Should religion and politics be separate?

First topic message reminder :

I see that Cameron is working his way through the ‘Thatcher Handbook On How To Be An Evil Prime Minister’. He’s already read the pages about making anti-immigrant noises before an election, smear all trade unionists, demonise public sector workers and pretend to be standing up for Britain in Europe (in his case, by walking away from discussions having achieved nothing). The next page in the book is about religion.

The old witch played her part by making a speech in a church in which she claimed that “the important thing about the Good Samaritan wasn’t that he was good, it was that he had money”. Now it’s Cameron turn. Religion is a wonderful thing for a politician who dares to use it, since it’s the best form of social control ever invented. It conditions its adherents to be docile and conformist to authority, and to accept as “God’s will” whatever shyte politicians such as Cameron throw at them. For Cameron to claim to be a Christian, when his vile government is pursuing policies which do anything but “love thy neighbour”, is simply gross hypocrisy.

Cameron provoked this reaction from Terry Sanderson, the President of the National Secular Society: “His promotion of faith for other people when his own is so wishy-washy is typical of a politician who thinks religion is a useful means of social control. But you cannot force people to believe what they have reasoned to be untrue. Nor will they be convinced that religion is the only route to morality. The daily headlines from around the world have shown that religion can be a thousand times more destructive than any rioter in Tottenham. The British Social Attitudes Survey published last week showed that 65% of young people in Britain don't have a religion - and they aren't going to be forced to have one. The report ended with a warning to politicians that trying to use religion as a political tool would likely damage them at the ballot box. It seems the Prime Minister is going to learn that lesson the hard way."

Cameron has been promoted way above his abilities because he's rich and because of his royal connections. So it’s only to be expected that his inherent stupidity will surface quite frequently. In this instance, as Richard Dawkins has pointed out: “Cameron has fallen into a trap, as on the one hand he’s saying we’re a Christian country, but on the other he’s saying we’re in a terrible moral state. It seems like a paradox”.

Andrew Copson of the British Humanist Association commented: "As a simple factual statement, what Cameron said is incorrect - only a minority of people in Britain are practising Christians and over half of the population sees itself as non-religious, according to the latest British Social Attitudes survey. All the evidence is that religion makes no difference in terms of a person's social and moral behaviour.” As our new member Hermes remarked on another forum: “If you need a book to tell you right from wrong then you have problems."

I had an interesting discussion with my dad the other day about food banks and the amount of very poor/homeless people in Britain. He commented that you don't often see or hear of religious organisations getting involved in helping people in the news instead you hear more about how the churches (all denominations) are chipping in about how issues such as gay marriage are eroding the fabric of our society.

I would say I'm inclined to agree with him. I feel the Salvation Army do a lot of good with the homeless but their stance on homosexuality and publising that stance in the way that they do when they run youth groups is wrong. However, as an atheist and a lesbian perhaps I'm biased.

I'm curious what other people think about this?

There is a truism I often say to the right-wing religious zealots here in America:

One cannot have freedom OF religion without having freedom FROM religion. This is the number one reason why politics and religion MUST remain separate. Religion, by its very nature, is authoritarian and fascistic.  Those "ideals" are always transferred from the church to the courthouse in the form of laws. Religious crackpots here in the US tirelessly work to ban books from public libraries or to take programs and adverts off the air, etc. More to the point, both Islam and Christianity have divine mandates to conquer the world with their religious slavery. Therefore, if religion and politics were to freely mix, freedom would slowly disappear in favor of theocratic authoritarianism with the clergy ascending to aristocratic or royal status. Science, on the other hand, would descend into another dark age.

