Journey Towards Healing: Do Acknowledgement and Apology have a Role to Play in Northern Ireland?
My last post was about Prof. John Brewer’s lecture at the conclusion of a conference called ‘Journey Towards Healing: Trauma and Spirituality – an International Dialogue,’ held 10-11 March at the Europa Hotel in Belfast.
I chose to focus on Brewer’s provocative talk in my first post about the event, but his critique of the institutional churches was not the whole story of the conference. In fact, my post could overshadow the quality and the variety of public debate that was facilitated at the conference.
You can get a taste of that in the discussion with key speakers at the conference, which was broadcast yesterday on BBC Radio Ulster’s Sunday Sequence (chapter 6, Dealing with Trauma Conference).
As Brewer remarked, the conference itself is an example of what has been rare in Northern Ireland: cross-fertilisation between the churches, other civil society groups, journalists, and academics.
Friday’s workshop by local group Healing Through Remembering (HTR), co-presented by Kate Turner, Alan Wardle, Kieran McAvoy and Geraldine Smyth, focused on the role of acknowledgement and apology in Northern Ireland’s post-violence transition.
In 2006, HTR prepared a discussion paper and proposal, ‘Acknowledgement and its Role in Preventing Future Violence.’ Much of the presentation drew on this paper, which read, in part:
We propose that all organisations and institutions in civil and political society [for example, churches, political parties, the media, the business community, trade union and voluntary and community sectors, health services, judiciary, police, educational bodies and republican and loyalist organisations], as well as the UK and Republic of Ireland governments, should engage in a process of acknowledgement. The overall aim of such a process should be to help prevent the re-emergence of violent political conflict. The process should seek to:
- produce a diverse but realistic and practical series of commitments to building a new, peaceful society;
- increase self-confidence for participating organisations in moving forward to a new society;
- produce narratives that are realistic and explicit about the impact of the violent conflict and that emphasise the need to avoid it in the future;
- encourage the two governments to give a realistic and sensitive account of their roles during the conflict;
- mark definitively the end of the violent conflict; and
- increase knowledge and understanding of the range of perspectives on the conflict and the desired nature of future society.
The HTR paper has a much more detailed discussion about what acknowledgement is and is not. Suffice to say here that the authors define acknowledgement as ‘organisations throughout society … take[ing] responsibility for their actions during the conflict’ (p. 1), believing that as part of a wider process this can promote the healing of individuals and communities.
HTR’s recommendations echo what happened in the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where institutions were invited to submit accounts of their actions during apartheid. Some of these accounts, such as the one produced by the Dutch Reformed Church, acknowledged the institutions’ responsibility in supporting apartheid. As of yet, HTR’s recommendations have not been taken up by similar institutions in Northern Ireland.
But Northern Ireland has had some public acts of acknowledgement and apology. Kieran McAvoy, Professor of Law and Transitional Justice at Queen’s, has been counting apologies, and presented the following figures:
- 13 by state agencies
- 15 by the provisional IRA or Sinn Fein
- 3 by loyalist paramilitary organisations
- 1 by a unionist politician
He noted that not all of these apologies are effective or sincere, indeed – some of them come off as ‘apologies of justification’, which serve the interests of the organisation rather than promote healing among victims and survivors.
Dr Geraldine Smyth, Head of the Irish School of Ecumenics, took up the question of what the churches have done in the areas of acknowledgement and apology. Like Brewer, she was critical of the churches’ behaviour during the conflict, saying that:
‘Christians were not sufficiently self-reflective and did not relate to those around us with sufficient depth. … There was no room for ambiguity or self-doubt … and religion functioned as a [political] ideology.’
She claimed that it is vital for the churches to acknowledge this publicly, but said that if the churches embark on this project separately, it will not be as powerful.
For instance, a particular denomination might produce an analysis demonstrating how its theologies supported (or at the very least, did not challenge) division and conflict.
