It’s the principle that counts

One country, two religion is the over-simplified formula, the Daily Mail published today. They talked about church attendance for Church of England or Muslim services in local East London Mosques.

For me, there is a simple scientific explanation for varying church attendances. Those churches with the biggest principles, whether right or wrong, attract the most worshippers. Those churches who are very tolerant and understanding just do not attract people to come in.

What is of course missing in the Daily Mail article, is a picture of the Our Lady of  Assumption church on Sunday masses, they fill 3 churches full each weekend. But then again, the Catholic church holds strong beliefs, the Muslims hold strong beliefs but those Liberal churches do not.

I do not just mean strong religious beliefs but strong worldly beliefs that reflect directly from the scripture.

Beliefs are definitely churches’ business or mind your own business, mind your believers.

Clever poor

To be able to manage on a small budget for the poor, you need to be really clever, able to maintain a strict budget, control their emotions and have extensive cooking and craft skills together with a lot of equipment that enables making things for yourself, as well as a lot of local shopping facilities.

The BBC article referred to here is about as good as journalism gets, good journalism. Unfortunately many reported things are sheer trash and meant to sell papers or get readers, are misleading and just part of the propaganda machine. We are currently terrorized by the Freedom of Speech gurus, who say that unless you are allowed to say anything and everything, you are not free. But this freedom is used to distort facts and give us rubbish.

I just wonder why not one journalist has made a connection between the recent gruesome child murders and the benefit cuts, that families have to endure. Mothers and fathers have simply slain their beautiful children and then killed themselves or been prosecuted for murder.

The recent cuts in benefits especially hurt those with many children, that also affects the Jewish and Muslim communities, who find strength in numbers. In the dysfunctional former Christian communities life isn’t so simple and it isn’t as easy to copy with hardship.

poverty + poverty = poverty

What Mr Osborne, Mr Cameron and Mr Duncan-Smith are telling us is, that if we get poorer we will get richer. Christianity is supposed to lead us to the promised land. Instead this government is trying to tell us that the promised land doesn’t exist for the poor but only for the rich. The meaning of poverty in the bible is not one of inequality.

They are telling us that by getting homeless we will get richer. Well, that certainly is a new inventive philosophy. One that isn’t working. Overall poverty  works in countries like Cuba and North Korea, where everybody is equally poor. Cubans and North Koreans are not Christians, they are Communists. We are supposed to honour the poor but not to keep them in poverty as a virtue.

We are told we are poor because we get benefits. I say, we get benefits because we are poor.

The reason we need benefits exists because we have shifted manufacture of goods to other countries, who can produce goods cheaper than us and because we are filling our country with immigrants who need homes.

We certainly won’t attract more business our way if we make our residents poorer and their lives more unstable. Working people need stable homes, sincere and reliable families to fall back on for those in between chores that need doing in every home. What this government does is, it ruins family life and stable homes by making every minute of our lives more insecure. How do they do that? They tell mothers to sign on instead of looking after their children and they tell mothers to let someone else look after their children whilst they work.

This is neither going to create jobs nor is it going to stop single parenthood. It just makes running the country more expensive. Because those women who have to look after the children of those mothers that are out working need to get paid.

Yet neither mothers nor nannies have secure homes to go to; they have to look for cheaper homes, jobs are not secure, that means more moving.

Looking at China and other former third world countries, who are now doing our jobs, we need to look at their family structures, their home live and we can see they live in stable relationships, have cheap but permanent homes and have a cheaper index of living than us.

We cannot possibly try to copy that the way this government goes about it.

What kept our society going for centuries were old-fashioned stable families where grandparents looked after grandchildren. Then it was naturally cheap and manageable then families lived together in big houses or closely together.

Unfortunately Mr Cameron cannot look beyond his own family. He takes his family with him when he goes to Germany to meet with Merkel,they all stay together, yet he doesn’t want to allow British mums to stay with their own children but tells them to go out and work instead.  He tells us that we only take benefits because we are too lazy to work and he tells us that withdrawing benefits will get us jobs out of the blue. Perhaps next he will make us belief that manna will fall out of the sky.  Cameron tells us that he is only fairly religious, perhaps he should spend more time reading the bible.

