Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.
Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
No - you have it the wrong way round. It isn't the potential parents who are the clients. But the children. It is the children who need a family. Adoption is not primarily for the benefit of adults. It is for the benefit of children.
Children are not like cakes - to be handed out to anyone who wants them.
What was wrong with saying: if you won't place a child with a gay family, you must refer any gay couple to another agency who will consider them as potential adoptive parents? A pragmatic solution that would have resulted in both parties getting what they wanted. Anyway, the issue has been resolved now so little point arguing.
And for reasons of bigotry they refuse to let the children under their care go to loving families where the parents are gay.
Thus denying the child a family life.
Harming the child.
I think you’ll find that the number of babies available for adoption is considerably fewer than the number of good parents wishing to adopt.
The Catholic adoption agencies had been doing what whey did for centuries, until for reasons of bigotry Blair’s government shut them down.
The US president is not making America great again, but he is making the 1930s current again. Perhaps, then, and in a way he would not want, Trump is providing the anti-Brexiteers with the one thing they always lacked: an emotional heart to their argument. Trump and the fascist contagion is reminding us why the EU exists: to ensure that the neighbourhood we live in is never again consumed by the flames of tyranny and hatred.
On that fateful day in June 2016, it’s possible that some of those who voted leave did so because they believed that democracy and peace were now safe and secure in Europe. In the short time that has passed since, we have seen that those things are, in fact, fragile. As the head of Nato warns that the world is at its most dangerous point in a generation, Britain’s duty, to use a word that might make Smiley wince, is surely to defend the body that helped lead Europe out of its darkness. Instead, we are turning our backs and walking away.
Yes, Guardian journalists screeching and calling Trump a Nazi is sure to make us wicked Brexiteers repent. It's not like they've ever misjudged public opinion before.
I think its fair to say Trump isnt popular in the UK
He isn't, but people can see Trump isn't Brexit, find the hysterical Nazi comparisons daft, and will be insulted by the idea we need the EU to stop us from falling into Fascism.
"Was that a serious faux-pas? I have no idea whether he'd married a woman or man."
Congratulations. You've made it as a Guardian reader. All you need now is a gluten intolerance and a slight mental health issue (not too debilitating, but enough to evoke sympathy at Waitrose). Don't have nightmares about it. (I'd attach a smiley face here, but it's beyond my technical expertise)
FWIW I am a Catholic. I am fine with gay marriage. I think my church has got it wrong on this. Gay people are made in the image of God just like everyone else and their love is no less sacred and worthy than the love between men and women. I hope in time the church will realise this. I could not have an abortion myself but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils: rape and incest are the obvious examples so I disagree with JRM on this. What other women do is for them. Abortion should be legal, safe and, ideally, rare i.e. not in the sense of making it harder but that it should not be necessary because of the availability of alternatives.
I am not opposed to religious people of any faith being active in political life, but the cross that we religious people have to bear is that many of these values are out of sync with the mainstream of British politics. The treatment of Fallon in the election is good evidence of that. My own religious views on the iniquity of usury* and opposition to war and the arms trade would make me unelectable.
Many believers are out of line with the formal teachings of their church, perhaps even a majority of Catholics on some of the issues that you mention, and of course contraception. We should be quite tolerant of that, including the Muslims amongst us. They are like Catholics certainly not unified. The organisational structure and political history of Catholicism, including contemporary times is one of organised misogyny, and supportive of entrenched privilege. Political Catholicism is like political Islamism something that I oppose. I believe in seperation of Church and State.
I do not object to Mogg because of his Catholicism, but rather to his politics. I imagine that a conversation with him would be very agreeable, as he seems to marshall arguments well and is unfailingly polite.
*usury is something that was once opposed by the Christian Church, and still has relavence today. It needs to be revisited.
Your attitude, like Cyclefree's, is entirely sensible - but certainly in the case of Catholicism necessitates ignoring some of the pronouncements of the heirarchy. And I hate to mention it, but don't Quakers object to gambling..... ?
Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.
Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
No - you have it the wrong way round. It isn't the potential parents who are the clients. But the children. It is the children who need a family. Adoption is not primarily for the benefit of adults. It is for the benefit of children.
Children are not like cakes - to be handed out to anyone who wants them.
What was wrong with saying: if you won't place a child with a gay family, you must refer any gay couple to another agency who will consider them as potential adoptive parents? A pragmatic solution that would have resulted in both parties getting what they wanted. Anyway, the issue has been resolved now so little point arguing.
And for reasons of bigotry they refuse to let the children under their care go to loving families where the parents are gay.
Thus denying the child a family life.
Harming the child.
They enjoyed considerable success, placing children with heterosexual Catholic adoptive parents. Now that they are no longer operating, the pool of potential adoptive parents is a little smaller.
Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.
Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
No - you have it the wrong way round. It isn't the potential parents who are the clients. But the children. It is the children who need a family. Adoption is not primarily for the benefit of adults. It is for the benefit of children.
Children are not like cakes - to be handed out to anyone who wants them.
What was wrong with saying: if you won't place a child with a gay family, you must refer any gay couple to another agency who will consider them as potential adoptive parents? A pragmatic solution that would have resulted in both parties getting what they wanted. Anyway, the issue has been resolved now so little point arguing.
And for reasons of bigotry they refuse to let the children under their care go to loving families where the parents are gay.
Thus denying the child a family life.
Harming the child.
I think you’ll find that the number of babies available for adoption is considerably fewer than the number of good parents wishing to adopt.
The Catholic adoption agencies had been doing what whey did for centuries, until for reasons of bigotry Blair’s government shut them down.
The law changed and they had to follow the law. The Bible says to do so, render unto Cesar that which is Caesars etc
If they weren't such bigots they could gave followed the law.
Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.
Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
No - you have it the wrong way round. It isn't the potential parents who are the clients. But the children. It is the children who need a family. Adoption is not primarily for the benefit of adults. It is for the benefit of children.
Children are not like cakes - to be handed out to anyone who wants them.
What was wrong with saying: if you won't place a child with a gay family, you must refer any gay couple to another agency who will consider them as potential adoptive parents? A pragmatic solution that would have resulted in both parties getting what they wanted. Anyway, the issue has been resolved now so little point arguing.
And for reasons of bigotry they refuse to let the children under their care go to loving families where the parents are gay.
Thus denying the child a family life.
Harming the child.
They enjoyed considerable success, placing children with heterosexual Catholic adoptive parents. Now that they are no longer operating, the pool of potential adoptive parents is a little smaller.
But, you got to show them who is master. Enjoy.
Yes the law and equally are master. Religions should not be above the law.
I've no problem with heretics like yourself. I always thought the split was overplayed a little. It's 500 years since 'ol Martin nailed his thingys on the door. Those pesky bonfires did more harm than good. An over-reaction.
As my father-in-law, who lived in Dublin during the Easter rising, said "We always thought the rebels were a nuisance, it's only when the British began executing them that they gained sympathy here."
The US president is not making America great again, but he is making the 1930s current again. Perhaps, then, and in a way he would not want, Trump is providing the anti-Brexiteers with the one thing they always lacked: an emotional heart to their argument. Trump and the fascist contagion is reminding us why the EU exists: to ensure that the neighbourhood we live in is never again consumed by the flames of tyranny and hatred.
On that fateful day in June 2016, it’s possible that some of those who voted leave did so because they believed that democracy and peace were now safe and secure in Europe. In the short time that has passed since, we have seen that those things are, in fact, fragile. As the head of Nato warns that the world is at its most dangerous point in a generation, Britain’s duty, to use a word that might make Smiley wince, is surely to defend the body that helped lead Europe out of its darkness. Instead, we are turning our backs and walking away.
Yes, Guardian journalists screeching and calling Trump a Nazi is sure to make us wicked Brexiteers repent. It's not like they've ever misjudged public opinion before.
I think its fair to say Trump isnt popular in the UK
He isn't, but people can see Trump isn't Brexit, find the hysterical Nazi comparisons daft, and will be insulted by the idea we need the EU to stop us from falling into Fascism.
All true. But the early Brexiteer embrace of President Trump did create a link. Gove, May, Boris, Hannan, JRM - they were all at it. Some still are. Sad.
Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies,
Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
No - you have it the wrong way round. It isn't the potential parents who are the clients. But the children. It is the children who need a family. Adoption is not primarily for the benefit of adults. It is for the benefit of children.
