray because a wasp's come in through an open window. As we have developed Nature has been something we've needed to conquer. We've needed to work against it to reach our goals and as much as possible we have dominated and altered the environment to suit our ends. We have seen the natural resources that the planet has to offer and we've taken what we need. And now we don't need to give the world we live in a second thought because we live in cities with running water, supermarkets, electric lights and pest control firms. If we want nature we want it on our terms. We can go to the zoo, play golf, go fishing, watch a David Attenborough program or find some ducks to feed.

But this is where we've gone so badly wrong; we've come to believe that we don't need Nature. We live on a planet that we ignore. We've always done as we please with our planet and we will continue to do so, but due to a fast expanding world population & Western consumerism we're beginning to realise that we can't. Our disregard for the planet we depend on for our lives is beginning to bear its bitter fruit. Climate Change is the big problem we now face, but there are many examples of our mis-management of our world that have ended in problems for us; for example at some point in the last 50 years it was decided that instead of feeding cows on grass money could be saved by feeding them the crushed up and processed carcasses of other cows and farm animals. About 15 years ago it was noticed that cows seemed to be suffering from a disease very similar to kuru, which is a disease that was observed in the early 1900's in cannibalistic tribes in New Guinea and in turn is very similar to CJD, which humans can contract by eating meat from cows infected with BSE.

What would happen if you and your family decided that you were no longer going to use the bins in your house? Instead of throwing your rubbish away sensibly you were just going to drop it on the floor, and instead of washing up after a meal you'd just scrape your pots and pans onto a table. What if you decided that instead of using a toilet you'd just do your dirty business in whatever room you happened to be in? How long would it be until your house began to smell? How long until it became uninhabitable? And yet we continue to pollute and deplete natural resources on a global scale. Conservationists have often been seen as wacky sentimentalist hippy tree-huggers, but in the light of the devastation that Climate Change could wreak on the planet there is a quote by Gerald Durrell (who was a famous conservationist even if you've never heard of him) that has new poignancy. He said, "Many people think that conservation is just about saving fluffy animals – what they don't realise is that we're trying to prevent the Human Race from committing suicide."

We need to be very careful about the solutions we pick as we look to tackling Climate Change. Everything we do affects the environment. One solution currently being touted is using Bio-diesel to fuel our cars. On the scale it is currently being used it is making a positive contribution to halting Climate Change, but if we all converted to bio-diesel there wouldn't be enough arable farmland to meet the needs for maize to convert and run our cars. Huge amounts of land currently used for food production would be converted to bio-diesel production and still more land would be needed. Rainforests and ancient woodlands would feel the axe in our quest to keep our cars on the road, releasing millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere totally negating the benefits of using bio-fuels.

Unless we change our perspective on Nature we'll continue to lurch from environmental precipice to environmental precipice. We desperately need to re-engage with our planet and view it as a whole – if I stamp on your toe it's your mouth that says, "Ouch!" We need to learn just how much destruction of rainforests on the other side of the planet affects us. We need to learn how to live sustainably, working with Nature so that we can guarantee the health of the planet down subsequent generations. We need to learn to treat the planets riches in a less utilitarian manner – Nature isn't here for our convenience and we aren't separate from it; if the ducks have all gone to bed chances are there'll be something else to enjoy.

Strident Trident.

Originally published May 2007

I remember the day when I got my first electric guitar. I think I was about 14 or 15 and my Mum had got me a second hand strat copy from a local music shop. Except that being my Mum she had no intention of getting me an amp as well, but the guy in the music shop told her that I could plug into the mic input of my Dad's hi-fi as long as I kept the volume on the guitar very low. I only ever got to play music on my Dad's hi-fi when he was out, so I was really amazed when he said I could plug my guitar into it. I spent the evening trying to strum the few chords I knew and play 'smoke on the water' & 'House of the rising sun' but there was a problem. My guitar was picking up radio signals. I ignored it best I could but I felt really torn. The radio broadcast was of the US and USSR signing an agreement to scrap long-range nuclear missiles. I knew it was a historic day and I should take note of what was going on, but I wanted to play with my new toy.

The generations that grew up between the Second World War and the collapse of communism grew up with a constant threat of nuclear war. Incidents like the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis heightened tensions between the Eastern Bloc and NATO and seemed to prove the need for countries to arm themselves with nuclear weapons to deter the possibility of a nuclear strike.It was against this climate that the original trident program was conceived to much controversy in the early 1980's. Now in 2007 the British Government has renewed the Trident missile system. More than 90 Labour MP's voted against this and the bill was only passed with support from Conservative MP's. There were also many campaigns against the renewing of Trident from various organisations and members of the public.

One of the reasons for opposing the renewal of Trident is that it seems to go against the nuclear non-proliferation treaties that were signed beginning with the one that was signed the day I got my first electric guitar. The powers that held nuclear weapons agreed to end the arms race and moderate the ownership of these weapons of mass destruction, now Britain has committed itself to buying more missiles.
But who now is the enemy? The Soviet Union no longer exists, the Russian Confederation is an ally and some of the former Soviet states are now members of the EU. Who are we considering might be such a threat that we feel we may still need to use a nuclear weapon? Such weapons are useless in the war against terror. The network of terrorists isn't based in one country or region. During the 2002 war in Afghanistan pictures were broadcast on the news of allied bomb strikes on al-Qaeda training camps. All they showed was multi-million pound bombs and missiles blowing up empty acres of sand. To use a nuclear missile against a target that has no territory necessitates blowing up a huge area of a third party's land. Holding such weapons gives us no advantage at all against enemies such as these.

