The Road Less Travelled
Historical Archive
This article is preserved as part of the historical record of this blog. It reflects the author's views at the time of publication. The content has not been substantively altered, although the HTML, accessibility and formatting have been updated to meet modern web standards.
At the Trinity Senatorial Hustings the Vice Dean, Rev. Houghton, was kind enough to ask a question. I felt it appropriate to answer using the Bible as the basis for my reply. There was an audible intake of breath from the parishioners, as if I had committed some great trespass. I was never afraid to question authority, however. The philosophy of the "divine right" died out in the seventeenth century; no one is born to it. I adopt an approach to people of, "you have to earn my respect". Speaking to Rev. Houghton at the end of the hustings, I must say that indeed he did.
The development of my personal morality has undergone several distinct stages; first I was told what was right and wrong, then I formulated my own moral code, then I decided that having a fixed moral code was unworkable and that each situation would have to be judged on its own merits. If you look, you will find this three-stage process of personal development is repeated in many systems. It is even reflected in the Holy Trinity itself.
This is equalled in all laws which state that you should do whatever the law says unless it is reasonable to do otherwise. You then have to convince a court that it was reasonable to do otherwise if you are called upon to justify it. But the primary decision is not whether you can convince a court—it is what you truly consider to be the reasonable course of action. At the end of the day a judge is only ever going to give an opinion and, whilst that opinion may land you in prison, it does not mean that it is correct. It is most unlikely that justice will be the pre-eminent concern in his mind.
In order to question one's own beliefs, the best place to start is by examining contrary opinions, but many simple differences have caused no end of hostility through the ages, so it is preferable to examine the basic similarities which exist in them all.
Hindus believe that existence is a cycle of birth, death and rebirth governed by karma. Buddhism teaches that the path to Enlightenment is through morality, meditation and wisdom. The Abrahamic religions are all concerned with attaining heaven. There is a common thread of self-improvement and the attainment of perfection running through them all once you strip away the decoration, mysticism and magic.
The other common thread is that suffering is the path to enlightenment, that pain is a great teacher and necessity is the mother of invention. This is my fundamental issue with the welfare state. When everything is handed to you on a plate, where is the drive to self-improvement? To my mind it is the mud that clogs the lotus blossom of a soul and prevents it flowering.
The question Rev. Houghton asked was whether the candidates believed Jersey should increase its overseas aid as a proportion of its GNI. Whilst other candidates either thought it should if money allowed or thought it should not, my answer was that charity is only charity if done privately, as Jesus taught. It was wrong for the government to take my money so that it could make a show of being generous at my expense. In any case, how were these countries ever going to learn to stop wasting their money on guns and concentrate on improving the lives of their people when they knew that they were going to receive continuing handouts from other countries?
Historical Archive Update
This page was updated on 27 July 2026. The content has been preserved as originally published. This update was undertaken solely to modernise the HTML markup, improve accessibility, correct obvious spelling mistakes and grammatical slips, update obsolete links where appropriate, and bring the page into line with current web standards.
Was that only a part of the Rev's question ? Didn't he also ask about Vulture funds using the Jersey courts to plunder third world debts?
ReplyDeleteWhat did/do you think about this activity and the harm that this does to the very same countries that need Jersey's help - though not apparently according to you here. I seem to remember that all the candidates condemned Vulture funds and most wanted them outlawed. Obviously not the view of those Jersey lawyers who cash in and earn huge funds in these cases -as do no doubt the Jersey courts. Strangely even the ex bailiff Bailhache was keen to condemn the whole business though I never heard him make any such noises when he wore the read robe. Perhaps his colours will change as CM - how about your's now that you are not seeking votes?
He did indeed ask about vulture funds and I was fifth to answer but the first to actually know what they do and how they operate. My answer was that they are immoral, and I believe every subsequent candidate agreed with me.
ReplyDeleteThese country's need to help themselves by spending no more than they earn, investing in their infrastructure rather than corruption and weapons.
If they did not borrow money there would be no vulture funds.
That said it is clear from the past few years that allowing the sale of 'debt' derivatives has caused no end of problem, we then need to consider the morality of usuary in the first place.
Usuary is forbidden by all the Abrahamic religions (yes even in Judaism it is forbidden between Jews) so why do Christian countries allow it? Why do the British encourage people to take on a lifetime of debt to purchase a house?
Gold is the currency of kings, silver the currency of gentlemen, barter the currency of free men and debt the currency of slaves.