Children are not like cakes - to be handed out to anyone who wants them.
What was wrong with saying: if you won't place a child with a gay family, you must refer any gay couple to another agency who will consider them as potential adoptive parents? A pragmatic solution that would have resulted in both parties getting what they wanted. Anyway, the issue has been resolved now so little point arguing.
And for reasons of bigotry they refuse to let the children under their care go to loving families where the parents are gay.
Thus denying the child a family life.
Harming the child.
I think you’ll find that the number of babies available for adoption is considerably fewer than the number of good parents wishing to adopt.
The Catholic adoption agencies had been doing what whey did for centuries, until for reasons of bigotry Blair’s government shut them down.
The law changed and they had to follow the law. The Bible says to do so, render unto Cesar that which is Caesars etc
If they weren't such bigots they could gave followed the law.
They did follow the law. When the law told them to close, they closed.
He isn't, but people can see Trump isn't Brexit, find the hysterical Nazi comparisons daft, and will be insulted by the idea we need the EU to stop us from falling into Fascism.
Nigel Farage apparently spoke at a rally yesterday at the behest of a descendent of one of Hitler's aides, where he destroyed another Brexit myth.
Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.
Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
A pragmatic solution that would have resulted in both parties getting what they wanted. Anyway, the issue has been resolved now so little point arguing.
And for reasons of bigotry they refuse to let the children under their care go to loving families where the parents are gay.
Thus denying the child a family life.
Harming the child.
They enjoyed considerable success, placing children with heterosexual Catholic adoptive parents. Now that they are no longer operating, the pool of potential adoptive parents is a little smaller.
But, you got to show them who is master. Enjoy.
I was always a little puzzled by this. Why could the agencies not have taken the same sensible approach to Catholic doctrine as does Cyclefree ? After all, in the end it was not solely the decisions of the government that caused the closures, which rather points to christian charity not being their highest priority.
All true. But the early Brexiteer embrace of President Trump did create a link. Gove, May, Boris, Hannan, JRM - they were all at it. Some still are. Sad.
There is a rich vein of pictures of prominent Brexiteers fawning over Trump.
Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.
Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any
Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
A pragmatic solution that would have resulted in both parties getting what they wanted. Anyway, the issue has been resolved now so little point arguing.
And for reasons of bigotry they refuse to let the children under their care go to loving families where the parents are gay.
Thus denying the child a family life.
Harming the child.
They enjoyed considerable success, placing children with heterosexual Catholic adoptive parents. Now that they are no longer operating, the pool of potential adoptive parents is a little smaller.
But, you got to show them who is master. Enjoy.
I was always a little puzzled by this. Why could the agencies not have taken the same sensible approach to Catholic doctrine as does Cyclefree ? After all, in the end it was not solely the decisions of the government that caused the closures, which rather points to christian charity not being their highest priority.
They either had to follow their church rules and close, or break from their church and become State-funded agencies. Some chose the former, others the latter. It's hard to see how society benefitted.
There is nothing wrong with him being happily married and having a large family nor with being a devout Catholic. This last point should not need saying but apparently does. This says more about Britain and a level of intolerance it has to anyone not sharing received opinion than it does about JRM.
His views about abortion and about marriage being a sacrament between a man and a woman are standard Catholic doctrine. He is entitled to believe this and, since he has said that such matters should be subject to a free vote like all matters of morality and should not be changed other than as the majority of the country want, this is perfectly consistent with being a democrat.
Otherwise we come perilously close to saying that Catholics (and members of other religions sharing similar views) should have no role in public life. Not very tolerant or liberal and far more dangerous to our polity and society than anything JRM has said.
Very well said.
Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.
Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
Rampant noncing by Catholic priests probably didn't help.
I'm not sure I could contain my excitement if I was attending...
Much more interesting event in Mansfield today.
The Mrssiah arrives at 1.30
I am sure Corbyn and Starmer's newfound enthusiasm for keeping free movement for years to stay in the single market will go down a treat in Mansfield, a rare Tory gain from Labour at the general election. Just think that seat hates Corbyn so much it voted for Brown and Ed Miliband but not him!
Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.
Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any
Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
A pragmatic solution that would have resulted in both parties getting what they wanted. Anyway, the issue has been resolved now so little point arguing.
And for reasons of bigotry they refuse to let the children under their care go to loving families where the parents are gay.
Thus denying the child a family life.
Harming the child.
They enjoyed considerable success, placing children with heterosexual Catholic adoptive parents. Now that they are no longer operating, the pool of potential adoptive parents is a little smaller.
But, you got to show them who is master. Enjoy.
I was always a little puzzled by this. Why could the agencies not have taken the same sensible approach to Catholic doctrine as does Cyclefree ? After all, in the end it was not solely the decisions of the government that caused the closures, which rather points to christian charity not being their highest priority.
"They either had to follow their church rules and close, or break from their church and become State-funded agencies..."
Yes, it's the first bit of that which puzzles me, when most Catholics in this country don't.
Their charitable Objects would have required them to comply with Church teaching.
They either had to follow their church rules and close, or break from their church and become State-funded agencies. Some chose the former, others the latter. It's hard to see how society benefitted.
Society benefited because the new law is fair and just. The charities that are able to live with such justice are better than those that can't.
If a charity would only adopt to racially pure families would the state have an interest in getting involved in your eyes?
I'm not sure I could contain my excitement if I was attending...
Except for the fact that I recognise three or four of them, reading their descriptions, I could've been forgiven for thinking I was reading a spoof of some kind. They have a perfect right to campaign, and fair enough, but dear God, stereotype much?
I still think Boris is the man to beat, he has the charisma, populist appeal and commitment to Brexit as de facto leader of the Leave campaign in the referendum which May lacks.
If you are looking to outsiders Tom Tugenhadt, incidentally backed by JRM last week and chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee, would be a better bet than Raab in my view especially if May promotes him to ministerial office in the reshuffle
I agree regarding Boris and his populist appeal, that is why it was big news when he eventually stated his intentions to officially join the leave campaign.However you always get the impression he would have been on the other side of it was better for him personally and his ambition.I remember Eddie Mair took him apart on an interview some years ago and Boris personal morals and how he copes with the truth are a lot to be desired.As a party and a country you do not want him leading it.
I'm not sure I could contain my excitement if I was attending...
Much more interesting event in Mansfield today.
The Mrssiah arrives at 1.30
I am sure Corbyn and Starmer's newfound enthusiasm for keeping free movement for years to stay in the single market will go down a treat in Mansfield, a rare Tory gain from Labour at the general election. Just think that seat hates Corbyn so much it voted for Brown and Ed Miliband but not him!
Mr. G, but who benefited? There were no more children for gay couples wishing to adopt. There were fewer opportunities for straight couples to adopt. There were fewer children who found their way to loving families.
Nothing was gained and much good was lost. That is not the sign of a well-considered law working as it should.
MD, maybe but going in the huff and deserting all the people you are setup to support because you cannot get your own way is not very charitable.
I was having a coffee and a man waked in. The proprietor introduced me and said 'you've got to congratulate him he's just got married'. 'Congratulations!' I said
Later as I walked out I said good bye to the proprietor and to the recently married 'Good luck to you and your bride'
Was that a serious faux-pas? I have no idea whether he'd married a woman or man.
I'm more shocked about how the proprietor assumed their gender.
Unless you are a PC nazi you would immediately assume a woman, gobsmacked that you are shocked.
They either had to follow their church rules and close, or break from their church and become State-funded agencies. Some chose the former, others the latter. It's hard to see how society benefitted.
Society benefited because the new law is fair and just. The charities that are able to live with such justice are better than those that can't.
If a charity would only adopt to racially pure families would the state have an interest in getting involved in your eyes?
The government has fallen well short of meeting its adoption targets since 2007. Getting rid of charities that were helping to place children with members of Catholic congregations hardly helps to meet such targets.
For the life of me, I can't see what problem would be caused by Cyclefree's compromise.
I was having a coffee and a man waked in. The proprietor introduced me and said 'you've got to congratulate him he's just got married'. 'Congratulations!' I said
Later as I walked out I said good bye to the proprietor and to the recently married 'Good luck to you and your bride'
Was that a serious faux-pas? I have no idea whether he'd married a woman or man.
