Tuesday, 23 March 2010
Posted using ShareThis
I answered the questions and this was my result: D = 8, C = 5, B = 3 & A = 8
I guess Humanist viewpoint is not for me but we do come to an agreement on some very major points.
Of course the BIG difference is a belief in God.
However, if Christians and Humanists were to join forces to fight those agreed problems, or evils if you like, then imagine how much could be achieved. I kinda like to think of myself as a Christian Humanitarian along the lines of Dorothy B Sayers maybe.
Much is always made about difference, but so much really could be achieved for humanity and OUR planets other life forms!
I know as long as Christians pretend to be doing God's work by being ignorant and bigoted, by lack of intellect and scientific knowledge, by looking back to a non-existent 'hey day' then the Christian voice will be one of shrill and indifference and intolerance and down right stupidity.
And as long as Humanists use the same shrill voice then it will like two good people refusing to help a drowning man - one won't help if the other one does - because they are arguing about which one has the right to save the drowning, if not by now drowned, man. Shalom.
The election is coming, the election is coming, what can we do, sleaze and fraud is committed by all!
The right to be different is not on the cards as extreme views of hatred would send those who are different up onto Mars.
The country is trying the best that it can as workers are made jobless to carry the can for incompetent mangers and greedy self-satisfied management man.
The fascists are rousing the dogs from their sleep, the fanatics of religious thought strut down their streets – encouraging ignorance and bigotry too, to be spread not just in England, but in other countries too.
The choices are stark and none can claim truth, but where is the honesty fuelled from our youth? The past is our history, lets lets learn from it please, stop going in circles like the winds and the breeze.
We need to be bold we need to be true, we need to face seriously by whom we are ruled.
‘Tis no time for timid abstain, or petty ignorance, from wherever it came, ‘tis the time to say, in an old Jewish vey, Enough Already, Enough We Say!
Jan Noelle PP.
Sunday, 14 March 2010
"Vote for what you believe in… or you will wake up on May 7th facing another five years of more of the same.” Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg.
I agree, now is the time to vote, not for what your family voted for in the past or what your best mates voted for so you don't seem like the odd one out. If you are British and are fed up of Labour or the Conservatives taking your vote for granted then take a look at the political policies and see where you really stand.
I'm not advocating that you must vote Liberal Democrat, but it is time for the British voters to take a stance in their choice of voting. It does not have to be a two party rat race! Close vote results would be a good thing, especially if everybody voted what they BELIEVED in. Party politics has been the safety net of the Labour and Conservative Party. Time to take away their safety net. Just a thought.
The Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg says there are 4 steps to a fairer Britain:
- Fair taxes
- A new, fair start for all children at school
- A rebalanced, fair and green economy
- And clean, open, fair politics.
One of the biggest changes we offer is to your tax bill. My philosophy on tax is simple. A fair tax system is one that rewards hard work, enterprise and initiative.
3.6 million people will be freed from paying tax altogether; no-one will pay tax on the first £10,000 they earn. Tens of millions more on low and middle incomes will get a tax cut of £700 back in their pockets. A real change to deliver lasting tax fairness for everyone.
Children at school
New investment in our schools. We’ll be putting more money, £2.5 billion every year, into schools to pay for more teachers, better discipline and catch-up classes. An average primary school could cut class sizes to just 20, ensuring children starting out at school have the personal, nurturing relationship with their teacher they need. An average secondary school could put the money into catch-up classes for 160 pupils. Making sure no child is ever left behind.
A rebalanced economy
We cannot have a new kind of growth with the old kind of banks. It is time to break them up. Bring back competition. Bring back diversity. Bring back building societies.
And until we do it we should insist that banks pay a premium on their profits to the taxpayers who have bailed them out. We will separate low risk utility banking from high risk investment finance once and for all. So banks never again take insane risks which jeopardise your everyday savings.
Reforming the banks should not be an act of retribution. It is about getting money flowing to the thousands of businesses starved of credit today. Without support from banks, companies go bust, and the jobless remain without hope.
When we bailed out the banks: Did you ever imagine your money would be used to put British people out of work? Only Liberal Democrats say: never again.
Britain used to lead the world. We built ships. We designed railways. We laid the first telegraph cables across the oceans. This is the nation of Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone. Of Isaac Newton, who made modern science possible. Of Isambard Kingdom Brunel, the greatest civil engineer in history.
We have to harness that inventive spirit once again. We have been blinded for too long by the glitz of the financial services sector. Blinded to the real, solid virtue of making things. It has to change. Under the Liberal Democrats, it will change. No longer just betting on things. We will start Britain building things again. That is change that works for you.
It is just plain wrong that a government elected by the votes of just 22% of people can rule however it likes. It is just plain wrong that a government can commit us to an illegal war against the will of the people. It is just plain wrong that some MPs were so out of touch with the basic principles of right and wrong that they thought it was ok to do up house after house at taxpayers’ expense, flip them and flog them off for a profit.
Thanks to the Liberal Democrat website above for the information.
I used to vote for the same political party as my parents, who in turn had voted for who their parents voted for. They were working class so they voted Labour, because then the Labour Party was seen as a socialist party, and socialism was seen to benefit the working class. The consensus governments made sure that the reality of political party ideology were not poles apart. The Conservative Party under Margaret Thatcher and the New Labour Party under Tony Blair have sought to marginalise consensus politics, but in truth consensus, albeit not a paternalist liberal and conservative consensus, is still there, otherwise there would be a huge political difference between the two parties.
