The day now past turned the white of the Christmas season to red as the Church remembered the 'Holy Innocents'. Herod rushed in and took the lives of the boys, row and under - and Rachel wept for her children because they were no more.
And she weeps still in places throughout the world: Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Palestine and many other places besides - but it's not just about violence or internecine struggles or fundamentalism; let's not forget the industrialists and the pharmaceutical companies and the may putting lives on the line through political scheming and shareholder dividends!
Today I sorted a funeral for one at the other end of the scale, almost 100, and celebrated a newly minted life, engaged in the most odd thing I thing I may have ever done in terms of passing on a blessing and had another encounter with things spiritual. The problem with sin and the powers that feed from it in all of its various manifestations is that it is like having moles. Mind you, I went to a posh church a couple of years back and found a member telling me how they needed a anew lawn every few years because of the moles. That is the problem with many in the Church today. Always far too happy to 'get a man in' rather than do it themselves.
Perhaps we've contracted Church and the sin of the world out to Jesus and instead of calling Him 'Lord' are now just calling Him 'Workman'? The whole point is that we do it with Him rather than sit back assured of heaven and eternity and Him stopping the drip under the sink!
So a varied and blessed day - the problems, like the moles, were dealt with where they were obvious and many felt better for having buried them alive (so we will see them again shortly I guess). But life continues to be a challenge and to invite us to grasp what we can, ignore what we ought and to work where we aren't.
Lord, for a day gone and the encounters within in it - I thank You.
For those bound by sin and caught in error, I pray you illuminate the dark places of their hearts and lives and actions.
For those whom I have been used to bless, thank you - and for those I didn't, sorry :-(
And for tomorrow - keep me humble, keep me honest and open the gates of heaven and give me the keys to the tool cabinets to get the job done.
And for the innocents who have gone - and will be taken: Give your Church to stand with and for them and to commend those we cannot save to your grace, love, care and mercy.
Showing posts with label making a stand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label making a stand. Show all posts
Thursday, 29 December 2016
Friday, 9 January 2015
Charlie Hebdo Solidarity Avatars
One of those passing through this blog, liking the Solidarity' badge, has asked me to produce one with the emblem of their faith on it and so, being that sort of a bloke, here it is (along with a few other images you can use as an avatar if it fits who you are) - just right-click and copy (or download) image:
Thursday, 8 January 2015
I'm not Charlie ... BUT
But I am most certainly Charlie's friend!
The poster above marks the affront and the desire to stand with those who lost their lives in the attack on the offices of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, and this is a very right stance to take.
But, this is not Spartacus and so my Avatar will instead become:
Now is the time for all those who celebrate free speech, even when it's not easy and perhaps hits out at us, to make a stand and to draw a line by peaceful protest and by recognising that blind, unthinking and cruel fundamentalism, regardless of whether it be theist or atheist, is something that will not be tolerated in the 21st century.
Yesterday's happenings, which although different in scale, were no different to those acts which saw Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard targeted and fatwahs issued to writers - remember Rushdie? - and the like.
We live in a world where no book should be burned and where, offensive as I (and others) might find them to be, no viewpoint is merely trodden down. We live one generation away from pogroms and knocks on the door which result in people disappearing and this wolf is kept for the door by us standing as rational and free-thinking people.
We stand unbowed in defiance of those who seek to peddle their brand of fear and oppression,
We must ensure that what we don't do is create a fad and bring about a flash in the pan, knee jerk response - the lives of those who died - and the sacrifice of those in Police uniform which saw them pay with their lives in pursuit of upholding the law, must be stood up for in a thinking and balanced manner.
Today's New Testament reading sums it all up rather nicely:
1 John 4.19-5.4
'We love because he first loved us.
Those who say, ‘I love God’, and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.
The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also.
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the parent loves the child. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For the love of God is this, that we obey his commandments.
And his commandments are not burdensome, for whatever is born of God conquers the world.
