So with the swing since then, Labour are probably ahead by now.
(Your core point, that clergy are politically leftier than their congregations, is probably right. In part, that's just because working clergy are of working age and most congregations are dominated by the retired.)
I went to school in Britain in 1993/4 and the mood was pretty desolate. The papers would write about how Britain was basically finished. A decent chunk of the bien pensant thought that Britain should basically join the forthcoming European currency and dissolve itself. The last chapter of Roy Porter’s History of London (pub. 1994) basically says, oh well it was fun while it lasted, but London’s basically a sedate, damper Vienna now: a saved-up slice of wedding cake to be enjoyed by the very old.
Ten years later the exchange rate was so generous to the pound that you could fly to Manhattan and feel like a millionaire. London felt like the centre of the world from about 1997 to 2012.
Hopefully things get better when the Tories are finally ejected. I genuinely believe just a change in government will improve investment prospects, even absent any real change in fiscal policy.
Then you're going to be devastatingly disappointed. Labour view the private sector as an ATM to be raided as much as possible for money to shovel towards their interest groups. Their only reflexes are tax, regulate and waste. They will be a disaster for our already stagnating economy.
I have no issue with Anglicanism being an increasingly African communion. I assume that Anglicans wish to continue to proselytise, and indeed Africa is increasingly where global population growth is centred.
I just think it’s daft to apologise for promoting your own religion, that’s the bloody point, isn’t it? By definition, if you believe in Anglicanism, you must also believe that other religions or belief systems are somehow misguided or at least open to further enlightenment.
I guess that’s just an unfashionable view now, if not downright racist.
"seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems" ≠ "promoting your own religion"
Funnily enough you’d probably make a very good monomaniacal 19th century overseas evangelist.
Perhaps, but I'm right, aren't I?
There's a difference between seeking to promote your own views (and if others wither and die, then so be it) and going out of your way to destroy others systems so there's no competition to your own.
The Church in its history has done a lot of the latter and it is absolutely a black mark in their history they bloody well should apologise for.
No, I don’t think you are right. The point of proselytisation is to convert. Logically, every convert also means one less subscriber to “alternative belief systems”.
If the Anglicans want to apologise for something akin to the Taliban destruction of Buddhist monuments, then that’s fine. But they seem to want to apologise just for doing the day job as it were.
I really don't see how you are getting that. A May election at the moment is asking the turkeys to not only vote for an early Christmas but to lie on the cutting board with their gizzards stretched.
All turkeys die in December.
Only a few die in May.
The logic is simple, and obvious. Only somebody really dense, like Sunak maybe, can't see it...
It may not be particularly obvious to those who think that they have got another 5 or 6 months to find post MP employment. Politics is a brutal game and a lot of pretty comfortably well off MPs with spouses as well paid employees and spectacular expenses covering the cost of a second home are going to feel the pinch in a serious way. Even if you believe it is not going to get better why bring it forward?
In May not all of them will need to find new jobs
The difference in the number of MPs who will lose their jobs in May and October is about zero.
They're going to get destroyed either way.
Indeed. Sunak would basically be asking MPs and ministers to give up their jobs 6 months earlier on the off-chance that it might save a handful of MPs - implicitly agreeing that he'd make things worse if he remained in Downing Street over the summer.
We literally had the worst-ever Tory vote share with Ipsos/Mori today (and a Lab+27 lead). Even the Lab+14 lead Deltapoll came up with is a bigger lead than either of Blair's landslide victories. That is not the backdrop to call an election against, when holding out is still a credible option.
I went to school in Britain in 1993/4 and the mood was pretty desolate. The papers would write about how Britain was basically finished. A decent chunk of the bien pensant thought that Britain should basically join the forthcoming European currency and dissolve itself. The last chapter of Roy Porter’s History of London (pub. 1994) basically says, oh well it was fun while it lasted, but London’s basically a sedate, damper Vienna now: a saved-up slice of wedding cake to be enjoyed by the very old.
Ten years later the exchange rate was so generous to the pound that you could fly to Manhattan and feel like a millionaire. London felt like the centre of the world from about 1997 to 2012.
Hopefully things get better when the Tories are finally ejected. I genuinely believe just a change in government will improve investment prospects, even absent any real change in fiscal policy.
Then you're going to be devastatingly disappointed. Labour view the private sector as an ATM to be raided as much as possible for money to shovel towards their interest groups. Their only reflexes are tax, regulate and waste. They will be a disaster for our already stagnating economy.
The problem is todays Conservative Party also views the private sector as an ATM to be raided as much as possible for money to shovel towards their interest groups. Their only reflexes are tax, regulate and waste. They are a disaster for our already stagnating economy.
The interest groups vary. For Labour its public sector workers, for the Tories its pensioners. Neither give a damn anymore about the private sector.
At least public sector workers are working, so perhaps Labour now will be the lesser evil?
So with the swing since then, Labour are probably ahead by now.
(Your core point, that clergy are politically leftier than their congregations, is probably right. In part, that's just because working clergy are of working age and most congregations are dominated by the retired.)
also that clergy are more inclined to truly believe in God and Jesus ,wheras congregations truly believe in the institution of the Church more and whilst not totally mutually exclusive , clergy like to "do good "and congregations like to mend the church roof and have parish meetings
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
The CoE is essentially staffed by self-flaggelating Corbynites.
However, in such a system, it's very difficult to make an opposing argument without being ostracised: I'm trying to do it at the moment on a "sustainability committee" for a major organisation that has loud, voluble and rather dominant people who want to advocate for banning private car ownership and enforce vegan-only diets at all events.
I just think it’s batshit that a group that by definition is dedicated to observing and promoting a certain belief should decide that it’s something to apologise for).
Or perhaps that's precisely why they should?
If you accept their actions were wrong, and those wrong actions were central to their operations, then shouldn't they apologise and reform?
But surely that summary suggests even the goal of converting people is wrong, not simply that their actions in pursuit of the goal was wrong? And if they think converting people to Christianity is wrong, what should they be doing instead? Or are they saying Africans should not have become Christians?
I feel like I will need to read the report as surely they found a way of saying the way they went about it was wrong rather than that converting Africans was bad.
(Some) Africans became Christians long before anyone on our islands did. North Africa was a centre of early Christianity, with figures including Augustine, Aurelius, Tertullian and Arius.
But matters are even worse than that raw numbers implies. If you look at the male/female ratio, you'll see that males outnumber females by more than one would expect, naturally.
(My apologies for being such a downer on this, but I can't help worrying that "Emperor" Xi realizes that he now has the largest potential army that any Chinese leader is likely to have in the next 40 years or so.)
But matters are even worse than that raw numbers implies. If you look at the male/female ratio, you'll see that males outnumber females by more than one would expect, naturally.
(My apologies for being such a downer on this, but I can't help worrying that "Emperor" Xi realizes that he now has the largest potential army that any Chinese leader is likely to have in the next 40 years or so.)
Well, Taiwan's TFR is similar, so that also means Taiwan has the largest potential army that any Chinese leader is likely to face in the next 40 years or so.
I have no issue with Anglicanism being an increasingly African communion. I assume that Anglicans wish to continue to proselytise, and indeed Africa is increasingly where global population growth is centred.
I just think it’s daft to apologise for promoting your own religion, that’s the bloody point, isn’t it? By definition, if you believe in Anglicanism, you must also believe that other religions or belief systems are somehow misguided or at least open to further enlightenment.
I guess that’s just an unfashionable view now, if not downright racist.
"seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems" ≠ "promoting your own religion"
Funnily enough you’d probably make a very good monomaniacal 19th century overseas evangelist.
Perhaps, but I'm right, aren't I?
There's a difference between seeking to promote your own views (and if others wither and die, then so be it) and going out of your way to destroy others systems so there's no competition to your own.
The Church in its history has done a lot of the latter and it is absolutely a black mark in their history they bloody well should apologise for.
No, I don’t think you are right. The point of proselytisation is to convert. Logically, every convert also means one less subscriber to “alternative belief systems”.
If the Anglicans want to apologise for something akin to the Taliban destruction of Buddhist monuments, then that’s fine. But they seem to want to apologise just for doing the day job as it were.
But there's a difference between proselytisation and destruction.
If people convert of their own free will and old beliefs wither and die, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
But if old beliefs are targeted, discriminated against, vandalised and destroyed then that is a problem.
Its like democracy versus autocracy. A democratic Conservative [or Labour or anything else] may want to encourage others to vote Conservative [or Labour etc]. They may go knocking up, campaigning etc, that's a form of proselytisation and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. But they will also respect the right of people who have very different beliefs to keep, hold and act by their beliefs - and for the others to be proselytising too.