The Liberal Democrats have come into the forefront now with political strategies that are more akin to liberal policies of old. Not exactly the same of course. Liberal came to mean middle of the road. But actually that was a source of misinformation and caricature put forward by Labour and Conservative supporters, including the press who had their own agendas to encourage Labour or Conservative popularity, in order to promote their papers. It did not help that the Liberal Party lost it’s way, becoming the Liberal Democrats and failed to elect or to find a contemporary leader with the same political clout as Thatcher and Blair. Has Nick Clegg got this ‘political clout’?
Past Liberal leaders of note as well as Liberal Democrat Leaders:
1865 William (Ewart) Gladstone (29/12/1809 – 10/05/1898): Liberal father figure and a passionate campaigner for reform, Irish Home Rule and ethical foreign policy.
1908 Herbert Henry Asquith (12/09/1852 – 15/02/1928)
Asquith now took on the House of Lords, which often blocked reforming Liberal bills, preventing them becoming law. He
He introduced the Parliament Bill, which stripped the Lords of any veto over money bills or public legislation. The Bill became law in 1911. The Lords were forced into passing the bill by the threat that hundreds of new Liberal peers would be created if they did not approve the bill.
As PM, Asquith presided over a period of national upheaval, with the issues of Irish Home Rule, and women's suffrage dominating the era. Asquith also brought Britain into World War One.
1926 David ‘Lloyd’ George (17/01/1863 – 25/03/1945)
Lloyd George is associated with the reforms that were seen to benefit the majority of society such as the 1908 Pensions Act and the 1911 Health Insurance Act. He also implemented the Parliament Act of 1911 whereby the House of Lords had there power cut so that they only had the power to delay any act passed by the Commons - the Lords could reject a passed act by the Commons three times, but after this it became law.
1956 ‘Joe’ (Joseph) Grimond (29/07/1913 – 24/10/1993)
1967 ‘Jeremy’ (John Jeremy) Thorpe (29/04/1929 - )
1976 David (Martin Scott) Steel (31/03/1938 - )
1988 ‘Paddy’ (Jeremy John Durham) Ashdown (27/02/1941 - )
1999 Charles Peter Kennedy (25/11/1959 - )
2006 Walter Menzies Campbell (22/05/1941 - )
2007 ‘Nick’ (Nicholas William Peter Clegg) (07/01/1967 – )
With thanks to: http://www.election.demon.co.uk/libleaders.html
Saturday, 6 March 2010
So here we go again! The Pope criticises the Equality Bill. Well bless him, he is entitled to his own opinion. Trouble is he is the infallible leader of the Roman Catholic Church so what he says as Pope, Father, has to be obeyed by his children. However, as he has said, he had to belong to the Hitler Youth as a fourteen year old otherwise he could not have continued with his seminary studies, but he did not believe in it or obey it’s doctrine. I guess many Catholics live their Catholicism the same way – in spite of the Papal shenanigans - they live their life through their Christian belief. The Pope may have decided that Nazism was wrong but not totalitarian in and of itself. After all the Pope rules right? See links for info:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/feb/01/religion-catholicism & http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/11170 & http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/feb/01/religion-catholicism See this link for info. on the Pope and Hitler Youth Sieg Heil!
The Pope would sign away Jewish, Muslim, Atheist as well as LBGT rights if he could, and find a way of saying that it was all to do with ‘Natural Law’, heterosexual versus homosexual, you should only have sex to produce babies, and of course only through church ordained wedlock, and through the implication of the Scriptures; God hates everyone but the Catholics. and only those Catholics that obey the Pope, which they should be doing anyway, right? I’m with Richard Dawkin here, though he was talking about the sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, the last part of Dawkin’s comment is worth thinking about as I believe there is no excuse for ignorance and stupidity and the abolition of human equality rights in the name of ones faith or belief: "Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place." Faith without reason is faith with no meaning. I understand though that for many reasons men and women, Christian or not, cannot understand homosexuality and through their reasoning and or faith believe it should be banned; as it was in the UK before 1967* and as it is in some countries where it is not only a criminal, never mind religious, offense but the penalty could be death.
No doubt there will be more on this issue as time moves on which is why I believe the State should be separate from the Church, or any religious faction. Someone once asked, in an American situation, would an atheist (as if an atheist is automatically liberal as well as secular minded) be elected President (and in the UK an overt atheist Prime Minister)? If an atheist was a good and responsible politician that could run the country, with the help from the other elected delegates (ministers of parliament in the UK) of course, then I would vote for an atheist - just because someone is Christian politician does not mean that they are a good politician.
This bring me to Premier Christian Radio’s petition to ask Christians to say they will, “Promise to vote in the upcoming 2010 General election using their Christian conscience to decide which party to support”, and that as Christians, they will be "voting on matters of national importance to create a stronger and better country that reflects Christian values”. What party are 'Christians'* going to vote for I wonder? There is no one particular political party with one sided Christian values. Most people vote with their conscience, for good or for bad, for a whole array of reasons and principles. I for one however, would not like to revert back to theocratic rule. Ever. I would have been burned as a witch or a heretic, or a Protestant under Catholic rule, or a Catholic under Protestant rule, or a Jew by both!, depending as to which family I was born into. And as for being gay – shesh…
*The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Geoffrey Fisher, supported the 1957 Wolfenden report’s recommendation to decriminalise male homosexuality. Thanks to Queen Victoria there was never a law against lesbianism, so there was not a law to repeal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/4/newsid_3007000/3007686.stm
**There are many Christian denominations and organisations that differ with the main stream and orthodox view of Christian ‘ethics and moral’ teaching on a number of national issues such as the ethics of war, homosexual relationships, sex before marriage, abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty and prison and police reform.