And this is the victory that conquers the world, our faith.'
Not rocket science now, is it?
This incident presents no real proof for those who wish to portray faith as the root of anything positive - but is proof that wicked and evil people will use whatever they can as an excuse to grasp at power and to manipulate the wills and minds of vulnerable and sad individuals. That's the very reason they need a wholesome and intelligent faith ;-)
And in the same what that I am not Christ but corporately am part of the body of Christ - when we stand together:
The poster above marks the affront and the desire to stand with those who lost their lives in the attack on the offices of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, and this is a very right stance to take.
But, this is not Spartacus and so my Avatar will instead become:
Now is the time for all those who celebrate free speech, even when it's not easy and perhaps hits out at us, to make a stand and to draw a line by peaceful protest and by recognising that blind, unthinking and cruel fundamentalism, regardless of whether it be theist or atheist, is something that will not be tolerated in the 21st century.
Yesterday's happenings, which although different in scale, were no different to those acts which saw Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard targeted and fatwahs issued to writers - remember Rushdie? - and the like.
We live in a world where no book should be burned and where, offensive as I (and others) might find them to be, no viewpoint is merely trodden down. We live one generation away from pogroms and knocks on the door which result in people disappearing and this wolf is kept for the door by us standing as rational and free-thinking people.
We stand unbowed in defiance of those who seek to peddle their brand of fear and oppression,
We must ensure that what we don't do is create a fad and bring about a flash in the pan, knee jerk response - the lives of those who died - and the sacrifice of those in Police uniform which saw them pay with their lives in pursuit of upholding the law, must be stood up for in a thinking and balanced manner.
Today's New Testament reading sums it all up rather nicely:
1 John 4.19-5.4
'We love because he first loved us.
Those who say, ‘I love God’, and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen.
The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also.
Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the parent loves the child. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For the love of God is this, that we obey his commandments.
And his commandments are not burdensome, for whatever is born of God conquers the world.
And this is the victory that conquers the world, our faith.'
Not rocket science now, is it?
This incident presents no real proof for those who wish to portray faith as the root of anything positive - but is proof that wicked and evil people will use whatever they can as an excuse to grasp at power and to manipulate the wills and minds of vulnerable and sad individuals. That's the very reason they need a wholesome and intelligent faith ;-)
And in the same what that I am not Christ but corporately am part of the body of Christ - when we stand together:
 |
MacLeodCartoons |
Tuesday, 22 July 2014
FGM/CEFM - Time to make a stand
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)
Child, and Early, Forced Marriage (CEFM)
Last time I wrote on this I received an email asking whether it was, 'Right and fitting for a man of the cloth to be talking about such things?'
Now I can understand that there are some sensitivities regarding this issue but the final shot in their mail hit me like a brick wrapped in a page of the Bible: 'Especially when it has nothing directly to do with the place you are and our own country!'
Nothing to do with our own country?
Estimates suggest that some 170,000 women and girls living in England and Wales have undergone FGM.
Take a look at the numbers and stop and think for a moment of the number of women who are affected by this act and then tell me that we can ignore it because the UK isn't on it! The numbers alone (and of course the girls taken 'back home' to experience first hand FGM) make this something that needs to acted against - and it's an education not boots on the ground situation so it's totally clean.
The second issue, CEFM, is equally awful and wrong and when we consider the reality of it - that every two seconds a girl under the age of 18 will find herself married (that's 4 whilst you've read this sentence)!
Now we are not thinking of young women how have fallen in love and run away to Gretna Green, there's nothing much to do with the idea of 'love. In fact mutual consent doesn't come into it at all for this is, generally, about women:
To quote the Universal Declaration of Human Right (1948):
Please stop and think about these two issues - real issues of equality and concern - that affect this nation of ours and many who reside in it - and far too many worldwide (one is one too many!).
pax
Child, and Early, Forced Marriage (CEFM)
Last time I wrote on this I received an email asking whether it was, 'Right and fitting for a man of the cloth to be talking about such things?'
