Clearing the air (2) - they shoot horses don't they?

Another of the issues that has caused me great problems this year is the fact that those who now form part of the 'older' generation of our land appear to be regarded as merely spent and expendable. After all, they have little to offer in terms of revenue generation and are another burden that demands time, money and attention from both the state and their own families.

But of course this isn't true and if you start to think about it logically, many of those who are the older generation have many years of work (and paying of taxes and National Insurance) behind them. Not only that but there are many who have paid out for the nation in another way, that of having served it in some form of military (or other) service!

So let's look at what the older people have on their CVs and consider how we should be regarding it:

Eighty (and over) - b. 1933 - 1900
There's the second world war - growing up in a time of depression and many other hardships that were faced by this group. They know the value of family (and are often the glue of their families) and generally worked hard to pay their way. These are the people who paid financially and with their own lives and the lives of those they loved to make the sixties the libertarian and relaxed age that it was. They paid in and now it is surely their turn to reap the respect and care of the nation.

The Seventies - b. 1943 - 1934
Still wars, but not to the same scale as those before them. Still knew the value of stuff and still exist as the focus of the families and communities in which they live. Paid more in many ways as the NHS and other social care and concern provisions became available for everyone in a real and established manner. Accepted that paying NI and taxes meant a lifetime of care both medically, in social housing and in old age.

The Sixties - b. 1953 - 1944
'Sixty is the new forty' (or so I'm told) and this group are now looking at paying, and working, for longer before they get their go onto the provision roundabout, that is if we still have a social health service and anything that looks like 'old age care' by the time the youngest of this group actuallty reaches seventy. Many of these will have paid and worked all their lives (but not all as Thatcher's job cuts and the various trough, trough and recovery have played their part) for something others wish to deprive them of. Trendy and living on credit is a greater reality for this bunch but they've still (in the main) played their part.

What do they have in common?

Unlike horses and other beasts of burden (which used to be shot but now find themselves in 'sanctuaries') these people have worked and contributed to the well-being of our society. they have produced children, been in gainful employment and paid their taxes and National Insurance to provide for those before them.

The State told them that they were entitled to 'cradle to grave' care and support, but no one told them that the grave might just be enticed that little nearer to reduce costs; neither did they realise that services and places of care would mean that we would end up with a 'can't pay - can't live' society (such as that I saw many years ago in a certain Western nation where there was wealth and health and poverty and early demise on the menu).

The Bible tells us that 'we don't muzzle the ox that treads the grain' (Deuteronomy 25) - meaning that when you do the work you should also benefit from it. Well those in the three groups above have done (and in many cases are still doing) that and they have a right to expect the best in care, provision and support. In fact, I would argue that legally, having paid in to the system, if services are withdrawn there must be a case for reimbursement of the financial components for them as they have paid money for something that isn't on offer (it's called 'fraud' when it doesn't relate to the government!).

One of the things that defines a nation is the way that it cares for the poor and needy; well if some of my visits to places around the country are anything to go by, we are to be judged as wanting. If some of the stories I hear (and have seen for myself) are anything other than isolated exceptions then there is a cynical streak that seeks to save money on the lives that actions designate as 'worthless' because of the age of the person.

Be warned - 2013 is the year when I will shout loud and make a stand for the older folk around me and where services are not forthcoming then I will be making this known; where charities fail to uphold their end of the bargain (a bargain which the giving of others has made possible) I will waste no time in pointing to it.

1 Timothy (chapter five) talks about providing for our relatives (and members of our households too) and it says that those who fail to do this  have denied their faith and are 'worse than unbelievers' - sadly in a land where unbelief is applauded and financial probity is championed as a reason for poorer standards in old-age care, these words are appearing truer every day - another reason that we need to make this land a place where faith is applauded and reason, truth, love, justice and mercy are valued.

I close with the words of the apostle Paul as found in Galatians (six) - my words:

"Brothers and sisters, if you find someone acting wrongly, those of you with faith in God (and living by His Holy Spirit) should correct them gently. But take care  that you are not tempted to do that wrongly yourselves.
Carry each other’s burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ."

We need to care for the older people of our nation - it is their right and our duty!