I know here, the push against homosexuality has reached absurd levels. To me, though, this is less about religion and more about using religion to justify preconceived intolerance and bigotry. The fact that these loons are plucking one or two specific verses from the Old Testament and demanding everyone (including non-Christians) adhere to them only emphasizes the point I made in the paragraph above. Without a separation of church and state, these kinds of discriminatory and fascistic laws would become commonplace -- something akin to Hitler stripping away German citizenship from Jews. In the same vein as Hitler, Christians are not afraid of passing laws that encourage, even glorify, intolerance and bigotry. After all, the same book of the Bible goes on quite a tear about adultery, but you do not see laws being passed that curtail the rights of adulterers. Why is that, I wonder? The simple answer is that the Christian hatred of homosexuality is nothing more than organized bigotry, a tool by which bigots can come together and launch into tirades about how they ... errr, I mean ... how GOD hates homosexuality. God is nothing but hatred via proxy since the REAL hatred is coming from the Christians themselves.

Tashski wrote:I feel the Salvation Army do a lot of good with the homeless but their stance on homosexuality and publising that stance in the way that they do when they run youth groups is wrong. However, as an atheist and a lesbian perhaps I'm biased.

I've always had a bit of time for the Sally Bashers on the basis that they at least seem to go out into the community and try and help people who need it, i.e. the homeless etc. I wasn't really aware of an overt campaign against homosexuality though and I find it a bit disappointing to hear about that.

Completely agree with your points Shirina. As an atheist I don't hate religion or religious people per se I just disagree with most of their views. Some religious figures seems to want to pick and choose what parts of the bible are relevant and important. For example, Leviticus is the most oft quoted on the problem of gays but the same book also lists over eating, eating the meat of a hoofed animal and wearing non-natural fibres as sins. But strangely these 'sins' are magically swept under the carpet and conveniently 'forgotten'. In the bible the Devil quote scripture but leaves out certain points to emphasise his point and he is corrected (if I remember rightly, by Jesus)...this is what religious people are most guilty of! Can't remember any religious figure calling for laws against people who commit these sins to be brought in? Religion was used to justify slavery but now it isn't so what has changed? Has God's word or view changed since slavery? Has the bible passages changed? No. I feel that religious organisations would be better served helping out those in need rather than trying to stop everyone having equal rights. If sex was all about procreation then surely heterosexual people who sadly cannot have children should stay celibate? It's an absurd argument. It's all about bigotry, plain and simple. And there is no place for any kind of bigotry in politics.
 
Dan,
 
I had time for them too, even as an atheist. I thought they did good things for the homeless however when I read things like this I am horrified:
 
http://tgvnews.com/2013/06/salvation-army-says-gays-need-to-be-put-to-death/

http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/mYzIzFZ1QT

http://secular-europe-campaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/homophobic_salvation.png
 
The last one which is a picture was taken in the UK - did the rounds on Twitter a few weeks ago. I have even heard of stories (whether this can be substantiated or not I don't know) of the SA turning needy people away if they are gay or trans. I think that religious groups should stay away from politics and focus on serious issues affecting the communities they work in and that way their congregations might increase. Just a thought.

I find the notion of applying conditions as to whether or not to help certain people to be pretty appalling. It should be more widely reported as well.

The problem is that different countries have different religions and different politics.   I learn from the Economist this week that 58% of Republicans and 41% (I think it was) of Democrats in America believe a God created the world 10,000 years ago, and all the rest of that weird stuff, whereas in countries with a Christian tradition such nonsense disappeared long, long since.   Do their politics reflect the nonsense, or isn't it rather that they pretend to believe drivel to make money more easily amongst the other Mammon-worshipping hypocrites?   I find it an interesting question.   Certainly I have almost never been able to shift an American extremist on grounds of his alleged religion, whereas over here, with Christians, it is easy.

Have to say, my personal experience, dealing with our local Salvation Army and also growing up in a very depressed area, it's the Salvation Army that reaches out and actually engages with people in trouble, often while other denominations are having meetings about fixing the church roof.
 
In our town the Baptists do good work supporting people in need and in trouble, but they will turn people away if they find them challenging or hard to help - never heard of Salvation Army turning anyone away.
 