Now I can understand that there are some sensitivities regarding this issue but the final shot in their mail hit me like a brick wrapped in a page of the Bible: 'Especially when it has nothing directly to do with the place you are and our own country!'
Nothing to do with our own country?
Estimates suggest that some 170,000 women and girls living in England and Wales have undergone FGM.
Take a look at the numbers and stop and think for a moment of the number of women who are affected by this act and then tell me that we can ignore it because the UK isn't on it! The numbers alone (and of course the girls taken 'back home' to experience first hand FGM) make this something that needs to acted against - and it's an education not boots on the ground situation so it's totally clean.
Now we are not thinking of young women how have fallen in love and run away to Gretna Green, there's nothing much to do with the idea of 'love. In fact mutual consent doesn't come into it at all for this is, generally, about women:
- who are sold because the family can't afford to feed all the children and so the, low or non-earning, girls are given (or sold) into marriage.
- who, being worth less than their male counterparts are treated as objects and regarded with a lower status and CEFM only confirms and fuels this wrong attitude.
- who are subjected to something that is contrary to the Universal declaration of Human Rights in that:
To quote the Universal Declaration of Human Right (1948):
'Marriage should be ‘entered only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses’.
If it isn't it's wrong
Please stop and think about these two issues - real issues of equality and concern - that affect this nation of ours and many who reside in it - and far too many worldwide (one is one too many!).
pax
Wednesday, 12 December 2012
Equal Marriage and the CofE
Taken straight from the church's mouth (so now you can read it for yourself rather than keep pm'ing me):
In her statement to the House of Commons on 11th December on the Government's proposals for Equal Marriage, the Secretary of State said:
"because the Church of England and Wales have explicitly stated that they do not wish to conduct same-sex marriages the legislation will explicitly state that it would be illegal for the Churches of England and Wales to marry same-sex couples. Mr Speaker, this provision recognises and protects the unique and Established nature of these churches. The church's canon law will also continue to ban the marriage of same-sex couples. Therefore, even if these institutions wanted to conduct same sex marriage, it would require a change to primary legislation at a later date and a change to canon law. Additional protection that cannot be breached."
Press and political commentary on this has given rise to the impression that extra safeguards have been put in place for the Church of England, which give legal protection above and beyond that for other denominations and faiths. Some have said that this amounts to Government deciding to give preferential treatment to the Church of England on the question of legal protection for religious organisations not wishing to perform same-sex marriages. Others have questioned why the Government should explicitly write in to primary legislation that it would be "illegal" for the Church of England to perform same sex marriages when it will not be so for other denominations and faiths, taking this to mean that it places additional legislative barriers in the way of the Church of England in the unlikely event that it should wish to change its current position.
Such questions are understandable, but are based on a misunderstanding of the Church of England's established status and its relationship with Parliament on matters relating to Canon Law.
This is not a question of the Government and Parliament imposing a prohibition or "ban" on what the Church of England can do. It is instead the Government responding to the Church's wish to see the status quo for the Church of England preserved and accepting, as for other churches and faiths (though the legal framework is different for them), that it is not for the Government and Parliament to determine matters of doctrine.
As explained in the Church of England's submission to the Government's consultation in June 2012 (here: http://tinyurl.com/bsn6dxt ), the Canons of the Church of England define marriage, in accordance with Christ's teaching and the doctrine of the Church, as being between a man and a woman. Because the Canon Law of the Church of England is also part of the public law of the land and cannot be in conflict with statute law, it is important that any legislation for same-sex marriage makes it clear that it does not apply to marriage according to the rites of the Church of England. The legislative drafting of what is needed for the Church of England is necessarily unique because of that; and because Church of England clergy normally have a legal duty to marry people by virtue of their office. The Government, in accepting that the legal effect of the Canons of the Church of England need to be preserved (in line with its assertions about protection of religious liberty), have committed to drafting legislation on same sex marriage accordingly.