If it isn't being done then we need to start doing some 'correcting' (the right way) - don't we?

Clearing the air (1) - the disabled are a burden

Having a chilled day and thought I'd pin a few colours to the mast over the few days between now and New Year. I have done it with 'Happy Holidays' and now I feel the need to respond to people like Geoffrey Clark, a man who was standing as a candidate for UKIP's National Executive Committee, until he opened his mouth and put his foot squarely in it by calling for the compulsory abortion of all foetuses that have been identified as having the potential to be born with Down's syndrome or spina bifida.

As if it might make things better the man supported his opinion by stating that the reason for the views he held were merely 'financial' for he was concerned that such children would be 'a burden on the state and the family'. Mind you, the man's amazingly sad utterances didn't stop with children born with health issues for he also (apparently) thinks that the state should re-assess the care given to over eighties as it was 'extraordinarily costly'.

Now whilst I am happy for the man to hold his views, and happier still that he voices them, because that is what democracy does - for it gives minorities and people with different views a voice and the right for it to be heard - it also demands the right to dialogue with the views and to engage in rejoinders. So here's mine:

I write this as someone who has, for as long as I remember,  been 'pro-life'. This is a position that has attracted a fair amount of conflict in the past as I have been engaged by those who wish to demote babies into 'just a mass of cells' and render them to be an abstract 'foetus' as they support what is often little more than social engineering! [I invite those who support the aborting (not 'termination') of a child because it interferes with holidays and changes careers, lifestyle and financial circumstances.

Over the years there have been many who have accused me of being able to have my views based on their premise that: 'it's alright for you because you haven't got a handicapped child'.

Well, this is probably a food time to 'fess up and explain that I have not only held my views for a long time, but that I held them long before I became the father of a severely handicapped child who was with us for just under ten years. Ten years that taught me a great deal about the value and place of the handicapped among us and only confirmed my original views regarding the value of live and the contribution that some of the most damaged can make to the lives of the most able.

There are times when tough choices regarding life and death are forced upon us, and when these appear, the Church needs to be present to offer pastoral and moral support. There are times when the continuance of an obviously non-viable pregnancy that threatens also to take the life of an otherwise healthy woman come knocking at our doors. At some stage we may well find ourselves engaging with others who have the spectre of an abortion somewhere in their life story. What do we do when this is our reality?

I would consider that the first word to think of is always 'Love' regardless of the reasons or outcomes before or behind them.

I have decided that 2013 will be a year when I seek to turn those with 'righteous anger' away from it into a place of 'righteous love'.

The second thing to think of is the fact that in Exodus chapter Twenty we are told that we must never take life 'feloniously' - by which I mean, 'do not murder' - but where life must be taken (and it seems that there are times when the word 'must' is very much a reality, but reliance upon man's laws and the assumption that they overrule the requirements of God's is a flawed, and dangerous, state of affairs.

The third thing to remember is that God calls us to protect the weak, the vulnerable, the widow and the stranger in our midst and that we should do this courageously and without counting the cost. Too often we bring discussions regarding life down to one issue, 'quality of life', but what is really meant here is more often than not one of two things:

What will it cost - financially, emotionally, practically

or

What can they contribute - financially, emotionally, practically

I have seen a cerebrally palsied child, unable to speak, feed or toilet themselves communicate and contribute so much to the life of those around them.

I have seen the very best of people, sometimes in what appears to be the very worst of people, brought out by their encounter with frailty and helplessness.

To  consider only the difficulties that children with major disability and handicap will bring to us in terms of negative numbers - be they financial, emotional or time - is to see past our own humanity and reduce us to nothing more than components. It is to remove the heart and soul from our society  something which (with apologies to those humanists and secularists this might offend) is becoming more commonplace and more acceptable as our netion distances itself from being a people of faith.

So Mr. Clark (and those who might support your views) all I can say is that I am grateful that there isn't a 'Geoffrey Clark test' for those children who are yet unborn, and am glad that it wasn't on offer when you were as them, for each of us regardless of flaws and disability have within us that image of the invisible God that we need to treasure and that ennobles us and makes us and our society all the richer (regardless of financial cost).

Pax