WHATEVER one's beliefs about the origins of the universe, stereotypes are most definitely man-made. The degree to which stereotypes are accurate is variable, but there is usually some grain of truth hiding within them. The danger of stereotypes, of course, is that they can grossly simplify and distort what in reality is a far more complex picture.
Christianity, it seems to me, is subject to a number of stereotypes, some of which are mutually exclusive. The reason they are mutually exclusive is that Christianity is - to coin a phrase - a broad church. Within Christianity, as we know, there are longstanding differences that have persisted for centuries. Some disagreements are theological, others about matters of personal conduct. But they all throw up their own stereotypes.
One stereotype that stays with me from my time many years ago at York University is the kind of Christian who is completely intransigent, will not enter into a rational debate, and who is so convinced of his or her fixed beliefs that any other view is dismissed as wholly unacceptable and beneath contempt. Such became my view of the members of York University Christian Union when I conversed with them as they were seeking to proselytise. There was no discussion with these people, just assertion and counter-assertion. I quickly came to the conclusion that there was no point engaging with them.
Another stereotype, based on an assessment of Christianity in history, is that of a powerful creed prepared to crush all dissidents and non-believers. The Spanish Inquisition was used to persecute heretics, the murderous conflicts in Europe between Catholics and Protestants showed how little the lessons of the Sermon on the Mount were taken on board by those who called themselves Christians, and the expulsion of the self-proclaimed atheist Shelley from Oxford University showed that religious conformity was an absolute requirement. Such conformity was instilled by brainwashing: "give us a child for the first seven years of its life, and it is ours forever" was the often-quoted mantra of the Jesuits. Readers of Joyce's A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man will remember the terrifying sermon with its graphic description of the torments of hell that awaited that awaited those who strayed from the path of Church-imposed righteousness.
This leads to another stereotype: that of the Church as the biggest cult of all, keeping control of its adherents by fear which reaches their innermost being, and disables them for rational discourse.
Turning to the content of the Christian belief system, it is easy to come to the conclusion that they are seeking to square a circle. How is the vengeful, vicious God of the Old Testament compatible with the compassionate teachings of the Gospels? The stereotypical view would be that Christians pick and choose the elements of the Bible that conform to their own preferences, and ignore or gloss over those that are inconvenient. "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is the favourite Biblical quotation for the kind of Christians who demonstrate outside American prisons when convicted murderers are being executed inside. It's probably also a favourite text for Christians who consider they are carrying out God's work when they assassinate abortion doctors.
At the other end of the spectrum are those Christians - much more to my taste, I readily confess - who derive the essence of their version of christianity from the Sermon on the Mount, with its emphasis on forgiveness, non-violence and compassion. But the question such Christians have to confront is whether in ignoring those elements of the Bible that they find uncongenial, they are guilty of misunderstanding their religion in its entirety, and are therefore in a way as culpable as those who place all their emphasis on the vengeful God of the Old Testament. There are many examples of appalling behaviour by the God of the Old Testament that in no way conform to the positive stereotype of the God of the New Testament - yet in some strange way, Christians are supposed to take both on board in some odd holistic synthesis. Yet they can's, and they don't, and they therefore inevitably are seen as full of contradictions.
As scientific progress accelerated from the Middle Ages to the present day, it became more and more difficult for Christians to stick to their traditional world view. Yet at each step of the way, the stereotypical view would be that the Christian Establishment was on the side of conservative reaction and against the spirit of progress. The treatment of the astronomer Galileo is a perfect illustration of the way scientific discovery was seen as the enemy of religion and had to be denied or combated. Today, faced with overwhelming evidence, there are few members of the Flat Earth Society, if it still exists. But the spirit of reaction remains a force to be reckoned with. There are schools in Britain - around a decade ago I visited one in Wales - where creationism is taught as fact and evolution is rejected as a false theory. Genesis is taken absolutely literally by this kind of fundamentalist Christian. Allegorical interpretations are seen as false: only a one-dimensional acceptance of each Old Testament assertion is seen as acceptable. On the other hand, those who prefer the allegorical route are obliged to engage in all manner of intellectual contortions to account for the cruel excesses of the Old Testament deity. How, for example, can the story of Abraham agreeing to sacrifice his son Isaac be interpreted in any way other than that of an appalling example of child abuse? Such obnoxious nonsense has doubtless had an influence on mentally ill people whose lack of clear thinking can impel them to commit acts of murderous violence.
