Does God Intervene in the Affairs of Men?

It's been an emotional Remembrance weekend. Actually, with the BBC programmes leading up to it, it has been an emotional week, as I found it all very moving.

The clue is in the word Remembrance. Those killed and injured from 1914 to 2011 have been remembered, culminating in Sunday's event at the Cenotaph in London.

One serviceman was interviewed in London on Sunday at the Cenotaph, and was asked what he felt the mood was like in the country. I liked his answer. He said that it wasn't so much support for war, but support for the troops. I think he's right.

Many in the country like myself, abhor war, but are realistic enough to know that just as there has always been wars, so there will be wars in the future.  The Royal British Legion, and scores of subsequent service charities, are not in existence to glorify war, but to remember those who died, and support those who suffer. I was watching the remembrance event from Whitehall on Sunday, and it brings home to you the far-reaching effect of war. There was one poignant moment when names scrolled across the screen of those British service personnel killed since the last Remembrance Sunday; I counted 44 names. I think that it is right to remember the casualties of war; not through the eyes of narrow parochialism though, but to take a truly world perspective.

In World War One there were 886,342 UK fatalities; in World War Two the figure was 383,667, and since 1945 there has been 17 different areas of British military conflict with 3,473 fatalities. The country was told after the Second World War never to forget the horror of it, so that it might never happen again. This was a dream never to be realised. Apart from Britain itself becoming involved in 17 conflicts since 1945, according to the Peace Pledge Union, since that year, there have been over 250 major wars in which over 23 million people have been killed, tens of millions made homeless, and countless millions injured and bereaved. The Imperial War Museum says that there has been "fighting somewhere in the world almost every day since 1945". Other researchers are more specific, stating that there has only been 26 days of peace across the world since 1945. That's 66 years, or 24,090 days, with only 26 days of peace - makes you think doesn't it? Remembrance Sunday is about casualties among service personnel, but what about civilians? According to the New Internationalist - Issue 311 'Peace', "In armed conflicts since 1945, 90% of casualties have been civilians, compared to 50% in the Second World War and 10% in the First World War". These are people generally who are remembered by no-one, except their families. I don't give these figures as an anti-war statement, but simply to show how many we are remembering. The numbers are staggering, horrifying and incalculable. By all means let's remember and support those within our nation affected by conflict, lest we become immune to the smell of it all.

While watching the Remembrance Day event, the familiar strains of the hymn, "O God our help in ages past, our hope for years to come" could be heard. In countless services up and down the country over the years, thanks has been given to God for victory. When I was in the Church, and following some tragedy, I was often asked, "Why does God allow such and such to happen?" I had my answers, which over time became more and more unsatisfactory. Let's assume for arguments sake that there is a God. This is not the time or place to discuss the opposing views of the likes of Richard Dawkins or the Theistic philosophers. There is a greater question than the Why, and it is, "Does God intervene in the affairs of men?"

German World War One Belt Buckle

On Saturday night, while searching the Internet for some answers to the identification of my Grandfathers World War One uniform, I stumbled across a German military memorabilia site.

There were belt buckles for sale from both world wars. The one shown opposite was from the First World War, and on the Second World War buckles, the crown had been replaced by the eagle and swastika. However, the words, "Gott Mit Uns" were on both war buckles.

Using the Internet translator, the words turned out to mean, "God (is) with us". I hope that I'm not being naive, but it seems to me that here we have people on opposite sides of the conflict believing that God was with them, and believing that God would give them victory. But only one side won; does that mean that God had deserted those who believed in him from the other side? Britain of course has always believed that God is on her side; from the Crusades, through battles with Irish Catholics or Scottish Dissenters. But, "Does God intervene in the affairs of men?"

Did God bring victory against Germany by directly intervening in the war? Or was the war won because Britain and her allies were just eventually better than Germany? If God does intervene, then some might like to ask, why didn't he do it sooner, and save the lives of millions? For some, questioning the Almighty is out of place, as who can know his will. Quite frankly, this is a cop-out. If God doesn't intervene in the affairs of men, then perhaps he is just allowing his created beings to work out their own path to what is good and right. That makes a bit more sense than saying that he supports some of his followers more than others. I am asking the question simply because I don't have the answer,  but I believe that it is a right question to ask.

