Archbishop of Canterbury criticises bankers for 'culture of entitlement'

Justin Welby, member of all-party commission looking into banking standards, throws support behind a new

standards body

• David Batty
• guardian.co.uk, Saturday 27 April 2013 15.13 BST

Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, repeated his warning that Britain is in an economic depression from

which it could take a generation to recover.

The archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has accused bankers of having "a culture of entitlement" in a

scathing critique of the City's ethical and professional standards.

Welby, a member of the cross-party Banking Standards Commission, said bankers should be required to pass

exams in order to raise standards in the industry and restore public trust in the profession.

His comments come as the commission prepares to publish its final report on how to improve behaviour in

London's financial centre. George Osborne, the chancellor, has pledged to incorporate its proposals into draft

legislation.

Speaking to the Financial Times, the archbishop said: "In banking, in particular, and in the City of London, a

culture of entitlement has affected a number of areas – not universally by any means – in which it seemed to

disconnect from what people saw as reasonable in the rest of the world."

The former oil industry executive said serious consideration should be given to forming a professional regulatory

body, similar to the General Medical Council, to enforce standards.

He said: "Banks are incredibly complicated things. The idea that people can hold hugely responsible positions in

them without any kind of formal training seems to a number of us quite surprising."

Welby also echoed the concerns of Sir Mervyn King, outgoing governor of the Bank of England, that some banks

were still carrying too much bad debt and could require further taxpayer recapitalisation.

"Part of an ethical approach is transparency and reality about recognising where you are," he said. "The lesson

from Japan is if you're going to bit the bullet, it's better to bite it sooner rather than later."

Speaking on Radio 4 on Saturday, the archbishop repeated his warning that Britain is in an economic depression

from which it could take a generation to recover.

"We are still significantly below where we were in 2007 in terms of economic activity, of GDP, and that's quite a

long time of being below," he told George Parker, the FT's political editor, on Radio 4's The Week in Westminster.

The archbishop also downplayed whether his comments on the state of the economy had annoyed Downing

Street. "They haven't said anything here. I mean they probably would have preferred it not said," he said.

"Now, I'm not pointing any fingers at anyone in particular and saying it's so and so's fault or so and so's fault, it's

simply a measurable fact coming from the national statistics."

Countries where abortion is illegal

 Abortion illegal in all circumstances or permitted only to save a woman's life.

Sub-Saharan Africa:

Angola, Benin, Central African Rep.Chad, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Dem. Rep. of Congo, Gabon, Guinea- Bissau,

Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mali, Mauretania, Mauritius, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda.

Middle East and North Africa:

Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Sudan (r), Syria, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Asia and Pacific:

Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Sri Lanka.

Europe:

Ireland, Malta.

South America:

Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Venezuela,

Savita Halappanavar died due to medical misadventure, inquest finds

Jury endorses coroner's recommendations in case of Indian woman who was denied an emergency abortion in Ireland

• Henry McDonald, Ireland correspondent
• guardian.co.uk, Friday 19 April 2013 15.45 BST

Savita Halappanavar died from sepsis after suffering a miscarriage in Galway last autumn.

An Indian dentist who was denied an emergency abortion at an Irish hospital last autumn died due to medical

misadventure, her inquest has found.

A jury sitting in Galway reached a unanimous verdict in the case of Savita Halappanavar, 31, who died from sepsis

after suffering a miscarriage.

The jury endorsed nine recommendations of the coroner, Dr Ciaran McLoughlin. Offering his sincere condolences

to Halappanavar's widower, Praveen, MacLoughlin said: "You showed tremendous loyalty and love to your wife.

All of Ireland followed the case."

Halappanavar had been 17 weeks pregnant before she died on 28 October at GalwayUniversity hospital. Her plight

became the focus of an international outcry over Ireland's strict anti-abortion laws, which the current government

plans to reform.

The first of McLoughlin's recommendations was that the Irish Medical Council should lay out exactly when doctors

can intervene to save the life of a mother. The coroner said this would provide clarity for patients and doctors.

The jury also endorsed recommendations that blood samples should always be followed up to guard against

errors; that proper sepsis management training and guidelines should be available for hospital staff; and that there

should be effective communication between staff on call and those on duty in hospitals. MacLoughlin

recommended that a dedicated time should be set aside at the end of each shift for this to happen.

