Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
The BFM poll after the debate on who was the most convincing:
Macron : 59 % Le Pen : 39 %
For comparison the same poll in 2017 was:
Macron : 63 % Le Pen : 34 %
Still some swing to Le Pen then since that debate albeit Macron clearly will be re elected
Story of the whole race, really.
le Pen has made herself less repulsive, Macron has lost some of his shine.
But the ceiling on le Pen's vote is still low enough that she can't win, and Macron's positioning makes it hard for an opponent to come through who is different enough to be interesting and plausible enough to be electable.
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
The Tithes were paid gladly by the overwhelmingly Christian population of the time as the Bible told them to do.
In any case many churches were originally built in the Middle Ages by the then dominant Roman Catholic Church not the Church of England but became C of E at the Reformation
You have any proof those tithes were paid gladly? Some polls from 1802 perhaps? Or just your assumption? I suspect the latter as I am pretty sure people not eating properly were so absolutely glad to have to give money to the church instead
After the Dissolution of the Monasteries the right to tithe often fell to the Crown and secular landowners anyway, not the Church of England.
Although compulsory payments to build and maintain the local church was certainly a better objective than some of what our taxes go on now
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
The BFM poll after the debate on who was the most convincing:
Macron : 59 % Le Pen : 39 %
For comparison the same poll in 2017 was:
Macron : 63 % Le Pen : 34 %
Still some swing to Le Pen then since that debate albeit Macron clearly will be re elected
Story of the whole race, really.
le Pen has made herself less repulsive, Macron has lost some of his shine.
But the ceiling on le Pen's vote is still low enough that she can't win, and Macron's positioning makes it hard for an opponent to come through who is different enough to be interesting and plausible enough to be electable.
Yes, albeit if Macron is re elected this will be his last campaign, he cannot run again in 2027
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
The Tithes were paid gladly by the overwhelmingly Christian population of the time as the Bible told them to do.
In any case many churches were originally built in the Middle Ages by the then dominant Roman Catholic Church not the Church of England but became C of E at the Reformation
You have any proof those tithes were paid gladly? Some polls from 1802 perhaps? Or just your assumption? I suspect the latter as I am pretty sure people not eating properly were so absolutely glad to have to give money to the church instead
After the Dissolution of the Monasteries the right to tithe often fell to the Crown and secular landowners anyway, not the Church of England.
Although compulsory payments to build and maintain the local church was certainly a better objective than some of what our taxes go on now
Well I wont argue most of our taxes are wasted certainly. However tithing some of which went to your peculiar superstition was certainly a part of what was levied. My view remains the same if its paid for by taxes levied in anyway then it belongs to the nation. Any faith and I have no objection to faith, should rely only on the voluntary contributions of its adherents to maintain.
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
The Tithes were paid gladly by the overwhelmingly Christian population of the time as the Bible told them to do.
In any case many churches were originally built in the Middle Ages by the then dominant Roman Catholic Church not the Church of England but became C of E at the Reformation
You have any proof those tithes were paid gladly? Some polls from 1802 perhaps? Or just your assumption? I suspect the latter as I am pretty sure people not eating properly were so absolutely glad to have to give money to the church instead
After the Dissolution of the Monasteries the right to tithe often fell to the Crown and secular landowners anyway, not the Church of England.
Although compulsory payments to build and maintain the local church was certainly a better objective than some of what our taxes go on now
Well I wont argue most of our taxes are wasted certainly. However tithing some of which went to your peculiar superstition was certainly a part of what was levied. My view remains the same if its paid for by taxes levied in anyway then it belongs to the nation. Any faith and I have no objection to faith, should rely only on the voluntary contributions of its adherents to maintain.
Which it does now anyway. However 45% of all grade 1 listed buildings in England and about 20% of all grade II and II* buildings are churches and cathedrals of the Church of England and the state also provides tax relief on listed buildings
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
We have been talking about religion a lot tonight and I think therefore before I get told off too much I would like to put my view of it on the record so I can point back to it.
I think faith is important it is hard wired into us to believe in something greater, indeed some studies have pointed this way. I think faith can be important to us as individuals guiding us on a better way to live.
However I believe faith should be a personal thing and it is not something that we should allow to guide us en masse because the sentence "god is on our side" is even scarier than "I am from the government and here to help you"
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Electoral Calculus Southern Labour gains at just short of majority (42/33) and new boundaries:
MK, Wycombe, Itchen, Hastings, Newport Pagnell, Worthing, Earley, Crawley, Thanet E, Basingstoke Stroud, Truro, Swindon S, Filton & BS, Bournemouth E&W, Camborne, Gloucester Watford, Norwich N, Colchester, Peterbro, Ipswich. Stevenage. Welwyn, Southend (W but there appears to be no E).
In any case this EC scenario sees 20% of Labour gains in the South beyond London.
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
Most of the world's population are not Catholic globally.
