Who's got the moral highground - the nasty Tories, the nasty Lib Dems or the nasty clergy? www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/27 ... ns-3164033 Or are they all evil?

Who's got the moral highground - the nasty Tories, the nasty Lib Dems or the nasty clergy? www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/27 ... ns-3164033 Or are they all evil?

Quote ="Dally"Who's got the moral highground - the nasty Tories, the nasty Lib Dems or the nasty clergy? www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/27 ... ns-3164033 Or are they all evil?'" I am sure many Christians of various denominations take a dim view what is going on in society today. The fact their churches have burned people at the stake or sexually abused children or committed other crimes doesn't invalidate anything what this bloke said any more than the fact the British Empire did what it did invalidates your opinions just because you are British. Well that do?

Quote ="Dally"Who's got the moral highground - the nasty Tories, the nasty Lib Dems or the nasty clergy? www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/27 ... ns-3164033 Or are they all evil?'" I am sure many Christians of various denominations take a dim view what is going on in society today. The fact their churches have burned people at the stake or sexually abused children or committed other crimes doesn't invalidate anything what this bloke said any more than the fact the British Empire did what it did invalidates your opinions just because you are British. Well that do?

Quote ="Dally"Who's got the moral highground - the nasty Tories, the nasty Lib Dems or the nasty clergy? www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/27 ... ns-3164033 Or are they all evil?'" Religion has no place in politics. While I agree with them that the rich are getting richer and there are people who are struggling to survive, this doesn't mean that the government should give some free money away. There will always be people who prioritise smoking, drinking, gambling, etc over eating properly, no matter how much you give them to live on. Just because society seems to put a high value on the opinions of the clergy, doesn't mean they actually know what they are talking about. On a related note, you can tell Cameron's not going hungry in that picture!

Quote ="Dally"Who's got the moral highground - the nasty Tories, the nasty Lib Dems or the nasty clergy? www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/27 ... ns-3164033 Or are they all evil?'" Religion has no place in politics. While I agree with them that the rich are getting richer and there are people who are struggling to survive, this doesn't mean that the government should give some free money away. There will always be people who prioritise smoking, drinking, gambling, etc over eating properly, no matter how much you give them to live on. Just because society seems to put a high value on the opinions of the clergy, doesn't mean they actually know what they are talking about. On a related note, you can tell Cameron's not going hungry in that picture!

I'm going to assume that I know what Dally is getting at here – and it isn't specifically whether I (or others) agree with the church leaders who have commented.



Religious organisations have as much right to comment on any subject as any other group in society – business, financial, NGO, etc – let alone any individual.

It becomes an issue if they either try to attain their wishes by underhand means, such as using emotional blackmail.

The latter has been the case in recent years when abortion and equal adoption were being debated, and the Catholic church in the UK, together with Catholic adoption agencies, attempted just such a tactic. There were threats to excommunicate Catholic MPs who voted the 'wrong' way, for instance, plus threats of closing Catholic adoption agencies if the law was changed to allow gay couples to adopt.

In the former example, it is saying, in effect, that an individual MP must subjugate the wishes of their constituents, as perceived via any manifesto, to the private beliefs of the individual MP. That would be utterly counter to our notions of democracy.

There were accusations of a Catholic 'cabal' operating within the Labour government – some of which seems to have credence simply because there were, for instance, an awful lot of people from such a belief group having a high-profile involvement with the legislation on extreme porn, for instance. As an individual who contributed to the consultation on that legislation and attempted to get articles published on the subject, I was aware of a lot of things that were not obvious. The religiosity of the MPs sponsoring the bill was one, as was the similar religiosity of many of the senior civil servants involved – the latter information came to me courtesy of the Spanner Trust.

There were also questions over the impartiality of the likes of Opus Dei and Cabinet member Ruth Kelly in terms of what was most important to her: the will of the constituents who elected her (and the government as a whole) or her individual religious beliefs.

It seems, in this case, that such things are not occurring. As far as I know, Soon-to-be-Cardinal Vincent Nichols has not said to Iain Duncan Smith, a Catholic, that he will be excommunicated if he doesn't treat the poor more as the clergyman would like.

If he had, then much as I personally detest the liar IDS, Nichols would be bang out of order – irrespective of my own view on the subjects of welfare, austerity etc.