However an autocrat like in Russia will seek to destroy rivals, not via proselytisation, but via murder, violence, repression etc
One is decent, the other is not. The Church for much of its history operated via the latter camp, not the former.
I have no issue with Anglicanism being an increasingly African communion. I assume that Anglicans wish to continue to proselytise, and indeed Africa is increasingly where global population growth is centred.
I just think it’s daft to apologise for promoting your own religion, that’s the bloody point, isn’t it? By definition, if you believe in Anglicanism, you must also believe that other religions or belief systems are somehow misguided or at least open to further enlightenment.
I guess that’s just an unfashionable view now, if not downright racist.
Rather as a key part of Evangelism in the Missionary era was translating and preaching vernacular languages, a key part now is in working within other cultures.
For example, in Victorian times converts were expected to adopt Christian names, European clothes, even to have sex in the missionary position. None of these are needed in order to be a Christian.
Indeed, very often more traditional Christian churches like the Anglicans are being squeezed out by African Christian Churches with a more Charismatic and Pentacostal style. Shortly before Covid I was at a Christian conference centre where our meeting of Church treasurers was sharing the centre with 2 other groups, one of which was a Southern African Church of Zion, all decked out in splendid African robes. Their sessions looked much more fun than our national accounts, and made for interesting chats in the bar.
That is not the backdrop to call an election against, when holding out is still a credible option.
Holding out is not a credible option
The decision will be taken from Richi if he doesn't make it himself Some Tories loyal to Sunak fear that this could trigger a fresh bout of leadership speculation and even a confidence vote. It would be better, they suggest, for Sunak to be the master of his own destiny and go to the country at the same time rather than risk being overthrown by his own MPs in a last desperate throw of the dice.
That is not the backdrop to call an election against, when holding out is still a credible option.
Holding out is not a credible option
The decision will be taken from Richi if he doesn't make it himself Some Tories loyal to Sunak fear that this could trigger a fresh bout of leadership speculation and even a confidence vote. It would be better, they suggest, for Sunak to be the master of his own destiny and go to the country at the same time rather than risk being overthrown by his own MPs in a last desperate throw of the dice.
They have a majority, holding out is absolutely a credible option.
It won't win them the next election, but nothing will.
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
The CoE is essentially staffed by self-flaggelating Corbynites.
However, in such a system, it's very difficult to make an opposing argument without being ostracised: I'm trying to do it at the moment on a "sustainability committee" for a major organisation that has loud, voluble and rather dominant people who want to advocate for banning private car ownership and enforce vegan-only diets at all events.
I just think it’s batshit that a group that by definition is dedicated to observing and promoting a certain belief should decide that it’s something to apologise for).
Or perhaps that's precisely why they should?
If you accept their actions were wrong, and those wrong actions were central to their operations, then shouldn't they apologise and reform?
You're dedicated to promoting your set of beliefs all the live long day; should you apologise retrospectively if anyone ever ends up exchanging their traditional beliefs for one of yours?
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
The CoE is essentially staffed by self-flaggelating Corbynites.
However, in such a system, it's very difficult to make an opposing argument without being ostracised: I'm trying to do it at the moment on a "sustainability committee" for a major organisation that has loud, voluble and rather dominant people who want to advocate for banning private car ownership and enforce vegan-only diets at all events.
I just think it’s batshit that a group that by definition is dedicated to observing and promoting a certain belief should decide that it’s something to apologise for).
Or perhaps that's precisely why they should?
If you accept their actions were wrong, and those wrong actions were central to their operations, then shouldn't they apologise and reform?
You're dedicated to promoting your set of beliefs all the live long day; should you apologise retrospectively if anyone ever ends up exchanging their traditional beliefs for one of yours?
No.
Convincing people via a free exchange of ideas is a good thing.
Convincing people via repression, the barrel of the gun and destroying others beliefs systems is a bad thing.
Hence why democracy is good, and your beloved Moscow is bad.
The problem is the Church didn't simply proselytise in the past, that's a complete rewriting of history. It very much sought to destroy alternatives, via malicious means, which is wrong.
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
I am not an Anglican, so it's no skin off my nose, but it isn't a daft report.
The plan is for a billion pound fund aimed at Africa and the African diaspora, and invested in a way that is sympathetic rather than antagonistic to African culture. It is explicitly evangelical and Christian in aim.
The future of the worldwide Anglican community is increasingly in the young African diaspora, with congregations here rather pale and elderly. It is an astute business decision to redirect in that way.
Welcome to the African Century.
Then, call it a business investment plan to strengthen relations. We've neglected our friends for too long etc..
Naming it "reparations" just pisses people off and opens up a wholly toxic can of worms.
It is also utterly outrageous when parishes are being merged and paid stipendiary priests being cut in England. It is the Church of England now not the Church of Africa and even most black British Anglicans would prefer the funds to be spent in Parish ministry here.
I expect Reverend Marcus Walker will raise a huge row at Synod over this in his role as head of Save the Parish
They probably think such parishes need to be decolonised.
The problem with the C of E is most of the Bishops and Deans and Archdeacons and administrators at Church House are now Labour voters but most of the congregation of their churches are Telegraph and Mail reading Conservatives.
There is only so much more woke rubbish and wasting of funds the latter will take from the former before they openly revolt!
If the COE is down to Telegraph and Mail reading conservatives, then they will be competing with the conservative's membership as to who has the larger followers
That is not the backdrop to call an election against, when holding out is still a credible option.
Holding out is not a credible option
The decision will be taken from Richi if he doesn't make it himself Some Tories loyal to Sunak fear that this could trigger a fresh bout of leadership speculation and even a confidence vote. It would be better, they suggest, for Sunak to be the master of his own destiny and go to the country at the same time rather than risk being overthrown by his own MPs in a last desperate throw of the dice.
It will not happen and no matter how many posts you make, it will not change that Sunak will lead into the GE no matter when this year
Now what follows post the GE no body can know except Sunak will move on to pastures new
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
I am not an Anglican, so it's no skin off my nose, but it isn't a daft report.
The plan is for a billion pound fund aimed at Africa and the African diaspora, and invested in a way that is sympathetic rather than antagonistic to African culture. It is explicitly evangelical and Christian in aim.
The future of the worldwide Anglican community is increasingly in the young African diaspora, with congregations here rather pale and elderly. It is an astute business decision to redirect in that way.
Welcome to the African Century.
Then, call it a business investment plan to strengthen relations. We've neglected our friends for too long etc..
Naming it "reparations" just pisses people off and opens up a wholly toxic can of worms.
It is also utterly outrageous when parishes are being merged and paid stipendiary priests being cut in England. It is the Church of England now not the Church of Africa and even most black British Anglicans would prefer the funds to be spent in Parish ministry here.
I expect Reverend Marcus Walker will raise a huge row at Synod over this in his role as head of Save the Parish
It is an interesting debate. Is it a worldwide communion, or just an English one?
As I am not an Anglican, I rightly don't get a say.
It is an English one primarily, the Church of England was founded in the 16th century but the Anglican communion only in the 19th century. The Archbishop of Canterbury is leader of the Church of England but only symbolic first amongst equals of the Anglican communion.
The Roman Catholic church is a global communion where what the Pope and Vatican say applies worldwide. The Anglican communion isn't really
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
I am not an Anglican, so it's no skin off my nose, but it isn't a daft report.
The plan is for a billion pound fund aimed at Africa and the African diaspora, and invested in a way that is sympathetic rather than antagonistic to African culture. It is explicitly evangelical and Christian in aim.
The future of the worldwide Anglican community is increasingly in the young African diaspora, with congregations here rather pale and elderly. It is an astute business decision to redirect in that way.
Welcome to the African Century.
Then, call it a business investment plan to strengthen relations. We've neglected our friends for too long etc..
Naming it "reparations" just pisses people off and opens up a wholly toxic can of worms.
It is also utterly outrageous when parishes are being merged and paid stipendiary priests being cut in England. It is the Church of England now not the Church of Africa and even most black British Anglicans would prefer the funds to be spent in Parish ministry here.
I expect Reverend Marcus Walker will raise a huge row at Synod over this in his role as head of Save the Parish
It is an interesting debate. Is it a worldwide communion, or just an English one?
As I am not an Anglican, I rightly don't get a say.
It is an English one primarily, the Church of England was founded in the 16th century but the Anglican communion only in the 19th century. The Archbishop of Canterbury is leader of the Church of England but only symbolic first amongst equals of the Anglican communion.