He said each hospital in the state should a protocol for sepsis management; modified early-warning score charts

should be introduced in all hospitals as soon as possible; and there should be effective communication between

patients and relatives to ensure clarity over treatment plans.

The final two recommendations were that medical and nursing notes should be kept separately and that no

additions should made to notes where the death of a person will be subject to an inquest.

 

Religion and politics

High office, low church

A Christian political tradition died with Margaret Thatcher

Apr 13th 2013

Brassed off at the hymns of praise to Thatcher

Churches accuse ministers of perpetuating myths about poverty

Churches attack 'systematic misrepresentation of poorest in society' as Labour claims cuts are costing families

£900 a year

• Andrew Sparrow, political correspondent
• guardian.co.uk, Sunday 31 March 2013 12.03 BST

Grant Shapps defended the government's policies and said: 'Welfare makes up a third of this country’s

spending, so it’s our job to make sure it’s getting to the people who really need it.'

A coalition of leading churches has accused the government of perpetuating myths about poverty in an attempt

to justify dangerous welfare cuts.

In a joint report, the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Methodist church, the United Reformed church and the

Church of Scotland said that the "systematic misrepresentation of the poorest in society" was a matter of

injustice that all Christians should challenge.

The churches spoke out before the introduction of the so-called "bedroom tax" on Monday, one of several major

welfare cuts that Labour claim will collectively cost the average family almost £900 a year when previous cuts

introduced by the coalition are included.

Paul Morrison, public issues policy adviser at the Methodist church, said the churches were concerned that the

benefit cuts were "a symptom of an understanding of people in poverty in the United Kingdom that is just wrong".

Speaking to the BBC, Morrison said: "It is an understanding of people that they somehow deserve their poverty,

that they are somehow 'lesser', that they are not valued.

The churches believe that they are valued and we believe that they should be treated much more fairly than they

are being."

In their report (pdf), which was published earlier this year, the four churches accused politicians and the media

of promoting six myths about the poor: that they are lazy; that they are addicted to drink or drugs; that they are

not really poor; that they cheat the system; that they have an easy life; and that they caused the deficit.

Morrison explained: "We saw that people who we value, who we believe God values and God loves, we saw

them being insulted day in and day out in the media, and that needed to stop.

The consequence of the attitudes towards the poor is that welfare cuts like this become more acceptable, so it's

right that we criticise that too."

Morrison spoke out as Grant Shapps, the Conservative party chairman, used an interview with the Sunday

Telegraph to highlight figures apparently showing 878,300 people who were on incapacity benefit dropped their

claims rather than complete a medical assessment.

That was a third of the total, he said, and included people on benefits because of blisters, acne, and strains and

sprains.

Of the 1.44m who have been reassessed, 55% were found fit to work immediately and another 23.9% able to do

some level of work, leaving just 232,000 declared not fit to work.

"Welfare makes up a third of this country's spending, so it's our job to make sure it's getting to the people who

really need it," Shapps said.

In a separate interview, Steve Webb, the Lib Dem welfare minister, told Radio 5 Live on Sunday that while the

churches were criticising the government for cutting benefits by too much, other commentators were accusing

the government of not going far enough.

"On the one hand we've got the churches accusing us of savage cuts, and on the other hand the rightwing

papers saying: 'What? They haven't gone far enough.

They're only slowing the rate of growth of spending'. I think that gives you a bit of context," Webb said.

He said measures such as universal credit showed the government was reforming the system, not just cutting

benefits.

And he accused the churches of not accepting the need to make savings.

"There's nothing in what the churches are saying – and I speak as a member of my local church – there's

nothing in what they're saying that helps us with the battle to we've got in getting the nation's finances in

balance," Webb said.

In a separate move, the "bedroom tax" came under fresh criticism on Sunday when David Orr, the chief

executive of the National Housing Federation, told the Observer that the tax would harm the lives of hundreds of

thousands of people. It comes into force this week alongside a range of other tax and benefit changes.