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
Most of the world's population are not Catholic globally.
Sometimes you get the impression HYUFD is back in the times when the pope could issue an order and armies would march and 10'000 people would burn at the stake
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal in most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
Wow really you cite that as a good thing when all it means is thousands of woman will die in agony due to botched back street abortions. This is what your faith tells you a good thing? Are you sure you are not a satanist sacrificing woman to a blood mad god?
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal in most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
The God you believe in and WORSHIP is the biggest single abortionist the world has ever seen! Only thing is, He refers to it as "miscarriage".
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal in most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
The God you believe in and WORSHIP is the biggest single abortionist the world has ever seen! Only thing is, He refers to it as "miscarriage".
Actually more into retrospective abortion if you ponder the flood,the passover, sodom and gomorrah and various other biblical "truths"
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal in most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
The God you believe in and WORSHIP is the biggest single abortionist the world has ever seen! Only thing is, He refers to it as "miscarriage".
Miscarriage is not intentional killing of a foetus by other humans
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
Wow really you cite that as a good thing when all it means is thousands of woman will die in agony due to botched back street abortions. This is what your faith tells you a good thing? Are you sure you are not a satanist sacrificing woman to a blood mad god?
I would not ban abortion, although as I have said before I would reduce the time limit and end DIY abortions.
The Vatican wants to ban it completely (remember I am Anglican not Roman Catholic)
I hesitate to mention it, but does anyone know how much the restoration of Notre-Dame is going to cost, how long it will take, and who is going to manage it?
And whether Mons. Macron is going to do the Mitterand thing of building a modern Grand Projet Monument to Himself?
I rather think that the National Trust or the Church of England would manage that rather better, looking at the restoration of eg Nantes Cathedral (burnt down 1992). And that our independent system for looking after old buildings is actually quite well set up, looking at the £22bn currently alleged cost of restoring the Palace of Westminster, being under the control of politicians.
Perhaps they should the hand the Palace of Westminster over to the Church Commissioners, or the Bishops, to manage.
I hesitate to mention it, but does anyone know how much the restoration of Notre-Dame is going to cost, how long it will take, and who is going to manage it?
And whether Mons. Macron is going to do the Mitterand thing of building a modern Grand Projet Monument to Himself?
I rather think that the National Trust or the Church of England would manage that rather better, looking at the restoration of eg Nantes Cathedral (burnt down 1992).
And that our system for looking after old buildings is actually quite well set up, looking at the £22bn currently alleged cost of restoring the Palace of Westminster, under the control of politicians.
Perhaps they should hand it over to the Church Commissioners to manage.
I would question why they even need a palace of westminster, covid proved a lot of teams can work adequately via video conferencing. The thought occurs that many mp's actually think they are important when they walk through the portals
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
Wow really you cite that as a good thing when all it means is thousands of woman will die in agony due to botched back street abortions. This is what your faith tells you a good thing? Are you sure you are not a satanist sacrificing woman to a blood mad god?
I would not ban abortion, although as I have said before I would reduce the time limit and end DIY abortions.
The Vatican wants to ban it completely (remember I am Anglican not Roman Catholic)
We have been talking about religion a lot tonight and I think therefore before I get told off too much I would like to put my view of it on the record so I can point back to it.
I think faith is important it is hard wired into us to believe in something greater, indeed some studies have pointed this way. I think faith can be important to us as individuals guiding us on a better way to live.
However I believe faith should be a personal thing and it is not something that we should allow to guide us en masse because the sentence "god is on our side" is even scarier than "I am from the government and here to help you"
There are lots of things you could end up believing in that don't necessarily have to involve a creator, or a religion, or a creed, or a theology.
For example, I have come to realise that one of my core beliefs is that most people are mostly reasonable most of the time.
This isn't something I've come to believe as a result of experience, or following the careful collection of data. Quite the opposite. It's an article of faith. It's one of the reasons why I am so outraged by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because it's a great big example of lots of people being completely unreasonable, and so it directly challenges my faith.
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
Wow really you cite that as a good thing when all it means is thousands of woman will die in agony due to botched back street abortions. This is what your faith tells you a good thing? Are you sure you are not a satanist sacrificing woman to a blood mad god?
I would not ban abortion, although as I have said before I would reduce the time limit and end DIY abortions.
The Vatican wants to ban it completely (remember I am Anglican not Roman Catholic)
Matthew Hopkins was an anglican
No he was a Puritan.
Most Puritans became nonconformist Calvanists or Presbyterians after the Restoration and 1662 Act of Uniformity
We have been talking about religion a lot tonight and I think therefore before I get told off too much I would like to put my view of it on the record so I can point back to it.
I think faith is important it is hard wired into us to believe in something greater, indeed some studies have pointed this way. I think faith can be important to us as individuals guiding us on a better way to live.