Argument was also made that there would be economic hardship caused by not renewing Trident. Barrow in Cumbria – where the Trident submarines are made – is an area of economic hardship, and not to renew Trident would cause more unemployment and further poverty in a town already much in need of regeneration and investment. This has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I heard for the renewal of trident as if it weren't renewed there would be a huge pot of money available to spend: more than enough to invest in Barrow and prevent the predicted social deprivation.

But is there an alternative to renewing Trident? I don't mean an alternative weapons system that would afford us the same level of 'protection'. I mean is there an alternative to spending such huge sums of money to prevent terrorism and other acts of aggression towards us? Is there a way that reflects Christian Love and Compassion, a way in which we can see God's reflection? I believe there is.

I think the West has to make big apologies to many other states and cultures and seek forgiveness for past aggression. We have a history of bludgeoning our way around the world and dominating and subjugating foreign places and this is what is now coming back to bite us. Our political leaders and Captains of Industry have invaded, oppressed and exploited all corners of the world and forced Western values as completely as we can. Our biggest success in this is the US. European 'settlers' took such control of a 'new' country at the expense of the Native American population to the extent that it is the settlers' descendants that are now running the US and the Native American population is almost off the radar.If we want to really protect ourselves and make the world a safer place then we need to listen to what other cultures are telling us and address their grievances. We need to actually make peace with nations rather than just make sure that we're stronger than them. We need to take real steps to end poverty and stop the exploitation that's carried out in our name. We need to judge ourselves, judge our history, then do what is right and do justice by all those we have previously aggrieved.

Politicians will never do this though. It is a long-term strategy and political parties only think as far as the next general election. They tell us that it would be too expensive. True it would cost a lot of money, but in the long term it would save billions of dollars currently being spent on weaponry and it would save countless lives in this country and across the world. Politicians will never do this because it is a much more difficult route than simply spending billions of pounds on a weapons system which a massive proportion of the electorate don't want.

Slavery.

Originally published in March 2007

Hot on the heels of the Big Brother racism row, channel 4 found itself mired in controversy again in January because of comments made by one of the contestants on it's 'shipwrecked' program. Lucy Buchanan (18) from Edinburgh caused over 500 complaints from viewers and forced Channel 4 to axe the repeat showing of the first episode of the series by saying that she supported slavery. "I'm for slavery," she said. "But that's never going to come back."

Several British newspapers picked up the story and the Commission for Racial Equality was "keeping shipwrecked under review." Lucy's own parents issued a statement to "Wholeheartedly apologise," for her remarks.

But as admirable the public outcry at such an outrageous statement is it has missed a vital point in the story. It is actually impossible to bring back slavery. There is a large amount of legislation across the international community and many UN conventions dealing with slavery in all its forms: but they're not what make it impossible to bring slavery back. It's impossible to bring slavery back because it's never gone away.

Although the slave trade was abolished 200 years ago people trafficking still continues. Somewhere around a million people are trafficked every year. 80% are women and girls, 50% are minors. Trafficking being illegal these people end up being sold into illegal industries; prostitution, forced labour, forced marriage or adoption, forced military service being some examples

But the main form of modern slavery is Bonded Slavery. This is where a person is tricked into taking out a loan when their only collateral is their labour. They are then forced to work until they pay the debt off, but the terms of repayment are harsh and the work is tough and often the debt is never repaid. Sometimes the debt is transferable down subsequent generations condemning children and grandchildren into a life of bonded slavery. It is reckoned that this form of slavery affects about 20 million people internationally.

Anti-slavery organisations reckon that there are around 27 million people in slavery around the world today. That's more than there was 200 years ago. At the height of the legal slave trade an average slave in the American South would have cost $40,000 in modern money; today a slave costs an average of just $90.
But how can this happen in the 21st Century? Why is this being allowed to continue? Firstly, because it's illegal. Long gone are the days when you could just turn up at Liverpool docks with a boat full of people in chains and manacles without attracting the attention of customs and excise. Likewise you can't set up a stall on Altrincham market (somewhere between the fishmongers and the watch battery stall) and sell children. Because buying and selling of people is illegal it has to happen secretively and the trade has been taken over by the criminal underworld. People trafficking is the most visible form of slavery – and that goes on largely un-noticed. Forced marriages & adoptions are difficult to prove, most slaves have been taken from the poorest strata of societies; some have been abducted but some sold by their families, some are runaways or street children, some families are tricked into giving children away. A large proportion of slaves are people that no one will miss, so who's going to raise the alarm?
Secondly you and I support slavery. Through a long complex history of economics and cultural development we have arrived at a situation where the western way of life depends on slavery. Very briefly we in the west demand lots of cheap goods from all over the world. Producers in the poorest countries of the world need to be able to compete with commodity prices set by the highly subsidised western industries and in order to be able to do this they need to cut labour costs as much as possible. Using slave labour is often the solution they employ.