"The bedroom tax is one of these once-in-a-generation decisions that is wrong in every respect," he said. "It's

bad policy, it's bad economics, it's bad for hundreds of thousands of ordinary people whose lives will be made

difficult for no benefit – and I think it's about to become profoundly bad politics."

Pope tied to junta

New abuse claims hit former cardinal

The sins of the Argentinian church

The Catholic church was complicit in dreadful crimes in Argentina.

Now it has a chance to repent
•

13 July 2011 Last updated at 16:51

Roman Catholic bishops in the Philippines are to return sport utility vehicles (SUVs) received as gifts from

government funds, an inquiry has heard.

Senators are investigating claims that illegal gifts bought with state lottery money were given to the bishops by

the last government to win their support.

The bishops acknowledge accepting the cars but say they did so only to help poor people in remote

communities.

More than 80% of Filipinos are Catholic and the clergy are highly influential.

At the Senate inquiry in Manila on Wednesday, bishops turned over four SUVs and said others were in the

process of being returned.

The bishops apologised for any pain caused to their followers or the Church, but insisted the donations were

only to help them reach isolated communities.

'Sincere sadness'

"Even if it is not unlawful and even if it is not unconstitutional, we believe that it is important for us to clear

everything in the air and return the vehicles," Archbishop Orlando Quevedo of the southern Cotabato diocese

told the inquiry.

He expressed "sincere sadness" on behalf of the Church that many Catholics were "confused, disturbed and

even scandalised".

The head of the Philippine state lottery, Margie Juico, earlier told the hearing that seven bishops received gifts

during former President Gloria Arroyo's term in office.

Critics have accused Mrs Arroyo of using donations to try to secure the bishops' support. She stepped down

last year after nine years in power.

Mrs Juico said an audit had showed that at least 6.9m pesos ($158,600; £98,300) in charity funds were used to

buy vehicles at the request of several bishops.

Bishop Juan de Dios Pueblos, of southern Butuan city, admitted that he wrote to Mrs Arroyo to ask for a sport

utility vehicle costing 1.7m pesos for his 66th birthday but said it was to help him reach remote areas on

Mindanao Island.

He acknowledged that the move "was a lapse in judgment on my part" that has "cast a shadow of uncertainty on

my dignity as a bishop and my moral ascendancy as a leader of the Catholic Church."

During the hearing, dozens of protesters held placards outside the Senate, some wearing bishops' frocks and

cardboard replicas of SUVs around their waists.

"I need my SUV to reach moral high ground," one placard read.

Sex scandal priest issues admission of misconduct

Cardinal O'Brien retires after 'inappropriate act' claims

A Church Marriage Ceremony is no more than that !

To some its pure mumbo jumbo ?

It is not certainly not legally binding

You can have any kind of ceremony you like but until you sign the Registry Office register

you are not legally married in the UK.

Have a Party and nominate anyone you wish

Say any words that you like

“I pronounce you man and wife”

But you are still not married in the eyes of the law.

So what is all the fuss about the Church refusing to “marry” homosexuals?

It’s a take it or leave it arrangement.

If you want to make a commitment to God then so be it.

Find a religion with a God that is more “understanding”

Some places of worship may be able to hold the Registry book in the Vestry

But until that is signed and witnessed you are not legally married.

As a third of marriages fail anyway, so the commitment to have and to hold until death

isn’t very strong in some cases.

And now it is women who instigated divorces most.

Money is important though because even the religious institutions want their cut.

So when it comes down to it, the law of the land decides whether two people can

legally become civil “partners”.

And the law ?

Society decides what is an acceptable law.

Even though through history many die fighting for that social change

Your rights have been fought for and not only that, they have to be protected from reactionaries

So its up to you and me to stand up for what we believe in.

As long as what you believe in didn’t come from the Sun or the Daily Mirror that morning.

The Radical

A Ceremony is not Legally binding

Finding an Officiant

By Nina Callaway,

Since a commitment ceremony is not legally binding, really anyone that you want to can marry you.

It may be a close friend or family member, or it may be a religious leader.

(In Vermont, Justices of the Peace can perform a legally binding civil union.)

When considering asking a friend or family member to marry you, think about whether or not they make a comfortable public speaker.