Yet even the new Pope tells us he wants a poor church for the poor. But poverty in itself is only desirable on the basis that use of resources is kept to a minimum for the purpose of saving the environment and that is another discussion. Because the kind of poverty this government now tries to sell us is not environmentally friendly but it is a wasteful philosophy.

The kind of desperate, isolating poverty this government is trying to sell us is not the type of poverty that makes us richer both in personal terms and for the good of our society. There is such a thing as society.

Is it the D(G)ove of peace?

Now there is going to be a conference about the trustworthiness of Michael Gove and his chief inspector Mr Michael Wilshaw. [He has been asked to resign. ]

I do agree that a lot of the recent inspections seem to serve a political aim rather than a practical solution to eduction needs. I come to ask, how much can I trust in inspection results? As said in my previous blog, one of the most trusted schools in my locality has suddenly slipped from good to in need of improvement.

But can I as prosepective parent for any school simply ignore a recent inspection report because that would give education authorities the answer, but why did you send your child to this school if you knew that they had a pointed out weakness?

What any local inspection reports I have seen lack in my opinion is the result by example. Most OfSted reports are rather generalised; they would say, the lessons are boring, teachers speak too much or the school is weak in supporting talented pupils. But the reports do not say why they are weak in supporting talented pupils.

It is off-putting to read that a school should have a severe divide of achievement between free school meal pupils and paying pupils. That reeks of and implies discrimination, as if poor pupils get less well taught just because they don’t pay for their dinners.

Both of our best established religious local schools got frankly completely rubbished by recent inspection reports.  It then seems to fit in well with the accusation that Christians are being marginalised by the current government.

The Ofsted reports I have seen are rather generalised and wishy washy.  They are as if the inspectors just want to leave their mark on a school.

I ask the question, how can any school be called a bad school if there are children within that school that do very well. The fact that some children can do very well and above national average shows that this school can deliver a service.

The problem with too many seemingly unreasonable bad OfSted reports will result in people just not paying a lot of attention to them, unless they have to if schools are being put under special measures of course.

I think that education strategies lack a clear direction. How can Mr Gove possibly pretend that he wants to improve education when he allows schools to operate in back-yard buildings and offices or shops? Less permanence for school buildings and school teachers will inevitably ruin the long-term prospects of education through the very fact that the basic amenities like good facilities and happy teachers are removed from the service?

One local and very recent OfSted report criticised that a fast teacher turnaround ruins the school’s quality of education but isn’t this just what the current government does? They move people on all the time. Teachers that leave in one school for being criticised will find a job in another school, and so the vicious circle will keep on turning.

The best church to be

Anyone who wishes to follow the true gospel of Christ and opposes the latest fashion statements of various churches, which want to appoint gay ministers and bishops is to join the Catholic church, who are very adamantly against homosexuality. The Catholic church here in London even stopped church services for gay people.

So for the Scottish Dominic Smart, joining the Catholic church could be an option. It can be daunting to do so, especially when one has been brought up in an Anglican environment like myself, but it is the only sensible option I think. Strength is in numbers and the Catholic church has a very powerful voice around the world and can give a lot of support.

I joined the Catholic church several years ago and then swayed to and fro between Anglican and Catholic because it is not easy to get it out of the system but in the end the purest and clearest form of Christianity is preached by the Catholic church.

People who want to go it alone can be in danger of turning into sectarianism and being part of a larger Catholic community will give help and support. The nearest Catholic church near Gilcomston South in Scotland is surely not too far away. I am certain they are only too pleased to lend support for the locals in question.

Catholic churches also constantly run courses for people wanting to convert and priests are generally very understanding and sympathetic. Our local Catholic church also has lay people helping and we have got a very big congregation compared to the few people who worship in local Church of England churches, though C.o.E. has gotten more buildings than the Catholic church, who have gotten only 1 large church.

It can’t do any harm to speak to a Catholic priest about the issues and how support can be obtained for a whole community of people who are all in one mind and one heart about the issues.

But strictly speaking Jesus allows anyone to preach his Gospel, though taking into account that some schools are set up by large churches and require attendance there, the question of where to prey is somewhat determined by this for people with children.

We have a number of Evangelical church groups in my local area but they have no back-up for education.

It’s the principle that counts

Often we hear that persons who are psychopaths  are always finding it easy to exploit repetition in institutions to their advantage. Indeed many great institutions fell victim to habitual offending of some sort, stretching from the Catholic church to the BBC.