You see, it's not just a question for matters of war, as it crops up in other areas of life.

I remember last year in a Golden League meeting, the 100 metre race. There were the top sprinters of the day involved in the race (the money on offer ensured that!!), and two of them in particular caught my attention.

Both were separately interviewed before the race and spoke of their Christianity, and that God would be with them. One of them won, and obviously the other didn't. The winner gave thanks to God for the victory, but the loser wasn't asked for his views. Two Christians battling it out for a top athletic prize believed that God was with them, but for one he obviously wasn't. (The often quoted phrase is that God always answers prayer, it's just that sometimes he says no). "Does God intervene in the affairs of men?" Does an omnipotent, omniscient Being, who has the world before him, care to intervene in a race, and choose one of his followers over another? Could it not be that on the day, the winner was just quicker than the loser, and there's no more to it than that?

This post is not meant to question the morality of war, or the existence of God. I've simply asked a question that I don't know the answer to. If anyone out there feels that they have an answer to the question, I'll be glad to hear it.

Can Anyone Help?

Like millions of other people, I'm currently absorbed in my family research. Having now got a tree full of branches and leaves, I'm back to filling in a lot more of the details. One such detail is my grand fathers first world war record. To be able to access those records, I think I really need to have an idea what regiment he may have served in. And this is where I need your help.

William Gronnow First World War

This is a post card picture of my grand father either during or after the war. I have the original. Can anyone hazard a guess as to the Regiment from the picture? Or does anyone know how you go about trying to identify military uniforms?

His name was William Gronnow, and he was born in Farndon, Cheshire in 1887, and died in September 1952. He married Miriam Gronnow (nee Valentine) in December 1920. As he was brought up on the English/Welsh border, he could well have joined a Cheshire or Welsh Regiment. If any one has any advice or help to offer, I'd be very grateful. My email address is in the 'about me' section.

The Face of Evil

Anders Behring Breivik

There is no doubt about it, opposite, is the face of evil. He is the Norwegian, Anders Behring Breivik, who last Friday exploded a bomb in Oslo (undoubtedly to distract the police), then went about 25 miles away to the island of Utoeya to shoot and kill scores of innocent youngsters who were attending a summer camp.

There are already people saying that he must be mentally ill to have carried out such attacks, particularly as his lawyer said that "his client felt he had done nothing reprehensible". I'm tired of mental illness being used as an excuse for every type of atrocity, and given the fact of the lengthy, detailed planning that went into these attacks, he knew exactly what he was doing. Reports indicate that during the weekend interrogation, he admitted that the attacks were 'cruel' but 'necessary'. This is not a man who seems to be suffering from mental illness.

Before the attacks, Behring Breivik wrote a 1,500 page manifesto. In it he boasted that he was one of up to 80 'solo martyr cells' recruited across Western Europe to topple Governments tolerant of Islam. He is reported to have said in court today, that he was "saving Norway from a Muslim takeover". He has been described as a 'Christian fundamentalist', and in his Manifesto, Breivik calls himself a justiciar Knight, a rank within the Knights Templar. He also makes a call for believers to spawn as many children as possible in order to generate a pool of future fighters in a Christian war he likens to a medieval crusade.

The image of Breivik above, shows him in a uniform with a white and red cross of the Knights Templar. These were established around 1119, during the period of the Crusades. Ten years later they were officially sanctioned by the Church of Rome. Even from the very beginning, there were those who criticised the concept that religious men could carry swords. The leading Churchman of the time, Bernard of Clairvaux wrote a major treatise in support of the Order, and defended the idea of a military religious order by appealing to the long-held Christian theory of 'just war', which legitimised taking up the sword to defend the innocent and the Church from violent attack. He wrote, "A Templar Knight is truly a fearless knight, and secure on every side, for his soul is protected by the armour of faith, just as his body is protected by the armour of steel. He is thus doubly-armed, and need fear neither demons nor men". Little wonder that they went about massacring 'infidels' by the thousands in the name of God. Anders Behring Breivik, as a self-styled Knight Templar was carrying on this work, but why choose to massacre these particular young people at a summer camp has yet to be determined.