I notice the pieces linked to relate to the Salvation Army in America, which is of course a whole other country, where I believe some very weird religious opinions are held.

Tashski wrote:-
You don't often see or hear of religious organisations getting involved in helping people in the news

To be fair, a lot of churches in the UK are running food banks, it’s not just the Trussell Trust. I’ve heard of other churches which help the homeless. Good deeds often don’t make the news and don’t sell copies of ‘The Daily Mail’.

Shirina wrote:-
If religion and politics were to freely mix, freedom would slowly disappear in favor of theocratic authoritarianism with the clergy ascending to aristocratic or royal status

Ever since Henry VIII set up the Church of England in the 16th century, the head of state in what later became the United Kingdom has always been the head of the established church as well. Fortunately, this doesn’t present much of a problem these days, since both positions are largely titular, but it did lead to discrimination against Catholics in the 17th and 18th centuries. However, bishops still sit in the House of Lords and therefore have a minor part in our legislature even though, according to the Church of England’s own statistics, only about one million people – less than 1.6% of the population - attend its services each Sunday. It therefore has little support and should be disestablished.

http://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/facts-stats.aspx

When religion and politics have mixed, it hasn’t been a pretty picture. We can do without anything resembling Calvin’s rule in Geneva for over 20 years in the 16th century, where calling the Trinity “a three-headed monster” resulted in Michael Servetus being burnt at the stake. We also don’t need a fascist theocracy like Iran has had since 1979. In June 2012, Mohammed Morsi was narrowly voted into office in Egypt and then concentrated much power in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Whether or not it was right to remove Egypt’s first ever democratically-elected head of state is a good question. Whether there would ever have been another election if he had stayed in power is another.

So yes, the institutions of church and state need to be kept separate. However, there’s bound to be some overlap between religion and politics because both are concerned with social issues and behaviour. It’s easy to see why matters such as contraception, abortion, homosexuality and stem-cell research are at odds with some religious teachings and will provoke conflict with politicians who hold different views. As individuals, our spiritual beliefs (or lack of them) and our views on political and social issues are all part of our person and ought to be consistent. Personally, I find it hard to understand how anyone claiming to be a Christian – and believing that the second biggest requirement is to “love your neighbour as yourself” - can support the Tories, who want you to label your neighbours 'shirkers' if their curtains are drawn and they are unfortunate enough to be unemployed. How so many rabid right-wingers in the USA can claim to adhere to Christian teachings is also beyond me.

boatlady wrote:-
it's the Salvation Army that reaches out and actually engages with people in trouble

Source: 'Private Eye'

The Salvation Army's view is here:

http://news.salvationarmy.org.uk/response

"We would be extremely concerned if a person turned down a mandatory work activity placement with The Salvation Army, because of any doubts they had about the support and welcome they will receive from us and what they will be doing. We don’t want jobseekers to lose their benefits so would want to work with any individual to identify why they have reservations or problems with us, and to address them."

Ah yes, slave labor masquerading as "charity."

Once you have to work for charity it is no longer charity. It is working for food and hand-outs, which is precisely what slaves do.

Even attempting to call it "charity" is egregious, the worst kind of deception.

CAB also have individuals on JSA doing work placements - there's in fact a waiting list of people who want to come and do this in my town, as the experience is very positive and guarantees a good reference for good work. The work is interesting and helps develop administrative and 'people' skills that are transferable to a range of working environments.

I've also spoken to people doing mandatory work placements with the Salvation Army - they all say they gain a lot of psychological benefits and the perks are usually good - friendly colleagues, access to moral and practical support etc.

Like CAB, I think the Salvation Army local to me would refuse a placement to anyone who didn't actively want it. I know CAB interviews people who are coming and wouldn't have anyone doing a voluntary placement who wasn't really keen and didn't have the skills. Another aspect about people doing the work placements in 'charity' settings is that their workmates are all also working for free, which does somewhat avoid the stigma.