This person will have to stand in front of a crowd and speak clearly and easily.

Consider people that you know who have had long and successful marriages or unions,

who will often have wise things to say about the nature of love and marriage.

If you're looking for an ordained religious leader, speak with a minister or rabbi from your congregation.

If you don't belong to a congregation, or your faith doesn't perform same-sex ceremonies, consider visiting your

local Unitarian Universalist, Universal Life or Metropolitan Community church, which support GLBT weddings.

Also, remember that several faiths leave the choice up to individual clergy, including Episcopalian, some other Protestant, Buddhist, and Reform Judaism.

Consult GLBT publications, community centers and the internet for religious officiants who will perform commitment ceremonies.

This person should be available to you during the wedding planning process to go over the order of service, what

their remarks will be, how you will handle the vows (will you and your future spouse memorize them or will you

follow a call and response format) and anything they will ask the congregation to do (stand or kneel for certain parts, join in singing, or jointly bless the union.)

If there isn't anyone who you feel is appropriate to perform the ceremony, consider doing so yourselves.

In this scenario, you would welcome everyone and thank them for coming.

You might say a few words about why having a public ceremony is important to you, or talk about how you met and the general history of your relationship.

You would then turn to each other to say your vows, and to exchange rings.

I recommend that you have everything memorized or be a good extemporaneous speaker, as you won't have

anyone to tell you what to say, and note cards will look a little tacky.

Thank God He created fossils

<< 1 Peter 3:7 >>

New International Version (©1984) Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers. New Living Translation (©2007) In the same way, you husbands must give honor to your wives. Treat your wife with understanding as you live together. She may be weaker than you are, but she is your equal partner in God's gift of new life. Treat her as you should so your prayers will not be hindered. English Standard Version (©2001) Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered. New American Standard Bible (©1995) You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered. King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. International Standard Version (©2008) In a similar way, you husbands must live with your wives in an understanding manner, as with a most delicate partner. Honor them as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing may interfere with your prayers. Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010) And you men, in this way dwell with your wives by knowledge, and hold them in honor as weaker vessels, lest you be subverted in your prayers, because they also inherit the gift of eternal life with you. GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995) Husbands, in a similar way, live with your wives with understanding since they are weaker than you are. Honor your wives as those who share God's life-giving kindness so that nothing will interfere with your prayers. King James 2000 Bible (©2003) Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. American King James Version Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. American Standard Version Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers be not hindered. Douay-Rheims Bible Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel, and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered. Darby Bible Translation Ye husbands likewise, dwell with them according to knowledge, as with a weaker, even the female, vessel, giving them honour, as also fellow-heirs of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered. English Revised Version Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honour unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers be not hindered. Webster's Bible Translation Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. Weymouth New Testament Married men, in the same way, live with your wives with a clear recognition of the fact that they are weaker than you. Yet, since you are heirs with them of God's free gift of Life, treat them with honour; so that your prayers may not be hindered. World English Bible You husbands, in the same way, live with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor to the woman, as to the weaker vessel, as being also joint heirs of the grace of life; that your prayers may not be hindered. Young's Literal Translation The husbands, in like manner, dwelling with them, according to knowledge, as to a weaker vessel -- to the wife -- imparting honour, as also being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered.

 

Do women need the protection of the men in the church?

 

Or Women on Top ? 

 Do women need the protection of the men in broader society?

Protected or Patronised?

Women were typically less powerful than men when Peter described them using the metaphor of a “weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:7). 

Women were disadvantaged because they were usually uneducated and had less social freedoms and legal rights. 

In contemporary egalitarian societies, however, women have pretty much the same freedoms and powers as men, and the same opportunities for education. 

As a group, women in contemporary societies are not intellectually or rationally weaker than men. 

Nor are they morally or spiritually inferior.

Most women, however, are physically weaker than men. 

But physical strength is often not required when protecting and caring for people. 

In difficult and dangerous situations, courage is usually what is most needed; and courage is not necessarily tied to sex and gender. 

Plenty of Bible women were courageous and brave. [See endnote 2.] 

These women make inspiring role models for men and women.

Most women are not as helpless and fragile as Rich seems to think. 

They do not need to be protected from challenges and difficulties in the church or in general life. 