The Roman Catholic church is a global communion where what the Pope and Vatican say applies worldwide. The Anglican communion isn't really
As far as I know “State’s Rights” began and largely maintains as an argument for States to ignore progressive federal legislation, especially around race.
That’s not to say there’s no merit in it though. Brits tend to underestimate the tenacious belief of many Americans in liberty. I find the notion admirable, if many of the effects baleful.
It might be admirable, if it were ever applied as a principle rather than a political tactic. to be discarded at will. US conservatives have rarely shown any interest at all in states' rights when they wish to implement illiberal federal legislation.
The SC have overruled the rights of Blue states to have stricter gun control.
As the right to bear arms is a constitutional amendment unlike the right to an abortion
A curious thing has happened on PB - I can no longer see who has 'liked' a particular post. I can see the number of likes but not the list of individuals. Which is a shame.
That is not the backdrop to call an election against, when holding out is still a credible option.
Holding out is not a credible option
The decision will be taken from Richi if he doesn't make it himself Some Tories loyal to Sunak fear that this could trigger a fresh bout of leadership speculation and even a confidence vote. It would be better, they suggest, for Sunak to be the master of his own destiny and go to the country at the same time rather than risk being overthrown by his own MPs in a last desperate throw of the dice.
They have a majority, holding out is absolutely a credible option.
It won't win them the next election, but nothing will.
To be fair, it's easy to forget they have a fat majority given how utterly they have failed to make any effective use of it recently...
A curious thing has happened on PB - I can no longer see who has 'liked' a particular post. I can see the number of likes but not the list of individuals. Which is a shame.
A curious thing has happened on PB - I can no longer see who has 'liked' a particular post. I can see the number of likes but not the list of individuals. Which is a shame.
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
I am not an Anglican, so it's no skin off my nose, but it isn't a daft report.
The plan is for a billion pound fund aimed at Africa and the African diaspora, and invested in a way that is sympathetic rather than antagonistic to African culture. It is explicitly evangelical and Christian in aim.
The future of the worldwide Anglican community is increasingly in the young African diaspora, with congregations here rather pale and elderly. It is an astute business decision to redirect in that way.
Welcome to the African Century.
Then, call it a business investment plan to strengthen relations. We've neglected our friends for too long etc..
Naming it "reparations" just pisses people off and opens up a wholly toxic can of worms.
It is also utterly outrageous when parishes are being merged and paid stipendiary priests being cut in England. It is the Church of England now not the Church of Africa and even most black British Anglicans would prefer the funds to be spent in Parish ministry here.
I expect Reverend Marcus Walker will raise a huge row at Synod over this in his role as head of Save the Parish
It is an interesting debate. Is it a worldwide communion, or just an English one?
As I am not an Anglican, I rightly don't get a say.
It is an English one primarily, the Church of England was founded in the 16th century but the Anglican communion only in the 19th century. The Archbishop of Canterbury is leader of the Church of England but only symbolic first amongst equals of the Anglican communion.
The Roman Catholic church is a global communion where what the Pope and Vatican say applies worldwide. The Anglican communion isn't really
Isn't the King leader of the Church of England?
No, Supreme Governor
Aren't those synonyms?
Isn't the Supreme Governor a leader?
No the leader of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury ie its CEO, the King is effectively its chairman and symbolic head
As far as I know “State’s Rights” began and largely maintains as an argument for States to ignore progressive federal legislation, especially around race.
That’s not to say there’s no merit in it though. Brits tend to underestimate the tenacious belief of many Americans in liberty. I find the notion admirable, if many of the effects baleful.
It might be admirable, if it were ever applied as a principle rather than a political tactic. to be discarded at will. US conservatives have rarely shown any interest at all in states' rights when they wish to implement illiberal federal legislation.
The SC have overruled the rights of Blue states to have stricter gun control.
As the right to bear arms is a constitutional amendment unlike the right to an abortion
The SC's interpretation of the right to bear arms is questionable.
A curious thing has happened on PB - I can no longer see who has 'liked' a particular post. I can see the number of likes but not the list of individuals. Which is a shame.
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
I am not an Anglican, so it's no skin off my nose, but it isn't a daft report.
The plan is for a billion pound fund aimed at Africa and the African diaspora, and invested in a way that is sympathetic rather than antagonistic to African culture. It is explicitly evangelical and Christian in aim.
The future of the worldwide Anglican community is increasingly in the young African diaspora, with congregations here rather pale and elderly. It is an astute business decision to redirect in that way.
Welcome to the African Century.
Then, call it a business investment plan to strengthen relations. We've neglected our friends for too long etc..
Naming it "reparations" just pisses people off and opens up a wholly toxic can of worms.
It is also utterly outrageous when parishes are being merged and paid stipendiary priests being cut in England. It is the Church of England now not the Church of Africa and even most black British Anglicans would prefer the funds to be spent in Parish ministry here.
I expect Reverend Marcus Walker will raise a huge row at Synod over this in his role as head of Save the Parish
They probably think such parishes need to be decolonised.
The problem with the C of E is most of the Bishops and Deans and Archdeacons and administrators at Church House are now Labour voters but most of the congregation of their churches are Telegraph and Mail reading Conservatives.
There is only so much more woke rubbish and wasting of funds the latter will take from the former before they openly revolt!
If the COE is down to Telegraph and Mail reading conservatives, then they will be competing with the conservative's membership as to who has the larger followers
There are still about three times as many go to a weekly C of E service than are Tory party members, although obviously even now far more still vote Conservative. Though the number of Christians of all denominations is still bigger than the number of Conservative voters
A curious thing has happened on PB - I can no longer see who has 'liked' a particular post. I can see the number of likes but not the list of individuals. Which is a shame.
Anyone else got that issue?
Never been able to do that on my phone, only on my laptop
A curious thing has happened on PB - I can no longer see who has 'liked' a particular post. I can see the number of likes but not the list of individuals. Which is a shame.
I really don't see how you are getting that. A May election at the moment is asking the turkeys to not only vote for an early Christmas but to lie on the cutting board with their gizzards stretched.
All turkeys die in December.
Only a few die in May.
The logic is simple, and obvious. Only somebody really dense, like Sunak maybe, can't see it...
It may not be particularly obvious to those who think that they have got another 5 or 6 months to find post MP employment. Politics is a brutal game and a lot of pretty comfortably well off MPs with spouses as well paid employees and spectacular expenses covering the cost of a second home are going to feel the pinch in a serious way. Even if you believe it is not going to get better why bring it forward?
In May not all of them will need to find new jobs
The difference in the number of MPs who will lose their jobs in May and October is about zero.
They're going to get destroyed either way.
Yep. I'm not sure where this almost PB consensus arises from?
I think it's wishful thinking. While I accept there is an argument for May, there are also arguments for every other month between now and January 2025.
Without knowledge of Sunak's internal thoughts we are just guessing. the fact that PB has reached an almost-consensus on speculation but no evidence just demonstrates the danger of groupthink.
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
The CoE is essentially staffed by self-flaggelating Corbynites.
However, in such a system, it's very difficult to make an opposing argument without being ostracised: I'm trying to do it at the moment on a "sustainability committee" for a major organisation that has loud, voluble and rather dominant people who want to advocate for banning private car ownership and enforce vegan-only diets at all events.
I just think it’s batshit that a group that by definition is dedicated to observing and promoting a certain belief should decide that it’s something to apologise for).
Or perhaps that's precisely why they should?
If you accept their actions were wrong, and those wrong actions were central to their operations, then shouldn't they apologise and reform?
You're dedicated to promoting your set of beliefs all the live long day; should you apologise retrospectively if anyone ever ends up exchanging their traditional beliefs for one of yours?
No.
Convincing people via a free exchange of ideas is a good thing.
Convincing people via repression, the barrel of the gun and destroying others beliefs systems is a bad thing.
Hence why democracy is good, and your beloved Moscow is bad.
The problem is the Church didn't simply proselytise in the past, that's a complete rewriting of history. It very much sought to destroy alternatives, via malicious means, which is wrong.
People haven't forgotten the soup here. During the famine the Anglican church in Ireland would offer starving people soup on condition that they renounced the Catholic church and joined the Anglican.
On Shrove Tuesday just past the local Anglican church was offering pancakes, and fortunately matters have improved that such conditions are no longer attached. But the difference was remarked upon.
A curious thing has happened on PB - I can no longer see who has 'liked' a particular post. I can see the number of likes but not the list of individuals. Which is a shame.
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
The CoE is essentially staffed by self-flaggelating Corbynites.