But Smyth said this would still perpetuate the churches’ tendencies to see only their own partial perspectives, and that they would still ‘fail to see the other’s face.’
She recommended that if the churches were to begin a process of reflection and acknowledgement that it should be done together, ecumenically, if you will. This would not just give the process more credibility, but, I would add – would be a more authentically Christian option.
word
You’ll be okay,as long as nothing drops on you………………:-)
Nun
“messages of divine and previously unknown wisdom”
You’ll have that impression if you’re not happy.
“the happiness of christians a rather sickly and empty form”
The Christians you see are merely sheltering from people like you, and sending out signals that they want things to be better.
“happiness in things of substance rather than in illusion and self-delusion, in arrt and science and philosophy and music ”
Philosophical messages can be interesting but in determining whether or not people are happy you must address the indicators that reveal true happiness or true self-revulsion. Those haughty accents, superior tones and the service of certain people to the material god, Money, all indicate unhappiness. Have a think about it before you disagree. Then you may also see that simple philosophies, simple messages and pure motives determine the true path to happiness.
Rather than grovelling to a God, which only people in distress do, and God welcomes that, your sophistcated dance is a pretence to happiness, underscored with arrogance and self-serving ideology that serves only to currupt those who fall for the whole agenda.
I’ve been to ballets and there’s the proof if ever any was needed that people pretend about enjoyment.
I would put your philosophy down to little more than that self-delusion of the magpie, but for me it sends out a message, and I don’t like that message.
HG
Likewise.
Word
“messages of divine and previously unknown wisdom” – You’ll have that impression if you’re not happy”.
- That makes no sense to me whatsoever. I very much doubt if it even makes sense to you or to anyone else either.
“the happiness of christians a rather sickly and empty form”
“The Christians you see are merely sheltering from people like you, and sending out signals that they want things to be better”.
- A lot of them can’t wait for the end of the world. If I believed what they/you did I could hardly contain my excitement much longer either. Can’t quite bring themselves to go the distance and end it all though can they ? I think I know why.
“Those haughty accents, superior tones and the service of certain people to the material god, Money, all indicate unhappiness”.
- You’re sooo bitter about being short of dough, huh Word ?!
“simple messages and pure motives determine the true path to happiness”.
- Now there you might be onto something….but probably not. Let’s suppose you’re right for the sake of argument – tThing is, you don’t need any faith-based baloney to have any of that.
“Rather than grovelling to a God, which only people in distress do, and God welcomes that”
- He welcomes desperate people grovelling to him ? Yeah, I’ll bet ‘he’ does. Most totalitarians operate on just such a basis. It’s really revolting. One more huge big reasons to be thankful that there’s not a word of truth in the sinister garbage that suggests that this capricious being exists in the first place.
“…self-delusion of the magpie, but for me “it sends out a message, and I don’t like that message”.
- I don’t care if you do or not; most of what you’re projecting onto me in relation to what you think I believe in is a figment of your imagination. Your belief system is what’s under discussion and you plainly lack the will or capability to even explain it let alone defend it. White noise might be de rigueur in the SDLP veterans club – in fact I’m positive that it would be if such a nauseatingly boring institution existed – but it simply won’t wash with me, padre. It’s textbook Christianity really – all the moral certainty and superiority in the world on one hand, absolutely no ability to engage in rational criticism of it or even persuasively explain it on the other.
HG,
Or you drop head first onto a hard surface. Perhaps that has occurred already.
Woof.
JoeCIAnuck
You never know your own reflection, Joe.
Nun
“You’re sooo bitter about being short of dough, huh Word ?!”
If you knew what I had, you would know that I have pearls in my possession, all waiting to be realised. No, I’m making a serious point. I fully realise that it’s hard to tell people like you the truth because I’d be hitting at the very meaning of your lives, something which you’ve been taught implicitly from a nipper, and that usually raises anger, and the bully comes out to assert “meaning” rather than repentance.