All institutions are ruled by principles and that is right that this is so. The whole earth follows a principle of its very own existence and we cannot escape that.

I looked at various ways where people tried to escape principles because those principles didn’t suit their own egoistic needs.

Religion is one. Just spent years researching the effects of churches on people and how it came that the Lutheran church broke away from the Catholic church and this then led the Church of England to be founded.

Looking at Luther he was most likely somebody who could not follow the demands of no sex within the church and looked for ways to justify his relationship with a nun, whom he loved. Again in the case of Henry VIII sexual problems, here to produce a son, led to a whole lot of unfortunate brutalities to justify the personal needs of one powerful person.

On that point of principle I am currently astounded to find that the current UK government applies the same principles to each ministry under their wing and in some it works and in some it doesn’t. Obviously Justice under Mr Grayling has adapted a great attitude by saying that prisons should never encourage an alternative lifestyle, whilst the principle of economic viability obviously doesn’t work in the employment tactics that Iain Duncan Smith wants to develop.

We can see that any institution contains various individuals of different opinions but those institutions are trying to house all of them within one principle.

Luther questioned the divinity of the Pope, saying that the Pope was of human origin and not Godly, yet the whole church started to exist because of God’s initiating it.

What is however quite important is the fact that Luther was a peaceful man who was just interested in getting his own personal relationship justified, after he gotten himself ex-communicated. But in the case of Henry VIII he took the opportunity to start a murderous regime and used his own desires to kill a lot of people, mainly Catholics in the process. Yet our monarch today happily continuous the heritage left since Henry VIII. Only change so far that now the British monarch is allowed to marry a Catholic.

What I think is the main sticking point is the inability of institutions to vary rules so that individual needs can be accommodated.

Basically it is a good principle to rule out sex because personal desires themselves are just often self-indulgent. I gotten horrified when I found out about the child marriages of underdeveloped regions for example where girls as little as 6 years old are sold to rich old men and that the elders of such region sanctify such marriages even if they are against civil law.

At a time in early Christianity when Catholic clergy were allowed to engage in sex they exploited their positions and pressurised locals and used them for personal pleasures, then the rules changed and they had to make a promise to celibacy.

I think it is great that the Catholic church beliefs that no sex is a good basis on which to start out but not all people who are in that church really do want to live that way. Yet as an institution the church is a save heaven for many and a way of life, which recently gotten less easy because many nuns and priests nowadays have to take on jobs because the church cannot support them any longer.

Perhaps it would be better for the Catholic church to introduce tiers of membership whereby those who really want to live without sex make up the upper tier and those who wish to live worldly get less senior roles. I think it is very important that there are religious leaders in the Catholic church that counter-balance our sex crazed world because it is important. In fact I think people should start off thinking that sex is not important and that would help to reduce over-population and reduce reproduction to those who really feel responsible enough to create another human being.

But we should not either forbid or glorify human reproduction.

But to say that all have to live under the same principle is a bad way of trying to organise human life. It is that principle that makes governments decide on stupid rules like gay marriage because we all have to be equal in every aspect of life, which is in itself completely unachievable.

Organisations that live according to strict principles are easy to manipulate by those wanting to do wrong.  We have got to get away from this equalitarien thinking and allow variation of principles to suit people’s needs.

It is the one big qualitative difference between civilised Christianity and uncivilised primitive cultures that girls are not exploited for the pleasure of old men. In this context again I wish to emphasize what I said before that primitive cultures prevalent in Islam, that prosper in economically underdeveloped areas very well, couch a culture that allows the exploitation of young girls and the Taleban are the ultimate tip of that iceberg. Islam itself also centres its religious ceremony around the movements of the moon. Christianity is more in tune with the wider planetary system and follows the sun, which is quite significant.  It is obvious that God who made the earth, made the sun to give us life and the moon is merely a planet that travels around the earth to regulate the water content of this planet.

Obviously for more primitive people it is easier to follow a religious ritual that is based around the movements of the moon as the moon is easy to see in the sky. Christianity is more difficult to understand as it is based around the whole planetary system, as God made the whole universe and not just the moon.