Moreover treating women as fragile vessels does not ‘raise’ them; it diminishes and suppresses them. 

It is insulting to treat a capable person as though they are weak and fragile. 

Most women in the church, and women who live in reasonably safe, egalitarian societies, don’t need or want to be “protected”, that is, patronised, by men.

Safe or Suppressed?

Men and women should be concerned with the safety and protection of other human beings, including the safety and protection of young people and children.

But we need to be careful that we do not become over-protective. 

If we are over-protective of our children they will fail to develop into resourceful, confident and independent humans beings.

My sons, who are now in their 20s, would think it ridiculous and embarrassing if I insisted that they hold my hand when crossing the street with me. 

They have learnt how to cross the street safely and do not want to be treated as children. 

Grown women also do not want to be protected and treated as children, nor do they want to be treated as less capable than men.

If churches treat their women as weak, the women will tend to see themselves as weak and behave as though they are weak. 

Their personal growth will be stunted and the expression of their unique gifts and qualities stifled. 

And if the church see women as weaker than men they are less likely to give women the same opportunities as men in ministry. 

Instead of “protecting” and patronising women, the church should be encouraging and empowering her women.

Women who Protect and Lead

Many women are concerned about the safety and protection of others. 

Some women have even made it their occupation. 

In the Australian state of Victoria the highest ranking police officer during the years 2001-2008 was a woman: Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon. 

And currently, Deputy Commissioner Catherine Burn holds the second highest rank in the New South Wales police force (my state).[3]  It is ludicrous to think that these women are fragile vessels.

Plus there are numerous examples of women who are skilled and competent leaders. 

My personal observations of women leaders are that they handle confrontations, conflicts and criticisms better than many men.

Since ministry does not usually include heavy lifting or hand to hand combat, I cannot see that masculine physical strength is important, or an advantage, for church leaders. 

Moreover there are many different ways of being a leader. 

In his first letter to the Thessalonians, Paul described his leadership using both maternal and paternal imagery (1 Thess 2:7-8; 11-12). [4]

I think Rich is deluding himself if he thinks that cosseting women as fragile vessels and denying them the opportunity to be church leaders “raises” or elevates them. 

I think that it is possible that men who claim to be protecting “fragile” women are in reality protecting their own self-interests by suppressing women and keeping them in a dependent, subordinate state. 

Ideally, men and women should enjoy mutually interdependent, supportive and caring relationships.

Protecting and Empowering

Both men and women should be concerned with protecting the disadvantaged and vulnerable and truly raising them up – empowering them – regardless of whether these genuinely weak and disadvantaged people are male or female. 

I hope men and women will use their courage, strengths and abilities to help these people who really need protection. 

(It doesn’t take any courage to “protect” those who are already safe and well.)

Some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world are, in fact, women and girls who are dependent on men and live in patriarchal societies. 

What are Christian men, like Rich, doing to help these poor women and girls who really are in need of protection? 

Men who feel it is their calling to protect women should direct this ministry to the women who actually need it and stop treating capable women in a condescending and patronising way.

What the Bible says about Polygamy

 

Genesis 4:19
And Lamech took unto him two wives.

Genesis 16:1-4
Now Sarai Abram's wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.

And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.

And Sarai ... gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.

And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.

Genesis 25:6
But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had....

Genesis 26:34
Esau ... took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite.

Genesis 31:17
Then Jacob rose up, and set ... his wives upon camels.

Exodus 21:10
If he take him another wife....

Deuteronomy 21:15
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated....

Judges 8:30
And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.

1 Samuel 1:1-2
Elkanah ... had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.

2 Samuel 12:7-8
Thus saith the LORD God of Israel ... I gave thee ... thy master's wives....

1 Kings 11:2-3
Solomon ... had seven hundred wives ... and three hundred concubines.

1 Chronicles 4:5
And Ashur the father of Tekoa had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

2 Chronicles 11:21
Rehoboam ... took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines.

2 Chronicles 13:21
But Abijah waxed mighty, and married fourteen wives....

2 Chronicles 24:3
Jehoiada took for him two wives....

Mt.25:1
Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom

Vatican digs in after gay marriage advances in US, Europe;

asks sarcastically why not polygamy

November 9, 2012 at the Vatican.