However I believe faith should be a personal thing and it is not something that we should allow to guide us en masse because the sentence "god is on our side" is even scarier than "I am from the government and here to help you"
There are lots of things you could end up believing in that don't necessarily have to involve a creator, or a religion, or a creed, or a theology.
For example, I have come to realise that one of my core beliefs is that most people are mostly reasonable most of the time.
This isn't something I've come to believe as a result of experience, or following the careful collection of data. Quite the opposite. It's an article of faith. It's one of the reasons why I am so outraged by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because it's a great big example of lots of people being completely unreasonable, and so it directly challenges my faith.
But I don't believe in any religion, or doctrine.
Belief is faith, it doesn't matter whether you believe in a god, data, the collective gestalt of mankind etc. My point remains when it goes beyond I believe this to all should believe this or they are wrong is when things go spoons. Hell I am comfortable with people believing I am one of the lizard people controlling mankind as long as it stays a personal belief
I hesitate to mention it, but does anyone know how much the restoration of Notre-Dame is going to cost, how long it will take, and who is going to manage it?
And whether Mons. Macron is going to do the Mitterand thing of building a modern Grand Projet Monument to Himself?
I rather think that the National Trust or the Church of England would manage that rather better, looking at the restoration of eg Nantes Cathedral (burnt down 1992). And that our independent system for looking after old buildings is actually quite well set up, looking at the £22bn currently alleged cost of restoring the Palace of Westminster, being under the control of politicians.
Perhaps they should the hand the Palace of Westminster over to the Church Commissioners, or the Bishops, to manage.
I note that the West Transept of York Minster burnt down in 1984 had the roof restored quite quickly.
I hesitate to mention it, but does anyone know how much the restoration of Notre-Dame is going to cost, how long it will take, and who is going to manage it?
And whether Mons. Macron is going to do the Mitterand thing of building a modern Grand Projet Monument to Himself?
I rather think that the National Trust or the Church of England would manage that rather better, looking at the restoration of eg Nantes Cathedral (burnt down 1992). And that our independent system for looking after old buildings is actually quite well set up, looking at the £22bn currently alleged cost of restoring the Palace of Westminster, being under the control of politicians.
Perhaps they should the hand the Palace of Westminster over to the Church Commissioners, or the Bishops, to manage.
I note that the West Transept of York Minster burnt down in 1984 had the roof restored quite quickly.
Over half the funding came from the heritage lottery fund not "christians" just people who believe the national lottery is good value
I hesitate to mention it, but does anyone know how much the restoration of Notre-Dame is going to cost, how long it will take, and who is going to manage it?
And whether Mons. Macron is going to do the Mitterand thing of building a modern Grand Projet Monument to Himself?
I rather think that the National Trust or the Church of England would manage that rather better, looking at the restoration of eg Nantes Cathedral (burnt down 1992). And that our independent system for looking after old buildings is actually quite well set up, looking at the £22bn currently alleged cost of restoring the Palace of Westminster, being under the control of politicians.
Perhaps they should the hand the Palace of Westminster over to the Church Commissioners, or the Bishops, to manage.
I note that the West Transept of York Minster burnt down in 1984 had the roof restored quite quickly.
Over half the funding came from the heritage lottery fund not "christians" just people who believe the national lottery is good value
Anyone believing that the lotto is good value is more deluded than the worshipers of the flying spaghetti monster.
ROFL Johnson is about as reliable as a condom with a hole in it
A bloke I was at university with was enamoured of a strictly Catholic girlfriend and used to push pins through unopened condom packets in the hope of impregnating and therefore marrying her. It didn't happen. He is now married to someone else and has children. The takeaway being, condoms are impregnated (ironic word) with spermicide and quite useful even when holed.
hmmm so sex before marriage and using condoms....that is a very loose definition of the phrase "strictly catholic"
On a point of PB pedantry, Ishmael didn't say 'Roman'. She might have been C of E, especially on the High/Puseyite sense.
shrugs I cant keep all the denominations straight frankly, christians seem to be sects maniacs
If it's any consolation, it's only because of an active interest in local history that I've had to learn the very real differences. Which are seriously important for anyone doing 19th century history (and interested in anything earlier). It's still utterly f***ing outrageous that the C of E is allocated seats in a supposedly modern parliament, when nobody else, no Kirk ministers, Muslim imams, Jewish rabbis, witches, shamans, or Jedi knights, gets places.
No it isn't as the Church of England is the established Church and the Monarch its Supreme Governor.
The Roman Catholic Church won't allow their bishops to be in the Lords anyway as it challenges the supremacy of the Vatican and the evangelicals have little interest in bishops anyway
Oh, so Mr Johnson has put himself under the supremacy of the Vatican? Dodgy, you say.
The whole point is that the C of E should not be an Established Church at all in the modern world. You know, we're not in the Tudor era any more. Or even the Stuart one. And look what happened to the Stuarts.
