Church of England Rebukes Politicians

[Chinahand]

I'm far too busy to do this justice, but I am intrigued by the intervention by the Church of England into politics.

 

My view is that both parties wish to help the disadvantaged.

 

For most people saying that the Tories want to help the disadvantaged brings nothing but hoots of derision and I've been told to my face probably hundreds of times over the years how could I possibly claim to want to help those less fortunate than me and be a Conservative supporter.

 

My answer is that the conservative philosophy is teaching people to catch fish, and the socialist one is giving them fish.

 

Too many fish have been given out and there needs to be a change in how welfare and benefits are structured to ensure they help the disadvantaged and don't leave them in dependency.

 

I genuinely question if creating dependency - in my view something which has clearly happened with growing social exclusion - via a disfunctional welfare system is moral.

 

The result is that social benefits do need reform. But any attempt to do that automatically results in socialist jeers about being uncaring.

 

That to me is pretty arse about face.

 

The welfare bill and dependency/social exclusion ballooned under Blair and Brown. That's resulted in huge numbers of people left with the attitudes seen in Benefits Street etc and created the backlash against those in need by portraying them as Vickie Pollard etc.

 

I don't think creating dependency is moral and getting people to challenge themselves to be responsible for their wellbeing is a good thing.

 

Society MUST provide a safety net and help those in need.

 

But it isn't uncaring, or immoral, to question whether the current system does this well and if there are better ways to getting the disadvantaged to prosper than letting them live on benefits.

 

The trouble is in a political world based on media sound bites shouting about the uncaring Tories is such an easy path to go down it.

 

I bet you it'll be the message you'll hear again and again from Milliband and his merry band of socialists up until the election.

 

Goodness knows what politics will be like if there's a Milliband election - populist left wingery from him and more than likely a strengthened populist right with main stream Tories weakened and the UKIP end of the spectrum even more in full yell.

 

Yuck. Politics is a pretty messed up place at the moment, and I've no idea how the the Bishop's homilies are going to impact it, but I suspect Milliband is happier about their intervention than Cameron, which is a bit ironic because they are in fact bringing up his ideas of the Big Society, which he dropped as being too difficult a message to sustain.

 

 

 

 

[Isaac]

My answer is that the conservative philosophy is teaching people to catch fish, and the socialist one is giving them fish.

 

The Conservative Party does not adhere to conservative values.

 

Also, if by 'fish' you mean money, both Labour and the Conservatives support giving lots of 'fish' to the bankers, big business and the rich - far more than is given to the people at the bottom who are scapegoated for all our problems.

 

If by 'fish' you mean what the real core of what the welfare state represents, then you are right - socialists want us to pool our resources as a society and pay for state education, universal healthcare, the building of public infrastructure like roads, the emergency services, and assistance for those at the bottom who can't afford to live.

 

The Conservative Party - who do not represent real conservative values - want to dismantle it all and put everything in the hands of for profit businesses owned by them and people like them. The Conservative Party do not want to help those without fish catch fish, they want to help those with lots of fish take fish away from those who have very few fish. A case in point is the Conservative Party's promotion of flexible labour in the form of zero hour contracts. How does that help people without fish to catch fish? It does nothing of the sort. It puts more fish in the hands of those with lots of fish and less fish in the hands of those with few fish. It's all about catering to the rich.

[ballaughbiker]

You have to have fish to give away in the first place. They don't appear from nowhere and have to be earned.

 

If you naively assume that there is an endless supply of rich people with too much fish that need liberating then you are in for a big disappointment (or education depending which way you look at it).

 

Universal healthcare sounds great. Who wouldn't want everyone to have that? It costs a fortune, and always will do and needs access to it limiting to residents and removal of top heavy management to stand a chance in its present form given that demands on it have never been higher. Ever.

[pongo]

Goodness knows what politics will be like if there's a Milliband election - populist left wingery from him and more than likely a strengthened populist right with main stream Tories weakened and the UKIP end of the spectrum even more in full yell.

It will not make much difference in the big scheme and could even be less than completely negative from a Conservative perspective. The longer a govt is in office, the greater the defeat. A Labour victory in May would diminish the possibility of a near-future Labour landslide. It doesn't really matter.

 

Whilst I agree that a Labour victory will potentially strengthen the white-van right, to the detriment of patrician conservatism, equally another Conservative govt would ultimately increase the appeal of the left. Because there is not going to be much good news whoever is in government.

 

The markets and the cycles will largely determine the economy and international policy. National policy will be increasingly populist - with the detail thrashed out on Facebook by illiterate angry blokes and their tattooed missuses.

[Isaac]

You have to have fish to give away in the first place. They don't appear from nowhere and have to be earned.