Is this attack religiously or politically motivated? Those who ask this question speak as if there is a clear line between the two. In my mind there rarely is, particularly when the history of religious fundamentalism shows that nationhood and belief often go hand in hand. How often have we heard President Obama invoke the name of God when America seems to be under threat? To him, God is on the side of the United States. God is on the side of those going to war against the 'infidel'. Christian fundamentalists think nothing of bombing the workplaces, and murdering those who carry out abortions, and all in the name of God. There have been people in most religions throughout history, and throughout the world who have carried out atrocities in the name of their god or gods. "God is on our side" has been the call from so many quarters. I can't help but think how many fewer wars there might have been, if there had never been religion.

The Middle East has a long history of faith and territory, of religion and politics. Northern Ireland has a similar history, particularly with the phrase, "For God and Ulster". This was the motto of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), formed at the height of unionist opposition to Home Rule in 1912-1914. This paramilitary force became part of the British Army in the first world war, and who were decimated on the first day of the Battle of the Somme in July 1916. The motto, "For God and Ulster" was taken up by the Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV), who were active during 1966-1969 and aimed to prevent the introduction of equality reforms in Northern Ireland. They were a loyalist and extreme Christian paramilitary group, and its political wing, the Ulster Constitution Defence Committee was established by Ian Paisley in 1966. The UPV launched a bombing campaign to destabilise the Northern Ireland Government, and also took part in most of the counter demonstrations organised in response to the Catholic Civil Rights marches of the late 1960's.

"For God and Ulster" was thundered from pulpits and streets at religious/political rallies for the next 30 years. To one historian, "for God and Ulster implies divine favour, a special relationship between God and Ulster Protestants, and a loyalty to Britain sealed in blood on the battlefields of Europe". This religious belief has caused the death of thousands. It's not just Islam that is fervent in its determination to subjugate the masses to its will. Christianity has shown over the last two thousand years that it is as capable as anyone of committing atrocities in the name of God. How I wish that religion was dead.

Those that know me will wonder how I can say such things with my background. For thirty years I promoted a Christianity that encouraged intolerance - that was not my aim you understand, just the effect. I believed in what was right with a shameful dogmatism, and those who disagreed were simply wrong. I came to despise this until I could take no more. I was defending the indefensible, promoting the unpromotable. I could no longer answer the question, 'Why does God allow ...'. I could no longer believe in a being called God. This God was being used for unholy ends, and I wanted no part of it.

But, some will say, what of the good things that in particular Christians have done over the centuries to improve the lot of their fellow man? It was their belief in God that drove them to bring about changes in child labour, slavery, prison reform or working conditions. This shows what good 'religion' has done. I'm the first to acknowledge the fantastic work that reformers have done over the centuries to improve the conditions of fellow human beings, and they deserve great credit for that. But, you don't have to have 'faith' to be a reformer, and without a religious belief, these people would probably still have done great works, for they were good people, intent on doing good things. It's not only 'religious' people who do good things, for if you look here, you will see a long list of atheist social reformers and activists, who have worked for improving the lot of their fellow man in various parts of the world.

Religion of course will not disappear. Wars will not cease. Atrocities in the name of 'god' will continue. Religion and politics will continue to be linked. I for one am happy with my condition, but if you must have 'faith' to sustain you, let it be of the highest order, and is something that treats your fellow man in ways that you wish to be treated yourself. The face of evil above, and what it stands for, has no place in this world.

Wootton Bassett Repatriation

Wootton Bassett High Street

Last night I watched the BBC 1 documentary called 'Wootton Bassett - The Town That Remembers', which looked at the way the town has honoured the war dead. I knew that it would upset me, and sure enough it did. It was an extremely moving piece of television, and being the old softy that I am under the surface, I spent the whole programme dabbing my eyes with my handkerchief. The programme was focusing on the living, but all I could really think about were the dead.