Yes it should, the whole point we have the established church is to stop Rome again being our main established Catholic church, as it is in Scotland for instance where there is only a choice between Roman Catholic Popery or Presbyterian evangelicals. The Scottish Episcopal Anglican church is just a small minority church now.
Not to mention the Parish system in England of the established church guarantees every Parishioner a church wedding or funeral regardless of how often they attend church
Trying to start the Gordon Riots again?
If I were an active Christian Scot I would be really angry at your description of Scottish religion as an Old Firm plus Partick Thistle. There's a hell of a lot more to it than that, starting with the Quakers.
And your latter point is utterly irrelevant to your political worldview. It's a moral and pastoral one. it doesn't mean that Mr J pp HMtQ has to be i/c the C of E. In any case, what't the point of a boss of the C of E who keeps slagging it off?
And there are numerous state and ex-state church arrangements across Europe that don't involve legislative power for bishops, and which aren't "Popery", to use HYUFD's sectarian slur.
Almost every other nation in Europe has the Roman Catholic church or the Orthodox Church as its largest church.
The main exceptions are nations like Norway and Denmark which also have the Protestant Lutheran church as their established church
Largest does not equate established.
It does, even in Germany and the Netherlands now, which used to be Protestant, they have the Roman Catholic church as their largest church as they have no established Protestant church like we, the Danes and Norwegians do
But it is pretty likely that the RCC has had the highest weekly attendance in England for a fair amount of the last 50 years, even if we don't have great stats on it. So what are you defending?
And almost none of the 47% go to church. I didn't know you were a fan of self-ID
What has that got to do with it? If the C of E was not the established church many would not even identify with it and the Roman Catholic church would again be our largest church.
Plus of course the end of the Parish system means no automatic right to church weddings or funerals for Parishioners for non church attendees
The last point is rather the point. I wouldn't rock up to the local Jedi temple and demand a burial if I had never been an active member.
Unless you think that being a member of the C of E is somehow, erm. 'English' in a way that other religions and non-religions are not.
As the established church the CofE has an obligation to marry anyone who wants to be married, subject to Canon Law.
What's wrong with the registry office? Strip religions of any marriage powers and keep it in the hands of the state. It's a legal contract (and always was in Scotland, not a religious sacrament).
Some people don't want a drab dull registry office, they want a wedding in a beautiful historic Medieval Parish Church of England church in a traditional English village, even if they are not that religious.
Only having an established church gives them that opportunity automatically as of right as Parishioners
Not 100% correct. They are still subject to Canon Law. So not automatically.
Engaged couples can be married in any Church of England church if they meet just one of these criteria, which include residence:
one of them was baptised or prepared for confirmation in the parish; one of them has ever lived in the parish for six months or more; one of them has at any time regularly attended public worship in the parish for six months or more; one of their parents has lived in the parish for six months or more in their child's lifetime; one of their parents has regularly attended public worship there for six months or more in their child's lifetime; their parents or grandparents were married in the parish.
Virtually nobody ever objects to weddings under Marriage Banns now
Not if they are of the same sex they can't. Nor if they are divorced.
Divorced as at the minister's discretion iirc. Most divorcees will almost certainly be able to find a CofE
I hesitate to mention it, but does anyone know how much the restoration of Notre-Dame is going to cost, how long it will take, and who is going to manage it?
And whether Mons. Macron is going to do the Mitterand thing of building a modern Grand Projet Monument to Himself?
I rather think that the National Trust or the Church of England would manage that rather better, looking at the restoration of eg Nantes Cathedral (burnt down 1992). And that our independent system for looking after old buildings is actually quite well set up, looking at the £22bn currently alleged cost of restoring the Palace of Westminster, being under the control of politicians.
Perhaps they should the hand the Palace of Westminster over to the Church Commissioners, or the Bishops, to manage.
I note that the West Transept of York Minster burnt down in 1984 had the roof restored quite quickly.
Over half the funding came from the heritage lottery fund not "christians" just people who believe the national lottery is good value
Anyone believing that the lotto is good value is more deluded than the worshipers of the flying spaghetti monster.
Actually the chances of the fsm being true in some reality is substantially more than winning the lottery in my opinion
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
Wow really you cite that as a good thing when all it means is thousands of woman will die in agony due to botched back street abortions. This is what your faith tells you a good thing? Are you sure you are not a satanist sacrificing woman to a blood mad god?
I would not ban abortion, although as I have said before I would reduce the time limit and end DIY abortions.
The Vatican wants to ban it completely (remember I am Anglican not Roman Catholic)
Matthew Hopkins was an anglican
No he was a Puritan.
Most Puritans became nonconformist Calvanists or Presbyterians after the Restoration and 1662 Act of Uniformity
Puritans were english protestant christians though on the extreme end admittedly. They were still anglican as a basis they just didnt agree the anglicans had gone far enough
As I said you christians are sects maniacs. Sometimes seems there are more sects than actual christians
First post debate poll by Elabe in terms of who viewers thought was more convincing .