The effect of what the Government has proposed is to leave decisions about the doctrine and practice of the Church of England with the Church of England. Any change to the Church of England's doctrine and practice of marriage would require legislation by the Church's General Synod. In addition to an Amending Canon that redefined the nature of marriage such a legislative package would also involve the General Synod passing a Measure (the General Synod's equivalent of an Act of Parliament) that altered both the statute law concerning marriage according to the rites Church of England and the marriage service in the Book of Common Prayer.
All Synod Measures require parliamentary consent. The usual process of parliamentary scrutiny for legislation submitted by the Church is that it goes first to the Ecclesiastical Committee and then has a single debate in each House before the Measure goes for Royal Assent. As the General Synod's devolved legislative powers includes the ability to amend Westminster legislation it would not require separate, additional legislation on the part of Parliament to enact any change to the Church's practice on marriage. Talk of additional 'barriers to opt-in' for the Church of England following the Secretary of State's announcement is therefore misplaced.
For Parliament to give the Church of England an opt-in to conduct same sex marriages that it hasn't sought would be unnecessary, of doubtful constitutional propriety and introduce wholly avoidable confusion.
In addition, as the Bishop of Leicester said in the House of Lords on 11th December in response to the Government statement "our concern here is not primarily for religious conscience or the protection of the Church of England's position, but rather a more fundamental concern for stable communities". The arguments set out in the Church of England's submission in June to the Government's consultation (here:http://tinyurl.com/bsn6dxt) spell out those concerns in detail.
Monday, 20 August 2012
Locked-in syndrome and Assisted dying
I've let this issue for a few days to let the immediate responses pass through and now, as they've done that, I thought I'd throw in my sixpence worth of opinion.
A warning
I would like to move away from the 'all life is sacred' argument (I'm a Christian and so I think we might take that as read, especially in the light of the brand of Christian that I am) and deal with other responses and considerations.
First and foremost I have to say that I despair of those who take themselves off to Switzerland and check out of this life. My despair is increased even more by those who do so before they become ill or their (assumed, desired or demanded) 'quality of life' is impaired (taking for instance Fred and Joan Downes - she had a few weeks left and he had non-life threatening, 'old-age' issues). I also despair of those who find themselves in dire situations through accident or illness such that they are paralysed either completely or in part. My despair is e=increased by the fact that I have worked with men and women who are disabled, paralysed and coping with limb loss and yet manage to have full, and contributing, lives despite this. Seems to me that there are many who simply fold rather than 'man up' and this is, as I understand it, wrong. But hey ho, it is their choice at the end of the day - it's just a poor one.
So back to the issue in hand (hooray the reader cries).
Last week, the High Court turned down Tony Nicklinson's request for doctors to be allowed to help end his life without the risk of prosecution. One of the responses to this was that the issue should be decided upon by the british Parliament and the law regarding this issue settled by them and this I think is the height of lunacy. Ask the politicians to decide whether life can be taken? Why on earth would we want to ask a bunch of what are, generally speaking, a bunch of partisan morons such a question - the world gets madder on a day by day basis. Worse still, I have no confidence that a moral outcome would win the day, after all what generally comes out of Westminster is a pile of vote-winning response rather than making proper, integrity-laden, stands.
I have to laugh at the many who are claiming that the 'religious' (who on earth are they I wonder, I don't seem to meet them in my daily grind?) are hijacking and deciding on this issue. I have to weep at the many who would like to 'ease suffering' and engage in 'rationalising care' and end with the postscript of 'suffering families'.