However, in such a system, it's very difficult to make an opposing argument without being ostracised: I'm trying to do it at the moment on a "sustainability committee" for a major organisation that has loud, voluble and rather dominant people who want to advocate for banning private car ownership and enforce vegan-only diets at all events.
I just think it’s batshit that a group that by definition is dedicated to observing and promoting a certain belief should decide that it’s something to apologise for).
Or perhaps that's precisely why they should?
If you accept their actions were wrong, and those wrong actions were central to their operations, then shouldn't they apologise and reform?
You're dedicated to promoting your set of beliefs all the live long day; should you apologise retrospectively if anyone ever ends up exchanging their traditional beliefs for one of yours?
No.
Convincing people via a free exchange of ideas is a good thing.
Convincing people via repression, the barrel of the gun and destroying others beliefs systems is a bad thing.
Hence why democracy is good, and your beloved Moscow is bad.
The problem is the Church didn't simply proselytise in the past, that's a complete rewriting of history. It very much sought to destroy alternatives, via malicious means, which is wrong.
People haven't forgotten the soup here. During the famine the Anglican church in Ireland would offer starving people soup on condition that they renounced the Catholic church and joined the Anglican.
On Shrove Tuesday just past the local Anglican church was offering pancakes, and fortunately matters have improved that sick conditions are no longer attached. But the difference was remarked upon.
Yes, the Church (not just Anglican) has a torrid history.
To rewrite it as "proselytisation" is a complete rewriting of history.
In the words of Gardenwalker "akin to destroying monuments" (or threats of starvation etc too) is the relevant part of its history that is being discussed.
To pretend history is all sunshine and roses and honest proseltyisation is to just rewrite and deny history, its not.
"PS – Those who wish to replace Sunak with the Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton will take comfort that even at his nadir Lord Cameron’s ratings were a damn sight better than any other PM since Ipsos polling began."
But at -38 it's still not that good. Cameron decided to leave whera as al the others were voted out pushed out or were in such a dire position in their party that they jumped before they were pushed. Cameron was liked by Leavers and liked by Tory Remainers, only the non-Tory Remainers gave him bad ratings. Had he had attempted to push Brexit through parliament himself I'm sure his net satisfaction statistic would have been much worse.
I really don't see how you are getting that. A May election at the moment is asking the turkeys to not only vote for an early Christmas but to lie on the cutting board with their gizzards stretched.
All turkeys die in December.
Only a few die in May.
The logic is simple, and obvious. Only somebody really dense, like Sunak maybe, can't see it...
It may not be particularly obvious to those who think that they have got another 5 or 6 months to find post MP employment. Politics is a brutal game and a lot of pretty comfortably well off MPs with spouses as well paid employees and spectacular expenses covering the cost of a second home are going to feel the pinch in a serious way. Even if you believe it is not going to get better why bring it forward?
In May not all of them will need to find new jobs
The difference in the number of MPs who will lose their jobs in May and October is about zero.
They're going to get destroyed either way.
Yep. I'm not sure where this almost PB consensus arises from?
I think it's wishful thinking. While I accept there is an argument for May, there are also arguments for every other month between now and January 2025.
Without knowledge of Sunak's internal thoughts we are just guessing. the fact that PB has reached an almost-consensus on speculation but no evidence just demonstrates the danger of groupthink.
The reason for going for May 2nd is because if Rishi doesn't there is likely to be a vote of No confidence in him triggered on the 3rd / 6th. So he may as well go early..
A curious thing has happened on PB - I can no longer see who has 'liked' a particular post. I can see the number of likes but not the list of individuals. Which is a shame.
A curious thing has happened on PB - I can no longer see who has 'liked' a particular post. I can see the number of likes but not the list of individuals. Which is a shame.
Anyone else got that issue?
Seems so
Still, at least we've got those 28x28 pixel image thumbnails to look at.
I really don't see how you are getting that. A May election at the moment is asking the turkeys to not only vote for an early Christmas but to lie on the cutting board with their gizzards stretched.
All turkeys die in December.
Only a few die in May.
The logic is simple, and obvious. Only somebody really dense, like Sunak maybe, can't see it...
It may not be particularly obvious to those who think that they have got another 5 or 6 months to find post MP employment. Politics is a brutal game and a lot of pretty comfortably well off MPs with spouses as well paid employees and spectacular expenses covering the cost of a second home are going to feel the pinch in a serious way. Even if you believe it is not going to get better why bring it forward?
In May not all of them will need to find new jobs
The difference in the number of MPs who will lose their jobs in May and October is about zero.
They're going to get destroyed either way.
Yep. I'm not sure where this almost PB consensus arises from?
I think it's wishful thinking. While I accept there is an argument for May, there are also arguments for every other month between now and January 2025.
Without knowledge of Sunak's internal thoughts we are just guessing. the fact that PB has reached an almost-consensus on speculation but no evidence just demonstrates the danger of groupthink.
The reason for going for May 2nd is because if Rishi doesn't there is likely to be a vote of No confidence in him triggered on the 3rd / 6th. So he may as well go early..
How's that any different from Boris's outriders threatening to call an early election if he was No Confidenced?
The Party was in no state for an early election then, and its in an even worse state now.
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
I am not an Anglican, so it's no skin off my nose, but it isn't a daft report.
The plan is for a billion pound fund aimed at Africa and the African diaspora, and invested in a way that is sympathetic rather than antagonistic to African culture. It is explicitly evangelical and Christian in aim.
The future of the worldwide Anglican community is increasingly in the young African diaspora, with congregations here rather pale and elderly. It is an astute business decision to redirect in that way.
Welcome to the African Century.
Then, call it a business investment plan to strengthen relations. We've neglected our friends for too long etc..
Naming it "reparations" just pisses people off and opens up a wholly toxic can of worms.
It is also utterly outrageous when parishes are being merged and paid stipendiary priests being cut in England. It is the Church of England now not the Church of Africa and even most black British Anglicans would prefer the funds to be spent in Parish ministry here.
I expect Reverend Marcus Walker will raise a huge row at Synod over this in his role as head of Save the Parish
It is an interesting debate. Is it a worldwide communion, or just an English one?
As I am not an Anglican, I rightly don't get a say.
It is an English one primarily, the Church of England was founded in the 16th century but the Anglican communion only in the 19th century. The Archbishop of Canterbury is leader of the Church of England but only symbolic first amongst equals of the Anglican communion.
The Roman Catholic church is a global communion where what the Pope and Vatican say applies worldwide. The Anglican communion isn't really
Isn't the King leader of the Church of England?
No, Supreme Governor
Aren't those synonyms?
Isn't the Supreme Governor a leader?
This feels like a pub quiz at a Blakes 7 convention.
And also, I'm extra annoyed that I can't see any potential thumbs up for a faint Servalan reference.
I really don't see how you are getting that. A May election at the moment is asking the turkeys to not only vote for an early Christmas but to lie on the cutting board with their gizzards stretched.
All turkeys die in December.
Only a few die in May.
The logic is simple, and obvious. Only somebody really dense, like Sunak maybe, can't see it...
It may not be particularly obvious to those who think that they have got another 5 or 6 months to find post MP employment. Politics is a brutal game and a lot of pretty comfortably well off MPs with spouses as well paid employees and spectacular expenses covering the cost of a second home are going to feel the pinch in a serious way. Even if you believe it is not going to get better why bring it forward?
In May not all of them will need to find new jobs
The difference in the number of MPs who will lose their jobs in May and October is about zero.
They're going to get destroyed either way.
Yep. I'm not sure where this almost PB consensus arises from?
I think it's wishful thinking. While I accept there is an argument for May, there are also arguments for every other month between now and January 2025.
Without knowledge of Sunak's internal thoughts we are just guessing. the fact that PB has reached an almost-consensus on speculation but no evidence just demonstrates the danger of groupthink.
The reason for going for May 2nd is because if Rishi doesn't there is likely to be a vote of No confidence in him triggered on the 3rd / 6th. So he may as well go early..
How's that any different from Boris's outriders threatening to call an early election if he was No Confidenced?
The Party was in no state for an early election then, and its in an even worse state now.
Perhaps Sunny would rather face the country than the plotters in his own party. Better to go on your own terms than be knifed by the rebels, perhaps.
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
I am not an Anglican, so it's no skin off my nose, but it isn't a daft report.
The plan is for a billion pound fund aimed at Africa and the African diaspora, and invested in a way that is sympathetic rather than antagonistic to African culture. It is explicitly evangelical and Christian in aim.