It's not a perfect world, and I would ideally like workfare to be stopped, but as it exists I'm glad some people get the chance to gain work experience in a more positive way, and there's little doubt that access to a positive work place experience adds to the quality of a person's life.

I guess I'd want to say, charities depend on people doing work for free - the groups with the time available for this are retired and unemployed people - it would be daft to refuse the labour of people in unemployment who are eager to do the work - charities are NOT responsible for the sanctions.

Also, another point that occurs - many charities are doing work that, in times gone by, was part of government's statutory responsibility towards vulnerable and excluded members of society - if they weren't, there would be many more unnecessary and avoidable deaths and hardship. I'm not enough of a radical to want to see that in the interest of bringing down a horrible government.
We've got lemons - I'm in favour of making lemonade

 

Cameron’s so-called ‘welfare reforms’ have provoked 27 Church of England bishops and 16 other clergymen to get involved in a political issue; they’ve written a letter accusing the Tory-led government of creating hardship and hunger. This is the most significant political move by the Church of England since its ‘Faith in the City’ report in the 1980s attacked Thatcher’s cuts in public expenditure, and it comes after Britain’s leading Catholic (now a cardinal), Vincent Nichols, described the reforms as “a disgrace”.
 
In their letter, the clergymen say: “Britain is the world’s seventh largest economy and yet people are going hungry”. It notes that 5,500 people were admitted to hospital in the UK for malnutrition last year. The letter continues: “We often hear talk of hard choices. Surely few can be harder than that faced by the tens of thousands of older people who must ‘heat or eat’ each winter, harder than those faced by families whose wages have stayed flat while food prices have gone up 30% in just five years. Yet beyond even this we must, as a society, face up to the fact that over half of people using foodbanks have been put in that situation by cut backs to and failures in the benefit system, whether it be payment delays or punitive sanctions.”
 
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/27-bishops-slam-david-camerons-3164033

It's on the whole a positive thing, in my view, that politically 'neutral' bodies like the churches are making public statements about the hardships imposed by this government's policies.

The church goers I know are by and large from a comfortable social class, and bishops and the like have a perfect opportunity to remain unaware of what happens in less prosperous parts of society. I'm very encouraged to see that an insulated body like the established churches is able to perceive and is willing to comment strongly on the deprivation suffered by many within our society. Say what we like about religion, the churches are influential and their pronouncements are heard by often the most 'conservative' elements in society.

I believe this pronouncement will have more force than several hours' polemic by the Labour party in PMQ's

I think I'm clear that you're not a tory, Heretic, but I confess I do find a problem with any suggestion that Thatcher's ideas and policies have anything positive to offer ordinary people.

As I have said elsewhere, but not necessarily recently, I am rather naive politically.
I remember Thatcher saying things like 'there is no such thing as society' 'greed is good' and proceeding with great enthusiasm to smash the unions along with the industrial infrastructure of the country, not to mention the war mongering over the Falklands. If there is a more nuanced version of events it passed me by.

I think it might add to our collective understandings if you could help to develop a more balanced view of Thatcher - because it seems clear she started the process we are currently living through

Heretic. The unions didn’t “drive the inflation rate well above 20%”. In late 1973, the Arab oil exporting countries quadrupled the price of oil, which doubled the price of petrol at the pumps almost overnight. That’s what caused the inflation of the mid 70s. Yes, the unions performed their duty of trying to protect the living standards of their members by pushing for wage increases in line with inflation, but they didn’t cause the inflation.
 
Thatcher knew a lot about chemistry and invented soft ice cream, but there’s nothing to suggest that she knew much about economics. She used to try to compare the UK economy with a household budget, which is nonsense. In its simplest form, if I run into debt I must either spend less or earn more. But if I cut back on my spending, there’s a fair chance that someone down the road will be doing well and spending more, so the effect becomes neutral. When our government cuts its expenditure, it’s doing so on behalf of 63 million people. Thatcher’s policies (especially raising VAT from 8% to 15% in one move) saw the UK inflation rate rise from 10% to 21% in her first year in office, and that was entirely her fault. She caused a recession, because her policies drastically reduced the purchasing power of most people, especially when 3.2 million people were out of work.
 