I find it quite disturbing that the biggest misfit of recent times in Britain, by the name of Cameron now wants to host peace talks between Pakistan and Afghanistan, which are two regions of the world, which are heavily practising abuse of young girls. Yet Cameron makes not secret of his hate of the EU and tried to get out of this as early as possible. The EU is a civilised region of this world with clearly defined laws that put age limits on girls engaging in relationships. Cameron should enforce civilised laws on these nations and not host talks with them in this nation whilst nasty things are going on there because Elders still rule the provinces and not those politicians that come to see Cameron.

He is a strange man that David Cameron and if the Conservative Party can produce something like that, then perhaps they are not worthy of our trust. I think the whole Monarchy is being put into disrepute and should consider abdicating and allow Britain to re-organise. The Queen openly declared her full support of Cameron when she recently sat in on a Cabinet meeting.

Cameron should nurture his relationships with other civilised nations and not throw those friendships away in favour of meddling with more primitive cultures as primary political partners.

I think as a country Britain has a lot to win but also a lot to loose.  Even the US criticises Cameron on his stance on Europe.

Obese get a star on their coat

Oh no, I forgot to mention the government doesn’t just plan to hunt down all obese people, they only want to punish those obese people who are on benefits. This news has turned up on various news sites and I first thought it was a joke, but the more I search, the more it creeps up in mainstream media. There is the BBC article, the Mail online and the Guardian, to name a few. As far as I understand current comments, all those reporting sites think the idea is bonkers. Bonkers is in fashion lets not forget it.

I am just wondering how this is to work in practise. In my experience a vast amount of obese people work in the health service and in social services, council services and other related community care services. Would it look like this that if an obese benefit claimant comes for their money, that an obese worker can tell them the benefit claimant is too obese to get the money but the obese worker can stay in their job obese simply because they got a job?

Currently the government already suggest to discriminate against overweight police officers and wants to stage police pay according to physical fitness. But that is already questionable; yet to apply the same principle to benefit recipients would mean that benefit recipients get treated like government employees to some extent as both police officers and benefit claimants would get a reduction in pay because of obesity.

Yet other employees can happily stay fat.

This however means that the demand on health services would be higher from obese employed persons rather than those on benefits. Isn’t that just discrimination?

Well, I remember well the picture in my mind, that Hitler forced young men to do wheelies on a beach to keep fit. I know plenty of gay people who are perfectly slim and they are then model citizens to us all because they are gay but slim?

It seems that this government concentrates on benefit claimants and puts them under more and more pressure. But the amount of health care employed people use also affects the benefits others can get because health care costs are part of the common pot of money that is available to us all.

Lets not forget very efficient service providers want to cut costs all the time, they want to cut jobs, all that will create jobless and those jobless are going to get treated like outcasts simply because they fell victim to the latest economy drive. So it can happen, that an obese worker one day tells an obese benefit claimant is unable to get their money but when the obese worker finds themselves out of a job, they get no benefit either. People we are all in the same boat so to speak.

I think it would be much more clever to ask ourselves why people feel so stressed that they feel a need to over-eat, over-drink, over-smoke and do other things in excess too.

Pro-gay and anti-child government

I gotten this message from the Conservative party, asking for my views on the benefit reforms. Under he heading, ‘have your say’ I was invited to follow a link to say what I feel about it. When I finally gotten round to making my views known, after having read an article by Cardinal Brady, the link pushed me onto a web page that did not have the promised form to write onto.

I wonder did I come too late and had they been inundated with unwanted ‘have your says’ already?

The current government policies worry me for a number of reasons!

  1. They restrict people’s ability to have kids, as many as they want
  2. They force mothers away from their children and into work
  3. They stop parents from allowing their children to follow creative or sporting hobbies
  4. They stop families to cook their own meals.

Of course it is a very important time factor that forces many working people to purchase ready meals instead of cooking for themselves, making them eat food that contains a lot of preservatives and colourings and flavourings. It would be interesting to see what effect that has on the cancer rate; I think it might have a profound effect.

Often children start young to develop gifted talents, from piano to sport, many kids start very young to train in their favourite discipline. It does take time to bring kids to practise and training. Many working parents do not have that time, that robs our society of important skills because we simply do not allow the time to develop them.

In many families it is important that at least one parent is available to cook and take the kids to classes, which is something that this government wants to root out by making all persons work equally long hours.