As to whether religion and politics should mix – well, that's remarkably similar to the views that one used to hear about sport and politics. That was often as a sideways comment on the anti-apatheid campaign, but the truth is that sport and politics have never been separate. Indeed, Rugby League fans should know all too well the involvement of politics in sport, since it was involved in the creation of the game – and the approach to it from the Establishment for a century thereafter.

Religion is no different: it has always been political and always been involved in politics.

Whether we like it or not, Thomas Mann's dictum holds true: "Everything is politics".

And in many ways, our attempts to place politics into a sphere away from other areas of life is part of the problem with the state of public discourse in the UK today.

At present, it seems that the comments from religious leaders are from those within Christian churches.

in terms of the legitimacy of their concerns, I would suggest that Christian theology is rather more closely on their side over this issue than it was over, say equal marriage or even abortion. In this case, they don't need to rely on interpreting Old Testament scripture for a view, but rather, on taking the reported comments of the man who is central to their religion, via the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes etc.

One wonders if they'll start quoting Matthew 19:24 sometime soon.

The problem for Cameron is that he has no valid response to make to accusations that some sectors of society are not coping well with unemployment, underemployment and slashing welfare payments.

The answer to the patently obvious statement "Some people in our society are starving and relying on charitable handouts to eat" is not "Well we're giving them hope" but he has nothing more to say because having painted himself into a corner where all the theories say that wealth should trickle down and everything will be ok and if you stop paying out welfare to poor people then it will force them ALL back into work such that you probably won't even need welfare payments, he can't now back out, in fact none of the political party's can because they all sing from the same songsheet.

His other problem is that he can't just come right out and say "Fook 'em, the poor starve in all sorts of other countries" so he has to appear to be connected while at the same time being totally aware that there is nothing he can do to give an instant fix, nor can he suggest that all the churches band together and run their own foodbanks for that too would be disastrous for next years poll.

So his answer is "We're giving them hope, let them eat hope" and anyone with half an ounce of sense will see that there is no answer at all to give and the churches are kicking a man who can't defend himself - about time some vicars showed their nasty side too.

Quote ="Dally"Who's got the moral highground - the nasty Tories, the nasty Lib Dems or the nasty clergy? www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/27 ... ns-3164033 Or are they all evil?'" A stopped clock is right twice a day.

Quote ="Dally"Who's got the moral highground - the nasty Tories, the nasty Lib Dems or the nasty clergy? www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/27 ... ns-3164033 Or are they all evil?'" A stopped clock is right twice a day.

The big dilemma for Cameron et al is that less than 4,000 people are actually on Universal Credit, Underoccupancy Benefit reductions are not encouraging people to move as the HA's simply don't have the stock, I doubt he cares what a bunch of Pixie Worhippers that wear frocks and have, historically, been responsible for more child abuse than any other sector of society.

Was there ever an intention to force people to move rather than simply reduce the rate of housing benefit that they receive ?

It was "sold" to us as an industry as an encouragement to make people move out of houses that are bigger than they need (we have elderly people in 3 bedroom houses who can only afford to live downstairs and heat two rooms, who would be better in other accomodation, if we had it) we now have properties with 2 bedrooms where separated couples can't take them, because both parents lose benefit because their child only spends 3 days a month with them. I don't disagree that we need to shift people around Social Housing so we're making best use, but UC/Benefit Cap/Welfare Reform is not achieving the outcomes it was supposed to, or the outcomes we where told it was meant to achieve. I had quite a public argument a fair few months ago with (Not Very Honourable) Shapps and then again (Even less Honourable and a rabbit in the headlights) Hopkins about their total lack of understanding and consultation with actual practitioners.

The Sin Bin know my base politics, but when I see what I see day to day I can say that it simply isn't working, and it's ruining lives (and destroying families)

Religions still tax exempt?

Time for more austerity me thinks.

The power of the PR Spin Doctor - at the start of this regime it was said that Ministers were sent away and told to come back with plans, any plans however extreme, to reduce their budgets, clearly the under-occupancy charge was one of these and its principal aim to cut the housing budget - you can't sell that to a public or to the printed media though but luckily in this case there was a much more compassionate-sounding side effect, "We'll release lots of larger houses because families can't get into them with pensioners blocking them", job done.