// By Associated Press, VATICAN CITY — The Vatican is digging in after gay marriage initiatives scored big wins this week in the U.S. and Europe, vowing to never stop insisting that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

In a front-page article in Saturday’s Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, the Holy See sought to frame itself as the lone voice of courage in opposing initiatives to give same-sex couples legal recognition.

In a separate Vatican Radio editorial, the Pope’s spokesman asked sarcastically why gay marriage proponents don’t now push for legal recognition for polygamous couples as well.

Catholic teaching holds that homosexuals should be respected and treated with dignity but that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered.”

The Vatican also opposes same-sex marriage, insisting on the sanctity of marriage between a man and woman as the foundation for society.

The Vatican’s anti-gay marriage media blitz came after three U.S. states approved same-sex marriage by popular vote in the election that returned Barack Obama to the U.S. presidency, Spain upheld its gay marriage law, and France pushed ahead with legislation that could see gay marriage legalized early next year.

“One might say the church, at least on this front, has been defeated,” L’Osservatore Romano wrote.

“But that’s not the case.”

The article insisted that Catholics were putting up a valiant fight to uphold church teaching in the face of “politically correct ideologies invading every culture of the world” that are backed by institutions like the United Nations, which last year passed a non-binding resolution condemning anti-gay discrimination.

“The church is called to present itself as the lone critic of modernity, the only check ... to the breakup of the anthropological structures on which human society was founded,” it said.

Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi, for his part, said gays can have their rights protected by means other than through legal marital recognition.

He stressed that children should have a right to say they have a father and a mother.

“If not, then why not contemplate freely chosen polygamy, and naturally so as to not discriminate, polyandry?” he asked sarcastically.

Polyandry is when a woman has two or more husbands.

“As a result, don’t expect the church to stop insisting that society recognizes a specific place for marriage between a man and woman,” he said.

The US election had been closely watched at the Vatican because of the strong divisions that erupted during the campaign between the Obama administration and US bishops over gay marriage, which Obama endorsed in May.

The administration and bishops clashed more vehemently over Obama’s health care mandate requiring nearly all US health insurance plans to cover contraception, which the church opposes.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said the contraception mandate — which exempts houses of worship but applies to faith-affiliated employers — is a violation of religious freedom.

The Vatican’s reaction to Obama’s re-election was tinged with such lingering criticism, with Pope Benedict XVI congratulating Obama and praying that the ideals of freedom and justice continue to be upheld.

Lombardi went further urging the administration to respect essential values in “promoting a culture of life and religious freedom” — Vatican buzzwords referring to abortion, contraception and the insurance mandate.

It was a far cry from the Vatican’s enthusiastic response to Obama’s election in 2008.

Then, the Pope termed Obama’s election an “historic occasion” in a personal note of congratulations sent right after he won, a break with traditional Vatican protocol that usually sees official telegrams of congratulations sent on inauguration day.

TUC “A Future that Works” Demonstration- With God on Our Side?

An open letter to Rowan Williams

"How many Bishops and Clergy will be there on 20th Oct " ?

Faithfuls face unfair treatment in UK

Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:28PM GMT

A new study has found that people of various faiths in Britain are experiencing unfair treatment based on their religion in the country.

The study commissioned by the University of Derby surveyed different religious bodies in England and Wales and questioned them about the impact of the equality legislation introduced more than a decade ago.

The preliminary results showed "substantial reporting of unfair treatment on the basis of religion or belief continuing across key areas of people’s lives".

A team of prominent scholars from Derby and the Universities of Oxford and Manchester are led by Paul Weller, Professor of Inter-Religious Relations at the University of Derby, in the research project.

“A decade ago it was not illegal in England and Wales to discriminate on grounds of religion or belief, so at that time those who reported unfair treatment on the basis of religion or belief had little scope for remedy”, said Paul Weller.

“Since then we have had the 2003 Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations, Incitement to Racial and Racial Hatred Act, 2006, and the 2006 and 2010 Equalities Acts”, he added.