Macron 59% Le Pen 39%
I’m surprised that Le Pen didn’t do better with viewers .
The more interesting question within that . Elabe asked viewers who they would most worry them if they became President .
Le Pen 50% Macron 25%
And who has the necessary characteristics to be President .
Macron 53% Le Pen 28%
I'm not surprised - Macron does well in verbal discourse, he's been touring her strong areas and Mélenchon's areas this week whereas she has been in her heartland or talking to media. On Wednesday night, he was never once uncomfortable even about the cost of living or Russian energy sanctions, but he aggressively put her on the spot on laicité, the Islamic veil, the EU and the Russian connection. Really the problem is Le Pen (and Mélenchon) are better as strong orators railing against the system than in an interpersonal setting, which would be enough if people were a lot worse off rather than primarily facing rising prices, but that's where we are. (Also, a lot of her rampers on PB are narrowly provincial and don't relate to the traits French people are looking for in a president.)
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
Wow really you cite that as a good thing when all it means is thousands of woman will die in agony due to botched back street abortions. This is what your faith tells you a good thing? Are you sure you are not a satanist sacrificing woman to a blood mad god?
I would not ban abortion, although as I have said before I would reduce the time limit and end DIY abortions.
The Vatican wants to ban it completely (remember I am Anglican not Roman Catholic)
Matthew Hopkins was an anglican
No he was a Puritan.
Most Puritans became nonconformist Calvanists or Presbyterians after the Restoration and 1662 Act of Uniformity
Puritans were english protestant christians though on the extreme end admittedly. They were still anglican as a basis they just didnt agree the anglicans had gone far enough
As I said you christians are sects maniacs. Sometimes seems there are more sects than actual christians
They weren't Anglican, they wanted to drive all Catholic influences and ceremony out of the Church of England.
Once the BCP prayer book was standardised for the Church of England and episcopal ordination was required again for Church of England Ministers after Puritans had ended it under Cromwell most of them left the Church of England and became nonconformists. Some going to America which already had a significant Puritan presence from the Pilgrim Fathers on
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
Wow really you cite that as a good thing when all it means is thousands of woman will die in agony due to botched back street abortions. This is what your faith tells you a good thing? Are you sure you are not a satanist sacrificing woman to a blood mad god?
As a counterpoint, it does also mean many many thousands of unborn babies don't die in agony.
I'm not in favour of women dieing in agony, but presenting that as the only consequence of bans on abortion makes no sense at all. The evidence suggests that at least in westernised countries (eg Ireland until recently) rates of injury from illegal abortion are negligible anyway, particularly in the context of infant lives saved. In a UK context, there are over 200k abortions (almost all of perfectly healthy babies) a year. If we banned it tomorrow, I'd be surprised if we hit 1k deaths a year from the backstreet abortionists. The reality is that we'd get a net annual saving of lives greater than the loss of life during covid - and we thought it was worth nearly wiping out two years of everyone's life for that. (and way more QALYs as its infants vs mostly OAPs).
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
Wow really you cite that as a good thing when all it means is thousands of woman will die in agony due to botched back street abortions. This is what your faith tells you a good thing? Are you sure you are not a satanist sacrificing woman to a blood mad god?
As a counterpoint, it does also mean many many thousands of unborn babies don't die in agony.
I'm not in favour of women dieing in agony, but presenting that as the only consequence of bans on abortion makes no sense at all. The evidence suggests that at least in westernised countries (eg Ireland until recently) rates of injury from illegal abortion are negligible anyway, particularly in the context of infant lives saved. In a UK context, there are over 200k abortions (almost all of perfectly healthy babies) a year. If we banned it tomorrow, I'd be surprised if we hit 1k deaths a year from the backstreet abortionists. The reality is that we'd get a net annual saving of lives greater than the loss of life during covid - and we thought it was worth nearly wiping out two years of everyone's life for that. (and way more QALYs as its infants vs mostly OAPs).
On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that many of the babies born would be born to people who didn't want kids, with some fairly serious consequences.
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
Wow really you cite that as a good thing when all it means is thousands of woman will die in agony due to botched back street abortions. This is what your faith tells you a good thing? Are you sure you are not a satanist sacrificing woman to a blood mad god?
As a counterpoint, it does also mean many many thousands of unborn babies don't die in agony.
I'm not in favour of women dieing in agony, but presenting that as the only consequence of bans on abortion makes no sense at all. The evidence suggests that at least in westernised countries (eg Ireland until recently) rates of injury from illegal abortion are negligible anyway, particularly in the context of infant lives saved. In a UK context, there are over 200k abortions (almost all of perfectly healthy babies) a year. If we banned it tomorrow, I'd be surprised if we hit 1k deaths a year from the backstreet abortionists. The reality is that we'd get a net annual saving of lives greater than the loss of life during covid - and we thought it was worth nearly wiping out two years of everyone's life for that. (and way more QALYs as its infants vs mostly OAPs).