I am of the opinion that Thatcher did more long-lasting damage to this country than Hitler. She’s been out of power for over 23 years now, but the destruction of the fabric of our society which she started is still very much with us. You don’t need to look any further than the depleted housing stock, caused by her ‘Right to Buy’ bribe of council tenants:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t750-has-the-right-to-buy-and-lack-of-rent-controls-caused-most-of-the-uks-housing-problems
 
Thatcher was a dangerous ideologue who, along with her friends Pinochet and Reagan, pursued the policies of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics. If you want to know more about that, please read ‘The Shock Doctrine’ by Naomi Klein, which has been discussed here:-
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t601-the-shock-doctrine-by-naomi-klein
 
Blair may have admired Thatcher’s determination to get things done her way, but then Hitler displayed that quality as well. Unlike Ed Miliband, Blair never called himself a socialist, he came from a Tory background and I think he only joined the Labour Party because of Cherie. Some good things happened under his government, especially with regard to the vast and much needed increase in spending on health and education, but a lot of that was probably down to Brown rather than Blair. Even so, I wish all those who knock Blair because of Iraq (something which I opposed at the time) would remember to give him some credit for brokering peace in Northern Ireland.
 
Cameron wanted to be PM because he thought he’d be good at it. (He was certainly wrong on that score.) He comes from the mega-privileged class who think they were born to rule, and he even got a reference from Buck House before he went to work for the Tories. (Being descended from the bastard line of William IV, Cameron is Mrs Windsor’s fifth cousin, twice removed.) He now presides over the most right-wing government in living memory, essentially because it took over where Thatcher left off. How much of an ideologue Cameron is I wouldn’t like to guess; I don’t think he’s too worried about such things as long as he’s PM, but his cabinet is full of raving right-wing lunatics like Gove and worst of all, Duncan Smith.

Church of England - 'Tory Party at prayer'?

In the case of those such as Gove and IDS, possibly praying for absolution.

There's an interesting take on it which I read in the New Statesman just after Thatcher died:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/thatcher%E2%80%99s-greatest-legacy-rewriting-seventies

Thanks for sharing the article Dan Fante - I missed it at the time - seems sensible and balanced.

For what it's worth, Heretic, I don't regard Ivan's post as a 'hissy fit' - he was giving his considered thoughts about a historical period that is notoriously complex and capable of a range of interpretations. I seem to recall I was asking for information and views about the Thatcher era. I'd have liked your views, but you said you had nothing further to add.

I think the essence of Thatcher is that she was a controversial and divisive figure - personally, I spit on her memory, but then I come from a coal mining family and I am married to an ex steel worker. There is no doubt that the policies put in place during her tenure resulted in the dismantling of British heavy industry, which provided a livelihood for thousands of families - entire communities were destroyed.

This may have been a good thing, or inevitable - but I've never heard a convincing argument to that effect from any of her apologists.

boatlady wrote:Thanks for sharing the article Dan Fante - I missed it at the time - seems sensible and balanced.

For what it's worth, Heretic, I don't regard Ivan's post as a 'hissy fit' - he was giving his considered thoughts about a historical period that is notoriously complex and capable of a range of interpretations. I seem to recall I was asking for information and views about the Thatcher era. I'd have liked your views, but you said you had nothing further to add.

I think the essence of Thatcher is that she was a controversial and divisive figure -  personally, I spit on her memory, but then I come from a coal mining family and I am married to an ex steel worker. There is no doubt that the policies put in place during her tenure resulted in the dismantling of British heavy industry, which provided a livelihood for thousands of families - entire communities were destroyed.