“you plainly lack the will or capability to even explain it let alone defend it. ”
There’s been a lot said and written about Christianity. Why would I need to explain it or defend it. You may not realise but a lot of people want to hear about your alternative, and how it has you so happy on Slugger lecturing to me with the odd bullying tone thrown in..
Word
“pearls in my possession, all waiting to be realised. No, I’m making a serious point”.
- Oh I very much doubt it, if you are it’s a very opaque one. Again. These pearls you speak of….are they largely, how shall I put this, in your head ?
” I fully realise that it’s hard to tell people like you the truth because I’d be hitting at the very meaning of your lives,”
- From what you say you’re struggling to articulate the truth in any recognisable sense and please don’t purport to know anything about my life – you don’t. That’s one of the very few points you’ve – albeit inadvertently – made which IS fairly clear.
“There’s been a lot said and written about Christianity. Why would I need to explain it or defend it”.
- It’s the most important thing in your life and you seem insistent that it’s the most important thing missing from mine. You can’t even string two sentencess together which explains it let alone defend it from rational and quite specific criticism. There has indeed been a lot written about it, a great deal of it idle gobbledegook. Those must have been the books that you read, judging by your input here.
” lecturing to me with the odd bullying tone thrown in”.
- Ah, the old christian self-pity line – it’s come to this already ?! Poor you. It’s the flip-side of the tremendous arrogance not uncommon among belivers so again, full marks for stumbling upon something that’s altogether transparent.
Nun
“rational and quite specific criticism.”
The Materialist position is not rational. That much is clear from modern psychology never mind the ancient psychological wisdom of Christ. “Bounded rationality”, “limited perspective” to mention but a couple of important concepts man is guilty of.
You need to be free from attachment to any fear-based thought to really even begin to know about Christ’s teaching. Materialism is an expression of fear. The fear is that man is on his own in this world. No-one will help. Acting on that fear is to express a belief about the nature of mankind, that mankind is evil. A symptom of that kind of society is the description of the entrepreneur as “a self-made man”.
There’s lots of loaded vocabulary to seemingly persuade the materialist that he has made his mark on the world. In actual fact he has only expressed his fear.
The fear is very often based on an inferiority or an inferiority complex. Those most driven to get to the top usually have a reason for trying in the first place. Unhappiness is central to their efforts.
That’s why Christians see the poor, not as people to be used, but as more Christian, more contented in many instances and less corrupt.
The truth hurts sometimes, but I’m sure you’ll realise now that there were those who knew who Jesus was really was getting at and that it was no accident that he ended up on the cross, embarrassing for all eternity those materialists.
Word
“Materialism is an expression of fear.”
- No, it just isn’t. I take comfort from the fact that the material world is all we have. I feel if anything better for knowing that there is no ‘helping hand’ (or ‘punishing hand’) beyond. This is all there is and there’s plenty to enjoy.
“There’s lots of loaded vocabulary to seemingly persuade the materialist that he has made his mark on the world. In actual fact he has only expressed his fear”.
- Fear of what ? You’re just judging and projecting from your very decided if remarkably poorly founded Christian perspective.
“The fear is very often based on an inferiority or an inferiority complex”.
- Many successful people are driven by insecurities, usually driven by over-critical or over-domineering parents. That doesn’t explain materialism to even the slightest degree and Christianity bestows this inferiority – the always feeling guilty – on its flock by insisting that it knows all, sees all, can convict you of thought crime (you can sin even when you’re asleep by even thinking something) and piut you into eternal punishment – it that’s not the ultimate critical parent then what is it ?
“it was no accident that he ended up on the cross”
- Even supposing that this happened, how on earth would it embarrass non-believers ? You’d love a father who either allowed this to happen to his only son or made it happen ? That’s not a parent I’d tolerate in my life. Human sacrifice ? That’s not a materialist concept, you need religion to practice something quite so sick as that and then celebrate it as some perverse form of parental ‘love’. Either God ‘gave’ humanity his only son or he had him killed – either way I’d run as far and as fast as I possibly could away from such a horrid being. Which, s I keep saying, means that it’s a job job for us all that there’s not a single word of truth in any of it. It’s a revolting idea as well as false one.