Here are the words of one who suffers:
"The amount of people who tell my dad he's cruel keeping my mum alive! My mum isn't ventilated, or in any way kept alive artificially. She's fed and cleaned and turned (to stop bed sores). The only way to cause her death is to stop food and water, which sounds like a horrific and drawn out way to die. I'd hate to think politicians would have the power to do that to my mother. And I think they probably would do now that the cost cutting exercise in the NHS has now reached a stage where I'm actually being advised by medical personnel NOT to check my blood sugar! I've had to put up one hell of a fight just to get enought test strips to test my blood sugar at least once per day. This country's gone to the dogs... no, ignore that last statement, I have dogs, they're caring creatures!:
The decision made last week was the right decision for as many as can elect to take themselves off to Switzerland there are more for whom the decision would be made for them. The many who have no voice and for whom life would not continue should others have the right to decide for them. Those who struggle and who families tell me that removing them from this earth would be easier for them and would be 'cost-effective' too. It was the right decision because once we open the doors we provide a means of 'rationalising' costs and these and 'family sensitivities' are often the same result - let them die rather then help them to live as best they can until life is no more.
We live in a world which is dominated by freedom of choice, even when the exercise of our freedoms results in actions and attitudes that are, plain and simply, wrong. That some might rationalise, excuse or even explain with eloquent words and high-sounding philosophies how it would make them happy to engage in something, the outcome is wrong and should be stood against by society.
Sadly, the move towards a secular society means that the moral compass no longer reads true and this has nothing to do with the influence of the religious but the diminishing influence of those people of faith.
But once again, we find many who have a faith remaining tacet when they should be speaking up for the weaker and most vulnerable amongst us.
A warning
I would like to move away from the 'all life is sacred' argument (I'm a Christian and so I think we might take that as read, especially in the light of the brand of Christian that I am) and deal with other responses and considerations.
First and foremost I have to say that I despair of those who take themselves off to Switzerland and check out of this life. My despair is increased even more by those who do so before they become ill or their (assumed, desired or demanded) 'quality of life' is impaired (taking for instance Fred and Joan Downes - she had a few weeks left and he had non-life threatening, 'old-age' issues). I also despair of those who find themselves in dire situations through accident or illness such that they are paralysed either completely or in part. My despair is e=increased by the fact that I have worked with men and women who are disabled, paralysed and coping with limb loss and yet manage to have full, and contributing, lives despite this. Seems to me that there are many who simply fold rather than 'man up' and this is, as I understand it, wrong. But hey ho, it is their choice at the end of the day - it's just a poor one.
So back to the issue in hand (hooray the reader cries).
Last week, the High Court turned down Tony Nicklinson's request for doctors to be allowed to help end his life without the risk of prosecution. One of the responses to this was that the issue should be decided upon by the british Parliament and the law regarding this issue settled by them and this I think is the height of lunacy. Ask the politicians to decide whether life can be taken? Why on earth would we want to ask a bunch of what are, generally speaking, a bunch of partisan morons such a question - the world gets madder on a day by day basis. Worse still, I have no confidence that a moral outcome would win the day, after all what generally comes out of Westminster is a pile of vote-winning response rather than making proper, integrity-laden, stands.
I have to laugh at the many who are claiming that the 'religious' (who on earth are they I wonder, I don't seem to meet them in my daily grind?) are hijacking and deciding on this issue. I have to weep at the many who would like to 'ease suffering' and engage in 'rationalising care' and end with the postscript of 'suffering families'.
Here are the words of one who suffers:
"The amount of people who tell my dad he's cruel keeping my mum alive! My mum isn't ventilated, or in any way kept alive artificially. She's fed and cleaned and turned (to stop bed sores). The only way to cause her death is to stop food and water, which sounds like a horrific and drawn out way to die. I'd hate to think politicians would have the power to do that to my mother. And I think they probably would do now that the cost cutting exercise in the NHS has now reached a stage where I'm actually being advised by medical personnel NOT to check my blood sugar! I've had to put up one hell of a fight just to get enought test strips to test my blood sugar at least once per day. This country's gone to the dogs... no, ignore that last statement, I have dogs, they're caring creatures!:
The decision made last week was the right decision for as many as can elect to take themselves off to Switzerland there are more for whom the decision would be made for them. The many who have no voice and for whom life would not continue should others have the right to decide for them. Those who struggle and who families tell me that removing them from this earth would be easier for them and would be 'cost-effective' too. It was the right decision because once we open the doors we provide a means of 'rationalising' costs and these and 'family sensitivities' are often the same result - let them die rather then help them to live as best they can until life is no more.