As many of you are probably aware, Wootton Bassett is a small market town in Wiltshire, with a population of just over 11,000. It started to come to prominence in April 2007 when the residents began to solemnly and quietly stand at the side of the road to pay their respects to the war dead, who's coffins were passing through the town on their way from RAF Lyneham. The bodies of fallen soldiers arrived at the air base, and were driven through Wootton Bassett on their way to the mortuary at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford.

Repatriation flights, as they are called, will cease to land at RAF Lyneham from about September 2011, as the air base is due to close in 2012. All flights we be transferred to RAF Brize Norton, which is in Carterton, about 22 miles west of Oxford. It is unlikely that we will see many more days as we have in Wootton Bassett, as the route from RAF Brize Norton to the mortuary in Oxford does not pass through any towns or villages. Some residents apparently will not be too disappointed about this, as they feel it has become too much of a media event, and has attracted what they call "grief tourists". These views may well be in the minority, and though the programme revealed that there was perhaps more organisation needed than I would have at first thought, the dignified respect for those who had died, and the support given to grieving families will be missed. One side effect of these days is that it helps to keep in the public eye, the constant death toll as a result of war, and without it, we might just be left with hearing a brief statement from the Prime Minister at the beginning of Prime Minister's Question Time every week - an altogether more limited audience.

Wootton Bassett

I'll come to my feelings about war in a moment, but the harsh reality is that we are engaged in wars, and as a result of the inevitable deaths that occur, Wootton Bassett residents should be remembered for their dignified actions.

It seems that the Queen agrees, as she has conferred on the town the name Royal, so from later this year the town will be known as Royal Wootton Bassett. I have no idea what this means, or whether there are any perks associated with it, and to be honest, I haven't enough interest in the subject to look it up.

Did you know though that there are only two other towns in England that are Royal towns? They are Royal Leamington Spa (given the title in 1838) and Royal Tunbridge Wells (given the title in 1909). Also, never one to miss an opportunity to mention Wales, Caernarvon in Wales is a royal town of a different kind. "The Royal Town of Caernarvon" was made a Royal Borough by the Queen in 1963, and was allowed to retain the honour when it ceased to be a borough in 1974. Not quite in the same league that one I think.

That's the niceties over with. Repatriation happens because of dead soldiers. Dead soldiers happen because of war. War happens because someone decides to make that decision. In the last ten years, we have gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan. So that you know where I stand, I opposed going to war in both countries. We went into Iraq in March 2003, to deal with Saddam Hussein's 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' - which we never found. Tony Blair, at the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq War was unrepentant, saying that going into Iraq had, "Made the world a safer place". This is highly questionable, and it has yet to be shown that the dossier in support of the war was not doctored. In other words, some people lied. Since March 2003, when we went to war, 189 British soldiers have been killed. More of that later.

We went to war in Afghanistan in October 2001, to destroy the Taliban; make it harder for Al-Qaeda, so making the world a safer place. Last month the 364th British soldier was killed. David Cameron said to Channel 4 news, "We are paying a high price for keeping our country safe, for making our world a safer place. We should keep asking why we're there and how long we must be there. The truth is we're there because the Afghans are not yet ready to keep their own country safe and to keep terrorists and terrorist training camps out of their country. That's why we have to be there. But as soon as they're able to take care and take security for their own country, that is when we can leave".

A former British forces commander in Afghanistan, commenting when the 300th death had been reached, said, "The death rate in Afghanistan seems shocking. But casualties are a brutal reality of all wars. And compared to many previous conflicts the figures in this nine year campaign are low. In the Falklands we lost over 250 troops in under three months. Almost 700 British soldiers were killed during the three years of the Korean War. And on average, 178 died every single day in the six years of the second world war. Even in the Northern Ireland police action, in 1972 alone we had as many killed as in the bloodiest year in Helmand". So that's all right then. Tragic as it is, it's not as bad as previous conflicts. Sorry, this is pathetic.