 

If you naively assume that there is an endless supply of rich people with too much fish that need liberating then you are in for a big disappointment (or education depending which way you look at it).

 

Universal healthcare sounds great. Who wouldn't want everyone to have that? It costs a fortune, and always will do and needs access to it limiting to residents and removal of top heavy management to stand a chance in its present form given that demands on it have never been higher. Ever.

 

If you think all money comes from rich people and poor people just sponge of the rich, you are off your head.

 

The reality is the exact opposite in most cases - rich people sponging off the hard work of those economically lower down.

 

The welfare given to the rich (from taxpayers' pockets) is far more than anything given to the poor. Although I do agree about the NHS and its top heavy management.

[ballaughbiker]

 

 

If you think all money comes from rich people and poor people just sponge of the rich, you are off your head.

If you think for one second that's what I said, then the same would apply.

[Isaac]

If you naively assume that there is an endless supply of rich people with too much fish that need liberating

[Cronky]

I have read the report:

 

Who is my neighbour? - A Letter from the House of Bishops to the People and Parishes of the Church of England for the General Election 2015

https://www.churchofengland.org/media/2170230/whoismyneighbour-pages.pdf

 

Anyone concerned about the state of the modern 'society' that we live in should read this report. It is very well thought through, does not advocate a political position and does not support any particular policy.

 

It is about how we live as a com,unity of people and about where power should truly lie.

 

Just a few extracts:

 

 

This letter is intended to help church members and others consider the question: how can we negotiate these dangerous times to build the kind of society which many people say they want but which is not yet being expressed in the vision of any of the parties?

. . . Observers of the global scene will recognise that religion, far from withering on the vine as urbanisation, industrialisation, wealth and education increase (the theory of secularisation), has a growing public profile and cannot be ignored as a political force. Without a grasp of the power and meaning of religion, it is impossible to understand the dynamics of global politics today.

. . . The trend toward globalisation is often regarded as impossible to resist. It has brought many benefits. At the same time it has made national government more difficult, even though not all the manifestations of globalisation are inevitable, or incapable of being shaped to suit national and regional distinctiveness, as witness the differences between the politics and economies of countries with otherwise similar histories and characteristics. The problem is that no one in politics today has a convincing story about a healthy balance between national government and global economic power.

. . . In 1979, the incoming Conservative government was pledged to facilitate individual enterprise and a market freed from state interference. Just as successive administrations between 1945 and 1979, Conservative as well as Labour, tended to regard the collectivist structures introduced under Attlee as part of a strong national consensus, so different administrations since that of Margaret Thatcher have treated the market-oriented and individualistic emphasis of her governments as part of the undisputed political landscape.

We are now as distant in time from Margaret Thatcher’s first government as hers was from Attlee’s. Both administrations changed the way people looked at society, politics, the role of government and the nature of human relationships. But today, neither vision addresses our condition.

. . . The desire for neatness, as much as the desire for control, is characteristic of how politicians tend to think – especially those in government or contemplating office. They are often backed up by bureaucracies which are allergic to messiness. But human life and creativity are inherently messy and rebel against the uniformity that accompanies systemic constraints and universal solutions.

. . . Unless a political vision emerges which reaffirms the bonds which tie us together as a nation, as localities, as communities and as neighbours, we shall be left with the spectacle of politicians claiming more and more powers and yet achieving less and less that is worthwhile.

. . . When people work together within a common culture, it becomes possible to trust in their shared wisdom and to avoid assuming that everyone is a fool or a knave who must be constrained by regulations and protocols.

. . . But we also challenge the assumption that to question immigration at all must always be racist. Major trends in migration have brought about immense social changes in many parts of the country. Rapid change has often impacted most acutely on communities which are least equipped to handle it – partly because their experience has often been that change is to their detriment.

. . . Whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Philippians 4:8

 

The Church has raised the tone of the whole debate.

I can't see that politicians can object to anything in this report. First and foremost it encourages them to think more deeply about the issues.

Do we have a common culture in the Isle of Man?

 

[Donald Trumps]

Maybe, but I don't think it's much influenced by the Church of England

[dilligaf]

I have read the report:

 

Who is my neighbour? - A Letter from the House of Bishops to the People and Parishes of the Church of England for the General Election 2015

https://www.churchofengland.org/media/2170230/whoismyneighbour-pages.pdf

 

Anyone concerned about the state of the modern 'society' that we live in should read this report. It is very well thought through, does not advocate a political position and does not support any particular policy.

 

It is about how we live as a com,unity of people and about where power should truly lie.

 

Just a few extracts:

 

 

This letter is intended to help church members and others consider the question: how can we negotiate these dangerous times to build the kind of society which many people say they want but which is not yet being expressed in the vision of any of the parties?