Turning to some of the contemporary stereotypes associated with Christians, and especially with their role in 21st century Wales and Britain, I would begin by suggesting that for many people, the Church has become an irrelevancy that is still accorded too much influence. Despite attracting fewer and fewer people to its services, Church figures like the Archbishop of Canterbury, or in Wales the Archbishop of Wales, are accorded access to the media for their views in a spirit of what can border on deference. Their pronouncements can seem tiresomely predictable, in tune with the Rev JC Flannel parody of Private Eye: Christmas should be reclaimed from the commercial circus it has become, we should do more to help the developing world, rising house prices are creating misery etc etc. The efforts of Church leaders to appear relevant in a society that largely ignores them can be seen as a rather pathetic attempt to reclaim the kind of authority their predecessors will have taken for granted. But without the clout that derived from a position of power in society, the pronouncements can seem hollow.
Another stereotype derived from the Rev JC Flannel model is the Christianity of woolly, wishy-washy thinking in which society as a whole is collectively guilty of some social ill, rather than the individuals who perpetrate it. This kind of approach is typified by the kind of pronouncement that says: "We are all guilty. Society is to blame." What this amounts to is an attempt to remove from individuals responsibility for their own behaviour. Instead, they almost become ciphers for the influences that have been brought to bear on them throughout their lives. In a way, this harks back to a Calvinistic view that individual fate is pre-determined, and that it is not possible to change the course of one's life through personal effort. In the post-Enlightenment, existential world, where the individual is elevated into an agent of change, it is easy to see why this kind of approach does not resonate.
And for all its attempt to portray itself as a progressive force, the Church very often seems to lapse into fail safe reactionary mode. The issue of the role of women in the Church in Wales illustrates this tendency perfectly. That it took until the late 20th century for the Church in Wales to be brought kicking and screaming to a point where it was prepared to accept women priests was an indictment of its whole approach to gender equality. All the arguments - such as they are - against the ordination of women are essentially misogynistic. Women are seen as lesser beings unworthy to act as God's mediator. There really is no other way of expressing it. The recent decision not to allow women Bishops shows that kind of thinking is still prevalent within the Church. There seems little logic in accepting women as priests and then rejecting them as Bishops. The decision confirms the status of women as second class priests, who cannot aspire to a senior leadership role. Such a position is only lawful because the church is exempt from sex discrimination legislation - another reason why it is seen as somehow apart from mainstream society, and thus somewhat irrelevant.
The decision on female Bishops also exemplifies a kind of moral cowardice that the Church can have levelled against it. It's a decision not to do the right thing because doing so may have other undesirable consequences. The fear, of course, is that the ordination of women Bishops could lead to the departure of some male priests who cannot stomach the idea of having a woman as boss - for strip away the theological sophistry and that is what it amounts to. Further, there is a fear that other Churches will decide they want nothing more to do with our church. Concerns in these circumstances range from wondering who will take the services when the misogynists have left their parishes, to a schism in the community of Churches. The trouble is that capitulating to blackmail of this kind - for that is what it amounts to - destroys the moral basis which provides the Church with its raison d'être.
To a very large extent, the same considerations apply to the Church's treatment of homosexuals. The reality is, of course, that there are many gay priests in the Church in Wales, just as there are in the Church of England and (dare it be said?) the Catholic Church. The church's approach to this is, surely, pure hypocrisy. Gay priests are tacitly accepted, so long as they are discreet: in other words, so long as they seek to deny an essential element of their own humanity. Here, surely, is an example of the Old Testament defeating the New. I simplify, of course. St Paul was a man of Old Testament values on this and other issues, including - in Letters to the Ephesians - the obligation on slaves to obey their masters and women their husbands. With St Paul in league with the ethos of the Old Testament, is it any wonder that misogyny is still rampant within the Church?
Returning to the issue of gays in the Church, last weekend I was at a 50th birthday party for a gay friend - held, perhaps appropriately, in the deconsecrated Norwegian church. His mother, a churchgoer, was in a conversation with another woman, who came from a Welsh Independent chapel background. Rather sadly, I thought, my gay friend's mother said she believed gays should have nothing to do with the church because of the hostility towards them that still prevailed. The other woman took issue with her, saying that her view of christianity was firmly founded on love, and that the homophobic attitudes shown by many church people were, in her view, entirely unChristian.
The recent case of the former Bishop of St Davids did not see the church in its best light. Whatever the truth of the matter, the handling of it was seen by many as poor. Rumour and gossip was given credibility by a round robin letter that got into the public domain. The Bishop's friendship with his chaplain and their respective separations from their spouses became a soap opera which lasted for months. The church's inability to handle the whole matter with discretion reflected badly on its role as a force for reconciliation and damaged its reputation.
As I said at the outset, some of the stereotypes I have outlined are not compatible with each other. They all, however, make up part of a complex whole. Because of the nature of my remit, I have necessarily concentrated on the negative stereotypes. On this occasion, however, I do not apologise for the lack of balance.