The future of the worldwide Anglican community is increasingly in the young African diaspora, with congregations here rather pale and elderly. It is an astute business decision to redirect in that way.
Welcome to the African Century.
Then, call it a business investment plan to strengthen relations. We've neglected our friends for too long etc..
Naming it "reparations" just pisses people off and opens up a wholly toxic can of worms.
It is also utterly outrageous when parishes are being merged and paid stipendiary priests being cut in England. It is the Church of England now not the Church of Africa and even most black British Anglicans would prefer the funds to be spent in Parish ministry here.
I expect Reverend Marcus Walker will raise a huge row at Synod over this in his role as head of Save the Parish
It is an interesting debate. Is it a worldwide communion, or just an English one?
As I am not an Anglican, I rightly don't get a say.
It is an English one primarily, the Church of England was founded in the 16th century but the Anglican communion only in the 19th century. The Archbishop of Canterbury is leader of the Church of England but only symbolic first amongst equals of the Anglican communion.
The Roman Catholic church is a global communion where what the Pope and Vatican say applies worldwide. The Anglican communion isn't really
Isn't the King leader of the Church of England?
No, Supreme Governor
Aren't those synonyms?
Isn't the Supreme Governor a leader?
This feels like a pub quiz at a Blakes 7 convention.
And also, I'm extra annoyed that I can't see any potential thumbs up for a faint Servalan reference.
:: grumpy face emoji constrained to 28px ::
She was the Supreme Commander, not the Supreme Governor. Obviously different 😃
As far as I know “State’s Rights” began and largely maintains as an argument for States to ignore progressive federal legislation, especially around race.
That’s not to say there’s no merit in it though. Brits tend to underestimate the tenacious belief of many Americans in liberty. I find the notion admirable, if many of the effects baleful.
It might be admirable, if it were ever applied as a principle rather than a political tactic. to be discarded at will. US conservatives have rarely shown any interest at all in states' rights when they wish to implement illiberal federal legislation.
The SC have overruled the rights of Blue states to have stricter gun control.
As the right to bear arms is a constitutional amendment unlike the right to an abortion
The SC's interpretation of the right to bear arms is questionable.
It isn’t in the sense the 2nd amendment to the US constitution guarantees all Americans a right to bear arms. Unless and until that amendment is repealed the SC is legally entitled to restrict state gun control measures
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
I am not an Anglican, so it's no skin off my nose, but it isn't a daft report.
The plan is for a billion pound fund aimed at Africa and the African diaspora, and invested in a way that is sympathetic rather than antagonistic to African culture. It is explicitly evangelical and Christian in aim.
The future of the worldwide Anglican community is increasingly in the young African diaspora, with congregations here rather pale and elderly. It is an astute business decision to redirect in that way.
Welcome to the African Century.
Then, call it a business investment plan to strengthen relations. We've neglected our friends for too long etc..
Naming it "reparations" just pisses people off and opens up a wholly toxic can of worms.
It is also utterly outrageous when parishes are being merged and paid stipendiary priests being cut in England. It is the Church of England now not the Church of Africa and even most black British Anglicans would prefer the funds to be spent in Parish ministry here.
I expect Reverend Marcus Walker will raise a huge row at Synod over this in his role as head of Save the Parish
It is an interesting debate. Is it a worldwide communion, or just an English one?
As I am not an Anglican, I rightly don't get a say.
It is an English one primarily, the Church of England was founded in the 16th century but the Anglican communion only in the 19th century. The Archbishop of Canterbury is leader of the Church of England but only symbolic first amongst equals of the Anglican communion.
The Roman Catholic church is a global communion where what the Pope and Vatican say applies worldwide. The Anglican communion isn't really
Isn't the King leader of the Church of England?
No, Supreme Governor
Aren't those synonyms?
Isn't the Supreme Governor a leader?
No the leader of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury ie its CEO, the King is effectively its chairman and symbolic head
Don’t God or Jesus have any positions of authority?
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
I am not an Anglican, so it's no skin off my nose, but it isn't a daft report.
The plan is for a billion pound fund aimed at Africa and the African diaspora, and invested in a way that is sympathetic rather than antagonistic to African culture. It is explicitly evangelical and Christian in aim.
The future of the worldwide Anglican community is increasingly in the young African diaspora, with congregations here rather pale and elderly. It is an astute business decision to redirect in that way.
Welcome to the African Century.
Then, call it a business investment plan to strengthen relations. We've neglected our friends for too long etc..
Naming it "reparations" just pisses people off and opens up a wholly toxic can of worms.
It is also utterly outrageous when parishes are being merged and paid stipendiary priests being cut in England. It is the Church of England now not the Church of Africa and even most black British Anglicans would prefer the funds to be spent in Parish ministry here.
I expect Reverend Marcus Walker will raise a huge row at Synod over this in his role as head of Save the Parish
It is an interesting debate. Is it a worldwide communion, or just an English one?
As I am not an Anglican, I rightly don't get a say.
It is an English one primarily, the Church of England was founded in the 16th century but the Anglican communion only in the 19th century. The Archbishop of Canterbury is leader of the Church of England but only symbolic first amongst equals of the Anglican communion.
The Roman Catholic church is a global communion where what the Pope and Vatican say applies worldwide. The Anglican communion isn't really
Isn't the King leader of the Church of England?
No, Supreme Governor
Aren't those synonyms?
Isn't the Supreme Governor a leader?
This feels like a pub quiz at a Blakes 7 convention.
And also, I'm extra annoyed that I can't see any potential thumbs up for a faint Servalan reference.
:: grumpy face emoji constrained to 28px ::
She was the Supreme Commander, not the Supreme Governor. Obviously different 😃
I KNOW. Apart from when she wasn't. (Bonus points for those who know)
Also, my overriding memory of Jacqueline Pearce is seeing her strut down Oxford Street being followed at a respectful (and fearful) distance by some rather camp B7 fans whilst she grinned like a Cheshire Cat.
This is why I come to PB. And now I'm even denied knowing who understands.
I'll be reduced to minor issues like the forthcoming budget, who will be the next US president, etc.
I really don't see how you are getting that. A May election at the moment is asking the turkeys to not only vote for an early Christmas but to lie on the cutting board with their gizzards stretched.
All turkeys die in December.
Only a few die in May.
The logic is simple, and obvious. Only somebody really dense, like Sunak maybe, can't see it...
It may not be particularly obvious to those who think that they have got another 5 or 6 months to find post MP employment. Politics is a brutal game and a lot of pretty comfortably well off MPs with spouses as well paid employees and spectacular expenses covering the cost of a second home are going to feel the pinch in a serious way. Even if you believe it is not going to get better why bring it forward?
In May not all of them will need to find new jobs
The difference in the number of MPs who will lose their jobs in May and October is about zero.
They're going to get destroyed either way.
Yep. I'm not sure where this almost PB consensus arises from?
I think it's wishful thinking. While I accept there is an argument for May, there are also arguments for every other month between now and January 2025.
Without knowledge of Sunak's internal thoughts we are just guessing. the fact that PB has reached an almost-consensus on speculation but no evidence just demonstrates the danger of groupthink.
The reason for going for May 2nd is because if Rishi doesn't there is likely to be a vote of No confidence in him triggered on the 3rd / 6th. So he may as well go early..
How's that any different from Boris's outriders threatening to call an early election if he was No Confidenced?
The Party was in no state for an early election then, and its in an even worse state now.
Perhaps Sunny would rather face the country than the plotters in his own party. Better to go on your own terms than be knifed by the rebels, perhaps.
He knows the plotters don’t have the numbers to remove him nor an alternative candidate commanding a majority of Tory MPs support
I really don't see how you are getting that. A May election at the moment is asking the turkeys to not only vote for an early Christmas but to lie on the cutting board with their gizzards stretched.
All turkeys die in December.
Only a few die in May.
The logic is simple, and obvious. Only somebody really dense, like Sunak maybe, can't see it...
It may not be particularly obvious to those who think that they have got another 5 or 6 months to find post MP employment. Politics is a brutal game and a lot of pretty comfortably well off MPs with spouses as well paid employees and spectacular expenses covering the cost of a second home are going to feel the pinch in a serious way. Even if you believe it is not going to get better why bring it forward?
In May not all of them will need to find new jobs
The difference in the number of MPs who will lose their jobs in May and October is about zero.
They're going to get destroyed either way.
Yep. I'm not sure where this almost PB consensus arises from?
I think it's wishful thinking. While I accept there is an argument for May, there are also arguments for every other month between now and January 2025.