I'm more shocked about how the proprietor assumed their gender.
Unless you are a PC nazi you would immediately assume a woman, gobsmacked that you are shocked.
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
FWIW I am a Catholic. I am fine with gay marriage. I think my church has got it wrong on this. Gay people are made in the image of God just like everyone else and their love is no less sacred and worthy than the love between men and women. I hope in time the church will realise this. I could not have an abortion myself but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils: rape and incest are the obvious examples so I disagree with JRM on this. What other women do is for them. Abortion should be legal, safe and, ideally, rare i.e. not in the sense of making it harder but that it should not be necessary because of the availability of alternatives.
I'm an Anglican but could have written that post myself... are you sure your not crossing the Tiber?
Organised religion has a lot of false teachings and hypocritical lifestyles.
They either had to follow their church rules and close, or break from their church and become State-funded agencies. Some chose the former, others the latter. It's hard to see how society benefitted.
Society benefited because the new law is fair and just. The charities that are able to live with such justice are better than those that can't.
If a charity would only adopt to racially pure families would the state have an interest in getting involved in your eyes?
The government has fallen well short of meeting its adoption targets since 2007. Getting rid of charities that were helping to place children with members of Catholic congregations hardly helps to meet such targets.
For the life of me, I can't see what problem would be caused by Cyclefree's compromise.
Nobody got rid of them they chose they'd rather shut down than accept the law. Their choice.
Should the law accept an Aryan charity that would place children but only with racially pure Aryan families?
I was having a coffee and a man waked in. The proprietor introduced me and said 'you've got to congratulate him he's just got married'. 'Congratulations!' I said
Later as I walked out I said good bye to the proprietor and to the recently married 'Good luck to you and your bride'
Was that a serious faux-pas? I have no idea whether he'd married a woman or man.
I'm more shocked about how the proprietor assumed their gender.
Unless you are a PC nazi you would immediately assume a woman, gobsmacked that you are shocked.
Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.
Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
Some closed themselves, some severed links with the Catholic Church and became basically state funded, while others fought on and were eventually shut down by the Charity Commission.
Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
There was an obvious compromise: to allow them to continue doing their work but require them to refer any gay couples to other adoption agencies. Why that wasn't adopted I don't know. We permitted exceptions to the laws on motorcycle helmets for Sikhs and do not require Catholic doctors or nurses to perform abortions and, when conscription was in place, pacifists were also granted exemptions.
There is a worrying tendency in recent years to insist not just that people must tolerate what they don't like or approve of (fair enough) but must positively approve of what they don't like or must think in the same way. This is not tolerance. It is illiberal and potentially oppressive.
The helmets and abortion issues are different: gay couples have the same rights under law as straight couples. Denying them these rights are discriminatory. For the Sikhs and helmets, and abortuon carried out by non-catholics, there is no third party involved whose rights being prevented
No third party rights were being prevented because gay couples - under my proposal - would have been referred to an adoption agency.
In the case of abortion, a woman might argue that allowing Catholic doctors to opt out of providing abortion services denies her the right to an abortion. The answer would be, of course, that she can get the abortion done by someone else - a non-Catholic doctor. That is exactly the same as saying to a gay couple: please go to this adoption agency which will give you what you want.
I'm not sure I could contain my excitement if I was attending...
Except for the fact that I recognise three or four of them, reading their descriptions, I could've been forgiven for thinking I was reading a spoof of some kind. They have a perfect right to campaign, and fair enough, but dear God, stereotype much?
Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.
Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
No - you have it the wrong way round. It isn't the potential parents who are the clients. But the children. It is the children who need a family. Adoption is not primarily for the benefit of adults. It is for the benefit of children.
Children are not like cakes - to be handed out to anyone who wants them.
What was wrong with saying: if you won't place a child with a gay family, you must refer any gay couple to another agency who will consider them as potential adoptive parents? A pragmatic solution that would have resulted in both parties getting what they wanted. Anyway, the issue has been resolved now so little point arguing.
And for reasons of bigotry they refuse to let the children under their care go to loving families where the parents are gay.
Thus denying the child a family life.
Harming the child.
No - the child would be placed with another loving family. And the gay couple would get the chance to be loving parents to another child through another agency. Win-win for everyone.
I'm not sure I could contain my excitement if I was attending...
Much more interesting event in Mansfield today.
The Mrssiah arrives at 1.30
I am sure Corbyn and Starmer's newfound enthusiasm for keeping free movement for years to stay in the single market will go down a treat in Mansfield, a rare Tory gain from Labour at the general election. Just think that seat hates Corbyn so much it voted for Brown and Ed Miliband but not him!
FWIW I am a Catholic. I am fine with gay marriage. I think my church has got it wrong on this. Gay people are made in the image of God just like everyone else and their love is no less sacred and worthy than the love between men and women. I hope in time the church will realise this. I could not have an abortion myself but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils: rape and incest are the obvious examples so I disagree with JRM on this. What other women do is for them. Abortion should be legal, safe and, ideally, rare i.e. not in the sense of making it harder but that it should not be necessary because of the availability of alternatives.
I'm an Anglican but could have written that post myself... are you sure your not crossing the Tiber?
Are you sure you're not? Come on over. We have much better art - and music. Allegri's Miserere is possibly the only proof that heaven exists.
I still think Boris is the man to beat, he has the charisma, populist appeal and commitment to Brexit as de facto leader of the Leave campaign in the referendum which May lacks.
If you are looking to outsiders Tom Tugenhadt, incidentally backed by JRM last week and chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee, would be a better bet than Raab in my view especially if May promotes him to ministerial office in the reshuffle
I agree regarding Boris and his populist appeal, that is why it was big news when he eventually stated his intentions to officially join the leave campaign.However you always get the impression he would have been on the other side of it was better for him personally and his ambition.I remember Eddie Mair took him apart on an interview some years ago and Boris personal morals and how he copes with the truth are a lot to be desired.As a party and a country you do not want him leading it.
If he keeps out Corbyn I do and Boris still leads public polls of who they want to succeed May as Tory leader
' The first is the complete absence of any kind of program or ideology coming from May herself. When she was elected, she gave an excellent One Nation speech which seemed to set for herself and her government a framework of objectives and intentions but very little if anything has flowed from it. '
Indeed.
But something I find interesting is the current raising of the university fatcats issue.
Something which is not only right and long overdue but likely to be popular and awkward for Labour.
The issue needs extending to the BBC and throughout the public sector.
Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
No - you have it the wrong way round. It isn't the potential parents who are the clients. But the children. It is the children who need a family. Adoption is not primarily for the benefit of adults. It is for the benefit of children.
Children are not like cakes - to be handed out to anyone who wants them.
What was wrong with saying: if you won't place a child with a gay family, you must refer any gay couple to another agency who will consider them as potential adoptive parents? A pragmatic solution that would have resulted in both parties getting what they wanted. Anyway, the issue has been resolved now so little point arguing.
And for reasons of bigotry they refuse to let the children under their care go to loving families where the parents are gay.
Thus denying the child a family life.
Harming the child.
They enjoyed considerable success, placing children with heterosexual Catholic adoptive parents. Now that they are no longer operating, the pool of potential adoptive parents is a little smaller.
But, you got to show them who is master. Enjoy.
Yes the law and equally are master. Religions should not be above the law.
So we can expect Labour to abolish the exemption for Sikhs and Catholics (re helmets and abortion) and enforce the laws on equality vigorously for Muslim schools and university societies, can we?
No third party rights were being prevented because gay couples - under my proposal - would have been referred to an adoption agency.
In the case of abortion, a woman might argue that allowing Catholic doctors to opt out of providing abortion services denies her the right to an abortion. The answer would be, of course, that she can get the abortion done by someone else - a non-Catholic doctor. That is exactly the same as saying to a gay couple: please go to this adoption agency which will give you what you want.
My knowledge on this is very limited, but AIUI when a potential adoption/fostering situation arises, it's often most appropriate to consider/approach the immediate family - ie, the child's aunts/uncles.
Not just straight aunts/uncles, which (again, AIUI) is the catholic approach.
Life is messy. What matters is the child - their welfare and their future. Not the genital/chromosomal configuration of potential adopters and their partners.