Nun
“I take comfort from the fact that the material world is all we have. ”
Why do you take comfort from it if it is not an expression of a fear or, more precisely, an anxiety?
“no ‘helping hand’ (or ‘punishing hand’) beyond.”
Perhaps if you understood this on the basis that the helping hand is other human beings, and certainly the reality is that if you break rules you get punished. It’s hardly rocket science.
“Fear of what ?”
Fear of inadequacy. The fear propells him in a certain direction, usually regarded as an expression of individuality. He gets the plaudits if he succeeds, but rarely stops trying. Society puts him on a pedestal if he succeeds, but fails to either delve deeper into his motivations or properly recognise the numbers of people trying to do what he does, but fail. The materialist is the modern day rival of Jesus Christ, nothing has changed in that regard, but Christ has an infrastructure surrounding his message that serves to give him the egde, and proves that God thinks long-term, not in the fleeting trivia of materialism.
“Many successful people are driven by insecurities.That doesn’t explain materialism ”
You’ll know those who are successful and materialist by their values. If they see no merit in the Christ’s teaching, then they expressing unhappiness that the materialist approach is not helping. When they start trying to tell us that, not only are they happy, but that they are true “individuals”, who have their own personal belief system, that they stumbled upon in the search for their materialist goal. Christ’s teaching has no ideal income level, but when you start seeing it as a threat to your happiness, then it’s time to start assessing things.
Christ been remembered as being on the Cross is a bit like the murder of JFK, done in the full view of men, and intended to cause great revulsion and therefore movement in society away from the materialists. In terms of God and his son, there was always the ressurection. God won, you know. The Satanists simply hadn’t got the freedom of thought that would have allowed them to work out the outcome. Their attachments, as you suggest, their anxieties, controlled them.
“Why do you take comfort from it if it is not an expression of a fear or, more precisely, an anxiety?”
- The natural world we live in is awash with risk, with opportunity, with doubt, with certainty, with the expected and the unexpected – that’s exciting (not frightening) enough – make-believe is for children Word. Enjoy the world you know, don’t fear or invest false expectation in one which you hope exists but which deep down almost all believers doubt.
“Perhaps if you understood this on the basis that the helping hand is other human beings, and certainly the reality is that if you break rules you get punished”
- You don’t require any religious dimension either to be that helping hand or to enjoy its assistance. Your point on punishment is utterly purposeless as written.
“”the fear propells him in a certain direction, usually regarded as an expression of individuality.
- Regarded by who ? And why would one care what others think about how much we succeed or not ?
“The materialist is the modern day rival of Jesus Christ, nothing has changed in that regard, but Christ has an infrastructure surrounding his message that serves to give him the egde, and proves that God thinks long-term, not in the fleeting trivia of materialism”.
- Rival ? Giggle of the day so far but it’s early yet and you may not have had your hallucinatory omelette for tea yet. The difference is that materialism has an actual basis and a reality, your imaginary friend doesn’t. One’s real, one’s made up.
“You’ll know those who are successful and materialist by their values”
- No, you can judge them on that basis if you like – I don’t care if you do or not. Your judgment of and on me is so wide of the mark it’s ridiculous although I’m fairly sure I wouldn’t esteem even slightly it even if it was accurate. Keep trying. better yet, don’t.
“ If they see no merit in the Christ’s teaching, then they expressing unhappiness that the materialist approach is not helping. When they start trying to tell us that, not only are they happy, but that they are true “individuals”, who have their own personal belief system, that they stumbled upon in the search for their materialist goal. Christ’s teaching has no ideal income level, but when you start seeing it as a threat to your happiness, then it’s time to start assessing things.