200 years ago the Christian Church was at the forefront of the movement to abolish the slave trade. It's time we picked up the baton and fought for the rights of all those still held in the bondage of slavery. Our faith calls on us to be champions of the oppressed and to stand up against injustice. We need to be aware of what we buy and the effects it has on those who made it. Rather than not buying products we should try to ensure that they have been ethically produced. There are several schemes in place through different industries that give us that guarantee. We have to be prepared to pay slightly more for the goods we buy so that others don't have to pay a higher price for our comfort.

"I tell you the truth, whatever you did for the least of my brothers you did for me."

What's love got to do with it?

Origianally published in Feb 2007

Valentines day gets me to thinking about Human relationships and what they're all about. And it seems to me to be a very strange sphere of Human experience and one I don't fully understand. I don't understand why people are willing to become so involved with another person, as to do so guarantees that at some point you are going to get very hurt. People fall out and break each other's hearts, love turns to hate and people do all they can to cause as much damage as they can to those they once would have protected with their lives. People become incapacitated by injury or illness and their significant other's life is spent caring for them. If a couple has children there's even more scope for hurt: children are clumsy idiots who are always falling into lawn mowers or picking up all sorts of bad habits. Even if a couple were to have a successful marriage and perfect children the day will come when one of them will die and leave the other in grief and mourning. Sooner or later someone will get hurt. It would appear that the only way to avoid such pain in your life is to either abstain from getting involved with other people at all or make sure you die before your loved one(s).

It seems to me that the whole thing can be boiled down to a simple process. Next time you're getting your bra straps twanged or nursing an unwanted erection during a maths lesson just remember that it's all to do with the survival of the species. The logical conclusion to dating and courtship, marriage and family life is having children. And there's even more pain if a couple discovers that for whatever reason they can't have children. If you look round the animal kingdom you'll see that there are animals that have monogamous life long partnerships, but many more manage to procreate without such emotional attachments or high degree of social contact, so why do we willingly put ourselves through such hassle and torment if there's an alternative?

Is there an alternative? We need to continue to think in practical anthropological terms for the moment to prove the need for the emotions. When 2 people come together and form a partnership they gain strength from each other and are able to support each other through whatever life throws at them. This is a really important factor. If we look through the animal kingdom we see that most animals' parenting is done over a relatively short period – none at all in the case of most fish up to maybe a couple of years for some other animals. For us it's around 20 years before we reach adulthood and independence from our parents. The bringing up of children is a very demanding task and much easier for two parents. That's not to say that single parents don't make good parents, simply that it's never an easy option. Our children are so demanding on us that virtually alone in the animal kingdom we enlist the help of Grandparents to help us raise our offspring.

Extending our thoughts beyond the nuclear family we observe that we are a social animal. We make emotional bonds with many others outside our family. We have friendships, join clubs and have allegiances and loyalties. We love not just our life partner, but many people. We become bonded to many things – football teams, pubs, bands, charitable organisations and causes. These bonds make us want the best for whatever it is we're bonded to and other people involved with it and we alter different factors of our lifestyle for the mutual benefit of ourselves and our cause. Where our lives overlap with other people's lives and their lives overlap with others beyond our joint interest we create a whole network of friendships and a fellowship in which we all play a part and abide by (a bit like MySpace!).

And there we have a microcosm of society. The ripples of a community of people who out of regard for their fellows co-operate and respect each other's boundaries can echo outwards and be amplified many times over until we encapsulate the whole of humankind. On this large scale we can see where these bonds of love work and where they break down as well as the repercussions of both. Without making these bonds and living by them individually we would struggle and society would disintegrate into every man for himself.

So we can see that a healthy society is one where the bond of love between people is the governing factor. The more the rule of law has to be used to set boundaries and dictate morality the unhealthier that society is. It is up to us as individuals to decide our place in society – whether we respect or reject those around us.

This picture of society is a reflection of our interaction with God. Religion teaches us that God is Love. The bible says that, "We love because God first loved us," and that love has been demonstrated by the death and resurrection of Jesus. We need to decide if we believe that God is real and then make another decision; about what we do with that knowledge. We can ignore it and do our own thing; we can obey what we see as God's will because we think we have no choice or we can choose to willingly forge bonds and seek friendship with God.

So is this then a definition of love? An emotional bond between people voluntarily given which brings forth feelings of loyalty, protectiveness, passion, pleasure and general goodwill. Sometimes that love is reciprocated sometimes it is not. Sometimes that love is deserved, sometimes not.

What can we conclude about Love and the part it plays in Human life? We have to conclude that it is a totally normal and necessary experience. That we Humans need to forge deep emotional bonds with people close to us, and that to not do so makes us half a person. To find someone who becomes a life partner is a true blessing.

Find someone who has lost a partner and ask them a question. Ask them if they had the choice would they share again the time they had with their partner and go through the pain of loss, or not have the pain of loss but forfeit their relationship with their loved one.