It's not "homosexuality" that is objectively disordered, it's the Catholic church's gender theory that is so.
The law shouldn't pander to it over the best interests of children. If adoption agencies choose to close, then so be it. The children come first.
JRM is articulate and speaks more direcly than some machine politicians. He is also arrogant and profoundly wrong on key issues.
As such he appeals to some Tories.
Confusing well-spoken and articulate with deep intelligence is a perennial English disease. Rees-Mogg is a standard, unexceptional product and defender of his class. His Catholicism is by the by.
I think he's unusual today in his careful, polite clarity, asnd that's an important part of his appeal - in which he does resemble Corbyn. Most people aren't really sure what they think about politics and not too bothered about it, but they get irritated by wafflers and alienated by shouters. Someone with coherent views that he puts civilly even when provoked is respected. Boisterous bluffers are out of fashion.
Nonetheless I think he's jumped even the Tory shark with some of his views, and David's article is sound. The underlying problem, as David implies, is that the Conservatives don't currently seem to have an answer to "What is your purpose?" other than "stopping Corbyn", which most people feel is an inadequate programme for government.
There is nothing wrong with him being happily married and having a large family nor with being a devout Catholic. This last point should not need saying but apparently does. This says more about Britain and a level of intolerance it has to anyone not sharing received opinion than it does about JRM.
His views about abortion and about marriage being a sacrament between a man and a woman are standard Catholic doctrine. He is entitled to believe this and, since he has said that such matters should be subject to a free vote like all matters of morality and should not be changed other than as the majority of the country want, this is perfectly consistent with being a democrat.
Otherwise we come perilously close to saying that Catholics (and members of other religions sharing similar views) should have no role in public life. Not very tolerant or liberal and far more dangerous to our polity and society than anything JRM has said.
Very well said.
Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.
Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
Rampant noncing by Catholic priests probably didn't help.
Yeah: far better to have children in the care of the state where no such thing happens.
Why are so many people willing to put good money against his name? Part of the answer is probably a misguided attempt to find a Tory equivalent of Jeremy Corbyn, Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders: someone from the fringes of the movement who could yet serve as the conduit for a rebellion against the establishment. I am surely not alone in finding JRM an improbable anti-establishment rebel.
No kidding. Although I suppose the attempts to find a Tory equivalent would not be focused on the anti-establishment part, but more on the inexplicably wide appeal (some appeal itself is explicable). Quite why people were surprised by Rees-Mogg's views I do not know - if he never proposes changing the law to fit those views, it is not really an issue, although obviously a barrier to any future ambitions, if he has them.
It won't hurt either, so who cares? They are very very hostile already.
Wait, no, they are perfectly rational and reasonable, in which case it definitely won't hurt as such rational and reasonable people would not care about that sort of thing.
I still think Boris is the man to beat, he has the charisma, populist appeal and commitment to Brexit as de facto leader of the Leave campaign in the referendum which May lacks.
If you are looking to outsiders Tom Tugenhadt, incidentally backed by JRM last week and chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee, would be a better bet than Raab in my view especially if May promotes him to ministerial office in the reshuffle
I agree regarding Boris and his populist appeal, that is why it was big news when he eventually stated his intentions to officially join the leave campaign.However you always get the impression he would have been on the other side of it was better for him personally and his ambition.
I don't think there's any doubt of that. I'm convinced May and Boris only picked their sides based on which way the other ended up jumping.
JRM is articulate and speaks more direcly than some machine politicians. He is also arrogant and profoundly wrong on key issues.
As such he appeals to some Tories.
Confusing well-spoken and articulate with deep intelligence is a perennial English disease. Rees-Mogg is a standard, unexceptional product and defender of his class. His Catholicism is by the by.
I think he's unusual today in his careful, polite clarity, asnd that's an important part of his appeal - in which he does resemble Corbyn. Most people aren't really sure what they think about politics and not too bothered about it, but they get irritated by wafflers and alienated by shouters. Someone with coherent views that he puts civilly even when provoked is respected. Boisterous bluffers are out of fashion.
Nonetheless I think he's jumped even the Tory shark with some of his views, and David's article is sound. The underlying problem, as David implies, is that the Conservatives don't currently seem to have an answer to "What is your purpose?" other than "stopping Corbyn", which most people feel is an inadequate programme for government.
'Stopping Kinnock' worked for the Tories in 1992, as soon as he had gone and the Tory cupboard was left bare the real Tory problems started leading to the 1997 defeat
Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
No - you have it the wrong way round. It isn't the potential parents who are the clients. But the children. It is the children who need a family. Adoption is not primarily for the benefit of adults. It is for the benefit of children.
Children are not like cakes - to be handed out to anyone who wants them.
What was wrong with saying: if you won't place a child with a gay family, you must refer any gay couple to another agency who will consider them as potential adoptive parents? A pragmatic solution that would have resulted in both parties getting what they wanted. Anyway, the issue has been resolved now so little point arguing.
And for reasons of bigotry they refuse to let the children under their care go to loving families where the parents are gay.
Thus denying the child a family life.
Harming the child.
They enjoyed considerable success, placing children with heterosexual Catholic adoptive parents. Now that they are no longer operating, the pool of potential adoptive parents is a little smaller.
But, you got to show them who is master. Enjoy.
Yes the law and equally are master. Religions should not be above the law.
So we can expect Labour to abolish the exemption for Sikhs and Catholics (re helmets and abortion) and enforce the laws on equality vigorously for Muslim schools and university societies, can we?
They either had to follow their church rules and close, or break from their church and become State-funded agencies. Some chose the former, others the latter. It's hard to see how society benefitted.
Society benefited because the new law is fair and just. The charities that are able to live with such justice are better than those that can't.
If a charity would only adopt to racially pure families would the state have an interest in getting involved in your eyes?
The government has fallen well short of meeting its adoption targets since 2007. Getting rid of charities that were helping to place children with members of Catholic congregations hardly helps to meet such targets.
For the life of me, I can't see what problem would be caused by Cyclefree's compromise.
Compromises and pragmatic solutions tend not to appeal to people who prefer ideological purity and making a point. The latter tends to lead to bad decisions.
The compromise I described was suggested at the time - it may even have been by the agencies themselves. I can't recall.
I still think Boris is the man to beat, he has the charisma, populist appeal and commitment to Brexit as de facto leader of the Leave campaign in the referendum which May lacks.
If you are looking to outsiders Tom Tugenhadt, incidentally backed by JRM last week and chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee, would be a better bet than Raab in my view especially if May promotes him to ministerial office in the reshuffle
I agree regarding Boris and his populist appeal, that is why it was big news when he eventually stated his intentions to officially join the leave campaign.However you always get the impression he would have been on the other side of it was better for him personally and his ambition.I remember Eddie Mair took him apart on an interview some years ago and Boris personal morals and how he copes with the truth are a lot to be desired.As a party and a country you do not want him leading it.
If he keeps out Corbyn I do and Boris still leads public polls of who they want to succeed May as Tory leader
Surely there are better future leaders in the conservative party who have a moral compass.
JRM is articulate and speaks more direcly than some machine politicians. He is also arrogant and profoundly wrong on key issues.
As such he appeals to some Tories.
Confusing well-spoken and articulate with deep intelligence is a perennial English disease. Rees-Mogg is a standard, unexceptional product and defender of his class. His Catholicism is by the by.
I think he's unusual today in his careful, polite clarity, asnd that's an important part of his appeal - in which he does resemble Corbyn. Most people aren't really sure what they think about politics and not too bothered about it, but they get irritated by wafflers and alienated by shouters. Someone with coherent views that he puts civilly even when provoked is respected. Boisterous bluffers are out of fashion.
Nonetheless I think he's jumped even the Tory shark with some of his views, and David's article is sound. The underlying problem, as David implies, is that the Conservatives don't currently seem to have an answer to "What is your purpose?" other than "stopping Corbyn", which most people feel is an inadequate programme for government.
The Conservatives should be summed up by one word - aspiration **
Or in practical terms - the average family should be able to own the average home.
** Labour should be summed up by one word - fairness
Norwegian elections this weekend (results Monday, I think). The social democrats (Labour) are in serious trouble and a centre-right government seems a safe bet - see the "coalitions" section at the bottom of this:
Unfortunately you can't bet on the government, but there's a range of markets on Betfair. Possibly the 5.6 on Conservatives most seats is worth a nibble - it contradicts all but one of the recent polls, but only by a couple of percentage points. But on balance I think the miserly 1.11 on Labour holding its lead is probably the better bet, as undecideds tend to float home on election day.