And most of that 200k are a ball of cells really its not otherwise healthy babies being ripped from wombs and having their brains smashed out on the floor of abortion rooms. Argue from a point of a sanity or fuck off
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
Wow really you cite that as a good thing when all it means is thousands of woman will die in agony due to botched back street abortions. This is what your faith tells you a good thing? Are you sure you are not a satanist sacrificing woman to a blood mad god?
As a counterpoint, it does also mean many many thousands of unborn babies don't die in agony.
I'm not in favour of women dieing in agony, but presenting that as the only consequence of bans on abortion makes no sense at all. The evidence suggests that at least in westernised countries (eg Ireland until recently) rates of injury from illegal abortion are negligible anyway, particularly in the context of infant lives saved. In a UK context, there are over 200k abortions (almost all of perfectly healthy babies) a year. If we banned it tomorrow, I'd be surprised if we hit 1k deaths a year from the backstreet abortionists. The reality is that we'd get a net annual saving of lives greater than the loss of life during covid - and we thought it was worth nearly wiping out two years of everyone's life for that. (and way more QALYs as its infants vs mostly OAPs).
On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that many of the babies born would be born to people who didn't want kids, with some fairly serious consequences.
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
Wow really you cite that as a good thing when all it means is thousands of woman will die in agony due to botched back street abortions. This is what your faith tells you a good thing? Are you sure you are not a satanist sacrificing woman to a blood mad god?
I would not ban abortion, although as I have said before I would reduce the time limit and end DIY abortions.
The Vatican wants to ban it completely (remember I am Anglican not Roman Catholic)
Matthew Hopkins was an anglican
No he was a Puritan.
Most Puritans became nonconformist Calvanists or Presbyterians after the Restoration and 1662 Act of Uniformity
Um, what exactly do you think the Puritans wanted to purify? And of what did they want to purify it from? They only became non-conformist once it was clear they’d lost the battle to “purify” the Church of England of Roman Catholic practices. (Oh look, I’ve given you the answers!)
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal in most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
The God you believe in and WORSHIP is the biggest single abortionist the world has ever seen! Only thing is, He refers to it as "miscarriage".
Miscarriage is not intentional killing of a foetus by other humans
But it is intentional killing of the foetus by the "God" YOU worship.
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal in most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
The God you believe in and WORSHIP is the biggest single abortionist the world has ever seen! Only thing is, He refers to it as "miscarriage".
Miscarriage is not intentional killing of a foetus by other humans
But it is intentional killing of the foetus by the "God" YOU worship.
God also reserves a special place of grace in heaven for those who die in infancy
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
Wow really you cite that as a good thing when all it means is thousands of woman will die in agony due to botched back street abortions. This is what your faith tells you a good thing? Are you sure you are not a satanist sacrificing woman to a blood mad god?
I would not ban abortion, although as I have said before I would reduce the time limit and end DIY abortions.
The Vatican wants to ban it completely (remember I am Anglican not Roman Catholic)
Matthew Hopkins was an anglican
No he was a Puritan.
Most Puritans became nonconformist Calvanists or Presbyterians after the Restoration and 1662 Act of Uniformity
Um, what exactly do you think the Puritans wanted to purify? And of what did they want to purify it from? They only became non-conformist once it was clear they’d lost the battle to “purify” the Church of England of Roman Catholic practices. (Oh look, I’ve given you the answers!)
Indeed, hence they were not Anglican which is a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition. They were purist Protestants who wanted no Catholic influence at all
Don’t know where this idea comes from that it’s a binary choice between church or a dowdy registry office. Plenty of absolutely beautiful, glamorous hotels to get married in, without the boring long ceremony associated with religious venues.
English churches have been subsidised by the state and british people for years and should be confiscated off the C of E and designated as belonging to the nation and all and sundry should be able to use them as wedding venues. If the C of E wants churches it can build their own using money donated by those practising christians not the money stolen from british people over centuries.
Oh dear. This old nostrum.
Care to identify and delineate the subsidies?
(For the record, if we are on church buildings the CofE raises and spends something of the order of £100m and £200m a year on caring for the large stock of listed buildings in its care, as it has done for a very long time. Where will the funds come from otherwise?)
Do you similarly propose to confiscate all the buildings in the care of the National Trust?
On wedding venues I argue that Cameron tripped over his own feet in his rush. The legal bit of marriages / civil partnerships should have become a state secular rubber stamp thing, and the vicar as registrar role should have been removed.
The other aspects - venues and religious / philosophical ceremonies and so on - should be purely private matters for the relevant organisations.