We live in a world which is dominated by freedom of choice, even when the exercise of our freedoms results in actions and attitudes that are, plain and simply, wrong. That some might rationalise, excuse or even explain with eloquent words and high-sounding philosophies how it would make them happy to engage in something, the outcome is wrong and should be stood against by society.
Sadly, the move towards a secular society means that the moral compass no longer reads true and this has nothing to do with the influence of the religious but the diminishing influence of those people of faith.
But once again, we find many who have a faith remaining tacet when they should be speaking up for the weaker and most vulnerable amongst us.
Sunday, 12 February 2012
Council Prayers - Feeling Left Out?
I am in great danger of decking the very next person who asks me what I think of 'not being able to pray' anymore!
I think by pointing the bone at the Christian prayers the humanists have done the Christian cause an extremely good turn thanks to Mr Justice Ouseley's ruling that praying wasn't an infringement of another person's human rights but was misplaced within the terms of the Local Government Act (sect.111).
Leaving aside the people who are screaming about 'no longer being able to pray in this country' (and I've had more than enough emails calling me to act on those grounds) what we have is the situation whereby prayers can be said before a council meeting (and in fact, extrapolating this, any formal meeting) as long as it isn't made mandatory (i.e. which in the council setting was as it was the first item on the agenda.)
I have to laugh at the bleating humanists claiming they felt 'left out' or 'excluded' whilst people were saying prayers and felt 'marginalised and different' because some 'felt sorry for them' because they had no faith and how this meant their human rights were infringed!
I would defend the right of anyone to live dancing to their own tune and to die in the knowledge (and hope) that at its end what they'd had was all they were going to get. The problem is that those who hold those views would actively canvass to make sure that my right to pray and exercise my faith was denied me. To prevent me from being Christian in all that that means is surely an act against my human rights and yet this is secondary in the minds of some (no surprise there - chap on the this morning was only concerned with his 'humanist and secular' voice and 'his' rights against, over and above anyone (and everyone) else)!
So ladies and gentleman of faith, please make sure that no one you meet is in any doubt of:
a. the fact that you are a person of faith. This doesn't need to be a loud, in your face, proclamatory act that upsets those who strive so hard to have faith in no one and nothing, but you have no need to weaken, restrict or modify in any negative way what you believe - this is your human right (and more importantly, your calling).
b. the reality that we can pray when and where we like and, sensitivities of others noted and acted upon, those who wish not to be part can merely absent themselves.
c. we live in a world where, should the majority so decide, democracy is still supposed to be a virtue and a strength. As I understand it Bideford Council voted twice on the issue of prayers and decided to retain them but Mr Bone decided that his rights subverted the majority view. Civil liberties are at stake here but not in the way that some might like to promote them - seems many are more than just happy, but actually desire the presence and focus of God in their dealings!
Be proud, stand strong and remember that no one has stopped us praying in public places - after all we're not America are we? :-)
And their money says 'in God we trust' but it's against the law to pray in schools . . . . . (Larry Norman RIP)
I think by pointing the bone at the Christian prayers the humanists have done the Christian cause an extremely good turn thanks to Mr Justice Ouseley's ruling that praying wasn't an infringement of another person's human rights but was misplaced within the terms of the Local Government Act (sect.111).
Leaving aside the people who are screaming about 'no longer being able to pray in this country' (and I've had more than enough emails calling me to act on those grounds) what we have is the situation whereby prayers can be said before a council meeting (and in fact, extrapolating this, any formal meeting) as long as it isn't made mandatory (i.e. which in the council setting was as it was the first item on the agenda.)