It won't hurt either, so who cares? They are very very hostile already.
Wait, no, they are perfectly rational and reasonable, in which case it definitely won't hurt as such rational and reasonable people would not care about that sort of thing.
The idea is some kind of direct appeal to the German people, as apparently the carmakers aren't going to knock down Merkel's door any time soon.
The rise of Mogg is not unrelated to his strength and unshakeable belief in Brexit. This may come from the same roots as his political Catholicism.
Both are articles of faith. Both promise a future paradise. Both are devoid of any physical evidence or proof. Both cause pain and suffering for millions.
I wouldn't go that far, at least not on Catholicism...
The same unquestioning faith underlies his zealotry for both, and his willingness to defend them. Any devout person is shaped by their faith in the way they interact. It is perhaps ironic that he insists on Sovereignty for Britain, yet believes in a single Apostalic Catholic Church, which is perhaps the world's oldest surviving transnational organisation to impinge on our sovereignty. I suppose the internationalism of the Catholic Church is over ridden by its defence of privilege and the established order.
In what way, exactly, does the Catholic Church impinge on the sovereignty of Britain?
Indeed, in what way does it defend the established order in Britain? Catholics are - uniquely - the only ones among the established order's subjects legally incapable of being the sovereign. Catholicism in this country has been seen as the "Italian mission to the Irish" and has largely found its adherents amongst immigrant communities and the marginalised. Brideshead was a novel. It does not reflect the reality of Catholicism today - let alone when it was written.
We broke with Rome in the reformation over the soveignty of British laws, and for British interpretation of Christian teaching. This was the Brexit of the 16th Century. I am not suggesting that the Catholic Church is now impinging on our sovereignty, nor would I want it to.
Moggs Catholicism is of an older strand of English recusantism than the nineteenth and twentieth century Irish migration. The more recent oppressed Catholics here and perhaps the most active churchgoers are of course the 21th Century migrants from Eastern and Southern Europe.
Broadly, High Anglicanism and Catholicism are the religions of the establishment, as far as the Establishment has any religion over its own belief in its right to rule. I agree that most active Catholics, like most Nonconformist Protestants sit outside that inner circle.
These days it's English Catholicism and Liberal High Anglicanism.
Roman Catholicism (which is primarily the Tiber crossers), Puseyism and Anglo-Catholicism are more purist than the Establishment really likes.
(It can be difficult to tell the difference though - as a LHA, I had a full nuptial mass albeit to Brahms Because I do like to be unconventional when I can)
Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good
Yes, curse those gay couples wanting to give a child a family.
No - you have it the wrong way round. It isn't the potential parents who are the clients. But the children. It is the children who need a family. Adoption is not primarily for the benefit of adults. It is for the benefit of children.
Children are not like cakes - to be handed out to anyone who wants them.
What was wrong with saying: if you won't place a child with a gay family, you must refer any gay couple to another agency who will consider them
And for reasons of bigotry they refuse to let the children under their care go to loving families where the parents are gay.
Thus denying the child a family life.
Harming the child.
They enjoyed considerable success, placing children with heterosexual Catholic adoptive parents. Now that they are no longer operating, the pool of potential adoptive parents is a little smaller.
But, you got to show them who is master. Enjoy.
Yes the law and equally are master. Religions should not be above the law.
So we can expect Labour to abolish the exemption for Sikhs and Catholics (re helmets and abortion) and enforce the laws on equality vigorously for Muslim schools and university societies, can we?
I should.hope so yes.
That would satisfy ideological purity, but it would result in fewer people wishing to work in the NHS. As with the adoption charities, it's a way of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
As a general point, many charities are racially and religiously exclusive, and are given wide exemptions from equality laws in order to be so. That's because selective charity is better than no charity.
JRM is articulate and speaks more direcly than some machine politicians. He is also arrogant and profoundly wrong on key issues.
As such he appeals to some Tories.
Confusing well-spoken and articulate with deep intelligence is a perennial English disease. Rees-Mogg is a standard, unexceptional product and defender of his class. His Catholicism is by the by.
I think he's unusual today in his careful, polite clarity, asnd that's an important part of his appeal - in which he does resemble Corbyn. Most people aren't really sure what they think about politics and not too bothered about it, but they get irritated by wafflers and alienated by shouters. Someone with coherent views that he puts civilly even when provoked is respected. Boisterous bluffers are out of fashion.
Nonetheless I think he's jumped even the Tory shark with some of his views, and David's article is sound. The underlying problem, as David implies, is that the Conservatives don't currently seem to have an answer to "What is your purpose?" other than "stopping Corbyn", which most people feel is an inadequate programme for government.
Agreed the stopping Corbyn seems their programme and mindset .How times have changed from when they were boasting on here that they had joined the Labour party to vote for him .Schadenfreude.
I'm not sure I could contain my excitement if I was attending...
Much more interesting event in Mansfield today.
The Mrssiah arrives at 1.30
I am sure Corbyn and Starmer's newfound enthusiasm for keeping free movement for years to stay in the single market will go down a treat in Mansfield, a rare Tory gain from Labour at the general election. Just think that seat hates Corbyn so much it voted for Brown and Ed Miliband but not him!
His views about abortion and about marriage being a sacrament between a man and a woman are standard Catholic doctrine. He is entitled to believe this and, since he has said that such matters should be subject to a free vote like all matters of morality and should not be changed other than as the majority of the country want, this is perfectly consistent with being a democrat.
Otherwise we come perilously close to saying that Catholics (and members of other religions sharing similar views) should have no role in public life. Not very tolerant or liberal and far more dangerous to our polity and society than anything JRM has said.
Very well said.
Perhaps the worst example of this intolerance was the forced closure of the Catholic adoption agencies, who cared for some of the most vulnerable women and children in society, finding good homes for children who would otherwise have spend their formative years as a burden on the state.
Dare I suggest that if they had been run by a different religion they wouldn’t have been shut down.
Hmmm , from what I remember they shut themselves down because they did not want to follow government rules as they think they are above any local laws etc.
Some closed themselves, some severed links with the Catholic Church and became basically state funded, while others fought on and were eventually shut down by the Charity Commission.
Personally I think the intolerance of people who were trying to do good in society went too far, a good friend of mine used to volunteer for one and they gave huge amounts of support to a lot of teenage girls, who for whatever reason had been abandoned by their families in their greatest hour of need.
There was an obvious compromise: to allow them to continue doing their work but require them to refer any gay couples to other adoption agencies. Why that wasn't adopted I don't know. We permitted exceptions to the laws on motorcycle helmets for Sikhs and do not require Catholic doctors or nurses to perform abortions and, when conscription was in place, pacifists were also granted exemptions.
There is a worrying tendency in recent years to insist not just that people must tolerate what they don't like or approve of (fair enough) but must positively approve of what they don't like or must think in the same way. This is not tolerance. It is illiberal and potentially oppressive.
That was what the agencies proposed as a compromise. It was rejected by Labour because (IIRC) they argued it would establish the principle that intolerance was acceptable.
Nobody got rid of them they chose they'd rather shut down than accept the law. Their choice.
Should the law accept an Aryan charity that would place children but only with racially pure Aryan families?
Yes, it's tricky when personal preference strays into impacting others, and most of us are not really consistent. There was a similar row in the US when someone wanted his donated organs only to go to a white person (I think the donation agency declined). Some people who are relaxed about JRM disapproving of women who are rape victims having an abortion or shocked by Muslim fundamentalists disapproving of women not wearing veils.
In general, I think that public services should not reflect any kind of prejudice, because it encourages the prejudice, and that's why the Catholic agencies couldn't really be allowed Cyclefree's compromise, any more than the hypothetical Aryan agency. In non-public life, I'd defend the right of anyone to hold any private views at all, so long as they didn't attempt to pressure others into holding them - a rape victim who wants an abortion shouldn't be deterred by disapproving friends and relatives, any more than a Muslim woman who wants to go around lightly-dressed. The problem is more the social pressure than the attitude itself. But having a party leader who openly espouses what most of us see as prejudice does encourage it, and that's understandably voter-repellent.