If people wish to pay 10% of their ceremony fee to support the British Humanist Association & the similar setups in eg Scotland, as I think is the current usual practice practice for 'humanist' weddings, that is a matter purely for them.
Cameron cocked-up that one.
Till 1836 which was before most churches were built we had tithes in pla ce supplying the church with money. Which part are your calling an old nostrum. If a tax is levied on the british people to pay for assets in my view the assets belong to the state not some private organisation. Which part of that are you disagreeing with?
I'm not following you down this rabbithole. Sorry.
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
I would be happy returning assets nationalised since 1507 if there is proof they have legal title prior to that
Not possible while the Church of England is our established Church, otherwise you are returning all Medieval and early Tudor churches back to Rome and the Vatican and thus also greatly increasing Papal power in English religion too
The pope has no power everyone ignores him. Why you think he does is beyond me. He issues his papal bulls and catholics nod then carry on as before. Hell even ireland pretty much ignores what he says now and they were probably as papal leaning as anyone
1.3 billion people are still Catholic globally, over 20 times the UK population
So if the pope issues a call to arms how many will respond? Doubt it will be that many. The vatican has no divisions these days, no brigades, no crusaders
Abortion for example is still illegal most of Catholic majority Latin America and abortion and gay marriage are not legal in Catholic majority Poland and the Philippines either (nor is gay marriage legal in Catholic majority Italy)
Wow really you cite that as a good thing when all it means is thousands of woman will die in agony due to botched back street abortions. This is what your faith tells you a good thing? Are you sure you are not a satanist sacrificing woman to a blood mad god?
I would not ban abortion, although as I have said before I would reduce the time limit and end DIY abortions.
The Vatican wants to ban it completely (remember I am Anglican not Roman Catholic)
Matthew Hopkins was an anglican
No he was a Puritan.
Most Puritans became nonconformist Calvanists or Presbyterians after the Restoration and 1662 Act of Uniformity
Um, what exactly do you think the Puritans wanted to purify? And of what did they want to purify it from? They only became non-conformist once it was clear they’d lost the battle to “purify” the Church of England of Roman Catholic practices. (Oh look, I’ve given you the answers!)
Indeed, hence they were not Anglican which is a Protestant church in the Catholic tradition. They were purist Protestants who wanted no Catholic influence at all
They were members of the Church of England which has been described as “Anglican” since the late 16th, early 17th century centuries, i.e before the “Protestant church within the Catholic tradition” debate was settled.
Now the definition of “Anglican” may have changed to yours since then, arguably since the Act of Uniformity, but the Puritans were until then members of the Church of England, and by the meaning of the word at the time, Anglicans.
Did the Russians have any difficulty in providing direct assistance to the North Vietnamese.
Yes, a great deal. Not least, it was sent by rail through China for a variety of reasons, and the Chinese nicked most of the best stuff for themselves.
Russian aid was a factor in North Vietnam winning, but not the only one or even the most important one.
Ultimately, the problem was that the South Vietnamese government was a puppet of a foreign power which the North Vietnamese certainly never were (and the South Vietnamese Government was at least as bad as the North Vietnamese government so no advance in supporting it) and the people of Vietnam were fighting to rule themselves.
Which meant that although they took truly fearsome punishment, they kept on fighting.
It did help that the Americans were never willing to do the one thing that might have ended the war in their favour - invade and conquer North Vietnam - but I don’t think that would have stopped a rebellion and guerilla war.
I hesitate to mention it, but does anyone know how much the restoration of Notre-Dame is going to cost, how long it will take, and who is going to manage it?
And whether Mons. Macron is going to do the Mitterand thing of building a modern Grand Projet Monument to Himself?
I rather think that the National Trust or the Church of England would manage that rather better, looking at the restoration of eg Nantes Cathedral (burnt down 1992). And that our independent system for looking after old buildings is actually quite well set up, looking at the £22bn currently alleged cost of restoring the Palace of Westminster, being under the control of politicians.
Perhaps they should the hand the Palace of Westminster over to the Church Commissioners, or the Bishops, to manage.
I note that the West Transept of York Minster burnt down in 1984 had the roof restored quite quickly.
Over half the funding came from the heritage lottery fund not "christians" just people who believe the national lottery is good value
Huh? The lottery wasn’t established until ten years after the fire and five years after the repairs had finished!
Comments
You will, I assume, be returning the assets nationalised by Henry VIII. IIRC they constituted something like a quarter, or was it a third, of the country?
(Evening, @HYUFD
(And evening, all
(And evening, Your Holiness. )
le Pen has made herself less repulsive, Macron has lost some of his shine.
But the ceiling on le Pen's vote is still low enough that she can't win, and Macron's positioning makes it hard for an opponent to come through who is different enough to be interesting and plausible enough to be electable.
Although compulsory payments to build and maintain the local church was certainly a better objective than some of what our taxes go on now
Who is closer to my concerns?
Macron: 34%
Le Pen: 37%
Who really wants to change things?