I have to laugh at the bleating humanists claiming they felt 'left out' or 'excluded' whilst people were saying prayers and felt 'marginalised and different' because some 'felt sorry for them' because they had no faith and how this meant their human rights were infringed!
I would defend the right of anyone to live dancing to their own tune and to die in the knowledge (and hope) that at its end what they'd had was all they were going to get. The problem is that those who hold those views would actively canvass to make sure that my right to pray and exercise my faith was denied me. To prevent me from being Christian in all that that means is surely an act against my human rights and yet this is secondary in the minds of some (no surprise there - chap on the this morning was only concerned with his 'humanist and secular' voice and 'his' rights against, over and above anyone (and everyone) else)!
So ladies and gentleman of faith, please make sure that no one you meet is in any doubt of:
a. the fact that you are a person of faith. This doesn't need to be a loud, in your face, proclamatory act that upsets those who strive so hard to have faith in no one and nothing, but you have no need to weaken, restrict or modify in any negative way what you believe - this is your human right (and more importantly, your calling).
b. the reality that we can pray when and where we like and, sensitivities of others noted and acted upon, those who wish not to be part can merely absent themselves.
c. we live in a world where, should the majority so decide, democracy is still supposed to be a virtue and a strength. As I understand it Bideford Council voted twice on the issue of prayers and decided to retain them but Mr Bone decided that his rights subverted the majority view. Civil liberties are at stake here but not in the way that some might like to promote them - seems many are more than just happy, but actually desire the presence and focus of God in their dealings!
Be proud, stand strong and remember that no one has stopped us praying in public places - after all we're not America are we? :-)
And their money says 'in God we trust' but it's against the law to pray in schools . . . . . (Larry Norman RIP)
Monday, 6 February 2012
Vulture Funds
I have today received this from a friend:
"I don't know how much you know about Vulture Funds, but they are a way for unscrupulous people to make huge amounts of money out of the Highly Indebted Poor Countries.
What happens is that a hedge funds or private individuals (if wealthy enough!) buy up a large chunk of the country's debt (to a bank) at a heavily discounted rate and then sue the country for the whole sum + court fees - which can only be paid by using the HIPC debt relief... At least 54 companies, many based in tax havens, are known to have taken legal action against 12 of the world's poorest countries in recent years, for claims amounting to $1.5 billion.
This means money released by debt relief is going into the pockets of wealthy investors, not spent on health and education.
This has been made illegal in this country, but continues in the Channel Islands.
If, like me, you think think this should stop (and have not already signed a petition to this effect), please click on this link to One International"
More can be found about this at End the Vulture Culture Campaign
I hope that this provides some information and encourages you to make a stand against exploitation of the world's poorest people.
Pax
"I don't know how much you know about Vulture Funds, but they are a way for unscrupulous people to make huge amounts of money out of the Highly Indebted Poor Countries.
What happens is that a hedge funds or private individuals (if wealthy enough!) buy up a large chunk of the country's debt (to a bank) at a heavily discounted rate and then sue the country for the whole sum + court fees - which can only be paid by using the HIPC debt relief... At least 54 companies, many based in tax havens, are known to have taken legal action against 12 of the world's poorest countries in recent years, for claims amounting to $1.5 billion.
This means money released by debt relief is going into the pockets of wealthy investors, not spent on health and education.
This has been made illegal in this country, but continues in the Channel Islands.
If, like me, you think think this should stop (and have not already signed a petition to this effect), please click on this link to One International"
More can be found about this at End the Vulture Culture Campaign
I hope that this provides some information and encourages you to make a stand against exploitation of the world's poorest people.
Pax
Wednesday, 18 January 2012
John Bell needs to get a life!