This may have been a good thing, or inevitable - but I've never heard a convincing argument to that effect from any of her apologists.

Thatcher completed the work of Hitler and Shirley Williams in destroying Britain. Anyone who approves of her should be dead.

That's sort of what I think - I keep hoping someone will help me to develop a more nuanced view

boatlady wrote:That's sort of what I think - I keep hoping someone will help me to develop a more nuanced view

Like, 'but she will suffer in Hell forever'?

Heretic wrote:-
I do remember "Red Robbo" calling strikes nearly every week

Slight exaggeration there, maybe? Anyway, if you do your homework you’ll find that Derek Robinson spent much of his time attempting to prevent unofficial strikes. It speaks volumes that you mimic the right-wing tabloids by referring to him as ‘Red Robbo’. Nowadays they like to call the leader of the opposition ‘Red Ed’, but it doesn’t mean that we have to copy them.
 
You say there is “nothing you would disagree with” in the article by Kiran Moodley which Dan Fante posted. Well that tells us that during the 1970s, accidents and certified illnesses accounted for roughly 320 million lost days a year, thirty times more than those caused by industrial disputes.
 

I am here for the religion forum and the party politics is of no interest to me.

Forgive me for pointing out that it was you who latched on to something which Stox 16 posted - more than two years ago - and diverted this thread on to Thatcher. Anyone who wants to discuss her should do so here:-
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t226-thatcher-changed-britain-for-the-worse

oftenwrong wrote:-
Church of England - 'Tory Party at prayer'?

In the case of those such as Gove and IDS, possibly praying for absolution.

Iain Duncan Smith is a practising Catholic. It's the exception that proves the rule; according to recent research, Catholics tend to support Labour, while C of E worshippers are more likely to vote Tory.
 
In the 2010 general election, Muslims favoured Labour, while the Jewish vote largely went to the Tories. Hindus tended to support Labour, while Sikhs were evenly split between the two main parties. Apparently, Buddhists disproportionately voted for the Liberal Democrats.
 
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25889828

I readily admit that I'm too young to remember the details of the 70s and the disputes etc. (I was 'only' born in '74) but I wonder if there are parallels with today and the idea that the prevailing narrative takes on the form of the truth in people's minds. I.e. the unions in the 70s wrecked Britain and had to be emasculated in a similar sense to how the bloated public sector is the reason behind the economic mess of the last few years. Or, to put it another way, if you tell a lie and repeat it often enough, people will start to believe it.

Of course there must be a means of knowing what is right and what is wrong or everything would be a free for all and there would be no justice, it is only by trying [and man has not yet done so] to formulate a means of making life fair for all mankind.

The Bible gives an answer to all our problems but mankind in general is too arrogant and selfish to take note.

Politics and those involved are usually not of the calibre needed to make things better.

The high churches so far as I am concerned, with their top hats and images etc; are not true representatives of the Christian faith and they should not become involved in politics.

Heretic wrote:-
What I did was make a passing comment about Margaret Thatcher

What I did was to answer it – which is supposed to be the point of a discussion board – and I will continue to answer any posts that I want, and so can everyone else.
 

end of story…... End of story as far as I am concerned

It will be the “end of story” when the discussion fizzles out, not when you decree.
 

perhaps you could get Mr JP Cusick to comment

Will you allow that? You have a thing about him, don’t you? Why are you bringing him into this discussion? You said: “He knew nothing about religion and nothing about consistency in argument. The newcomers on the religion board know a great deal more about religion than he did and it was blatantly plain in just about every post he made.” Well, you keep telling us that you know nothing about party politics, so don’t expect your posts to have much credence with those who do. But you're still entitled to post them - and Mr Cusick is entitled to say what he likes about religion, regardless of whether or not you agree with him.
 

As for where people should post what that is up to them

No it isn't. It’s quite in order – in fact, a requirement by the site owners – that the staff try to keep threads on topic. When we want your dictums on board management we’ll let you know, but don’t hold your breath.
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/faq (user levels and groups)

Heretic wrote:-
.....what you did was to take a passing comment and turn it into a major issue.

