President Obama should listen to US and UK public: don’t strike Syria | Mark Weisbrot
There was a article in today’s Guardian newspaper which quote a report from the Church of England which states that, in relation to gay marriage which states that
“Marriage benefits society in many ways, not only by promoting mutuality and fidelity, but also by acknowledging an underlying biological complementarity which, for many, includes the possibility of procreation.”
So, does the CofE think that gay people cannot be faithful? Also, what of those couples who are unable to have children, yet can remain faithful (just like a gay couple) can they not marry?
While I understand that any church or religion can essentially have its own laws and rules, I just don’t understand why it is a big issue. And I’m not having a go at the CofE! The Catholics are just as bad!
I mean, if you have a church, whose central pillar, the big thing they are into, or at least say they are into, is love, why wouldn’t you want to fill your church with love? And by that I don’t mean what people get up to in their bedrooms, as long as everyone is a consenting adult, that is no ones business but those involved in it. By love I mean, the love for your neighbour, respect for someone’s life and well being. You don’t have to agree with every aspect of a persons life. You just have to have respect. And at the minute, it seems to me like the major christian faiths no no have respect.
I don’t really have a lot to say, which I suppose begs the question why I am writing here then? And that’s a fair enough question. And I guess an honest answer is that I am waiting for my dinner to be ready, and it was either write something here, or watch porn. So, here I am!
There has been a lot going on in the world over the last few days, hasn’t there? It seemed like the leaders of the EU or, as you always hear it called on the news, the Eurozone, had finally started on the path of fixing the Eurozones problems. There would be a 50% reduction in the debt that Greece owed, as well as increase in the rescue funds. Everything seemed to be coming right …the all-powerful markets seemed happy with the deal etc. But then, the Greek PM George Papandreou said he wanted a referendum on the deal. To see if the Greek people wanted to accept it or not (which seemed like he wanted to pass the problem on to other people). And this threw a royal spanner in the works. Now, I will admit that I am not totally up to date with EU politics, but the day after the deal was announced, I heard a former Greek minister on RTÉ radio saying that it was shameful that the Greek people would get this deal. He said that they should honour their original agreements, and NOT get a reduction in their debt, because he said that the Greek people had done nothing to try to limit their exposure. If fact, he said that in the two years (I think it was 2 years anyway) since the Greek people needed a bailout, the IMP and EU had been asking them to introduce ways to get the debt levels down, which would allow them to reduce the money the needed to borrow. What did Greece do? They actually INCREASED their borrowing.
Who does that? It seems that Greece decided that they were in a load of debt, that they EU couldn’t let them default, so they were going to get them selves a better deal. SO, when I heard of this referendum, I wondered was this another ploy. But, it seems if it was, it has backfired. Mr Papandreou, it seems has now decided to scrap referendum plans. But it also seems that he will be out of a job before long. Which maybe suits him fine. Because it seems that he could fall in a vote of confidence tomorrow.
But I just can’t get over the craziness of what he did! I mean, he was handed a load more money, and getting his debt reduced by 50%, and all for problems they created themselves!! I don’t see any bank saying to their customers …”Oh yea, all your debt you built up yourself, sure here, only pay back 50%”. But no, it seems like he was holding out for more.
(Written after initial writing: This is kinda all over the show, and mightn’t make much sense!)
There has been a lot in the news over the past week or two about St. Paul’s Cathedral and the Occupy London Stock Exchange movement. But is the Church right to try to move the protesters on? Or, should the be on the side of a peaceful protest, especially when that protest, while somewhat unorganised, is a protest that wants change, wants to make a better world for all people. Can the Church really be against this?
Well, it seems St. Paul’s Cathedral is. They have taken legal action (or, advise at the very least) to try to get the protesters moved.
When the protesters first arrived at St. Paul’s, after being moved from the LSE (I may be incorrect on them been moved from the LSE, but I don’t think I am, maybe someone can let me know). St. Paul’s has had a history of free speech, a history which is now in tatters. According to its own website (as quoted by The Guardian) says the churchyard
where generations of Londoners played their role in fomenting public opinion and the preaching of the Christian faith.
And this stretches back to the 12th century! So, it wasn’t maybe a great shock when the protesters arrived there, and the Canon Giles Fraser said
People have a right to protest and I’m very happy that people have that right to protest. People have generally been respectful and I have asked the police to leave, they are going to be doing so in a second. It seems to me that all is well and calm.
I’ve seen what is going on and it seems to be that there doesn’t need police force in the numbers that there have been, so I have asked them to move and they have done.
As quotes on the Liberal Conspiracy website.
But then, things seemed to go in a different direction, and there was talk of action by the Church to get the protesters moved. As that talk seemed to gather pace, the news came that Canon Giles Fraser has resigned. He resigned in protest at plans to forcibly remove the protesters from the churchyard saying that he could not support the prospect of
violence in the name of the church.
As quotes in The Guardian.