- It’s not a threat to my happiness, other people interfering in my life on the basis of their faith, trying to legislate and limit freedoms and absorbing my tax dollars is annoying, yes. I can see no happiness within your faith– any happiness that I do, could or would value – in it in any case whether it’s true or not. The fact that it’s bullshit simply emphasizes its utter emptiness.
“Christ been remembered as being on the Cross is a bit like the murder of JFK, done in the full view of men, and intended to cause great revulsion”
- Why was it necessary to cause revulsion and why do you worship a non-being who visits revulsion upon you to frighten you into behaving a certain way ? You love ‘soomeone’ who would do that ? A revolting spectacle of human sacrifice ? If he created the capacity of men to be – in your terms, or mine – evil in the first place why go to all that bother ?
“God won, you know”.
- If ‘he’ is anything like as powerful as you hold ‘him’ to be in the first place the concept of victory simply does not pertain. If ‘he’ is almighty and all-powerful there is no basis for a contest to begin with.
Enjoy your omelette, dude.
Nun
“don’t fear or invest false expectation in one which you hope exists but which deep down almost all believers doubt.”
This is in relation to that comment about “the kingdom that is to come”. Well, Jesus is referring to a happy society and he is urging people to continually strive to get there. On the one hand some interpret it as heaven – as a psychological inducement to reach it – and on the other hand he knows that there are powerful interests in the way of people living in heaven. But whatever you think, it is a better world on earth that he seeks. That the people you know “doubt it” is defined by the powers that they see in the way of a happy world. Very few doubt it where I live.
“why would one care what others think about how much we succeed or not ? ”
Only you can answer that one. What’s the purpose to it? Why do it? My suggestion is underlying anxiety.
“materialism has an actual basis ” – Just as a magpie will tell you.
“why do you worship a non-being who visits revulsion upon you to frighten you into behaving a certain way ”
“frighten” – Who was frightened? We were just defining the enemy. But people acted out of love and idealism, if you must know.
“Human frailty” creates evil. God created man but man created evil through separation from God. The materialists were central to that departure from God, always inmsisting that happiness is found in things rather than people.
“the concept of victory simply does not pertain.”
You might not be the worst materialist there’s ever been, Nun, but the reality through history is that you can never tell a materialist that he has lost. He simply hasn’t got the freedom of thought to realise that he is wrong. Materialists tend to cling together, while hating each other, and our experience is that they pay people to fight their battles because they’ve accumulated more than others.
So as I say, you’ll never realise that you can’t be right because you don’t have the ability to be completely honest with yourself. But I’ll put it this way, if every person on this planet consumed the goods that materialists consume, it wouldn’t be long before we were running on empty.
Word
You’re judging again – as tiresome as it is inaccurate. Your statement “God created man but man created evil through separation from God” is among the most puerile that you’ve managed to date. If evil is god-created then why has ‘he’ such an issue with it and why do you – shouldn’t you simply credit god with it and thank him (like you do everything else, whether beneficial or malevolent) for it ? Face it, you’re chossing to make yourself a mere slave and a plaything for a being (for whom there is literally no evidence for. At. All.) with a very capricious sense of humour, with a taste in cruelty, and who appears to require an awful lot of praise and thanks for things which require no effort or imagination on ‘his’ part. Those are qualities which would truly (and naturally) revolt us if we located them in a fellow mammal.
Nevin….apologies that I could not reply earlier to you. I have been away from home.
“I am not so sure that Corrymeelaism is as harmless as it looks”
Again I re-iterate that I am not attacking Corrymeela in itself. I have a lot of time for the original people. Less time for the people who have jumped the “peace” bandwagon. In many ways Corrymeela is the original and the best. But Corrymeela-ism ….the variety of victims groups, peace groups, “ex (terrorist) prisoners” has become a pantomime that we dare not openly criticise.
The real silent majority is those that have caused little pain to others and been caused little pain by others. We should not be held to ransom by people who refuse to move on.