"Although unfair treatment on the basis of religion or belief continues, evidence from our field research suggests that, particularly in the public sector, these legal changes have contributed to policy development and institutional change, resulting in some improvements in both inclusive consultation and practice”, said the professor.

“The progress facilitated by new law has also highlighted unresolved tensions. We are still awaiting outcomes of key cases now before the European Court of Human Rights. The uncertainties mean that individuals and groups continue to feel unfairly treated on different grounds”, added Professor Weller

Faith leaders condemn far right Values summit

by: John Wojcik

September 14 2012

Peoplesworld

WASHINGTON - Catholic, Protestant and Jewish leaders, in a hastily called press conference, spoke out today against the Ryan budget just as the GOP vice presidential candidate wrapped up his speech to the extreme right  Values Voters Summit here.

Ryan repeated his contention today that the budget he has proposed, which kills Medicare and Medicaid and guts services for the poor, is a reflection of the values he learned from his Catholic education.

Sister Simone Campbell SSS, the Catholic nun who became famous as the leader of the Nuns on the Bus Tour of nine states last June said the Ryan budget rejects the teaching of all the great religions of the world and that it does "nothing" to tackle the causes of the federal budget deficit it purports to close.

Simone Campbell, executive director of NETWORK, a Catholic social justice lobby, declared, "None of the programs for the poor that Ryan proposes to destroy are the cause of the budget deficit.

The deficit is the result of two wars and military spending that the Bush administration not only did not pay for but made worse with tax cuts for the wealthiest.

 People of faith understand that taxes are a necessity and that those who are the best off must pay their fair share."

She said that cutting food stamps, for example, adds to the 46.1 million already officially living in poverty.

"It's even more disgraceful and disconcerting," she added, "when we recognize that half the people in poverty are working people on the job who earn the minimum wage and that any minimum wage below $12.50 per hour is not a wage people can possibly live one."

Taking issue even with what the right wing summit defined as a "value voter," Sandy Sorensen, director of the Washington office of the United Church of Christ's Justice and Witness ministries, said, "a values voter is a voter who places the needs of the poor at the forefront and a federal budget is a reflection of faith values to the extent that it does that."

Alan van Capelle, CEO of Bend the Arc, which is part of the Jewish Partnership for Justice, said Ryan's speech at the Values Summit this morning was "antithetical to American Jewish values."

"Our values, as expressed in the Book of Micah are 'Do justice, have mercy and show love,'" he said "The Ryan budget does no justice, it puts the burden on the poor and rewards the wealth.

It shows no mercy by slashing the supports people need to live and it shows no love by arrogantly disregarding the values of all religions."

He said the first bill passed into law during the Obama administration, the Lily Ledbetter Act which calls for equal pay for women, was "much more reflective of Jewish values."

The current controversy regarding Mitt Romney's reaction to the crisis in the Middle East spilled over into the press conference with a variety of questions on the topic for the faith leaders assembled.

"This is the lowest point in the campaign," the Jewish leader said of Romney's attacks on Obama at the height of the crisis.

 "He is trying to use as political chips something that is not a political chip.

We are talking about human lives. 

Instead of stirring up the pot Romney should be elevating the countless examples we have every day of Christians, Moslems and Jews working together.

I know Muslim women working in Catholic social justice programs in New York. Why not point to these good things," he said.

Sister Simone was asked about Romney campaign efforts to win favor with Catholics by focusing on the abortion issue.

"People of faith cannot ecxercise their faith by being single-issue voters," she said. "Jesus said we must care for those at the margins and to do this in today's world we have to navigate a complex series of issues.

 It is impossible to be pro-life in the complete sense and  at the same time support the Ryan budget."

Photo: Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, speaks during a stop, June 18, in Ames, Iowa.

The group of Roman Catholic nuns say their fight is with a Republican proposed federal budget they say hurts the poor and needy. Charlie Neibergall/AP

Archbishop launches parting attack on critics

The Archbishop of Canterbury has launched a major attack on his critics in the Government and Church of England months before he leaves office.
 
Edward Malnick, and Cole Moreton
9:00PM BST 08 Sep 2012

For almost 10 years he has endured a simultaneous barrage of criticism from those who say he should not meddle in politics and those who argue that when he talks about the Bible he becomes “irrelevant”.