I think that the difference is that adoption is a legal process, and that in order to be approved there is a vetting for obvious reasons. I know, having been through it albeit 20 years ago. There was quite extensive grilling on religion, values and their place in child raising.
The role of the agency is not to second guess or further sift applications, but to place children with approved adoptive parents.
If, for example, a gay Catholic couple wanted to adopt, they would be turned away. The discrimination is because of sexuality rather than religion.
In practice, I suspect gay couples would not make a homophobic agency their first port of call!
' The first is the complete absence of any kind of program or ideology coming from May herself. When she was elected, she gave an excellent One Nation speech which seemed to set for herself and her government a framework of objectives and intentions but very little if anything has flowed from it. '
Indeed.
But something I find interesting is the current raising of the university fatcats issue.
Something which is not only right and long overdue but likely to be popular and awkward for Labour.
The issue needs extending to the BBC and throughout the public sector.
Jacob Cream Crackers' popularity is a function of Boris Johnson's decline. He's an attempt at filling the niche in the Tory ecosystem of amusing posho recently vacated. Since he lacks discernible talent and has views more suited to the Edwardian era, this is surely just a passing moment.
I think that's harsh: Jacob built a very successful business at Somerset (although a lot was down to Dominic).
He's not suitable to be PM, but he's a decent man and a good local MP - those are both "discernible talents"
The US president is not making America great again, but he is making the 1930s current again. Perhaps, then, and in a way he would not want, Trump is providing the anti-Brexiteers with the one thing they always lacked: an emotional heart to their argument. Trump and the fascist contagion is reminding us why the EU exists: to ensure that the neighbourhood we live in is never again consumed by the flames of tyranny and hatred.
On that fateful day in June 2016, it’s possible that some of those who voted leave did so because they believed that democracy and peace were now safe and secure in Europe. In the short time that has passed since, we have seen that those things are, in fact, fragile. As the head of Nato warns that the world is at its most dangerous point in a generation, Britain’s duty, to use a word that might make Smiley wince, is surely to defend the body that helped lead Europe out of its darkness. Instead, we are turning our backs and walking away.
The problem with articles like that is that they take it as an article of faith that the EU is "the body that helped lead Europe out of its darkness". Even if this is true - and it's a stretch to say that it's the body which did that - the article, like the Remain campaign, fails to explain in a manner that would be considered, never mind accepted, by Leave voters, how it did so and how it continues to do so (assuming it does). Similarly, the failure to engage with the legitimate concerns of Eurosceptics is one of the key reasons that Reformers were pushed into being Leavers. The idea that the EU's actions might be one thing that has facilitated the rise of the populist Right is simply dismissed as preposterous by definition: how can it have done so when it is a Good Thing?
Being Catholic myself, I find JRM quaint rather than dangerous.
The Church advice on contraception went awry in the sixties and few Catholics take any notice. The former priest in our parish was a quiet advocate for women priests and married priests. Many Catholics look upon this as internal housekeeping, considering we had married priests for longer than we've had celibate ones.
Abortion is trickier. You can see circumstances where there's a good case for it, and many Catholics would agree, but mission creep suggests it may end up as a form of contraception.
BTW, I'm not suggesting that I represent all Catholics or even know what others believe. It's my impression only.
He thinks abortion shouldnt be allowed in cases of rape or abuse. Thats very much a hardline view on the issue
If your belief is that an unborn child has the right to life, why should the nature of conception (an event that happened weeks or months previously) determine whether the child can be killed in the womb or not? A right to life is a right to life, in the view of the Catholic Church.
well, around 3-4 months previously as a maximum.
Its the hardline catholics who refuse abortions for cases of rape/abuse/medical reasons e.t.c, which JRM is aligned with. Its ok to be a little wary of someone like that having power
Sure - it's fine to vote against him for that reason. Some people believe that he should be some how disqualified from standing because of these beliefs
I was having a coffee and a man waked in. The proprietor introduced me and said 'you've got to congratulate him he's just got married'. 'Congratulations!' I said
Later as I walked out I said good bye to the proprietor and to the recently married 'Good luck to you and your bride'
Was that a serious faux-pas? I have no idea whether he'd married a woman or man.
I'm not an expert but my understanding in many gay relationships one partner often adopts a groom/male role and the other a bride/female (this is a personality thing rather than gender)
In any event, unless he's some kind of obsessive hurt-takernim sure the guy in the bar will have taken the sentiment as genuine rather than dwelled on the form of words
Jacob Cream Crackers' popularity is a function of Boris Johnson's decline. He's an attempt at filling the niche in the Tory ecosystem of amusing posho recently vacated. Since he lacks discernible talent and has views more suited to the Edwardian era, this is surely just a passing moment.
I think that's harsh: Jacob built a very successful business at Somerset (although a lot was down to Dominic).
He's not suitable to be PM, but he's a decent man and a good local MP - those are both "discernible talents"
Bur nothing like as bad as Jezza has to put up with every single day from the MMS
Disagree. Most of the Jezza stuff is criticising his policies, statements, history of behaviour. That attack on JRM basically boiled down to "he is a pretentious wanker" (it may be true, but political discourse should aim higher than that)
Bur nothing like as bad as Jezza has to put up with every single day from the MMS
Disagree. Most of the Jezza stuff is criticising his policies, statements, history of behaviour. That attack on JRM basically boiled down to "he is a pretentious wanker" (it may be true, but political discourse should aim higher than that)
I'm not sure I could contain my excitement if I was attending...
Much more interesting event in Mansfield today.
The Mrssiah arrives at 1.30
I am sure Corbyn and Starmer's newfound enthusiasm for keeping free movement for years to stay in the single market will go down a treat in Mansfield, a rare Tory gain from Labour at the general election. Just think that seat hates Corbyn so much it voted for Brown and Ed Miliband but not him!
I still think Boris is the man to beat, he has the charisma, populist appeal and commitment to Brexit as de facto leader of the Leave campaign in the referendum which May lacks.
If you are looking to outsiders Tom Tugenhadt, incidentally backed by JRM last week and chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee, would be a better bet than Raab in my view especially if May promotes him to ministerial office in the reshuffle
I agree regarding Boris and his populist appeal, that is why it was big news when he eventually stated his intentions to officially join the leave campaign.However you always get the impression he would have been on the other side of it was better for him personally and his ambition.I remember Eddie Mair took him apart on an interview some years ago and Boris personal morals and how he copes with the truth are a lot to be desired.As a party and a country you do not want him leading it.
If he keeps out Corbyn I do and Boris still leads public polls of who they want to succeed May as Tory leader
Surely there are better future leaders in the conservative party who have a moral compass.
May was the epitome of personal morality and fat lot of good it did her in gaining votes!
The Tories would have to be crazy to make Mogg leader (they who the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad). I doubt however whether he would get past the MPs filter to put to the membership. The Tories are right however to look to the backbenches. There must be someone there who can save them from Corbyn -and someone who can save the Labour party from Corbyn too, for a government government would destroy Labour and toxify it possibly permanently.
Biden's problem won't be the general election so much, where has has a 12% lead over Trump in the latest poll compared to Warren's 5% lead, but the Democratic primary where the last poll there had him trailing Sanders by 5% and Warren by 1%
' The first is the complete absence of any kind of program or ideology coming from May herself. When she was elected, she gave an excellent One Nation speech which seemed to set for herself and her government a framework of objectives and intentions but very little if anything has flowed from it. '
Indeed.
But something I find interesting is the current raising of the university fatcats issue.
Something which is not only right and long overdue but likely to be popular and awkward for Labour.
The issue needs extending to the BBC and throughout the public sector.
I've no problem with heretics like yourself. I always thought the split was overplayed a little. It's 500 years since 'ol Martin nailed his thingys on the door. Those pesky bonfires did more harm than good. An over-reaction.
As my father-in-law, who lived in Dublin during the Easter rising, said "We always thought the rebels were a nuisance, it's only when the British began executing them that they gained sympathy here."
What split?
The Anglicans are part of the universal Catholic Church and believe in the apostolic succession.
We just don't accept the temporal or spiritual authority of the Bishop of Rome
I still think Boris is the man to beat, he has the charisma, populist appeal and commitment to Brexit as de facto leader of the Leave campaign in the referendum which May lacks.