In this respect I think women’s striving for equality has contributed to this unnatural way of development in that the very nature of women is forcefully obliterated by a government that favours gay marriages but not women with children.

Already the policies have led to foreseeable widespread poverty, large reliance on soup kitchen, even by working persons etc. It is bound to get worst when the benefit changes set in. It will increase homelessness and assist a break up of large families who will be better apart than together for benefit reasons of course.

Unfortunately the e-mail from the Conservative Party Chairman Grant Shapps, associates all opponents of the benefits policy as pro-Labour; I would very much like to distance myself from this political associating of opinions. There is something that is above the political worldly sphere and that is Godliness and Christian thinking, which has nothing to do with man-made political strategies.

In respect of worldly matters, in order for humans to prosper they need a planet to live on, the planet that has been created for us, but there are many who spent centuries producing items that ruined the environmental stability of the same. There is a case of overpopulation as well but it must be stressed that Christian people must be educated and helped to make decisions on children with a conscience in mind on trying to avoid pregnancies within legal and human methods rather than threatening benefits structures that do not help people to understand their own bodies better.

Added on 26/12/12 at 16:20 GMT. It’s not only the gay question that only affects 0.1% of the population its also increasingly the equality employment legislation that affects the minority of workers. Paternity leave for fathers for example. How many employees can take advantage of that? Surely employers have safeguarded themselves against fathers taking paternity leave by making them all day-labourers or self-employed. It is a minority of probably government employees or local authority workers and only a few of those managerial employees for the very biggest companies who can take advantage of that newly created equality in employment. That is another cloud cuckoo legislation that is made for minorities and not for all of us.

Most lowly paid employees or self-employed workers can’t even afford to have kids any more.

Declare political donations by sexual orientation

I think it makes a lot of sense what High Court Judge Sir Paul Colerige said in that he pointed out that gay marriage is a minority issue that affects 0.1% of the population. Yet political parties like the Conservatives blow up the issue out of all proportion. I think this might have to do with party political donations and therefore political parties, I suggest, should have to declare their donations by sexual orientation since that is such a hot potato and obviously steers party politics out of the mainstream arena into niche discussion just to get a few dollars more from donors.

I have already written about the subject of gay marriage in an earlier post, entitled From G(c)rime to shine, and apparently the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster and judges both support my views, or better said, my views tie in with their opinions.

Ethics of schooling

I think it is quite interesting that the Humanist Society tries to prevent the establishing of 2 new Catholic schools in Richmond. The case is currently at the High Court. It is a ground breaking development as it concerns the establishing of Catholic schools in a very affluent area of London. I am not certain whether the Humanists try to prevent religiously tainted education generally or particularly want to stop Catholic schools spreading in the UK.

Mr Justice Sales has decided against the Applicants and will not allow a Judicial Review on the matter. This is especially interesting to me because the applicants argued that all new schools should be open to all pupils, regardless of religious affiliation. That seems to be the same as it was in Germany when I was a kid. Religious affiliations where expressed financially by paying church tax and by privately following a religion but not by way of sending a child to a religious school. All schools in Germany were Grammar schools and so education by achievement was the fashion and not education for all because God loves us all and we are all humans and deserve our education regardless of ability.

In Germany the Catholic church has recently dismissed all Catholics who do not pay the church tax, if they work, from the ability to receive religious sacraments like baptism, communion, marriage and last rites. Here in the UK religious education allows churches to advertise their faith by simply being allowed to be a church school of a particular denomination whilst in Germany churches do not work in the community like that. Churches take place in religious houses where people go because they are a member of the religion but any particular faith could not start a school and demand of pupils to be a part of that faith.

I do not think that it would be possible now to phase in neutral education for all pupils and allow churches to open faith schools for all. As the Catholic argument went, a Catholic school would have to refuse a Catholic pupil because they are Catholic, which would be very odd. It would amount to discrimination; yet this type of discrimination is quite common place in society today. Often you cannot get a job because employers, service providers want to include ethnic people and so you can’t get a job because already too many white people work there.

If you select by race or religion you will always have to discriminate against others but if you select by ability you will always discriminate against those who are less able, regardless of religion, colour, creed etc.

Previous Older Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,049 hits
%d bloggers like this: