Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.
The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.
The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.
The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts
This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.
Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church
What I don't understand is why any of this matters. Don't you all just belong to the church you want to belong to? You aren't competing are you? Or are you? I'm genuinely confused.
I have no objection to religion or different churches, but I would like to be left out of it. While one sect is established it does have an impact, albeit minor.
It’s not just me then! I find religious chatter dull enough, but the narcissism of small differences over one sect or other of the same religion is just taking mundanity to a whole new level.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.
The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.
The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.
The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts
This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.
Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church
As has already been pointed out to you by people who seemingly know a lot more about it than you, most of the Anglo-Catholics have already returned to eth Catholic church over the issue of female ordination. A change of the figurehead at the top is not going to cause a mass exodus.
The greatest threat to your church is not Catholicism but agnosticism and atheism.
Some by no means all. The Church of England would split on disestablishment with the Anglo Catholics going to Rome, the evangelicals going to become Baptists or Pentecostals leaving a small, largely liberal church remaining but with the Roman Catholic church again likely to become the largest church in England within a few decades.
Agnosticism and to a lesser extent atheism in England is rather irrelevant in a context where the Pope heads 1.3 billion Roman Catholics globally, nearly 20 times the entire UK population. Disestablishment means the Pope, not the monarch of the UK, again will in due course become the main spiritual head on earth in England and can bring his global powerbase to entrench that further. Remember too the global population is growing fastest in the developing world which is also the most religious part of the world and low birth rates in the UK coupled with increased immigration from the developing world would further shift things
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
Any chance you can explain why your IP shows in a bunch of different blacklists?
Well I've no idea why that is can you explain further please what are these blacklists
Are you using a very strange VPN?
Asking for a friend.
I've no idea mate better ask rcs he seems very interested in this
Virgil Malloy : Who you calling bud, pal? Turk Malloy : Who you calling pal, friend? Virgil Malloy : Who you calling friend, jackass? Turk Malloy : Don't call me a jackass. Virgil Malloy : I just did call you a jackass.
Lol I'm still waiting for rcs to get back to me...I thought the "type" of people who worked at goldman sachs were renowned for their efficiency
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
Any chance you can explain why your IP shows in a bunch of different blacklists?
Well I've no idea why that is can you explain further please what are these blacklists
Are you using a very strange VPN?
Asking for a friend.
I've no idea mate better ask rcs he seems very interested in this
Do you know who RCS is? A person of immense (or is it intense?) influence it seems with OGH!
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
I think it may be beneficial to look at this from the Ukrainian side PaulD and try explaining a result to them that is anything other than a recovery of all their invaded terittory. Reflect on how a UK citizen might feel if Cornwall had been annexed by the French, as our nearest neighbour, who then invaded Devon on the pretext of reuniting England with France and then proceeded to kill and mutilate every non-combatant they came across. As a UK citizen I would want to see everyone of them thrown back into the sea with no compromise now possible. There would be no need to explain to a UK mother about her lost son. She would simply ask "How many of them did he kill?"
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.
The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.
The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.
The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts
This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.
Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church
As has already been pointed out to you by people who seemingly know a lot more about it than you, most of the Anglo-Catholics have already returned to eth Catholic church over the issue of female ordination. A change of the figurehead at the top is not going to cause a mass exodus.
The greatest threat to your church is not Catholicism but agnosticism and atheism.
Some by no means all. The Church of England would split on disestablishment with the Anglo Catholics going to Rome, the evangelicals going to become Baptists or Pentecostals leaving a small, largely liberal church remaining but with the Roman Catholic church again likely to become the largest church in England within a few decades.
Agnosticism and to a lesser extent atheism in England is rather irrelevant in a context where the Pope heads 1.3 billion Roman Catholics globally, over 20 times the entire UK population. Disestablishment means the Pope, not the monarch of the UK, again will in due course become the main spiritual head on earth in England and can bring his global powerbase to entrench that further. Remember too the global population is growing fastest in the developing world which is also the most religious part of the world
Simply not true, no matter how many times you repeat it. Yet another area in which you are wrong to add to the many others.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
What is the point of giving him an "off ramp"? Putin is perfectly capable of claiming anything he likes as a win. After all, his stated reasons for invading in the first place have no connection with reality, so why should his reasons for getting all his troops out? If he wants to claim a win he can: what he shouldn't be allowed is any actual benefit from the invasion.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
Any chance you can explain why your IP shows in a bunch of different blacklists?
Well I've no idea why that is can you explain further please what are these blacklists
Are you using a very strange VPN?
Asking for a friend.
I've no idea mate better ask rcs he seems very interested in this
Do you know who RCS is? A person of immense (or is it intense?) influence it seems with OGH!
NEW: The Government’s former head of propriety and ethics has been fined over a “raucous” karaoke party in the Cabinet Office at which there was a drunken brawl.
We at last have the answer why they were having so many parties. They would have been bored rigid otherwise. I mean, what could the Head of Propriety and Ethics in a Johnson government possibly have to do?
Once they've sharpened their pencils and polished the phone and maybe filled the printer with paper and made a coffee it will be about ..... ooh, 9:15 am ..... with all those hours to fill.
Remember too that the woman in charge of the unit who wrote all the lockdown rules also broke them.
No wonder Boris thought everyone was complying with the rules if these were the people advising him.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
Sergey Karaganov – a well-known Russian foreign policy shaman gave an interview to @MacaesBruno (Kudos!) for @NewStatesman which, I think, requires few comments. Here's my refelctions in 🧵:
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
What is the point of giving him an "off ramp"? Putin is perfectly capable of claiming anything he likes as a win. After all, his stated reasons for invading in the first place have no connection with reality, so why should his reasons for getting all his troops out? If he wants to claim a win he can: what he shouldn't be allowed is any actual benefit from the invasion.
Well what he claims has to have some sort of connection to reality
Anyway, I am back up North tomorrow am. I have been a city girl most of my life - Naples, London, Bristol, Paris - with childhood holidays in very rural Ireland. I love cities.
And, yet, I feel trapped in London in a way I have never done before. I look out of the window and see buildings. Even though on the top floor I can see across London to the Surrey hills the view is still of buildings. And my soul dies a little. Everywhere I look out of my home up North I see sea and sky and mountains and valleys so sumptuous in their colours it makes my heart fit to burst. And the bird song. Plus the moon at night and stars, lots of them. I really miss it. I cannot wait to get back.
I never thought I would feel this way. Can people change quite so much? Or maybe I have secretly always been a solitary misanthrope?
There is something about the natural world which my mind, my soul needs, I think, to feel whole. No other way to explain it.
Plus - mad as it is - I love driving by myself. Nothing better than to have the music on very loud - and have some really strong music on to get the blood racing. Just f***ing awesome.
Still in May I shall be speaking at a big conference in London. If you're very good I may tell you about it and you can come and enthusiastically applaud. 😀
Don't forget about the Midlands. It sometimes feels like some people only think about either London or the North and forget about the Midlands altogether.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
We politely ask the Ukrainian army to stop before the Chinese border. By offering Zelensky an Oscar for "Servant of the People", in return
That can be Putin's win.
He'd be perfect as lead in remake of "Death of Stalin"
Know it's bit early for remaking but what the heck
ADDENDUM - And with cameo appearance by Sen. Linday Graham (R-Closet)
A pretty strong condemnation of France and Germany from Zelensky:
@mrsorokaa ⚡️ “I invite Merkel and Sarkozy to visit Bucha and to see the outcome of 14 years of concessions to Russia,” Zelensky said in his video address.
“You will see with your own eyes the tortured Ukrainians.”
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.
The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.
The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.
The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts
This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.
Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church
What I don't understand is why any of this matters. Don't you all just belong to the church you want to belong to? You aren't competing are you? Or are you? I'm genuinely confused.
I have no objection to religion or different churches, but I would like to be left out of it. While one sect is established it does have an impact, albeit minor.
The main impact for the non actively religious is it ensures the monarch, not the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England.
Plus of course you can still get married and buried in a historic Church of England Parish Church as an automatic right whether you regularly attend that Church or not as long as it remains the established Church
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
Any chance you can explain why your IP shows in a bunch of different blacklists?
Well I've no idea why that is can you explain further please what are these blacklists
Are you using a very strange VPN?
Asking for a friend.
I've no idea mate better ask rcs he seems very interested in this
Do you know who RCS is? A person of immense (or is it intense?) influence it seems with OGH!
Who is ogh
Our Gracious Host and RCS is his son and wields the ban hammer.
CLAUS, SANTA (UNDECLARED) (CERTIFIED) PO BOX 55122 NORTH POLE, AK 99705 (907) 388-3836 Email: CAMPAIGN-SANTACLAUSFORALASKA@USA.NET Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SANTACLAUSFORALASKA.COM
PALIN, SARAH (REGISTERED REPUBLICAN) (CERTIFIED) PO BOX 871235 WASILLA, AK 99687 (907) 631-0490 Email: INFO@SARAHFORALASKA.COM Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SARAHFORALASKA.COM
Santa Claus would be excellent at canvassing, he could go round all the houses on the night before the election.
Particularly iffy on electoral bribery though.
Must caution you (unofficially) that Santa Claus is current a member of the North Pole, Alaska city council, having been elected - at the top of the pole - receiving 102 votes.
Personally believe Santa's campaign was a clean as the driven snow! Maybe you could solicit depositions from disgruntled elves?
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
What is the point of giving him an "off ramp"? Putin is perfectly capable of claiming anything he likes as a win. After all, his stated reasons for invading in the first place have no connection with reality, so why should his reasons for getting all his troops out? If he wants to claim a win he can: what he shouldn't be allowed is any actual benefit from the invasion.
Well what he claims has to have some sort of connection to reality
Anyway, I am back up North tomorrow am. I have been a city girl most of my life - Naples, London, Bristol, Paris - with childhood holidays in very rural Ireland. I love cities.
And, yet, I feel trapped in London in a way I have never done before. I look out of the window and see buildings. Even though on the top floor I can see across London to the Surrey hills the view is still of buildings. And my soul dies a little. Everywhere I look out of my home up North I see sea and sky and mountains and valleys so sumptuous in their colours it makes my heart fit to burst. And the bird song. Plus the moon at night and stars, lots of them. I really miss it. I cannot wait to get back.
I never thought I would feel this way. Can people change quite so much? Or maybe I have secretly always been a solitary misanthrope?
There is something about the natural world which my mind, my soul needs, I think, to feel whole. No other way to explain it.
Plus - mad as it is - I love driving by myself. Nothing better than to have the music on very loud - and have some really strong music on to get the blood racing. Just f***ing awesome.
Still in May I shall be speaking at a big conference in London. If you're very good I may tell you about it and you can come and enthusiastically applaud. 😀
Don't forget about the Midlands. It sometimes feels like some people only think about either London or the North and forget about the Midlands altogether.
Yes, who doesn't dream of Birmingham, Coventry, Leicester and Nottingham and Stoke!
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
We politely ask the Ukrainian army to stop before the Chinese border. By offering Zelensky an Oscar for "Servant of the People", in return
That can be Putin's win.
He'd be perfect as lead in remake of "Death of Stalin"
Know it's bit early for remaking but what the heck
"That's me told. I'm off to represent the entire Red Army at the buffet. You girls enjoy yourselves."
Anyway, I am back up North tomorrow am. I have been a city girl most of my life - Naples, London, Bristol, Paris - with childhood holidays in very rural Ireland. I love cities.
And, yet, I feel trapped in London in a way I have never done before. I look out of the window and see buildings. Even though on the top floor I can see across London to the Surrey hills the view is still of buildings. And my soul dies a little. Everywhere I look out of my home up North I see sea and sky and mountains and valleys so sumptuous in their colours it makes my heart fit to burst. And the bird song. Plus the moon at night and stars, lots of them. I really miss it. I cannot wait to get back.
I never thought I would feel this way. Can people change quite so much? Or maybe I have secretly always been a solitary misanthrope?
There is something about the natural world which my mind, my soul needs, I think, to feel whole. No other way to explain it.
Plus - mad as it is - I love driving by myself. Nothing better than to have the music on very loud - and have some really strong music on to get the blood racing. Just f***ing awesome.
Still in May I shall be speaking at a big conference in London. If you're very good I may tell you about it and you can come and enthusiastically applaud. 😀
Don't forget about the Midlands. It sometimes feels like some people only think about either London or the North and forget about the Midlands altogether.
NEW: The Government’s former head of propriety and ethics has been fined over a “raucous” karaoke party in the Cabinet Office at which there was a drunken brawl.
We at last have the answer why they were having so many parties. They would have been bored rigid otherwise. I mean, what could the Head of Propriety and Ethics in a Johnson government possibly have to do?
Once they've sharpened their pencils and polished the phone and maybe filled the printer with paper and made a coffee it will be about ..... ooh, 9:15 am ..... with all those hours to fill.
Remember too that the woman in charge of the unit who wrote all the lockdown rules also broke them.
No wonder Boris thought everyone was complying with the rules if these were the people advising him.
There's clearly a bit of Minitruth in the Conservative Government - war is peace, freedom is slavery, propriety and ethics is drunken raucous karaoke brawl when supposedly observing covid rules.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
What is the point of giving him an "off ramp"? Putin is perfectly capable of claiming anything he likes as a win. After all, his stated reasons for invading in the first place have no connection with reality, so why should his reasons for getting all his troops out? If he wants to claim a win he can: what he shouldn't be allowed is any actual benefit from the invasion.
Well what he claims has to have some sort of connection to reality
Why would he start doing that?
Because even the russian people aren't so stupid putin can't fully withdraw and claim a win
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
Any chance you can explain why your IP shows in a bunch of different blacklists?
Well I've no idea why that is can you explain further please what are these blacklists
Are you using a very strange VPN?
Asking for a friend.
I've no idea mate better ask rcs he seems very interested in this
Do you know who RCS is? A person of immense (or is it intense?) influence it seems with OGH!
Who is ogh
Our Gracious Host and RCS is his son and wields the ban hammer.
Oh you mean Mike smithson...he should be proud of his son
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
What is the point of giving him an "off ramp"? Putin is perfectly capable of claiming anything he likes as a win. After all, his stated reasons for invading in the first place have no connection with reality, so why should his reasons for getting all his troops out? If he wants to claim a win he can: what he shouldn't be allowed is any actual benefit from the invasion.
Well what he claims has to have some sort of connection to reality
Why would he start doing that?
Because even the russian people aren't so stupid putin can't fully withdraw and claim a win
Do you have any evidence to support that assertion? For the Russians still in Russia I mean: the ones I know in the UK are disgusted and embarrassed by the whole thing.
A pretty strong condemnation of France and Germany from Zelensky:
@mrsorokaa ⚡️ “I invite Merkel and Sarkozy to visit Bucha and to see the outcome of 14 years of concessions to Russia,” Zelensky said in his video address.
“You will see with your own eyes the tortured Ukrainians.”
Can anybody think why he didn't invite Boris, Cameron or May as well?
Must have slipped his mind.
Either that or "Londongrad" and Lord Lebedev and whatever is pretty irrelevant compared to supplying weapons and training troops.
I have read in a few places that the UK has become the unofficial coordinator of all external military support for Ukraine, focussing on what each country can most usefully give to fill a hole. It appears, somewhat uncharacteristically, we are the good guys for once. It makes a nice change.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
Any chance you can explain why your IP shows in a bunch of different blacklists?
Well I've no idea why that is can you explain further please what are these blacklists
Are you using a very strange VPN?
Asking for a friend.
I've no idea mate better ask rcs he seems very interested in this
Do you know who RCS is? A person of immense (or is it intense?) influence it seems with OGH!
Who is ogh
Our Gracious Host and RCS is his son and wields the ban hammer.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
Any chance you can explain why your IP shows in a bunch of different blacklists?
Well I've no idea why that is can you explain further please what are these blacklists
Are you using a very strange VPN?
Asking for a friend.
I've no idea mate better ask rcs he seems very interested in this
Do you know who RCS is? A person of immense (or is it intense?) influence it seems with OGH!
Who is ogh
Our Gracious Host and RCS is his son and wields the ban hammer.
Oh you mean Mike smithson...he should be proud of his son
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.
The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.
The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.
The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts
This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.
Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church
What I don't understand is why any of this matters. Don't you all just belong to the church you want to belong to? You aren't competing are you? Or are you? I'm genuinely confused.
I have no objection to religion or different churches, but I would like to be left out of it. While one sect is established it does have an impact, albeit minor.
The main impact for the non actively religious is it ensures the monarch, not the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England.
Plus of course you can still get married and buried in a historic Church of England Parish Church as an automatic right whether you regularly attend that Church or not as long as it remains the established Church
I'm sure arrangements can be made that leaves the rest of us out of it.
Wasn't that the account that kept saying stuff like "Ukrainians shouldn't resist because they'll get raped if they do"? Pre-emptive victim blaming is one of the ugliest things I've ever seen on this site, good riddance to the scum sucker.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
Any chance you can explain why your IP shows in a bunch of different blacklists?
Well I've no idea why that is can you explain further please what are these blacklists
Are you using a very strange VPN?
Asking for a friend.
I've no idea mate better ask rcs he seems very interested in this
Do you know who RCS is? A person of immense (or is it intense?) influence it seems with OGH!
Who is ogh
The Old Great one Hastur.
He lives on the next island over from Kuthulu, where he to lies dreaming.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
The Ukrainians have understood from the beginning - which more than a few Western Governments have not that, as with Britain and Hitler in WWII, with Putin “ they must have his neck, or perish in the attempt”.
Putin must fail, and must be seen to fail, especially by the Russian people, who must suffer, economically.
CLAUS, SANTA (UNDECLARED) (CERTIFIED) PO BOX 55122 NORTH POLE, AK 99705 (907) 388-3836 Email: CAMPAIGN-SANTACLAUSFORALASKA@USA.NET Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SANTACLAUSFORALASKA.COM
PALIN, SARAH (REGISTERED REPUBLICAN) (CERTIFIED) PO BOX 871235 WASILLA, AK 99687 (907) 631-0490 Email: INFO@SARAHFORALASKA.COM Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SARAHFORALASKA.COM
Santa Claus would be excellent at canvassing, he could go round all the houses on the night before the election.
Particularly iffy on electoral bribery though.
Must caution you (unofficially) that Santa Claus is current a member of the North Pole, Alaska city council, having been elected - at the top of the pole - receiving 102 votes.
Personally believe Santa's campaign was a clean as the driven snow! Maybe you could solicit depositions from disgruntled elves?
CLAUS, SANTA (UNDECLARED) (CERTIFIED) PO BOX 55122 NORTH POLE, AK 99705 (907) 388-3836 Email: CAMPAIGN-SANTACLAUSFORALASKA@USA.NET Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SANTACLAUSFORALASKA.COM
PALIN, SARAH (REGISTERED REPUBLICAN) (CERTIFIED) PO BOX 871235 WASILLA, AK 99687 (907) 631-0490 Email: INFO@SARAHFORALASKA.COM Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SARAHFORALASKA.COM
Santa Claus would be excellent at canvassing, he could go round all the houses on the night before the election.
Particularly iffy on electoral bribery though.
Must caution you (unofficially) that Santa Claus is current a member of the North Pole, Alaska city council, having been elected - at the top of the pole - receiving 102 votes.
Personally believe Santa's campaign was a clean as the driven snow! Maybe you could solicit depositions from disgruntled elves?
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.
The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.
The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.
The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts
This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.
Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church
What I don't understand is why any of this matters. Don't you all just belong to the church you want to belong to? You aren't competing are you? Or are you? I'm genuinely confused.
I have no objection to religion or different churches, but I would like to be left out of it. While one sect is established it does have an impact, albeit minor.
The main impact for the non actively religious is it ensures the monarch, not the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England.
Plus of course you can still get married and buried in a historic Church of England Parish Church as an automatic right whether you regularly attend that Church or not as long as it remains the established Church
Do the non-actively religious care if the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England?
https://mobile.twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1510636403784364038 The war crimes in Brovary and Chernihiv directions might be more heinous that those in Bucha. We have eyewitness accounts through friends, relatives and students. We need help documenting them Journalists and lawyers who can help please contact @ZoyaMylovanova Examples: 1/….
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
What is the point of giving him an "off ramp"? Putin is perfectly capable of claiming anything he likes as a win. After all, his stated reasons for invading in the first place have no connection with reality, so why should his reasons for getting all his troops out? If he wants to claim a win he can: what he shouldn't be allowed is any actual benefit from the invasion.
Well what he claims has to have some sort of connection to reality
Why would he start doing that?
Because even the russian people aren't so stupid putin can't fully withdraw and claim a win
Do you have any evidence to support that assertion? For the Russians still in Russia I mean: the ones I know in the UK are disgusted and embarrassed by the whole thing.
Well Russians in uk will be different from those in russia
CLAUS, SANTA (UNDECLARED) (CERTIFIED) PO BOX 55122 NORTH POLE, AK 99705 (907) 388-3836 Email: CAMPAIGN-SANTACLAUSFORALASKA@USA.NET Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SANTACLAUSFORALASKA.COM
PALIN, SARAH (REGISTERED REPUBLICAN) (CERTIFIED) PO BOX 871235 WASILLA, AK 99687 (907) 631-0490 Email: INFO@SARAHFORALASKA.COM Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SARAHFORALASKA.COM
Santa Claus would be excellent at canvassing, he could go round all the houses on the night before the election.
Particularly iffy on electoral bribery though.
Must caution you (unofficially) that Santa Claus is current a member of the North Pole, Alaska city council, having been elected - at the top of the pole - receiving 102 votes.
Personally believe Santa's campaign was a clean as the driven snow! Maybe you could solicit depositions from disgruntled elves?
Rumour has it he recently fired his entire workforce without following the proper redundancy consultation regulations and rehired with a load of external contractors working for peanuts. Allegedly.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.
The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.
The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.
The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts
This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.
Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church
What I don't understand is why any of this matters. Don't you all just belong to the church you want to belong to? You aren't competing are you? Or are you? I'm genuinely confused.
I have no objection to religion or different churches, but I would like to be left out of it. While one sect is established it does have an impact, albeit minor.
The main impact for the non actively religious is it ensures the monarch, not the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England.
Plus of course you can still get married and buried in a historic Church of England Parish Church as an automatic right whether you regularly attend that Church or not as long as it remains the established Church
Do the non-actively religious care if the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England?
It will mess up the seating at the poker game the heads of the major religions run on Thursdays?
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
We politely ask the Ukrainian army to stop before the Chinese border. By offering Zelensky an Oscar for "Servant of the People", in return
That can be Putin's win.
Indeed but totally unrealistic
Be honest: six weeks ago, did you think it was realistic that Putin's troops would have been driven out of Kyiv and Chernihiv and Zelensky would still be in power?
NEW: The Government’s former head of propriety and ethics has been fined over a “raucous” karaoke party in the Cabinet Office at which there was a drunken brawl.
We at last have the answer why they were having so many parties. They would have been bored rigid otherwise. I mean, what could the Head of Propriety and Ethics in a Johnson government possibly have to do?
Once they've sharpened their pencils and polished the phone and maybe filled the printer with paper and made a coffee it will be about ..... ooh, 9:15 am ..... with all those hours to fill.
Remember too that the woman in charge of the unit who wrote all the lockdown rules also broke them.
No wonder Boris thought everyone was complying with the rules if these were the people advising him.
There's clearly a bit of Minitruth in the Conservative Government - war is peace, freedom is slavery, propriety and ethics is drunken raucous karaoke brawl when supposedly observing covid rules.
Tax cuts are tax rises, accepting Ukrainian refugees but not letting them have visas.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.
The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.
The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.
The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts
This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.
Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church
What I don't understand is why any of this matters. Don't you all just belong to the church you want to belong to? You aren't competing are you? Or are you? I'm genuinely confused.
I have no objection to religion or different churches, but I would like to be left out of it. While one sect is established it does have an impact, albeit minor.
The main impact for the non actively religious is it ensures the monarch, not the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England.
Plus of course you can still get married and buried in a historic Church of England Parish Church as an automatic right whether you regularly attend that Church or not as long as it remains the established Church
Do the non-actively religious care if the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England?
Given the Vatican's more aggressive opposition to gay marriage and women priests and abortion compared to the British royal family and most of the Church of England they might.
Brexiteers might also prefer their Christian spiritual head to be in London not Rome, as has been the case since the Reformation
CLAUS, SANTA (UNDECLARED) (CERTIFIED) PO BOX 55122 NORTH POLE, AK 99705 (907) 388-3836 Email: CAMPAIGN-SANTACLAUSFORALASKA@USA.NET Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SANTACLAUSFORALASKA.COM
PALIN, SARAH (REGISTERED REPUBLICAN) (CERTIFIED) PO BOX 871235 WASILLA, AK 99687 (907) 631-0490 Email: INFO@SARAHFORALASKA.COM Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SARAHFORALASKA.COM
Santa Claus would be excellent at canvassing, he could go round all the houses on the night before the election.
Particularly iffy on electoral bribery though.
Must caution you (unofficially) that Santa Claus is current a member of the North Pole, Alaska city council, having been elected - at the top of the pole - receiving 102 votes.
Personally believe Santa's campaign was a clean as the driven snow! Maybe you could solicit depositions from disgruntled elves?
Oh ye of little faith! Yes, David, there IS a Santa Claus.
He's a Democratic Socialist running against Sarah Palin!
Well I can cross check even more easily than @rcs1000 on this one. If a Christmas toblerone, some black pepper moulton brown and some new socks don't show up on his expenditure it is not a true list.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
What is the point of giving him an "off ramp"? Putin is perfectly capable of claiming anything he likes as a win. After all, his stated reasons for invading in the first place have no connection with reality, so why should his reasons for getting all his troops out? If he wants to claim a win he can: what he shouldn't be allowed is any actual benefit from the invasion.
Well what he claims has to have some sort of connection to reality
Why would he start doing that?
Because even the russian people aren't so stupid putin can't fully withdraw and claim a win
Do you have any evidence to support that assertion? For the Russians still in Russia I mean: the ones I know in the UK are disgusted and embarrassed by the whole thing.
Well Russians in uk will be different from those in russia
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.
The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.
The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.
The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts
This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.
Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church
What I don't understand is why any of this matters. Don't you all just belong to the church you want to belong to? You aren't competing are you? Or are you? I'm genuinely confused.
I have no objection to religion or different churches, but I would like to be left out of it. While one sect is established it does have an impact, albeit minor.
The main impact for the non actively religious is it ensures the monarch, not the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England.
Plus of course you can still get married and buried in a historic Church of England Parish Church as an automatic right whether you regularly attend that Church or not as long as it remains the established Church
Do the non-actively religious care if the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England?
Some sections of football fans would care. They want their religion of peace and tolerance unaltered and they will throw glass bottles at footballers to achieve it.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
The Ukrainians still want to fight and to free their country. Until they decide otherwise it is up to us to support them to the very best of our ability.
Yes. There no doubt are some Ukrainians right now who would take some deal that Putin can 'sell' to his people, but from all reports morale and will to fight remain very high at the present time, so somebody getting on their high horse about the cost to the Ukrainian people in taking a sterner stance is not arguing honestly. An examination of many wars in history would reveal that a great many people will be prepared to sacrifice themselves for the cause, and we should not put words in their mouths that they are not, at present, willing to do so. That would be deeply insulting.
Wasn't that the account that kept saying stuff like "Ukrainians shouldn't resist because they'll get raped if they do"? Pre-emptive victim blaming is one of the ugliest things I've ever seen on this site, good riddance to the scum sucker.
I particularly liked his comment on 27th February that peak Ukrainian resistence was over. It showed a remarkable insight. Into what, I am not quite so sure.
CLAUS, SANTA (UNDECLARED) (CERTIFIED) PO BOX 55122 NORTH POLE, AK 99705 (907) 388-3836 Email: CAMPAIGN-SANTACLAUSFORALASKA@USA.NET Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SANTACLAUSFORALASKA.COM
PALIN, SARAH (REGISTERED REPUBLICAN) (CERTIFIED) PO BOX 871235 WASILLA, AK 99687 (907) 631-0490 Email: INFO@SARAHFORALASKA.COM Web Site: HTTPS://WWW.SARAHFORALASKA.COM
Santa Claus would be excellent at canvassing, he could go round all the houses on the night before the election.
Particularly iffy on electoral bribery though.
Must caution you (unofficially) that Santa Claus is current a member of the North Pole, Alaska city council, having been elected - at the top of the pole - receiving 102 votes.
Personally believe Santa's campaign was a clean as the driven snow! Maybe you could solicit depositions from disgruntled elves?
Rumour has it he recently fired his entire workforce without following the proper redundancy consultation regulations and rehired with a load of external contractors working for peanuts. Allegedly.
The external contractors work for the joy of it. Rather than money. Oh yeah...
This is, while working for the guy who gives better presents to the rich kids. An actual regressive...
And faking, in his factory the intellectual property of every toy company on earth. Including faking all the safety marks.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.
The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.
The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.
The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts
This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.
Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church
What I don't understand is why any of this matters. Don't you all just belong to the church you want to belong to? You aren't competing are you? Or are you? I'm genuinely confused.
I have no objection to religion or different churches, but I would like to be left out of it. While one sect is established it does have an impact, albeit minor.
The main impact for the non actively religious is it ensures the monarch, not the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England.
Plus of course you can still get married and buried in a historic Church of England Parish Church as an automatic right whether you regularly attend that Church or not as long as it remains the established Church
Do the non-actively religious care if the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England?
Some sections of football fans would care. They want their religion of peace and tolerance unaltered and they will throw glass bottles at footballers to achieve it.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.
The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.
The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.
The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts
This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.
Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church
What I don't understand is why any of this matters. Don't you all just belong to the church you want to belong to? You aren't competing are you? Or are you? I'm genuinely confused.
I have no objection to religion or different churches, but I would like to be left out of it. While one sect is established it does have an impact, albeit minor.
The main impact for the non actively religious is it ensures the monarch, not the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England.
Plus of course you can still get married and buried in a historic Church of England Parish Church as an automatic right whether you regularly attend that Church or not as long as it remains the established Church
Do the non-actively religious care if the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England?
Given the Vatican's more aggressive opposition to gay marriage and women priests and abortion compared to the British royal family and most of the Church of England they might.
Brexiteers might also prefer their Christian spiritual head to be in London not Rome, as has been the case since the Reformation
Wouldn't those impacted (and I sympathize with them) just join a different sect or do what many Catholics do and just ignore those elements. After all you are talking about the non active religious and they do already show flexibility.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.
The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.
The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.
The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts
This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.
Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church
What I don't understand is why any of this matters. Don't you all just belong to the church you want to belong to? You aren't competing are you? Or are you? I'm genuinely confused.
I have no objection to religion or different churches, but I would like to be left out of it. While one sect is established it does have an impact, albeit minor.
The main impact for the non actively religious is it ensures the monarch, not the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England.
Plus of course you can still get married and buried in a historic Church of England Parish Church as an automatic right whether you regularly attend that Church or not as long as it remains the established Church
Do the non-actively religious care if the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England?
Given the Vatican's more aggressive opposition to gay marriage and women priests and abortion compared to the British royal family and most of the Church of England they might.
Brexiteers might also prefer their Christian spiritual head to be in London not Rome, as has been the case since the Reformation
Gay Marriage and abortion in Ireland where the Pope supposedly holds sway.
No bother to me the gender identity of priests since I don't go to church. Suspect all the female vicars aren't suddenly going to stop leading services if the CofE is disestablished. What Christian Taliban would force them to do so?
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.
The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.
The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.
The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts
This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.
Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church
What I don't understand is why any of this matters. Don't you all just belong to the church you want to belong to? You aren't competing are you? Or are you? I'm genuinely confused.
I have no objection to religion or different churches, but I would like to be left out of it. While one sect is established it does have an impact, albeit minor.
The main impact for the non actively religious is it ensures the monarch, not the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England.
Plus of course you can still get married and buried in a historic Church of England Parish Church as an automatic right whether you regularly attend that Church or not as long as it remains the established Church
Do the non-actively religious care if the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England?
Some sections of football fans would care. They want their religion of peace and tolerance unaltered and they will throw glass bottles at footballers to achieve it.
Sonja was concerned by my Republicanism. "You are not for peace?" she asked.
"I during Vietnam War struggle for peace very much [talk with Russians for a while and you fall into it too], rioting for peace, fighting for peace, tear-gassed for peace," I said "I am tired of peace. Too dangerous."
Orlonsky began to laugh and then shook his head. "Vietnam -- too bad"
"Land war in Asia" I said, "very bad. And some countries do not learn from an example." All of them laughed.
Ukrainian General Staff warns Russians are preparing the offensive in Donbas, "which may begin tomorrow in the direction of Severodonetsk and Velyka Novosilka."
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly.
The Russians are are also closer to major supply bases in the South and East.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
Nope. The Church of Norway was disestablished in 2012. It is no more part of the State than any other religion now.
And in Denmark the Head of State is not the Head of the Church. The legal responsibility for the Church falls ona specific Government minister.
So you are wrong in both those cases. Indeed as I said, none of the other European constitutional monarchies has the Head of State as the head of religion. All the others are disestablished.
Article 16 of the Norwegian constitution makes clear the Church of Norway is 'the established Church' and that the state must support it. Article 4 also requires the Norwegian monarch to be a member of the Church of Norway.
Section 4 of the Constitution of Denmark also confirms the Church of the Denmark as the established church. The only reason the monarch is not the head of them is the Lutheran Church is an evangelical church not a Catholic church like the Church of England. However in both nations it remains the established church under the constitution.
Finland, Iceland, Greenland for a start. I think of those Finland is genuinely quite evangelical, they have "awakenings", like Cambuslang, and there is even one called the Nokia Revival (who are somewhat over-enthusiastic hands-up evangelicals if I have it right).
And certain countries in Europe have the atheist or indifference religion as most dominant.
And some countries that a lot of Western Europeans forget are in Europe.
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Rubbish. I have zero problems with people talking: especially if it means it might divert people away from an evil course.
IIRC alongside Iran and The Vatican we're the only nations to have unelected clergy in our parliament.
I find that very scary and undemocratic.
The bishops are less than 5% of the Lords and they also have a higher percentage of Oxbridge degrees than other peers and MPs do.
Most of them have done parish ministry at some time as well, rooted in the problems of local communities. They are educated and experienced and the type of people we need in the Lords, certainly not more ex politicians and wealthy party donors who increasingly make up the rest of the Lords now
Even so, it is, erm, eccentric by 21st century standards to have members of only one privileged sect of one religion given automatic seats.
Bleating about what C of E priests have or have not done doesn't negate the point that other priests, and ministers, Quaker meeting secretaries, imams, etc., also deal with such matters. So the C of E is not specially privileged in that sense.
Edit: And we need fewer, not more, Oxbridge graduates in Parliament, in both houses.
No it isn’t. The Bishops have been in the Lords since the Middle Ages. They represent the established church. The moment they are removed the main established church in the UK would revert to the Vatican and the Pope.
Quakers and Protestant evangelicals are not part of an established church like the Church of England and Roman Catholic Church are. In Iran where Muslims are a majority clerics are also represented in the legislature. No reason we cannot have a few other religious leaders in the Lords as we have Rabbis already but the Bishops must remain there
Oh, why don't we beign back the humoral theory of illness and villeinage and so on, if doing something in mediaeval times is a reason to do it now? But I forgot, you want to bring back the squire and yokel model of society. Any recommendations about chicken soup for the Black Death?
As for the 21st century: just delete the establishment of one sect. No established sect, no worry about the Pope muscling in. Actually, the Pope taking over the 'main established church', that's the craziest justification I have ever seen for bishops' bums in the HoL. One would need to be living in the 16th or 17th century to take it seriously.
Nope. Just look at the USA or Canada where the Anglican Church is not the established church and Christianity is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church on one side and evangelical churches like the Pentecostals and Baptists on the other. The Anglican Church is just a small liberal minority. Australia and New Zealand are moving the same way.
In Europe the Roman Catholic Church dominates except in a few nations like Norway where the Lutheran church is also still the established church.
If the Church of England ceases to be the established church then the automatic right of every resident of a Church of England parish to a wedding or funeral there goes with it. Church of England churches would exclude anyone from marrying or being buried in its historic churches unless they were baptised in the Church and regular worshippers there
They don't get to keep the churches in the divorce settlement.
They do, they own them all since the Reformation. They are not going back to Rome, the Roman Catholics have their own English churches now (albeit rather newer ones)
No, the state owns the churches via, at the moment, the C of E. If rCofE wants to keep some (and god knows why it would given its inability to fill them) it can do a management buyout. Otherwise we'll hand some back to the papists and keep the rest for pagan genderqueer life affirmation ceremonies. With ayahuasca.
The state does not own Church of England churches. They are owned by what is called 'the corporation sole' which is in effect a subsidiary of the Parish Council directed by the incumbent of the parish. But as they do not have title deeds and they are not technically transmissible or saleable, it isn't actually terribly clear what this means in practice.
It's one reason why it's a bit of a bugger to work out what to do with a closed church.
In the case of a rector, I believe the corporation sole is the rector himself. Vicars and parsons is different. But in practice, if we disestablished, the idea that all this ancient fabric paid for by centuries of tithe-extortion belongs to the handful of cultists which is the C of E, is for the birds.
Oh it very much does belong to the Church via the PCC.
Any attempt to change that therefore would be theft
Let’s look back to when the Church of Ireland and the Church of England in Wales were disestablished: in neither case did anything “revert” to the Roman Catholic Church, nor did the state retain any ownership of the churches.
I did not say the churches reverted back. However in Ireland and Wales the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Church of Ireland or the Church in Wales. So non evangelicals look to the Pope as their main figurehead on earth, not the monarch and not the Archbishop of Canterbury.
No church in Scotland or Ireland provides an automatic right to every parishioner to a church wedding or funeral either
You think Irish protestants look to the pope for moral leadership ?
Well its a view.
They are Presbyterian evangelicals mainly, not in a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition like the Church of England.
In Ireland the Roman Catholic Church is now bigger than the Anglican Church of Ireland in both north and south
The catholic church has always been the biggest church in both north and south. But it is a spent force, it has no moral leadership due to sex scandals, mother and baby homes and corrupt bishops. It is running short of priests as hardly any new ones are being trained. The RoI has caught up the rest of Europe and looks for secular leadership.
The Pope is still the main religious guide on earth in Ireland, not the monarch as is the case in England.
If the Queen is the Anglican's "main religious guide on earth" then what is the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?
Royal families are an obscene anachronism that should be abolished.
The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the Archbishop of Canterbury the symbolic head of the global Anglican Communion and leader of the Church of England. However the Monarch effectively heads the Church of England as they have done since the Reformation.
Constitutional monarchies are of course amongst the most prosperous and free nations on earth, as we are too
I have no problem with constitutional monarchies. I think they are a good way to govern. But that in no way necessitates the monarch being head of the Church. All those other constitutional monarchies get by perfectly well without that bit of medieval mendacity so I see no reason why we should not as well
In the constitutional monarchies of Norway or Denmark the Lutheran church is the established church, in part also to still stop the Roman Catholic Church becoming again the main church in the nation. Even if the Lutheran church as an evangelical church does not believe in having a top down head so much. In the constitutional monarchy of Spain for example where there is no established church the Roman Catholic church is still by far the largest church, so the default head of the established church is the Pope
So do you think the USA Christians defer to the Pope?
It is bonkers to say Republicanism in the British sense puts the pope in charge.
The largest Christian church in the USA is the Roman Catholic church. President Biden is himself a Roman Catholic who visited and paid homage to the Pope last year at the Vatican and regularly attends Mass.
The largest Protestant churches, the Baptist Churches and the Pentecostal churches are evangelical and influence politics in a socially conservative direction, especially the GOP.
The non established Anglican Episcopalian church is just a small liberal minority church, mainly based on the coasts
This is one of your most bizarre assertions, that Republicanism means the return of the Pope. No way will British Protestants accept that.
Evangelicals may not but many of them are Baptists and Pentecostals not Church of England. Most Anglo Catholics in the Church of England would probably even convert back to Rome after disestablishment and soon the Roman Catholic Church would again be the largest church in England for the first time since the Reformation. The Church of England would be a small mainly liberal church
What I don't understand is why any of this matters. Don't you all just belong to the church you want to belong to? You aren't competing are you? Or are you? I'm genuinely confused.
I have no objection to religion or different churches, but I would like to be left out of it. While one sect is established it does have an impact, albeit minor.
The main impact for the non actively religious is it ensures the monarch, not the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England.
Plus of course you can still get married and buried in a historic Church of England Parish Church as an automatic right whether you regularly attend that Church or not as long as it remains the established Church
Do the non-actively religious care if the Pope is the main Christian spiritual head in England?
That is quite an interesting question.
I think we would not want a foreign personage in that sort of position. Lots of nonreligious would I think be uncomfortable with it.
I am not clear what inactive or "community" Roman Catholics would think. There are plenty of Pope-o-Sceptics in the RC community, and not a few would perhaps prefer the Papacy kept at a distance.
Yes - I recognise the irony wrt HMQ and some Commonwealth States, but then they are free to change the status as they wish with full cooperation from the UK.
Most of Ukraine wouldn't be under russian occupation after a ceasefire except possibly the donbass which will satisfy Putin so your point is invalid
Anything that would "satisfy" Putin is by definition a line too far. Putin must lose and be seen to lose. Putin and his coterie of murderous war criminals are not fit to breathe the air in the company of decent people.
Frankly he should be strung up by his bollocks in any town square in Ukraine although I would settle for a life term sentence after a war crimes trial in the Hague, but it's a close call.
Sadly the west can't afford to just let Putin lose win...that will be too dangerous...he needs a small win he can sell whilst we in the west plan our next move
Fixed it for you.
And don't use ellipsis to break up your statements.
Please debate intelligently...thankyou
OK
Putin HAS to lose and to be seen to lose, otherwise anytime he wants something he will take it. We cannot trust any promise he gives as we know he will break it, so any cease-fire will be treated as the start line for the next invasion.
I agree. He has to lose. But he needs something to sell to his own people or Russia won't stop fighting and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will lose their lives. Try explaining your stance to a Ukrainian mother who loses her son in the months of war of grinding attrition. Please try
It's not my decision of course, it it up to Ukraine, but hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians will die if they are trapped on the wrong side of a cease-fire line. Her son (or daughter: plenty of women are fighting) will have died defending her and indeed us in a wider sense.
So we should give them as much support as we can without actually triggering WWIII so that the Ukrainian armed forces have as good a chance as they can of coming back: after all, in the words of a famous US general:
No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
If putin was given an off ramp I don't think you would see the slaughter that would come from the alternative...a war of attrition
Ukraine wins a war of attrition, grinding down what is left of the Russian BTGs. In a long war it is all about sustainable losses. Having seen Bucha, the Ukranians will have a will to fight, and are not short of morale, soldiers or Western arms and finance.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
I hope that or something similar comes to pass, and it might, but I am not confidant.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly.
The Russians are are also closer to major supply bases in the South and East.
About Russian capacity to sustain war. Putin may collect $321 billion in 2022 if oil and gas keep flowing, Bloomberg estimates. For comparison, Ukraine spends $10 billion for war per month which requires $120 billion a year, acc to Prime Minister. Ukraine's usual yearly state budget $50 billion https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1510753194963615745
Note also that they will get a windfall on food exports, as destruction of Ukraine agricultural capacity has driven up prices massively.