Radio Four 'Thought for the day' this morning appeared to be a partly political broadcast on behalf of the 'let my people go party' as he spoke about having history books written in a foreign place and accents being the source of humour and mocking. Still it's nice to know that he's concerned with the lives of Brummies (whose accent came top in a 'worst' UK accent poll), Scousers, Geordies and Cockneys.
Divine rights and pops at 'Rule Britannia' served neither man or God - just Bell. Mind you he did give me a thought for the day - I just have to try to forget it and repent of having had it!
Still it was fun to hear an MP get taken apart by Countryside Alliance's David Taylor regarding shotgun licences for youngsters and (non-existent) crime, challenging to hear that the cuts in the numbers of redundancies amongst the Gurkhas might be the result of the changes in their pay, conditions and pensions thanks to the Gurkha Justice Campaign and mildly amusing (and applause-generating) to hear how (the other) Milliband is set to face down the unions (remember them, they put him in) and make a stand for commonsense. I was beginning to worry that without Grommet he was going to be in a weakened state but obviously not.
Lots to think about and load of prayer fodder.
Happy Wednesday!
Divine rights and pops at 'Rule Britannia' served neither man or God - just Bell. Mind you he did give me a thought for the day - I just have to try to forget it and repent of having had it!
Still it was fun to hear an MP get taken apart by Countryside Alliance's David Taylor regarding shotgun licences for youngsters and (non-existent) crime, challenging to hear that the cuts in the numbers of redundancies amongst the Gurkhas might be the result of the changes in their pay, conditions and pensions thanks to the Gurkha Justice Campaign and mildly amusing (and applause-generating) to hear how (the other) Milliband is set to face down the unions (remember them, they put him in) and make a stand for commonsense. I was beginning to worry that without Grommet he was going to be in a weakened state but obviously not.
Lots to think about and load of prayer fodder.
Happy Wednesday!
Sunday, 15 January 2012
"I love God but Hate Church!'
The above billboard sums up a conversation I had with a church member this week.
They pointed to the St Paul's debacle and the Church's failure to do what everyone else saw as right. They railed at the 'fact' that the Church is more taken up with money than people, consistently missing the opportunity to act in a Christian manners doing the right thing and predominantly appearing to be bankers (I don't think that was meant to be a euphemism!) and financial types.
"I love God," they cried, "But I don't want anything to do with Church! I'm more concerned about me and heaven than being alongside a bunch of hypocrites, and worse still, being one of them!"
Now I don't know about you but I can remember when I thought, spoke and even acted like this lovely person. I didn't want to be part of any denomination I just wanted to follow Jesus and His teachings. I wanted to keep myself 'clean' and avoid the religious people. The problem was as I progressed further along this path (and I did for quite some time - about eighteen months) I found myself being more and more of a hypocrite in the way that what I said married up to who I was, and was becoming.
Then, one day it struck me that if I was someone who believed in Jesus and looked to His sacrifice on the cross to bring me and God back together then I too was 'Church'. This didn't mean that I bought into the hierarchy or applauded the excesses, weakness and errors or politely coughed and looked away when hypocrisy was on display, it meant that I couldn't live in isolation from other Christians and where two or more of us were together, we were Church. In fact even when I was on my own, being a bit Trinitarian, there were four of us and so Church was to be found in me alone. Not only that but because of this, wheresoever I went, basilaea, the Kingdom of God was to be found too.
I was to be the lampstand that was placed in the centre of things so that all might see by the light of Christ (Matt5 // Lk 8 & 15). I was to be part of the body that did the task it was called to do that the whole body might be fit and well and work as it should (1 Cor 12).
I'm sorry to say this but once you take Christ's hand and accept His offer of life then you are part of Church and if the institutional body that bears his name is getting it wrong, then we stand and speak out, we make our stand and seek to restore those in error (GENTLY!).
Christianity is not about condemning anyone but is about coming alongside, affirming, supporting and leading them to better things.
How we doing?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)