Afghanistan Tribes People

What of the people of Afghanistan? How involved are they in the decisions made affecting their country. It is said that about 90% of the opium produced in the world comes from Afghanistan. This must be destroyed so that the 'drugs problem' around the world can be dealt with. But for most people living in the rural tribal heartlands this is their only source of income. What will replace it? The answer is? It seems that nobody knows. If destruction of opium fields is a policy, then it has patently failed, for reports state that since the war began in 2001, there has been a 150% increase in Afghan opium production.

A searching Blog, written by Alex Thompson, Chief Correspondent at Channel 4 News, at the time of the 300th British soldier to die says, "You will no doubt hear and read a lot today, an awful lot today, from Englishmen intent on saying that the war in Afghanistan is going well. You will hear almost nothing from Afghans. And Afghans, thanks to NATO and the Taliban/resistance/insurgents (delete as applicable to your own personal prejudice) are getting wiped out and injured far, far more than any foreign soldier or insurgent mujaheddin. Which is rather a shame. Because tragic though the 300th British dead soldier/marine is, it is the Afghan people for whom we are fighting we are told, and the Afghan people who remain resolutely ignored in what is being forced upon them and their land from the foreign occupation (and it is that for many of them, let's not beat about the bush) and their largely hated, corrupt president, downwards through the various levels of corruption and kleptocracy. All of this, by a military force which keeps telling the Afghan people that it wants to get out and run home as fast as it feasibly can".

Lest you be mistaken, this Blog is not about war in general; it is about the justification for going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and of our continued presence there. In my simple view, the case for going in the first place, and for staying in the second has not been made, and Wootten Bassett repatriations are a stark reminder of that. Let me conclude this Blog with a comment about the cost of war, both in monetary, and in human terms.

Monetary Cost

• Iraq War - this had cost the UK £8 billion. In addition, the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq War, up to March 2010 cost £2,237,700 (official Government figures), and as another year has gone by, you can double that. Security to allow Tony Blair's first attendance at the Chilcot inquiry cost the police £273,000, and a similar amount for his second appearance (Met figures).
• Afghanistan War - up to the latest figures, this has cost £12 billion, and rising every day. In an age when we are reducing the Government deficit, our reduced benefits, pensions, jobs and services are paying for us to continue with the war.

Human Cost

Let's not be parochial here and only concern ourselves with our own country. Many others have suffered greatly. I've trawled the Internet sites that specifically catalogue the human cost of war, particularly those sites that try to verify every statistic. The figures are frightening, and not what you hear talked about. These are figures provided as of 3rd May 2011.

Casualties in Iraq

• Iraqi troops killed = 30,000
• Iraqi troops seriously injured = 90,000
• Iraqi civilians killed = 864,531
• Iraqi civilians seriously injured = 1,556,156
• US troops killed = 4,414
• US troops seriously injured = 31,882
• Other coalition troops killed = 318 (UK 189)
• Other coalition troops seriously injured = 2,296
• Contractors killed = 933
• Contractors seriously injured = 10,569
• Journalists killed = 142
• Total killed in Iraq = 900,338
• Total injured in Iraq = 1,690,903

Casualties in Afghanistan

• Afghan troops killed = 8,587
• Afghan troops seriously injured = 25,761
• Afghan civilians killed = 8,813
• Afghan civilians seriously injured = 15,863
• US troops killed = 1,140
• US troops seriously injured = 3,420
• Other coalition troops killed = 772 (UK 364)
• Other coalition troops seriously injured = 2,316 (UK 388)
• Contractors killed = 298
• Contractors seriously injured = 2,428
• Journalists killed = 19
• Total killed in Afghanistan = 19,629
• Total injured in Afghanistan = 48,644

So, is it all worth it? Not to me it isn't. Let me conclude with words from a 94 year old war veteran, connected with the Wootton Bassett British Legion, and who was part of the BBC documentary.

"The saddest thing is that these soldiers should not be there in Afghanistan. I don't believe they are defending our country. This war is not our own - we should not be going into another nation, another culture, like this".