I think you have to take your hat off to this man! I imagine he was under a large amount of pressure to get the protesters moved. But I am sure he sees his churches role in society is to stand with peaceful protest, protest which wants essentially equality in today’s society. But it seems the people who run St. Paul’s are more interested in the loss of income that has resulted in its closure. More interested in, as some sources have hinted, but I am not so sure …more interested in Health & Safety. If it was health & Safety they were concerned about, they would have invited the protesters into the church, gave them shelter, food, warmth. Isn’t that what the church …any church is meant to do? But no, St. Paul’s seem to be, for whatever reason, on the side of the ‘powers-that-be’.
There is a number of issues here. One has been talked about — mainly how St. Paul’s has thrown away its history. The other is the independence of The Church. Now, I do not think that they have been influenced by the government or anything like that. But they can not consider themselves to be an independent organisation (as much as they every where), or on the side of the righteous and the just, when they are worried about the fall out of protesters on their door steps. And it is shameful when they try to say that their concerns are about the wellbeing of the protests (i.e. Health & Safety regulations).
But, not all Christian groups are as narrow minded as those running St. Paul’s. It was interesting to note today that other groups are talking about a ‘ring of prayer’ around the protesters. As stated here
Christian groups have drawn up plans to protect protesters by forming a ring of prayer around the camp outside St Paul’s Cathedral, should an attempt be made to forcibly remove them.
I think this is an amazing idea. And it gives me a bit of faith in the essential decency people.
People should have the right to protest. It is as simple as that. Be that a protest of one, or a protest of millions. If we are stripped of that right, I think we have lost everything. And I do believe that St. Paul’s pushing for the OccupyLSX movement to leave will only do real damage to the right to protest in this country. I mean, you don’t expect the government to be on your side (if they were, you probably wouldn’t need to protest). But then the people who profess to be on your side, or hold the ideals you hold, sell you out, where can you go from there?
We are slowly ,moving to a place where yes, you have the right to protest, but it is such a sterile, muted protest that it can have not affect whatsoever. Your protest has to be X miles from the thing you’re protesting, so as not to offend anyone, and because of damned H&S regulations.
The nanny state is in control.
We are a free people, or so they tell us. But sometimes it seems like we are as free as sheep.
Protest is bad. Standing up, and standing out is bad. You can’t have individual thought. No, just go back to watching crap TV. Everything is okay. Everything is fine, your government is in control. Relax. Have another beer. Drinks only £1.
But everything isn’t okay. Far from it. People are starving, kids are starving. Families are being kicked out of their homes because they are having problems paying their mortgage because one (maybe both) adults have lost their jobs, through not fault of their own. Yet, the bankers in the bank that is kicking the out …making them homeless …are getting pay increases. Now, I am not saying that those people don’t deserve their increase, maybe they have worked really hard. And it isn’t them who is kicking the family onto the street, but there needs to be a fairer system. We need to actually look after the people in our society who need looking after, not just talk about looking after them. We actually need to do it. If I was in a job where I was earning £150,000 a year, go ahead, take 50% in tax, that is fine. I am earning more, I should be expected to pay more. And the person on minimum wage shouldn’t have to pay taxes.Because you know what, if I cannot live on £75,000 a year, there is something wrong with me. I am the problem. Not the person on minimum wage.
What a nice world that would be. A world were everyone looked out for everyone. Even of you didn’t know them. Especially if you didn’t know them. A world were the main currency was love and respect.
I was reading in the paper today (The Guardian) an article entitled ‘Cameron defends deficit plans as IMF chief gives qualified support’. So, in this article, Christine Lagarde, the MD of the IMF commented on the UKs fiscal deficit reductions plans, saying
The policy stance remains appropriate, but the heightened risk means a heightened readiness to respond, particularly if it looks like the economy is headed for a prolonged period of weak growth and high unemployment.
Reasonable words you might think. No one can tell the future, and is something changes, such as the economy going south, you would feel that the people in charge would want to change approach to deal with that situation. Here is what George Osborne, the UK chancellor said
Britain will stick to the deficit plan we have set out. It is the rock of stability upon which our recovery is built.
So, basically good old George is saying that, no matter what happens in the economy, he will not change their plans to deal with it. Now, maybe it is just me, but that seems silly. If, at home, I get an unexpected bill in, it will mean I won’t be able to get that X thing I wanted. But this train of thought doesn’t seem to have reached Downing Street.
This worries me for the future of the economy in the UK.
I have just woke up, and I am still a bit tired, but feeling better. I didn’t think that over-night was ever going to end. But (of course) it did. I got home just after 7am, and now it is around 1pm, so I didn’t do too bad on the sleep front!
When I woke up, I put on the BBC News and I seen that the Phone Hacking Scandal committee was back in. I know the Phone Hacking Scandal isn’t the correct name for it, I think it is something along the lines of the Sports, Culture and Media committee investigation into wrong doings at News International.
I am just getting into this at the minute, but the two men who are being questioned (Myler and Crone, Mayler was a former editor, and I think Crone was a lawyer for News Of The World) and they both seem to be saying that James Murdoch knew full well that there was phone hacking going on at NOTW, and it extended beyond just one rogue reporter.
I think now one believed that it was just one rogue reporter. And for NOTW and James Murdoch to try to keep pushing that idea was just silly. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. I will be very shocked if james Murdoch isn’t called back in front of the committee.