If you are looking to outsiders Tom Tugenhadt, incidentally backed by JRM last week and chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee, would be a better bet than Raab in my view especially if May promotes him to ministerial office in the reshuffle
I agree regarding Boris and his populist appeal, that is why it was big news when he eventually stated his intentions to officially join the leave campaign.However you always get the impression he would have been on the other side of it was better for him personally and his ambition.I remember Eddie Mair took him apart on an interview some years ago and Boris personal morals and how he copes with the truth are a lot to be desired.As a party and a country you do not want him leading it.
If he keeps out Corbyn I do and Boris still leads public polls of who they want to succeed May as Tory leader
Surely there are better future leaders in the conservative party who have a moral compass.
May was the epitome of personal morality and fat lot of good it did her in gaining votes!
I would disagree. Theresa May strikes me as someone who follows the rulebook without compassion or empathy. The golden rule applies.
Indeed, I would go as far to suggest that lack of empathy is the root of evil. I have never met her personally though!
I was having a coffee and a man waked in. The proprietor introduced me and said 'you've got to congratulate him he's just got married'. 'Congratulations!' I said
Later as I walked out I said good bye to the proprietor and to the recently married 'Good luck to you and your bride'
Was that a serious faux-pas? I have no idea whether he'd married a woman or man
In 2014 (the last year for which stats are available), there were just under a quarter of a million opposite-sex marriages (including mine!), against 4850 same-sex marriages. It's close to a 50/1 shot that any given marriage was between a same-sex couple.
I still think Boris is the man to beat, he has the charisma, populist appeal and commitment to Brexit as de facto leader of the Leave campaign in the referendum which May lacks.
If you are looking to outsiders Tom Tugenhadt, incidentally backed by JRM last week and chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee, would be a better bet than Raab in my view especially if May promotes him to ministerial office in the reshuffle
I agree regarding Boris and his populist appeal, that is why it was big news when he eventually stated his intentions to officially join the leave campaign.However you always get the impression he would have been on the other side of it was better for him personally and his ambition.I remember Eddie Mair took him apart on an interview some years ago and Boris personal morals and how he copes with the truth are a lot to be desired.As a party and a country you do not want him leading it.
If he keeps out Corbyn I do and Boris still leads public polls of who they want to succeed May as Tory leader
Surely there are better future leaders in the conservative party who have a moral compass.
May was the epitome of personal morality and fat lot of good it did her in gaining votes!
I would disagree. Theresa May strikes me as someone who follows the rulebook without compassion or empathy. The golden rule applies.
Indeed, I would go as far to suggest that lack of empathy is the root of evil. I have never met her personally though!
One of the best TV plays I've seen is Conspiracy, which deals with lack of empathy.
The German bureaucrats react with outrage to the Final Solution, not on moral grounds, but because of the thorny legal, technical, and logistical problems it generates.
The potential during that process for political and constitutional upheaval is enormous. Externalising the ancient tribal conflict in the North in the past with Bill Clinton, George Mitchell, General De Chastelain and company worked because the local parties had all the time they needed to metabolise the hard compromises.
This time around the clock is ticking, and a cliff edge is getting closer. The Tories are in turmoil over the very subject that is at hand – Brexit – and they rely for their survival on the DUP, a party whose instincts are not known to be adventurous on constitutional issues.
I still think Boris is the man to beat, he has the charisma, populist appeal and commitment to Brexit as de facto leader of the Leave campaign in the referendum which May lacks.
If you are looking to outsiders Tom Tugenhadt, incidentally backed by JRM last week and chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee, would be a better bet than Raab in my view especially if May promotes him to ministerial office in the reshuffle
I agree regarding Boris and his populist appeal, that is why it was big news when he eventually stated his intentions to officially join the leave campaign.However you always get the impression he would have been on the other side of it was better for him personally and his ambition.I remember Eddie Mair took him apart on an interview some years ago and Boris personal morals and how he copes with the truth are a lot to be desired.As a party and a country you do not want him leading it.
If he keeps out Corbyn I do and Boris still leads public polls of who they want to succeed May as Tory leader
Surely there are better future leaders in the conservative party who have a moral compass.
May was the epitome of personal morality and fat lot of good it did her in gaining votes!
I would disagree. Theresa May strikes me as someone who follows the rulebook without compassion or empathy. The golden rule applies.
Indeed, I would go as far to suggest that lack of empathy is the root of evil. I have never met her personally though!
One of the best TV plays I've seen is Conspiracy, which deals with lack of empathy.
The German bureaucrats react with outrage to the Final Solution, not on moral grounds, but because of the thorny legal, technical, and logistical problems it generates.
It was excellent. Branagh was particularly good as Heydrich, especially as he is almost the opposite facial & physical type to RH.
Another good morning with the ball for Jimmy Anderson, a brace more wickets in the bag. Windies effectively 29/5 now, hope no-one has tickets for tomorrow!
I still think Boris is the man to beat, he has the charisma, populist appeal and commitment to Brexit as de facto leader of the Leave campaign in the referendum which May lacks.
If you are looking to outsiders Tom Tugenhadt, incidentally backed by JRM last week and chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee, would be a better bet than Raab in my view especially if May promotes him to ministerial office in the reshuffle
I agree regarding Boris and his populist appeal, that is why it was big news when he eventually stated his intentions to officially join the leave campaign.However you always get the impression he would have been on the other side of it was better for him personally and his ambition.I remember Eddie Mair took him apart on an interview some years ago and Boris personal morals and how he copes with the truth are a lot to be desired.As a party and a country you do not want him leading it.
If he keeps out Corbyn I do and Boris still leads public polls of who they want to succeed May as Tory leader
Surely there are better future leaders in the conservative party who have a moral compass.
May was the epitome of personal morality and fat lot of good it did her in gaining votes!
I would disagree. Theresa May strikes me as someone who follows the rulebook without compassion or empathy. The golden rule applies.
Indeed, I would go as far to suggest that lack of empathy is the root of evil. I have never met her personally though!
Boris has far more empathy than May but empathy is not the same as morality
I still think Boris is the man to beat, he has the charisma, populist appeal and commitment to Brexit as de facto leader of the Leave campaign in the referendum which May lacks.
If you are looking to outsiders Tom Tugenhadt, incidentally backed by JRM last week and chairman of the Foreign Affairs committee, would be a better bet than Raab in my view especially if May promotes him to ministerial office in the reshuffle
I agree regarding Boris and his populist appeal, that is why it was big news when he eventually stated his intentions to officially join the leave campaign.However you always get the impression he would have been on the other side of it was better for him personally and his ambition.I remember Eddie Mair took him apart on an interview some years ago and Boris personal morals and how he copes with the truth are a lot to be desired.As a party and a country you do not want him leading it.
If he keeps out Corbyn I do and Boris still leads public polls of who they want to succeed May as Tory leader
Surely there are better future leaders in the conservative party who have a moral compass.
May was the epitome of personal morality and fat lot of good it did her in gaining votes!
I would disagree. Theresa May strikes me as someone who follows the rulebook without compassion or empathy. The golden rule applies.
Indeed, I would go as far to suggest that lack of empathy is the root of evil. I have never met her personally though!
One of the best TV plays I've seen is Conspiracy, which deals with lack of empathy.
The German bureaucrats react with outrage to the Final Solution, not on moral grounds, but because of the thorny legal, technical, and logistical problems it generates.
It was excellent. Branagh was particularly good as Heydrich, especially as he is almost the opposite facial & physical type to RH.
I loved his mix of charm and menace.
Heydrich is good example of CS Lewis' dictum that "to be truly and effectively wicked, a man needs some virtue."
Mr. Divvie/Mr. F, was that the BBC programme (possibly a two parter) at Wahnsee? I have vague memories of watching that and being very engaged (I wrote 'enjoyed' at first, but perhaps not the best way to describe a drama depicting the bureaucratic machinery that enabled genocide).
Comments
I think the pressures of being PM would break his artificial persona.
The Catholic adoption agencies had been doing what whey did for centuries, until for reasons of bigotry Blair’s government shut them down.
"Was that a serious faux-pas? I have no idea whether he'd married a woman or man."