Comments
Agnosticism and to a lesser extent atheism in England is rather irrelevant in a context where the Pope heads 1.3 billion Roman Catholics globally, nearly 20 times the entire UK population. Disestablishment means the Pope, not the monarch of the UK, again will in due course become the main spiritual head on earth in England and can bring his global powerbase to entrench that further. Remember too the global population is growing fastest in the developing world which is also the most religious part of the world and low birth rates in the UK coupled with increased immigration from the developing world would further shift things
Once they've sharpened their pencils and polished the phone and maybe filled the printer with paper and made a coffee it will be about ..... ooh, 9:15 am ..... with all those hours to fill.
Remember too that the woman in charge of the unit who wrote all the lockdown rules also broke them.
No wonder Boris thought everyone was complying with the rules if these were the people advising him.
Having been humiliated in the North, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a similar Russian collapse in the South and Donbas.
Sergey Karaganov – a well-known Russian foreign policy shaman gave an interview to @MacaesBruno (Kudos!) for @NewStatesman which, I think, requires few comments. Here's my refelctions in 🧵:
https://twitter.com/SlawomirDebski/status/1510716432497184773
Know it's bit early for remaking but what the heck
ADDENDUM - And with cameo appearance by Sen. Linday Graham (R-Closet)
Must have slipped his mind.
Either that or "Londongrad" and Lord Lebedev and whatever is pretty irrelevant compared to supplying weapons and training troops.
Plus of course you can still get married and buried in a historic Church of England Parish Church as an automatic right whether you regularly attend that Church or not as long as it remains the established Church
Pre-emptive victim blaming is one of the ugliest things I've ever seen on this site, good riddance to the scum sucker.
He lives on the next island over from Kuthulu, where he to lies dreaming.
Putin must fail, and must be seen to fail, especially by the Russian people, who must suffer, economically.
I suppose we should be flattered.
He's a Democratic Socialist running against Sarah Palin!
And carrots.
The war crimes in Brovary and Chernihiv directions might be more heinous that those in Bucha. We have eyewitness accounts through friends, relatives and students. We need help documenting them Journalists and lawyers who can help please contact
@ZoyaMylovanova
Examples: 1/….
Brexiteers might also prefer their Christian spiritual head to be in London not Rome, as has been the case since the Reformation
(Incidentally that is how to use an ellipsis.)
As foretold.
https://mobile.twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1510632351050899456
The Russian Army is now visually confirmed to have lost at least 400 tanks since it began its invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
When including our backlog, the actual number of tanks visually confirmed to have been lost approaches 450.
This is, while working for the guy who gives better presents to the rich kids. An actual regressive...
And faking, in his factory the intellectual property of every toy company on earth. Including faking all the safety marks.
In a factory sited in international waters.
So far the Ukrainians have defended well, at least after the initial assault, and have conducted some behind the lines ambushes, and around Kive have also kept some anti air systems in place.
However, they have not been able to lunch a significant assault. a few small assaults yes but nothing big, even as the Russian have been retreating they have not been able to cut of and surround, any significant Russian forces, even when the Russians in the area where better, and retreating. they have some air defence capability but it is mostly keeping the worst of the Capital, if they more the S300 systems to the south then Russia can and sill bomb/missiles at the capital. equally Ukraine now has a long boarder in the north, that they presumably have to defend, in case the Russians come back, this will tie down a lot of the Ukrainian army. but Russia can if it wonts move all its forces to the east or south, confidant that Ukraine will not advance on Moscow. lastly a lot of Russians weaknesses where biggest when attacking and advancing, pore communications, pore low level leadership, inflexible planning, bad logistics. however if the Russians are going to mostly dig in and just shell the Ukrainians, possibly with a few small rides/advance, then these weaknesses don't matter so much.
I hope I'm wrong and hope somebody can explain why I am wrong, but I think that the Russians may be able to hold on in the south & east for a long time. a lot of weapons, Tanks APCs, artillery and missiles, anti air and ground to ground, but they need proper quantity's and quickly.
No bother to me the gender identity of priests since I don't go to church. Suspect all the female vicars aren't suddenly going to stop leading services if the CofE is disestablished. What Christian Taliban would force them to do so?
Sonja was concerned by my Republicanism. "You are not for peace?" she asked.
"I during Vietnam War struggle for peace very much [talk with Russians for a while and you fall into it too], rioting for peace, fighting for peace, tear-gassed for peace," I said "I am tired of peace. Too dangerous."
Orlonsky began to laugh and then shook his head. "Vietnam -- too bad"
"Land war in Asia" I said, "very bad. And some countries do not learn from an example." All of them laughed.
Luhansk Oblast Head also said today Russians are amassing troops to attack.
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1510734532496011267
https://twitter.com/billneelyreport/status/1510662123986243591?s=21&t=HfXoiZj50UnWa3pV0A-N2g
Not the most vital. But speaks to summat.
Finland, Iceland, Greenland for a start. I think of those Finland is genuinely quite evangelical, they have "awakenings", like Cambuslang, and there is even one called the Nokia Revival (who are somewhat over-enthusiastic hands-up evangelicals if I have it right).
And certain countries in Europe have the atheist or indifference religion as most dominant.
And some countries that a lot of Western Europeans forget are in Europe.
But we cannot ignore what is being perpetrated.
I think we would not want a foreign personage in that sort of position. Lots of nonreligious would I think be uncomfortable with it.
I am not clear what inactive or "community" Roman Catholics would think. There are plenty of Pope-o-Sceptics in the RC community, and not a few would perhaps prefer the Papacy kept at a distance.
Yes - I recognise the irony wrt HMQ and some Commonwealth States, but then they are free to change the status as they wish with full cooperation from the UK.
I agree with him, but because they are an inefficient answer - we have better renewable options.
"Lunch a significant assault".
No Russki version of Goering, then.
https://mobile.twitter.com/thorstenbenner/status/1510738510193565711
Putin may collect $321 billion in 2022 if oil and gas keep flowing, Bloomberg estimates.
For comparison, Ukraine spends $10 billion for war per month which requires $120 billion a year, acc to Prime Minister.
Ukraine's usual yearly state budget $50 billion
https://mobile.twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1510753194963615745
Note also that they will get a windfall on food exports, as destruction of Ukraine agricultural capacity has driven up prices massively.