There is an immediate and obvious point to bear in mind when considering the different kind of stereotypes that exist in Wales and Britain about Islam, in comparison with those relating to Christianity. In the main, the indigenous population has a far better understanding of Christianity for the simple fact that they have been exposed to it from an early age. Even those who would not regard themselves as Christians, or who might simply pay lip service to the religion, would nevertheless have it as a touchstone in their lives.
In a very straightforward way, therefore, we have arrived at the first stereotype about Islam. It is seen as a religion that is not European, that comes from another continent. This is a strange perception, in a way, because of course Christianity was originally from the Middle East too. But over many centuries it has become seen as a European religion in the way Islam has not - at least, not yet. That's not to say, of course, that there are not many Muslims in Wales, Britain and Europe: we know there are. But, from a stereotypical perspective, Islam is from elsewhere. As with anything different from what we already know, it takes an effort to find out about something new. Many people don't have the time or inclination to do that, and it is easy to see how inaccurate stereotypes can be created. At its most basic, this can amount to a fear of the unknown. And when a catalyst arrives to add extreme negativity to the perception, there is a potential for catastrophic misunderstanding.
I shall be looking at stereotypes about the religion itself before considering the stereotypical view of Islam as a force in society and on the world stage today. There are, of course, those in Britain, and some in Wales, who are determined to propagate a negative view of Islam. They argue that from the very outset Islam was a religion founded on war and conquest. It is arguably unfortunate in this context that Mohammed lived in a time of great social turmoil. It would have been so much more convenient, perhaps, if he had not been a military commander who fought in battle with his followers against his enemies. But the facts of his life do suggest that for a man of his time, Mohammed displayed a remarkable degree of compassion and restraint. At a time when it was commonplace to slaughter those who had been defeated in battle, Mohammed was keen to minimise casualties and was prepared to forgive those who had fought against him. He showed great respect to people of other faiths - and particularly to Christians and Jews, regarded as "People of the Book". Nevertheless, his involvement in acts of violence does make it possible for the negative stereotype to be created that Islam is essentially no more or less than a movement for war.
The historic expansion of Islam, too, was often the result of military campaigns that resulted in people of other religions being conquered. As in all wars, there are examples of atrocities that can be cited by those opposed to Islam who want to portray it as a religion of violence.
Such a view does, of course, conveniently ignore the incredible flowering of a tolerant and progressive society in Al Andalus - Spain - over several centuries. Unprecedented advances took place there in mathematics and science that were far ahead of anything achieved in Christian-ruled Europe at the time. Muslims, Christians and Jews lived in harmony while elsewhere Jews in particular were suffering persecution and murder.
For many in Christian Europe, however, the Crusades gave rise to a negative perception of Islam as the violent religion which had seized control of the Holy Land. The romantic view of the Crusaders as liberators, rather than the plunderers they were, has persisted through the centuries and coloured our judgement of Islam.
Today, in some countries where Islam is the dominant religion, the failure to allow christians to worship freely is a major contributory factor to negative perceptions of the Muslim world. Such countries appear to defy the wish of Mohammed to allow Christians and Jews to follow their religions without being persecuted or forced to convert.
A further, highly significant stereotype suggests that Islamic states are totalitarian in nature and will not tolerate behaviour that fails to conform with a rigidly imposed norm. The existence of religious police in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran lends weight to this view. Most people will have read newspaper articles or seen TV documentaries depicting life in these countries. The despotic behaviour of the religious police seems designed to intrude into every aspect of an individual's life, robbing them of any vestige of freedom he or she may once have had or dreamed of.
The treatment of homosexuals in Islamic countries is a disgrace. In the main, homosexuality is illegal and in some cases punished by death. The recent case of an Iranian gay man's fight for asylum in the UK following the execution of his partner for no other reason than his sexuality, illustrates the point adequately.
The treatment of women in Islamic societies is a further cause for concern which helps create another stereotype. Many people in Wales and Britain find it extraordinary that many Muslim women feel obliged to cover themselves with various garments so their physical features are not visible. While only a criminally minded minority would behave in an antagonistic way towards women wearing the veil - and, of course, there have been examples of such women being physically assaulted - there is a widespread perception that men are using these clothing rules to subjugate women. I recall watching BBC's Newsnight programme and seeing a particularly dogmatic Islamic activist rudely telling some Muslim women involved in the discussion that they should be wearing veils.