Congratulations. You've made it as a Guardian reader. All you need now is a gluten intolerance and a slight mental health issue (not too debilitating, but enough to evoke sympathy at Waitrose). Don't have nightmares about it. (I'd attach a smiley face here, but it's beyond my technical expertise)
And I hate to mention it, but don't Quakers object to gambling..... ?
But, you got to show them who is master. Enjoy.
If they weren't such bigots they could gave followed the law.
https://peoplesmarch4eu.org/
Hope all PB's keyboard warriors like Scott_P and William_Glenn are going to put their money where their mouth is and donate/protest?
"are you sure your not crossing the Tiber"
I've no problem with heretics like yourself. I always thought the split was overplayed a little. It's 500 years since 'ol Martin nailed his thingys on the door. Those pesky bonfires did more harm than good. An over-reaction.
As my father-in-law, who lived in Dublin during the Easter rising, said "We always thought the rebels were a nuisance, it's only when the British began executing them that they gained sympathy here."
The Germans are not begging us for a deal.
Not even the carmakers...
After all, in the end it was not solely the decisions of the government that caused the closures, which rather points to christian charity not being their highest priority.
Still, Fake News I guess...
https://peoplesmarch4eu.org/the-event/
I'm not sure I could contain my excitement if I was attending...
The Mrssiah arrives at 1.30
They'll just have to make do with Bob Geldorf as the "star turn"
"They either had to follow their church rules and close, or break from their church and become State-funded agencies..."
Yes, it's the first bit of that which puzzles me, when most Catholics in this country don't.
If a charity would only adopt to racially pure families would the state have an interest in getting involved in your eyes?
For the life of me, I can't see what problem would be caused by Cyclefree's compromise.
https://twitter.com/TheSun/status/906421166625230848
' Today, we are setting out our assessment of what would happen in the weeks and months after a vote to Leave on June 23.
It is clear that there would be an immediate and profound shock to our economy.
The analysis produced by the Treasury today shows that a vote to leave will push our economy into a recession that would knock 3.6 per cent off GDP and, over two years, put hundreds of thousands of people out of work right across the country, compared to the forecast for continued growth if we vote to remain in the EU.
In a more severe shock scenario, Treasury economists estimate that our economy could be hit by 6 per cent, there would be a deeper recession and unemployment would rise by even more. '
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/22/david-cameron-and-george-osborne-brexit-would-put-our-economy-in/
Should the law accept an Aryan charity that would place children but only with racially pure Aryan families?
In the case of abortion, a woman might argue that allowing Catholic doctors to opt out of providing abortion services denies her the right to an abortion. The answer would be, of course, that she can get the abortion done by someone else - a non-Catholic doctor. That is exactly the same as saying to a gay couple: please go to this adoption agency which will give you what you want.
Are you sure you're not? Come on over. We have much better art - and music. Allegri's Miserere is possibly the only proof that heaven exists.
Indeed.
But something I find interesting is the current raising of the university fatcats issue.
Something which is not only right and long overdue but likely to be popular and awkward for Labour.
The issue needs extending to the BBC and throughout the public sector.
Not just straight aunts/uncles, which (again, AIUI) is the catholic approach.
Life is messy. What matters is the child - their welfare and their future. Not the genital/chromosomal configuration of potential adopters and their partners.
It's not "homosexuality" that is objectively disordered, it's the Catholic church's gender theory that is so.
The law shouldn't pander to it over the best interests of children. If adoption agencies choose to close, then so be it. The children come first.
Nonetheless I think he's jumped even the Tory shark with some of his views, and David's article is sound. The underlying problem, as David implies, is that the Conservatives don't currently seem to have an answer to "What is your purpose?" other than "stopping Corbyn", which most people feel is an inadequate programme for government.
No kidding. Although I suppose the attempts to find a Tory equivalent would not be focused on the anti-establishment part, but more on the inexplicably wide appeal (some appeal itself is explicable). Quite why people were surprised by Rees-Mogg's views I do not know - if he never proposes changing the law to fit those views, it is not really an issue, although obviously a barrier to any future ambitions, if he has them. It won't hurt either, so who cares? They are very very hostile already.
Wait, no, they are perfectly rational and reasonable, in which case it definitely won't hurt as such rational and reasonable people would not care about that sort of thing. I don't think there's any doubt of that. I'm convinced May and Boris only picked their sides based on which way the other ended up jumping.
Whatever happened to James Chapman?
The compromise I described was suggested at the time - it may even have been by the agencies themselves. I can't recall.
Or in practical terms - the average family should be able to own the average home.
** Labour should be summed up by one word - fairness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Norwegian_parliamentary_election,_2017
Unfortunately you can't bet on the government, but there's a range of markets on Betfair. Possibly the 5.6 on Conservatives most seats is worth a nibble - it contradicts all but one of the recent polls, but only by a couple of percentage points. But on balance I think the miserly 1.11 on Labour holding its lead is probably the better bet, as undecideds tend to float home on election day.
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.128390730
Roman Catholicism (which is primarily the Tiber crossers), Puseyism and Anglo-Catholicism are more purist than the Establishment really likes.
(It can be difficult to tell the difference though - as a LHA, I had a full nuptial mass albeit to Brahms Because I do like to be unconventional when I can)
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/08/politics/joe-biden-2020-ashley-biden/index.html?sr=twCNNp090817joe-biden-2020-ashley-biden0234PMVODtop&CNNPolitics=Tw
As a general point, many charities are racially and religiously exclusive, and are given wide exemptions from equality laws in order to be so. That's because selective charity is better than no charity.
An ironic position to take, really
In general, I think that public services should not reflect any kind of prejudice, because it encourages the prejudice, and that's why the Catholic agencies couldn't really be allowed Cyclefree's compromise, any more than the hypothetical Aryan agency. In non-public life, I'd defend the right of anyone to hold any private views at all, so long as they didn't attempt to pressure others into holding them - a rape victim who wants an abortion shouldn't be deterred by disapproving friends and relatives, any more than a Muslim woman who wants to go around lightly-dressed. The problem is more the social pressure than the attitude itself. But having a party leader who openly espouses what most of us see as prejudice does encourage it, and that's understandably voter-repellent.
https://twitter.com/Simon_Pegg/status/906450352031064064
Perhaps in light of Mayweather-McGregor it may end up as an actual boxing match.
I think that the difference is that adoption is a legal process, and that in order to be approved there is a vetting for obvious reasons. I know, having been through it albeit 20 years ago. There was quite extensive grilling on religion, values and their place in child raising.
The role of the agency is not to second guess or further sift applications, but to place children with approved adoptive parents.
If, for example, a gay Catholic couple wanted to adopt, they would be turned away. The discrimination is because of sexuality rather than religion.
In practice, I suspect gay couples would not make a homophobic agency their first port of call!
He's not suitable to be PM, but he's a decent man and a good local MP - those are both "discernible talents"
In any event, unless he's some kind of obsessive hurt-takernim sure the guy in the bar will have taken the sentiment as genuine rather than dwelled on the form of words
I doubt however whether he would get past the MPs filter to put to the membership.
The Tories are right however to look to the backbenches. There must be someone there who can save them from Corbyn -and someone who can save the Labour party from Corbyn too, for a government government would destroy Labour and toxify it possibly permanently.
It should apply to both.
The Anglicans are part of the universal Catholic Church and believe in the apostolic succession.
We just don't accept the temporal or spiritual authority of the Bishop of Rome
Indeed, I would go as far to suggest that lack of empathy is the root of evil. I have never met her personally though!
The German bureaucrats react with outrage to the Final Solution, not on moral grounds, but because of the thorny legal, technical, and logistical problems it generates.
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2017/0909/903432-brexit-connelly/
The potential during that process for political and constitutional upheaval is enormous. Externalising the ancient tribal conflict in the North in the past with Bill Clinton, George Mitchell, General De Chastelain and company worked because the local parties had all the time they needed to metabolise the hard compromises.
This time around the clock is ticking, and a cliff edge is getting closer. The Tories are in turmoil over the very subject that is at hand – Brexit – and they rely for their survival on the DUP, a party whose instincts are not known to be adventurous on constitutional issues.
Windies effectively 29/5 now, hope no-one has tickets for tomorrow!
Heydrich is good example of CS Lewis' dictum that "to be truly and effectively wicked, a man needs some virtue."