What I did was to answer a post on this thread, I certainly wasn’t “trying to pick a fight”. If you didn’t want to discuss Thatcher, then maybe you shouldn’t have latched on to an ancient message about her. You turned this into what you call a ‘major issue’ by hurling insults around – “hissy fit”, “the problem if there is one is in your head”, “you're like a pit-bull shaking a rag doll” and “building Mount Everest out of a pimple”.
 

The point I was making was that perhaps your resident right-winger might be more willing to defend Thatcher….JP Cusick seems to be at just the right mindset to keep defending "Maggie".

You were out of order involving another member in this discussion. Mr Cusick certainly isn’t “resident” now, he hasn’t been here since 31 October because he feels he was bullied off the religion board (maybe he could have done with some of the “gentle touch” that you advocate). I’ve written to him asking him to come back, but whether he will do so remains to be seen. As he has declared himself to be a Democrat, he may or may not wish to defend Thatcher, but that’s for him to decide, not for you to suggest.
 

What was very clearly absent in your reply was any comment about what I said about "Derek Robertson, aka Red Robbo", he was a shop steward, he was a militant, his actions were reported on TV and in the press more than any other shop steward of the era, he also called a large number of strikes. This makes him him the militant shop steward known as "Red Robbo" by the media that was notorious for the number of strikes he called. All of these are facts.

The man’s name was Robinson, not Robertson. He was indeed a militant shop steward, so you wouldn’t expect right-wing tabloids to like him. As I said previously, there is evidence if you look for it (sorry, I forgot, you don’t do research before posting) that Robinson often tried to prevent unofficial strikes, but I doubt if ‘The Daily Mail’ acknowledged that. The tabloids also promoted the lie (which has now become Tory folklore) that Britain in the 70s was “the sick man of Europe”, but that doesn't make it a fact.
 

You  still don't get it, do you? This message board is all about serving the people that use it and people will do what they want.

You’re the one not getting it. I don’t “serve” anyone, mister, I’m not a servant, and neither is anyone else on our staff. We’re all volunteers, we provide a ‘service’ – big difference - and half the time all we get for our efforts is ingratitude and abuse. The bottom line is that nobody has to come here, but if they do they must abide by the rules, which are an amalgam of the site owners’ requirements, the law of the land and basic common sense and decency.
 

I will continue to speak my mind until you kick me off the site but I will not be bowed.

If you’re seeking martyrdom, there’s no point in coming to me. I can’t kick anyone off the site; under our rules, that requires the agreement of at least three of the other five members of staff.

I made one attempt yesterday to get this thread back on topic by highlighting the dominant political affiliations of various religious groups. If issues relevant to the title are not going to be discussed, this thread will be locked.

Reasonable point there, Ivan - the thread has strayed somewhat from its topic.
I'm not sure I'm not the one responsible - if so, I do sincerely apologise to one and all.

In relation to the Cof E being the Tory Party at prayer, I do think that's a rather apt description; however, I have to report that locally, they are being infiltrated by my mum (aged 88) who has taken it upon herself to tell one and all at her local church about the iniquities of the present government -now, as well as the Christmas Child boxes, everyone is collecting for the local food bank and becoming quite knowledgeable about the DW etc - so I guess there may be hope

If you want to talk about politics and religion....

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t922-should-religion-and-politics-be-separate
 

It seems strange to me that the far left often seems to be in an alliance with the church which it openly, or frequently openly, wants to destroy.

Probably a case of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”.  

  

In this day and age it is tragic that anyone is actually poor, there is enough of everything to enable all to have a reasonable life.

Those who have an abundance are not happy for most of the time, drugs, several marriages, murderers,persuit of even more than they have and total lack of any morals are indicative of those who have the most along with the politicians many of whom are liars, war mongers and thieves so there is very little chance of ever doing away with poverty under the present circumstances.