Without knowledge of Sunak's internal thoughts we are just guessing. the fact that PB has reached an almost-consensus on speculation but no evidence just demonstrates the danger of groupthink.
The reason for going for May 2nd is because if Rishi doesn't there is likely to be a vote of No confidence in him triggered on the 3rd / 6th. So he may as well go early..
How's that any different from Boris's outriders threatening to call an early election if he was No Confidenced?
The Party was in no state for an early election then, and its in an even worse state now.
I suppose the difference is in the constitutional crisis involved.
Johnson would have been calling a ludicrously early election with a large majority where another Tory PM could have commanded a majority. That would have been very tricky for the Queen.
Sunak would be doing it at a perfectly normal time at the natural end to the Parliament. Very much easier for the King.
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
I am not an Anglican, so it's no skin off my nose, but it isn't a daft report.
The plan is for a billion pound fund aimed at Africa and the African diaspora, and invested in a way that is sympathetic rather than antagonistic to African culture. It is explicitly evangelical and Christian in aim.
The future of the worldwide Anglican community is increasingly in the young African diaspora, with congregations here rather pale and elderly. It is an astute business decision to redirect in that way.
Welcome to the African Century.
Then, call it a business investment plan to strengthen relations. We've neglected our friends for too long etc..
Naming it "reparations" just pisses people off and opens up a wholly toxic can of worms.
It is also utterly outrageous when parishes are being merged and paid stipendiary priests being cut in England. It is the Church of England now not the Church of Africa and even most black British Anglicans would prefer the funds to be spent in Parish ministry here.
I expect Reverend Marcus Walker will raise a huge row at Synod over this in his role as head of Save the Parish
It is an interesting debate. Is it a worldwide communion, or just an English one?
As I am not an Anglican, I rightly don't get a say.
It is an English one primarily, the Church of England was founded in the 16th century but the Anglican communion only in the 19th century. The Archbishop of Canterbury is leader of the Church of England but only symbolic first amongst equals of the Anglican communion.
The Roman Catholic church is a global communion where what the Pope and Vatican say applies worldwide. The Anglican communion isn't really
Isn't the King leader of the Church of England?
No, Supreme Governor
Aren't those synonyms?
Isn't the Supreme Governor a leader?
No the leader of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury ie its CEO, the King is effectively its chairman and symbolic head
Don’t God or Jesus have any positions of authority?
Isn't it the case that in England the Archbishop of Canterbury is the head but the Church of Scotland has Jesus Christ as its head
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
I am not an Anglican, so it's no skin off my nose, but it isn't a daft report.
The plan is for a billion pound fund aimed at Africa and the African diaspora, and invested in a way that is sympathetic rather than antagonistic to African culture. It is explicitly evangelical and Christian in aim.
The future of the worldwide Anglican community is increasingly in the young African diaspora, with congregations here rather pale and elderly. It is an astute business decision to redirect in that way.
Welcome to the African Century.
Then, call it a business investment plan to strengthen relations. We've neglected our friends for too long etc..
Naming it "reparations" just pisses people off and opens up a wholly toxic can of worms.
It is also utterly outrageous when parishes are being merged and paid stipendiary priests being cut in England. It is the Church of England now not the Church of Africa and even most black British Anglicans would prefer the funds to be spent in Parish ministry here.
I expect Reverend Marcus Walker will raise a huge row at Synod over this in his role as head of Save the Parish
It is an interesting debate. Is it a worldwide communion, or just an English one?
As I am not an Anglican, I rightly don't get a say.
It is an English one primarily, the Church of England was founded in the 16th century but the Anglican communion only in the 19th century. The Archbishop of Canterbury is leader of the Church of England but only symbolic first amongst equals of the Anglican communion.
The Roman Catholic church is a global communion where what the Pope and Vatican say applies worldwide. The Anglican communion isn't really
Isn't the King leader of the Church of England?
No, Supreme Governor
Aren't those synonyms?
Isn't the Supreme Governor a leader?
No the leader of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury ie its CEO, the King is effectively its chairman and symbolic head
Don’t God or Jesus have any positions of authority?
Exactly. Not to mention the Holy Ghost.
The PM interposes between the Sovereign and the Archbish too when it comes to picking bishops - see Trollope etc ad lib. This has been rather downplayed in recent years but the power can be reimposed with the flick of a fingernail in Pmt.
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
The CoE is essentially staffed by self-flaggelating Corbynites.
However, in such a system, it's very difficult to make an opposing argument without being ostracised: I'm trying to do it at the moment on a "sustainability committee" for a major organisation that has loud, voluble and rather dominant people who want to advocate for banning private car ownership and enforce vegan-only diets at all events.
I just think it’s batshit that a group that by definition is dedicated to observing and promoting a certain belief should decide that it’s something to apologise for).
Or perhaps that's precisely why they should?
If you accept their actions were wrong, and those wrong actions were central to their operations, then shouldn't they apologise and reform?
You're dedicated to promoting your set of beliefs all the live long day; should you apologise retrospectively if anyone ever ends up exchanging their traditional beliefs for one of yours?
No.
Convincing people via a free exchange of ideas is a good thing.
Convincing people via repression, the barrel of the gun and destroying others beliefs systems is a bad thing.
Hence why democracy is good, and your beloved Moscow is bad.
The problem is the Church didn't simply proselytise in the past, that's a complete rewriting of history. It very much sought to destroy alternatives, via malicious means, which is wrong.
People haven't forgotten the soup here. During the famine the Anglican church in Ireland would offer starving people soup on condition that they renounced the Catholic church and joined the Anglican.
On Shrove Tuesday just past the local Anglican church was offering pancakes, and fortunately matters have improved that sick conditions are no longer attached. But the difference was remarked upon.
Yes, the Church (not just Anglican) has a torrid history.
To rewrite it as "proselytisation" is a complete rewriting of history.
In the words of Gardenwalker "akin to destroying monuments" (or threats of starvation etc too) is the relevant part of its history that is being discussed.
To pretend history is all sunshine and roses and honest proseltyisation is to just rewrite and deny history, its not.
You haven’t really addressed the point, just made vague references to Anglicanism’s torrid history.
The Irish case mentioned is shameful of course, but for reasons other than the supposed “destruction of traditional beliefs”.
As far as I know “State’s Rights” began and largely maintains as an argument for States to ignore progressive federal legislation, especially around race.
That’s not to say there’s no merit in it though. Brits tend to underestimate the tenacious belief of many Americans in liberty. I find the notion admirable, if many of the effects baleful.
It might be admirable, if it were ever applied as a principle rather than a political tactic. to be discarded at will. US conservatives have rarely shown any interest at all in states' rights when they wish to implement illiberal federal legislation.
The SC have overruled the rights of Blue states to have stricter gun control.
As the right to bear arms is a constitutional amendment unlike the right to an abortion
You’re obsessed with abortion. We weren’t discussing it.
SCOTUS reliance on 14A Sec 5 power of Congress to enforce Sec 3 is wholly unpersuasive, given that Sec 3 itself delegates to Congress power to lift the disqualification for insurrectionists by a 2/3 vote, not simple majority, as in Sec 5. The specific supersedes the general. https://twitter.com/dorfonlaw/status/1764668387135828247
Today’s ruling does read as though the court’s decision to throw out Trump’s disqualification preceded the construction of the rationale.
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
I am not an Anglican, so it's no skin off my nose, but it isn't a daft report.
The plan is for a billion pound fund aimed at Africa and the African diaspora, and invested in a way that is sympathetic rather than antagonistic to African culture. It is explicitly evangelical and Christian in aim.
The future of the worldwide Anglican community is increasingly in the young African diaspora, with congregations here rather pale and elderly. It is an astute business decision to redirect in that way.
Welcome to the African Century.
Then, call it a business investment plan to strengthen relations. We've neglected our friends for too long etc..
Naming it "reparations" just pisses people off and opens up a wholly toxic can of worms.
It is also utterly outrageous when parishes are being merged and paid stipendiary priests being cut in England. It is the Church of England now not the Church of Africa and even most black British Anglicans would prefer the funds to be spent in Parish ministry here.
I expect Reverend Marcus Walker will raise a huge row at Synod over this in his role as head of Save the Parish
It is an interesting debate. Is it a worldwide communion, or just an English one?
As I am not an Anglican, I rightly don't get a say.
It is an English one primarily, the Church of England was founded in the 16th century but the Anglican communion only in the 19th century. The Archbishop of Canterbury is leader of the Church of England but only symbolic first amongst equals of the Anglican communion.