. . . Observers of the global scene will recognise that religion, far from withering on the vine as urbanisation, industrialisation, wealth and education increase (the theory of secularisation), has a growing public profile and cannot be ignored as a political force. Without a grasp of the power and meaning of religion, it is impossible to understand the dynamics of global politics today.

. . . The trend toward globalisation is often regarded as impossible to resist. It has brought many benefits. At the same time it has made national government more difficult, even though not all the manifestations of globalisation are inevitable, or incapable of being shaped to suit national and regional distinctiveness, as witness the differences between the politics and economies of countries with otherwise similar histories and characteristics. The problem is that no one in politics today has a convincing story about a healthy balance between national government and global economic power.

. . . In 1979, the incoming Conservative government was pledged to facilitate individual enterprise and a market freed from state interference. Just as successive administrations between 1945 and 1979, Conservative as well as Labour, tended to regard the collectivist structures introduced under Attlee as part of a strong national consensus, so different administrations since that of Margaret Thatcher have treated the market-oriented and individualistic emphasis of her governments as part of the undisputed political landscape.

We are now as distant in time from Margaret Thatcher’s first government as hers was from Attlee’s. Both administrations changed the way people looked at society, politics, the role of government and the nature of human relationships. But today, neither vision addresses our condition.

. . . The desire for neatness, as much as the desire for control, is characteristic of how politicians tend to think – especially those in government or contemplating office. They are often backed up by bureaucracies which are allergic to messiness. But human life and creativity are inherently messy and rebel against the uniformity that accompanies systemic constraints and universal solutions.

. . . Unless a political vision emerges which reaffirms the bonds which tie us together as a nation, as localities, as communities and as neighbours, we shall be left with the spectacle of politicians claiming more and more powers and yet achieving less and less that is worthwhile.

. . . When people work together within a common culture, it becomes possible to trust in their shared wisdom and to avoid assuming that everyone is a fool or a knave who must be constrained by regulations and protocols.

. . . But we also challenge the assumption that to question immigration at all must always be racist. Major trends in migration have brought about immense social changes in many parts of the country. Rapid change has often impacted most acutely on communities which are least equipped to handle it – partly because their experience has often been that change is to their detriment.

. . . Whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Philippians 4:8

 

The Church has raised the tone of the whole debate.

I can't see that politicians can object to anything in this report. First and foremost it encourages them to think more deeply about the issues.

Do we have a common culture in the Isle of Man?

 

Religion as a "political force". Er. NO THANKS

[Chinahand]

Religion as a "political force". Er. NO THANKS

 

Wonder if Cronky wants something like this, shudders:

 

[Cronky]

Chinahand, instead of posting an American youtube video why don't you spend half an hour reading the C of E letter?

 

It's a very thought provoking, mature and unpatronising, piece.

 

Worthy of serious comment, I feel.

[woolley]

It is an increasingly irrelevant organisation. It is amusing how they sit full of self-importance at their synod discussing such internal trifles as homosexual clergy and the ordination of women, whilst agonising about how they can keep Anglicans from other parts of the world less susceptible to their 21st century ideas in the fold.

 

Most people don't care what they do and wouldn't notice if they disappeared. Perhaps they would have more appeal if they applied their combined wisdom to the problem of keeping Christian Europe safe from the growing power of Islamification, but there is no chance of that whatsoever. They are all fully paid up members of the blind liberal establishment.

 

I think they have nothing to say, or at least, nothing of value or relevance to society today.

[Chinahand]

Cronky I know you probably won't believe me but I'm too busy to give this any more time at the mo. In the video posted the commentator puts their religion front and centre. I've not read the original document but do ask you: what relevance does Christianity have to it? What is in it which couldn't with immaterial loss of meaning be said by a Buddhist, a secular humanist, a Jew or Muslim?

 

What makes you feel Christianity has something particular to offer politics? That Catholic gentleman clearly thinks Catholicism has a unique message to offer. Does the Christianity in your document have anything to offer?

[Cronky]

Chinahand,

 

You ask ':what relevance does Christianity have to it? What is in it which couldn't with immaterial loss of meaning be said by a Buddhist, a secular humanist, a Jew or Muslim?'

 

The concerns raised in the report are probably universal so they could certainly have been written by other faiths. See this comment in the report:

 

' . . . religious commitment is extraordinarily widespread and that people of faith within all the historic traditions have much to offer to a vision of a good society and a peaceful world.'

 

Why is it important the the report was written by the Church of England?

 

Quite simply because the Church, representing over 33 million people, is the largest group by affiliation in Britain. More people attend Church each week than belong to all the political parties combined. Thus the Church has contact with a huge swathe of the population.

 

It's surely worth putting peoples concerns into the public domain for discussion.