The churches look after their congregations and have their outings etc; and pay lip service to the wanting but little else.

The reality of Church income is that it has always originated mainly from the Poor.

Mark 12:41–44.

The poor are the vast majority, and the rich will go to hell, so the New Testament tells us - and in Acts Christians share everything. I don't know much about 'religion', but clearly the New Testament sees no answer but socialism, does it?

Certainly reads that way - but then you get 'churchmen' 'interpreting' it.

I can't be doing with organised religion myself - seems to me it does at least as much harm as even the worst political dogma

Heretic wrote:The "Prosperity Gospel" are the lot that declare if you are poor or sick it is your fault and God is punishing you. They also have the worst record for helping the poor unless it is a PR job and they are 'preaching the gospel'.

I have even less time for these churches as they turn everything Jesus said on it head and call this reversed Gospel righteousness.

Heretic

In the United States, Prosperity Gospel isn't just a subset of Christianity, it is American culture itself. In fact, the Prosperity Gospel you're getting probably migrated across the pond. If I were you, I would do everything in my power to fight against it. In this country, it's almost considered immoral to do anything for free; altrusim only enables the poor not to work, you see. Over here, the Republicans will whine about what an awful president Obama is because of the relatively high unemployement rate but will have no qualms about telling the poor to go out and get a job. Huh.

It's also why we don't have universal health care like everyone else. Nope. It is immoral to receive something for free especially if you're not paying taxes (which around 47% of Americans don't). Therefore, even government health care should only be for the people who could afford private insurance. During one GOP debate, a question was asked about what a candidate would do about people who didn't have insurance and then got sick - and an opponent asked, "What would you do? Should you let them die?"

And the crowd screamed "Yes!"

That's Prosperity Gospel in a nutshell. You don't want that twisted and despicable form of justified greed and avarice. That's one of the reasons why I loathe religion so much - one can justify ANYTHING, no matter how cruel or immoral, by slapping a "because of religion" sticker on it.

Amen to that

God through Jesus does not say that the rich will go to hell, he says those who believe and act accordingly through Jesus will be saved irrespective of wealth, however, being rich does not help to do so.

Do not worry boatlady the only thing they pray for anyway is more money.

I've been following the situation in Gaza the past couple of days - as usual when I look into political matters I'm a bit confused, but one of the problems seems to be to do with Israel being a religious state with the imperative to form a Jewish homeland. This seems to have involved encroaching on territory formerly belonging to the Palestinians, on the basis perhaps that as non-Jews they have less rights.

I'm seeing disturbing pictures of young Jewish settlers sitting out with their camp chairs and picnic baskets to watch the shelling of Gaza - surely not civilised behaviour? - and Palestinian children playing on a beach being pursued and bombed from the air by Israeli aeroplanes - again, surely not civilised behaviour.

I feel sure my impressions of the situation are over-simplified - and no doubt someone will want to correct me - but Israel is an example I believe of a religious state (and one moreover with recent experience of some of the treatment they seem to be meting out to the Palestinians). If that's how a religious state behaves, maybe the headline proposition is dead right -religion and politics should be separate

boatlady. Wow, you’ve touched a few hot potatoes in your post! A lot of people on Twitter get very animated – with good reason – about this conflict, but I keep out of it because it needs a lot more than 140-character soundbites if it’s to be discussed sensibly.

territory formerly belonging to the Palestinians

The Jews also had a claim to Palestine, as they lived there until dispersed by first the Babylonians and later the Romans.

I think the current conflict is more about politics than religion; Benjamin Netanyahu is an extreme right-winger, as was Ariel Sharon. There must be politicians who want peace and a two-state solution, but at present it's the ‘hawks’ who are in power on both sides of the divide.

If we’re going to discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict, maybe we need a relevant thread on the world issues board? I’ll see if I can prepare a balanced post on the subject in the next few days.