The Roman Catholic church is a global communion where what the Pope and Vatican say applies worldwide. The Anglican communion isn't really
Isn't the King leader of the Church of England?
No, Supreme Governor
Aren't those synonyms?
Isn't the Supreme Governor a leader?
No the leader of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury ie its CEO, the King is effectively its chairman and symbolic head
Don’t God or Jesus have any positions of authority?
Isn't it the case that in England the Archbishop of Canterbury is the head but the Church of Scotland has Jesus Christ as its head
No only under Henry VIII was the King its head and the Archbishop is a leader of it not its head. Mary Tudor then restored the Pope as it's head but Elizabeth I made herself only Supreme Governor reflecting the fact Christ was its head
Religious issues can get complex: For example: "Two men with ties to a white supremacist prison group have been charged in the death of a man and woman whose bodies were found dumped at the side of a road in Maple Valley last November. One of the suspects is also accused of killing a local family’s horse."
SCOTUS reliance on 14A Sec 5 power of Congress to enforce Sec 3 is wholly unpersuasive, given that Sec 3 itself delegates to Congress power to lift the disqualification for insurrectionists by a 2/3 vote, not simple majority, as in Sec 5. The specific supersedes the general. https://twitter.com/dorfonlaw/status/1764668387135828247
Today’s ruling does read as though the court’s decision to throw out Trump’s disqualification preceded the construction of the rationale.
That doesn't mean blue states like Colorado and Illinois can remove him from the ballot in a Federal election. They can remove state government candidates not Federal government candidates is what the SC made clear. Only Congress can remove Federal government candidates from the ballot
I really don't see how you are getting that. A May election at the moment is asking the turkeys to not only vote for an early Christmas but to lie on the cutting board with their gizzards stretched.
All turkeys die in December.
Only a few die in May.
The logic is simple, and obvious. Only somebody really dense, like Sunak maybe, can't see it...
It may not be particularly obvious to those who think that they have got another 5 or 6 months to find post MP employment. Politics is a brutal game and a lot of pretty comfortably well off MPs with spouses as well paid employees and spectacular expenses covering the cost of a second home are going to feel the pinch in a serious way. Even if you believe it is not going to get better why bring it forward?
In May not all of them will need to find new jobs
The difference in the number of MPs who will lose their jobs in May and October is about zero.
They're going to get destroyed either way.
Yep. I'm not sure where this almost PB consensus arises from?
I think it's wishful thinking. While I accept there is an argument for May, there are also arguments for every other month between now and January 2025.
Without knowledge of Sunak's internal thoughts we are just guessing. the fact that PB has reached an almost-consensus on speculation but no evidence just demonstrates the danger of groupthink.
The reason for going for May 2nd is because if Rishi doesn't there is likely to be a vote of No confidence in him triggered on the 3rd / 6th. So he may as well go early..
How's that any different from Boris's outriders threatening to call an early election if he was No Confidenced?
The Party was in no state for an early election then, and its in an even worse state now.
Perhaps Sunny would rather face the country than the plotters in his own party. Better to go on your own terms than be knifed by the rebels, perhaps.
He knows the plotters don’t have the numbers to remove him nor an alternative candidate commanding a majority of Tory MPs support
Will that remain the case following and absolute trouncing in the local elections in May? That seems the moment to pounce if you are a rebel.
I really don't see how you are getting that. A May election at the moment is asking the turkeys to not only vote for an early Christmas but to lie on the cutting board with their gizzards stretched.
All turkeys die in December.
Only a few die in May.
The logic is simple, and obvious. Only somebody really dense, like Sunak maybe, can't see it...
It may not be particularly obvious to those who think that they have got another 5 or 6 months to find post MP employment. Politics is a brutal game and a lot of pretty comfortably well off MPs with spouses as well paid employees and spectacular expenses covering the cost of a second home are going to feel the pinch in a serious way. Even if you believe it is not going to get better why bring it forward?
In May not all of them will need to find new jobs
The difference in the number of MPs who will lose their jobs in May and October is about zero.
They're going to get destroyed either way.
Yep. I'm not sure where this almost PB consensus arises from?
I think it's wishful thinking. While I accept there is an argument for May, there are also arguments for every other month between now and January 2025.
Without knowledge of Sunak's internal thoughts we are just guessing. the fact that PB has reached an almost-consensus on speculation but no evidence just demonstrates the danger of groupthink.
The reason for going for May 2nd is because if Rishi doesn't there is likely to be a vote of No confidence in him triggered on the 3rd / 6th. So he may as well go early..
How's that any different from Boris's outriders threatening to call an early election if he was No Confidenced?
The Party was in no state for an early election then, and its in an even worse state now.
Perhaps Sunny would rather face the country than the plotters in his own party. Better to go on your own terms than be knifed by the rebels, perhaps.
He knows the plotters don’t have the numbers to remove him nor an alternative candidate commanding a majority of Tory MPs support
Will that remain the case following and absolute trouncing in the local elections in May? That seems the moment to pounce if you are a rebel.
Yes as all other alternatives poll even worse than Rishi except maybe Mordaunt who doesn't have the numbers of Tory MPs behind her to win
The CoE has warmly welcomed a report from its “Oversight Group” calling on the church to apologise to black Africans for “seeking to destroy diverse African traditional belief systems”.
Utterly barking.
I am not an Anglican, so it's no skin off my nose, but it isn't a daft report.
The plan is for a billion pound fund aimed at Africa and the African diaspora, and invested in a way that is sympathetic rather than antagonistic to African culture. It is explicitly evangelical and Christian in aim.
The future of the worldwide Anglican community is increasingly in the young African diaspora, with congregations here rather pale and elderly. It is an astute business decision to redirect in that way.
Welcome to the African Century.
Then, call it a business investment plan to strengthen relations. We've neglected our friends for too long etc..
Naming it "reparations" just pisses people off and opens up a wholly toxic can of worms.
It is also utterly outrageous when parishes are being merged and paid stipendiary priests being cut in England. It is the Church of England now not the Church of Africa and even most black British Anglicans would prefer the funds to be spent in Parish ministry here.
I expect Reverend Marcus Walker will raise a huge row at Synod over this in his role as head of Save the Parish
It is an interesting debate. Is it a worldwide communion, or just an English one?
As I am not an Anglican, I rightly don't get a say.
It is an English one primarily, the Church of England was founded in the 16th century but the Anglican communion only in the 19th century. The Archbishop of Canterbury is leader of the Church of England but only symbolic first amongst equals of the Anglican communion.
The Roman Catholic church is a global communion where what the Pope and Vatican say applies worldwide. The Anglican communion isn't really
Isn't the King leader of the Church of England?
No, Supreme Governor
Aren't those synonyms?
Isn't the Supreme Governor a leader?
No the leader of the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury ie its CEO, the King is effectively its chairman and symbolic head
Don’t God or Jesus have any positions of authority?
Isn't it the case that in England the Archbishop of Canterbury is the head but the Church of Scotland has Jesus Christ as its head
No only under Henry VIII was the King its head and the Archbishop is a leader of it not its head. Mary Tudor then restored the Pope as it's head but Elizabeth I made herself only Supreme Governor reflecting the fact Christ was its head
There can be only one head of the Christian Church and that is Christ - everything else is nonsensical dogma
SCOTUS reliance on 14A Sec 5 power of Congress to enforce Sec 3 is wholly unpersuasive, given that Sec 3 itself delegates to Congress power to lift the disqualification for insurrectionists by a 2/3 vote, not simple majority, as in Sec 5. The specific supersedes the general. https://twitter.com/dorfonlaw/status/1764668387135828247
Today’s ruling does read as though the court’s decision to throw out Trump’s disqualification preceded the construction of the rationale.
That doesn't mean blue states like Colorado and Illinois can remove him from the ballot in a Federal election. They can remove state government candidates not Federal government candidates is what the SC made clear. Only Congress can remove Federal government candidates from the ballot
Well done for missing the point completely, again.
SCOTUS reliance on 14A Sec 5 power of Congress to enforce Sec 3 is wholly unpersuasive, given that Sec 3 itself delegates to Congress power to lift the disqualification for insurrectionists by a 2/3 vote, not simple majority, as in Sec 5. The specific supersedes the general. https://twitter.com/dorfonlaw/status/1764668387135828247
Today’s ruling does read as though the court’s decision to throw out Trump’s disqualification preceded the construction of the rationale.
That would not exactly be unusual for the Court. Politicians in fancy dress and uppity attitudes, with higher than average eloquence.
Though I can understand why they came to this particular conclusion at least.