The idea that women need to be covered in this way in order to fend off unwelcome sexual attention from every man is insulting to men and fails to reflect the realities of life in a modern society. The stereotype extends into a consideration that Muslims are seeking to create a society within, but not of, indigenous Wales and Britain. By insisting that its female members conform to the social requirements not of Wales and Britain but of elsewhere, the Muslim community appears to be rejecting Wales and Britain, and asserting a more important connection with another continent. This leads to a further question: if the mores of the indigenous population are considered unacceptable, why do such people want to be here at all? The stereotype, therefore, is that of people who want to be in a prosperous western society, and enjoy its material benefits, while fundamentally rejecting the foundations on which that society has been built.
I am reminded of a story I wrote a couple of years ago when a group of Muslim scholars spoke at an education conference in St david's Hall, cardiff. Several days before the event, I was contacted by someone who sent me information about one of the speakers, together with various web links to videos and public statements he had made. I found some of his views shocking: he advocated the execution of apostates, those who had given up their faith, he said that the testimony of women in murder trials was not to be accepted because they were too emotional, and the only music that was permissible was the banging of a one-membraned drum. The Western Mail ran the story on the front page: the speaker, who was a doctor from India, was described as an extremist. Much to my surprise, I received some emails from Muslims informing me that the speaker concerned was not an extremist, but was in the mainstream and was much loved by the Muslim community in Cardiff.
I found it troubling that members of the Cardiff community - my community - considered it appropriate to hold such views and apparently to share them. Such opinions, of course, go against everything that a western liberal society like Wales, like Britain, stands for. Why would someone who believes that apostates should be executed want to live here - where apostasy is tolerated - anyway? And it really isn't a question of saying they shouldn't be here, as asking them why they would wish to stay somewhere whose ethos was apparently diametrically opposed to everything they believed in.
It is people like this, presumably, who would support the carrying out of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, or who would approve of the murder of the Danish cartoonist who drew the controversial cartoons depicting Mohammed. The unappealing stereotype is of a group of people who will engage in the ultimate form of bullying to get their own way: murder. It is of people who believe they have a right to ban anything that offends their sensibilities, and that their right to do so is greater than the right of those who subscribe to the Enlightenment values of freedom of speech and expression to have their say, even if some are offended.
The great Egyptian Nobel Prize winning novelist Naguib Mahfouz, who was persecuted at the end of his long life by Islamic extremists, made a telling point when he said it was more unIsalamic to commit acts of violence than to publish drawings of Mohammed.
Aspects of Sharia law - those that perpetrate acts of horrendous violence against criminals and adulterers - provide further scope for stereotyping.
But the most potent Islamic stereotype of our age is, of course, that of the Muslim as terrorist. Every time we pass through an airport security scanner, or go through a similar device to enter the Senedd, we are reminded of 9/11, of 7/7 - numbers that now act as shorthand for the most appalling terrorist outrages to hit America and Britain. Those responsible - ranging from Osama Bin Laden to Mohamed Atta to Mohammed Siddique Khan and smaller fry - all describe themselves as Muslims. The fellow travellers who appear angrily on our TV screens and in our newspapers justifying the attacks and seeking to draw in young men to their evil plans equally describe themselves as Muslims.
It doesn't matter that they represent a tiny minority of the community: those with the loudest voices invariably grab the most attention. So it is not enough for the Muslim community simply to say that those who engage in acts of terrorism are not true Muslims. It's as ineffectual a comment as to say that those Catholics and Protestants who took part in the Northern Ireland Troubles were not true Christians.
During the recent local government elections, the International Development Minister Shahid Malik visited Cardiff. I sat next to him as we had lunch in a mosque in Riverside. His two messages were that Muslims should speak out against terrorism and that they should integrate with the rest of the community. This advice, it seems to me, is thoroughly sound.
It brings me back to where I began. Negative stereotyping stems from ignorance and a failure to recognise the common humanity of other members of the community who come from different backgrounds. When you know real people who are Muslims or christians, the stereotypes tend to melt away, at least so far as those individuals are concerned. And as you get to meet more Muslims or more christians, you realise it is ridiculous to regard everyone from a particular group or particular religion as if they were the same. For that is what stereotyping is - depriving people of their individual lives and instead viewing them as part of some amorphous mass which is invariably negative. Stereotyping can so easily develop into racism - so please do your best not to indulge in it.