Macron: 29%
Le Pen: 51%
Who is the more arrogant?
Macron: 50%
Le Pen: 16%
Who is the more worrying?
Macron: 25%
Le Pen: 50%
My Good Evening to His Holiness was timed out by the restored comments systems
Macron 59%
Le Pen 39%
I’m surprised that Le Pen didn’t do better with viewers .
The more interesting question within that . Elabe asked viewers who they would most worry them if they became President .
Le Pen 50%
Macron 25%
And who has the necessary characteristics to be President .
Macron 53%
Le Pen 28%
I think faith is important it is hard wired into us to believe in something greater, indeed some studies have pointed this way. I think faith can be important to us as individuals guiding us on a better way to live.
However I believe faith should be a personal thing and it is not something that we should allow to guide us en masse because the sentence "god is on our side" is even scarier than "I am from the government and here to help you"
MK, Wycombe, Itchen, Hastings, Newport Pagnell, Worthing, Earley, Crawley, Thanet E, Basingstoke
Stroud, Truro, Swindon S, Filton & BS, Bournemouth E&W, Camborne, Gloucester
Watford, Norwich N, Colchester, Peterbro, Ipswich. Stevenage. Welwyn, Southend (W but there appears to be no E).
In any case this EC scenario sees 20% of Labour gains in the South beyond London.
The Vatican wants to ban it completely (remember I am Anglican not Roman Catholic)
And whether Mons. Macron is going to do the Mitterand thing of building a modern Grand Projet Monument to Himself?
I note that he wants it finished by 2024.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_de_Paris_fire
I rather think that the National Trust or the Church of England would manage that rather better, looking at the restoration of eg Nantes Cathedral (burnt down 1992). And that our independent system for looking after old buildings is actually quite well set up, looking at the £22bn currently alleged cost of restoring the Palace of Westminster, being under the control of politicians.
Perhaps they should the hand the Palace of Westminster over to the Church Commissioners, or the Bishops, to manage.
For example, I have come to realise that one of my core beliefs is that most people are mostly reasonable most of the time.
This isn't something I've come to believe as a result of experience, or following the careful collection of data. Quite the opposite. It's an article of faith. It's one of the reasons why I am so outraged by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, because it's a great big example of lots of people being completely unreasonable, and so it directly challenges my faith.
But I don't believe in any religion, or doctrine.
Most Puritans became nonconformist Calvanists or Presbyterians after the Restoration and 1662 Act of Uniformity
As I said you christians are sects maniacs. Sometimes seems there are more sects than actual christians
Once the BCP prayer book was standardised for the Church of England and episcopal ordination was required again for Church of England Ministers after Puritans had ended it under Cromwell most of them left the Church of England and became nonconformists. Some going to America which already had a significant Puritan presence from the Pilgrim Fathers on
I'm not in favour of women dieing in agony, but presenting that as the only consequence of bans on abortion makes no sense at all.
The evidence suggests that at least in westernised countries (eg Ireland until recently) rates of injury from illegal abortion are negligible anyway, particularly in the context of infant lives saved.
In a UK context, there are over 200k abortions (almost all of perfectly healthy babies) a year. If we banned it tomorrow, I'd be surprised if we hit 1k deaths a year from the backstreet abortionists. The reality is that we'd get a net annual saving of lives greater than the loss of life during covid - and we thought it was worth nearly wiping out two years of everyone's life for that. (and way more QALYs as its infants vs mostly OAPs).
See: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf
⬜🟨⬜🟨⬜
⬜⬜🟩⬜🟩
⬜⬜🟩⬜🟩
⬜🟨🟩⬜🟩
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Fun one today.
to purify it from? They only became non-conformist once it was clear they’d lost the battle to “purify” the Church of England of Roman Catholic practices. (Oh look, I’ve given you the answers!)
Now the definition of “Anglican” may have changed to yours since then, arguably since the Act of Uniformity, but the Puritans were until then members of the Church of England, and by the meaning of the word at the time, Anglicans.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGz3t6jzBDc&list=PLd2ne922MKlfnOGnZLYEgIfRHl6oM47T3&index=32
⬜⬜🟨🟨⬜
🟨⬜🟨⬜🟨
🟩🟩🟩🟨⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Seems I am in a different timezone.
Russian aid was a factor in North Vietnam winning, but not the only one or even the most important one.
Ultimately, the problem was that the South Vietnamese government was a puppet of a foreign power which the North Vietnamese certainly never were (and the South Vietnamese Government was at least as bad as the North Vietnamese government so no advance in supporting it) and the people of Vietnam were fighting to rule themselves.
Which meant that although they took truly fearsome punishment, they kept on fighting.
It did help that the Americans were never willing to do the one thing that might have ended the war in their favour - invade and conquer North Vietnam - but I don’t think that would have stopped a rebellion and guerilla war.