SCOTUS reliance on 14A Sec 5 power of Congress to enforce Sec 3 is wholly unpersuasive, given that Sec 3 itself delegates to Congress power to lift the disqualification for insurrectionists by a 2/3 vote, not simple majority, as in Sec 5. The specific supersedes the general. https://twitter.com/dorfonlaw/status/1764668387135828247
Today’s ruling does read as though the court’s decision to throw out Trump’s disqualification preceded the construction of the rationale.
Unfortunately, you can't appal the SC to a higher court...
SCOTUS reliance on 14A Sec 5 power of Congress to enforce Sec 3 is wholly unpersuasive, given that Sec 3 itself delegates to Congress power to lift the disqualification for insurrectionists by a 2/3 vote, not simple majority, as in Sec 5. The specific supersedes the general. https://twitter.com/dorfonlaw/status/1764668387135828247
Today’s ruling does read as though the court’s decision to throw out Trump’s disqualification preceded the construction of the rationale.
That would not exactly be unusual for the Court. Politicians in fancy dress and uppity attitudes, with higher than average eloquence.
Though I can understand why they came to this particular conclusion at least.
The “particular conclusion” here is that the disqualification clause is not self executing; a decision which four of the nine justices did not assent to.
Comments
(Your core point, that clergy are politically leftier than their congregations, is probably right. In part, that's just because working clergy are of working age and most congregations are dominated by the retired.)
The point of proselytisation is to convert.
Logically, every convert also means one less subscriber to “alternative belief systems”.
If the Anglicans want to apologise for something akin to the Taliban destruction of Buddhist monuments, then that’s fine. But they seem to want to apologise just for doing the day job as it were.
We literally had the worst-ever Tory vote share with Ipsos/Mori today (and a Lab+27 lead). Even the Lab+14 lead Deltapoll came up with is a bigger lead than either of Blair's landslide victories. That is not the backdrop to call an election against, when holding out is still a credible option.
The interest groups vary. For Labour its public sector workers, for the Tories its pensioners. Neither give a damn anymore about the private sector.
At least public sector workers are working, so perhaps Labour now will be the lesser evil?
The latest TFR (2023) is estimated at 1.07.
But matters are even worse than that raw numbers implies. If you look at the male/female ratio, you'll see that males outnumber females by more than one would expect, naturally.
(My apologies for being such a downer on this, but I can't help worrying that "Emperor" Xi realizes that he now has the largest potential army that any Chinese leader is likely to have in the next 40 years or so.)
If people convert of their own free will and old beliefs wither and die, then there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
But if old beliefs are targeted, discriminated against, vandalised and destroyed then that is a problem.
Its like democracy versus autocracy. A democratic Conservative [or Labour or anything else] may want to encourage others to vote Conservative [or Labour etc]. They may go knocking up, campaigning etc, that's a form of proselytisation and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. But they will also respect the right of people who have very different beliefs to keep, hold and act by their beliefs - and for the others to be proselytising too.
However an autocrat like in Russia will seek to destroy rivals, not via proselytisation, but via murder, violence, repression etc
One is decent, the other is not. The Church for much of its history operated via the latter camp, not the former.
For example, in Victorian times converts were expected to adopt Christian names, European clothes, even to have sex in the missionary position. None of these are needed in order to be a Christian.
Indeed, very often more traditional Christian churches like the Anglicans are being squeezed out by African Christian Churches with a more Charismatic and Pentacostal style. Shortly before Covid I was at a Christian conference centre where our meeting of Church treasurers was sharing the centre with 2 other groups, one of which was a Southern African Church of Zion, all decked out in splendid African robes. Their sessions looked much more fun than our national accounts, and made for interesting chats in the bar.
The decision will be taken from Richi if he doesn't make it himself
Some Tories loyal to Sunak fear that this could trigger a fresh bout of leadership speculation and even a confidence vote. It would be better, they suggest, for Sunak to be the master of his own destiny and go to the country at the same time rather than risk being overthrown by his own MPs in a last desperate throw of the dice.
It won't win them the next election, but nothing will.
Jack Surfleet
@jacksurfleet
·
28s
Tuesday's DAILY EXPRESS: France must do more with our millions to stop small boats
#TomorrowsPapersToday
https://twitter.com/jacksurfleet
Convincing people via a free exchange of ideas is a good thing.
Convincing people via repression, the barrel of the gun and destroying others beliefs systems is a bad thing.
Hence why democracy is good, and your beloved Moscow is bad.
The problem is the Church didn't simply proselytise in the past, that's a complete rewriting of history. It very much sought to destroy alternatives, via malicious means, which is wrong.
Now what follows post the GE no body can know except Sunak will move on to pastures new
Isn't the Supreme Governor a leader?
Anyone else got that issue?
now far more still vote Conservative. Though the number of Christians of all denominations is still bigger than the number of Conservative voters
Without knowledge of Sunak's internal thoughts we are just guessing. the fact that PB has reached an almost-consensus on speculation but no evidence just demonstrates the danger of groupthink.
On Shrove Tuesday just past the local Anglican church was offering pancakes, and fortunately matters have improved that such conditions are no longer attached. But the difference was remarked upon.
To rewrite it as "proselytisation" is a complete rewriting of history.
In the words of Gardenwalker "akin to destroying monuments" (or threats of starvation etc too) is the relevant part of its history that is being discussed.
To pretend history is all sunshine and roses and honest proseltyisation is to just rewrite and deny history, its not.
But at -38 it's still not that good. Cameron decided to leave whera as al the others were voted out pushed out or were in such a dire position in their party that they jumped before they were pushed. Cameron was liked by Leavers and liked by Tory Remainers, only the non-Tory Remainers gave him bad ratings. Had he had attempted to push Brexit through parliament himself I'm sure his net satisfaction statistic would have been much worse.
So it's not all bad.
The Party was in no state for an early election then, and its in an even worse state now.
And also, I'm extra annoyed that I can't see any potential thumbs up for a faint Servalan reference.
:: grumpy face emoji constrained to 28px ::
Also, my overriding memory of Jacqueline Pearce is seeing her strut down Oxford Street being followed at a respectful (and fearful) distance by some rather camp B7 fans whilst she grinned like a Cheshire Cat.
This is why I come to PB. And now I'm even denied knowing who understands.
I'll be reduced to minor issues like the forthcoming budget, who will be the next US president, etc.
For shame.
Johnson would have been calling a ludicrously early election with a large majority where another Tory PM could have commanded a majority. That would have been very tricky for the Queen.
Sunak would be doing it at a perfectly normal time at the natural end to the Parliament. Very much easier for the King.
The PM interposes between the Sovereign and the Archbish too when it comes to picking bishops - see Trollope etc ad lib. This has been rather downplayed in recent years but the power can be reimposed with the flick of a fingernail in Pmt.
The Irish case mentioned is shameful of course, but for reasons other than the supposed “destruction of traditional beliefs”.
We weren’t discussing it.
Blackburn’s Kirk Haworth makes history on Great British Menu
https://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/24156358.blackburns-kirk-haworth-makes-history-great-british-menu/
*****,
**********, or
******************
Though that would also make them relatively easy to simulate.
SCOTUS reliance on 14A Sec 5 power of Congress to enforce Sec 3 is wholly unpersuasive, given that Sec 3 itself delegates to Congress power to lift the disqualification for insurrectionists by a 2/3 vote, not simple majority, as in Sec 5. The specific supersedes the general.
https://twitter.com/dorfonlaw/status/1764668387135828247
Today’s ruling does read as though the court’s decision to throw out Trump’s disqualification preceded the construction of the rationale.
the King its head and the
Archbishop is a leader of it
not its head. Mary Tudor then restored the Pope as it's head but Elizabeth I made herself only Supreme Governor reflecting the fact Christ was its head
The horse was killed as "a sacrifice to Odin".
source: https://mynorthwest.com/3951010/two-charged-in-maple-valley-murders/
Recently, another horse in the same area was found, killed in a similar way.
(The murders occurred in a rural area, southeast of Seattle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_Valley,_Washington )
Though he isn't picky about stimulants.
Net Approval Ratings at this time (1,140 days) in office.
• Biden: -18.1%
• Truman: -13.7%
• Trump: -11%
• H.W. Bush: -9.7%
• Obama: +2.9%
• G.W. Bush: +4.5%
• Clinton: +11.5%
• Carter: +17.4%
• Reagan: +17.6%
• Nixon: +23.7%
• Eisenhower: +60.8%
Though I can understand why they came to this particular conclusion at least.
It is fairly well explained in the latter part of this article.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot-disaster.html