WHILE in Scotland, Labour has accused the SNP administration of being “all style and no substance”, a cynic in Wales might characterise the present Welsh Assembly Government as possessing no style and little substance.
At a time when most ordinary people in Wales are preoccupied with the effect of the credit crunch on their purchasing power, the impact of the Assembly Government on their lives can seem increasingly marginal.

A day trip to Auschwitz from Wales is an exhausting, harrowing, but extremely rewarding experience, as I have discovered.
Together with a number of other journalists, and some politicians, I was invited by the Holocaust Educational Trust (HET) to join its first journey to the death camps with students from Wales. There were more than 150 sixth-formers and A-level college students on the trip.

Speech given by Martin Shipton at an event in Cardiff to commemorate the murder of the Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink

On January 19 2007 Hrant Dink was shot dead as he returned to the offices of Agos, the bilingual Turkish-Armenian newspaper he edited in Istanbul. His murder was a shocking reminder of the dangers facing journalists in many countries from individuals and groups that would deny them free expression. Only months before, the Russian investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya was gunned down outside her home in Moscow.

Speech by Martin Shipton to the Wales Council of the European Movement on the media’s treatment of Europe

The relationship between the British media and Europe is a schizophrenic one. Even the most rabidly anti-European British newspapers will regularly carry features in their lifestyle pages praising various aspects pf European life and culture to the hilt. In doing so, they reflect the schizophrenia of many of their readers.

Speech given by Martin Shipton to a seminar organised by the CentreForum think tank at the National Assembly on Wednesday November 28

THIS week, on successive days, I have found myself writing two stories that illustrate very clearly how difficult it might appear to predict how the Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition will pan out.
On Sunday I spoke to Dafydd Wigley, curious to hear exactly what his position on going to the House of Lords might be, now that Plaid has abandoned its longstanding objection to sending members there.

The reaction of the two parties of government to the tough Comprehensive Spending Review settlement has been fascinating to observe. On past occasions, Labour ministers in the National Assembly have been happy to sing in chorus with Labour ministers in London about the superb rises in the Assembly block grant thanks to the excellent stewardship of public finances, and how the money would be spread across Wales to everyone's satisfaction. Meanwhile, regardless of the details of the settlement, the Plaid leadership complained unfailingly at how Wales continues to be robbed by the population-determined Barnett Formula, which takes no account of social need.

“No taxation without representation” was the battle cry of the American colonials in their struggle against the British in the 18th Century. While the circumstances are clearly a long way from 21st Century Wales, the link between taxation and representation is one that should give devolution watchers pause for thought – especially in the context of the UK Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR).
Elsewhere, in places where devolution is entrenched in the constitution and mindset of the people – in the United States, Germany and Spain, to give but three examples – different tiers of government all have the ability to raise money for themselves.