His problem with the clergy attacking poverty in the UK is that he cannot attack church leaders, or call them liars and misinformants, nor accuse them of dabbling unfairly in politics, not unless he wants to upset his own core supporters for the church of all denominations still have a firm grip on society and on government - have you ever known a PM not play along with the clergy, not attend religious functions, not bow their head to pray when a clergy tells them to - he can't attack these people and so he gives them an obtuse response "We're giving them hope" would be laughed out of The House at PMQ's.

How are you defining "politics" for the purpose of that statement?

So are you suggesting that people who hold religious beliefs should be barred from public office and disenfrachised? Religion is a way of looking at the world and the relationship between people, the world and other people. If somebody holds religious beliefs it would be very difficult if not impossible for those beliefs not to influence their political views. Therefore there is possible way to divorce religion from politics without banning people who hold religious views from participating in our democratic system.

If you believe that this should be the case, then I would like to know why the opinions of a non-religious person are inherently superior to those of a religious person? Should a person really be disenfranchised just because they oppose the killing of children or military action abroad for example. There is no evidence that the political views of the non-religious are any better than those of the religious. Monotheistic religious beliefs have led to the Inquisition, Crusades and Jihand for sure. But then atheist beliefs have led to the Holocaust, World War 2, the Great Terror, the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution.

The Nazis were not atheist – including Hitler. And anti-semitism has long had a basis in ideas of Jews as 'Christ killers' – including in pre-war Germany.

Christ the Jew, killed by Jews, surprised the Jewish are not anti semitic

Surely politics concerns citizens (ie people)? Religion is also about people and Christianity, inter alia, arguably about decency and treating fellow citizens as one would to be treated as one would like to be treated oneself? I therefore believe that the Christian clergy should "interfere in politics" indeed I would suggest they would not be acting responsibly and in a Christian way if they didn't stand up for the poor and dispossesed. They should do so more vociferously in my opinion.

One could argue that, given that the Semitic peoples are not just those descended from the Hebrew tribes, but also include those we know as the Palestinians, some are.

Hitler did not hold religious views. He despised Christianity as a Jewish faith and was a believer in astrology and to some extent witchcraft - neither of which are religious beliefs.

German anti-semitism was not based on Jews as Christ killers. It was based on race, not faith, stemming from fashionable scientific theories of social darwinism, eugenics and racial classifications. The Jews were not sent to the gas chambers because they killed Christ, they were sent because they were believed to be racially inferior and therefore a burden on and a threat to the progress of the supposed aryan master race.

I think you'll find that witchcraft has long been referred to as 'The Old Religion'.

As accurate as ever Titan?

Time you changed that to 'Nonentity'.

Witchcraft does not demonstrate a coherent belief structure, encompassing socio-political matters for the individual and society, ed around a supernatural entity. It is just mumbo jumbo nonsense for the deranged and stupid.

Unlike, say, Scientology, Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses etc.

All religion is just hokum and delusion. All of it. 100%. I am increasingly baffled how otherwise seemingly intelligent people do not see it for the mumbo jumbo nonsense it all so patently is.

You can say that because you have been brought up in a country heavily influenced by religion. You have no conception of what an irreligious society would be like. You could try North Korea - that may give you an insight.

You make it too easy.

[url=http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htmHitler the Christian[/url. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_HitlerHitler's religious views[/url. His 'rupture' with traditional, institutional Christianity is only considered to have been in about 1937, but he continued to detest atheism.



And part of the age-old basis for the hatred of Jewish people is the idea of the 'Christ killers' (which, of course, is utter sphericals, not just because Jesus himself was also a Jew, but also because, without the crucifixion, Christianity would not exist and there would be no salvation etc).

There were other aspects to the rise of anti-semitism in Germany at the time – one being a belief that it had been wealthy Jews/Zionists who had persuaded the US to enter WWI, thus changing the course of that conflict. But for many Germans within the churches etc, the traditional idea of Jewish people was an element of what allowed a belief in the legitimacy of anti-semitism.

Do you and Titan still support the idea of religion for the plebs – but not yourselves, of course?

Bull .

Edit - Just seen Mintballs reply. I think she covers it!