Options
Tory fury as Church of England releases "left wing" election shopping list
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2957106/Church-England-takes-Russell-Brand-election-boycot-call-shocked-profound-effect-young-voters.html
Good for the church. Attacking the most vulnerable in society isn't very Christian-like! I'm not religious myself but glad to see them speaking out about the increasing inequality and problems this society is facing. The way the disabled and poor have been treated by the coalition just isn't right and yet they still want to go further.
Good for the church. Attacking the most vulnerable in society isn't very Christian-like! I'm not religious myself but glad to see them speaking out about the increasing inequality and problems this society is facing. The way the disabled and poor have been treated by the coalition just isn't right and yet they still want to go further.
0
Comments
However, I agree with Cameron that the Bishops have every right to say what they want. If businesses want to wade into political debate, there should be no objection to the Church doing so too. But, being an age-old cynic, part of me thinks they're probably on a recruitment drive. After all, they're a business like any other.
Edit: Well, not quite like any other. They don't pay tax. Stick them in there with Amazon, Starbucks etc.
If I decide to stop a standing order to a charity, I don't think of it as an attack on the poor.
When a government realises that it cannot go on borrowing money to give it away in welfare payments, that is not an "attack" on the most vulnerable people. If the government runs out of money altogether, who will suffer then?
It isn't. Mad Nad has let rip. The Church are a bunch of left-leaning do-gooders. Nobody likes Russell Brand - it absolutely does not qualify as news.
I agree, the church is an irrelevancy these days except for the charitable work they do.
Well saying the biggest increase of people needing to claim benefits are from working people that shows the balance of things is no longer there. And saying nearly all benefits are means tested that also shows big problems there are now more working people needing to claim benefits than job seekers
I dont know he did help these people, http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEcQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fpeople%2Frussell-brand-saves-93-families-from-eviction-with-downing-street-campaign-i-dont-think-wed-be-here-now-without-his-support-9938771.html&ei=EInjVJy4J8LC7Ab664C4Aw&usg=AFQjCNFve9IhK_biwHb3cMShY6saN0O7Tg&bvm=bv.85970519,d.ZGU&cad=rja Russell Brand hailed by New Era estate protest that saved 93 families from eviction: 'I don't think we'd be here now without his support'
Fair enough - thanks for putting me right.
So not irrelevant at all, then but, rather, an important and relevant fabric to our society.
I have yet to see an atheist organisation doing such work.
They shouldn't be in the House of Lords. And I can't take their moralising seriously when I think of the appalling homophobic comments coming from them during the gay marriage debate.
Why would there be an atheist organisation? Atheism is a lack of belief. There is no agenda or belief to push. I'm pretty sure you'll find plenty of atheists working in non religious charities and quite a few in religious ones too.
Bit of a sad state of affairs when humanity and common decency are "left-wing anti-tory" spoutings. Other than the dig at Thatcher characteristics all the points made by the church should be the "centre ground" so almost non-political. But since Blair mistakenly joined the Labour Party with his Thatcherite views on life and shifted the whole of british politics further right these fairly normal views from the church are now left-wing.
You do know what the word 'except' means in the context of that sentence?
https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/humanism-today/humanists-doing/good-causes-and-charities/
Or the constant stream of sex crimes committed by their preachers.
Perhaps you can't but I would imagine millions would.
Nope... their position in the HoL should be proportional to the number of votes they get in an election to the HoL, that is all. No unelected person should have power in Westminster.
If they don't want to field candidates, that's their problem.
They can say what they want... but they do not warrant power any more than any other unelected body.
its gone to pot, judging from this. since the congregations literally died out, and the bishops started believing in socialism and being trendy, multidenominational, and PC, rather than their own religion. If you have a smaller church - and it draws its parishioners, and clergy, from a smaller and smaller base, it will end up reflecting narrower views. The comparison is with the church of the 60s-80s which was broader based, and had bishops who had lived through the war in their formative years - rather than been demonstrators and supporters of the perpetually striking miners and CND unilateralists in the 70s and 80s.
You would expect the church to argue for the poor - but not for the old far left fanatasies that the church had the sense to argue against in the past - like throwing money at anyone who claimed to be poor, pacifism and unilateralism. This reads more like the militant tendency at prayer, than the C of E.
Given 60% of its income comes from gift aid maybe it's time that tax avoidance loop hole was closed and maybe with a Cathedral tax on top the government could shake a bit of the wonga free to fund some of their shopping list.
There are humanist and secular societies.
So basically, you don't want a House of Lords