This week the Archbishop of Canterbury issues a challenge to critics in a book which he introduces with a warning that he has become “resilient” and even “rebellious”.

Faith in the Public Square is a collection of lectures from his decade as Archbishop, all of them couched in the academic language that has become familiar from Dr Rowan Williams.

However, he uses the introduction, which he wrote this summer, to also make a fresh series of attacks on the Government and on his opponents in the Church of England.

He prefaces his remarks by saying that as he reaches the end of his time in office he is willing to take the “risk” that he will encounter further criticism — then takes it with a forthright attack on the Government’s economic record.
 
Dr Williams criticises the way the economy has been run during the financial crisis, saying that public life has become tainted by a “myth” that it is possible to guarantee financial security.

“A mythology of control and guaranteed security, combined with the fantasy that unlimited material growth is possible... has poisoned social and political life across a growing number of countries.

“No theologian has an automatic skill in economics; but there is an ethical perspective here, plainly rooted in theology, that obliges us to question the nostrums of recent decades, and above all persistently to ask the awkward question of what we want growth for, what model of well-being we actually assume in our economics.

“Without an answer to that, we enter just the 'virtual reality’ atmosphere that has created (and maintained) financial disaster in the last few years.”

Pointedly, the book also includes a lecture in which Dr Williams sets out his critique of the Prime Minister’s Big Society. He argues that David Cameron’s concept “has suffered from a lack of definition about the means by which ideals can be realised”.

He said this has bred a degree of cynicism, “intensified by the attempt to argue for devolved political and social responsibility at exactly the same time as imposing rapid and extensive reductions in public expenditure”.

He said the Big Society has been perceived by the public as “aspirational waffle” designed to hide a “deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable”.

Despite this, he says it offers an “extraordinary” chance for the Church to serve the community and “the opportunity is too important to let pass”.

In the lectures, Dr Williams also criticises changes in the way universities are funded. He writes: “God help us all (literally) when the humanities and the pure sciences come to be seen as luxuries in higher education, or indeed education of any kind.”

Dr Williams also uses the book’s introduction to criticise those on the evangelical wing of the Church, such as his predecessor Lord Carey, who have said that Christians in Britain suffer from persecution.

“We have been hearing quite a lot about the dangers of 'aggressive secularism’ and the strident anti-Christian rhetoric of some well-known intellectuals is still a prominent feature of our society,” Dr Williams writes.

“But ... our problem is not simply loud voices attacking faith (and certainly not 'persecution’ as some of the more highly-coloured apologetic claims).”

He adds: “Argument is essential to a functioning democratic state, and religion should be involved in this, not constantly demanding the right not to be offended.”

His intervention exposes a damaging rift within the Church, particularly with Lord Carey, who earlier this year told judges at the European Court of Human Rights that British Christians were being persecuted and “driven underground” by courts.

Dr Williams’s attack comes ahead of the publication of a book by the former bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, in which the leading conservative repeats his concerns about the dangers of “aggressive secularism”.

In May, Bishop Nazir-Ali said that the exclusion of Christians from their places of work for wearing a cross amounted to the “beginning of persecution”.

Dr Williams argues that secularism comes in two different forms and that a secular state does not necessarily pose a problem for Christians.

“Programmatic” secularism excludes religious practise and symbols from public life in order to emphasise the “unclouded” loyalty of individuals to the state, which Dr Williams describes as problematic.

However, he does not object to “procedural” secularism, under which the state allows people to publicly practise their faith but does not give preferential treatment to any single religious group.

He says the Church can continue to exist in a secular society as long as it is allowed to speak up for its values.

Bishop Nazir-Ali said Dr Williams’s distinction was “not really stable”, insisting that any form of secularism represents an assault on the Church and Christian values.

In an interview in The Daily Telegraph, Dr Williams acknowledged that he had made mistakes during his time in office.

“I know that I’ve, at various points, disappointed both conservatives and liberals,” he said. “Most of them are quite willing to say so, quite loudly.

“That’s just been a background to almost everything, a pretty steady 'mood music’.”

In November, at a meeting of the General Synod, he will make a final attempt to broker an agreement on women bishops — an issue which threatens to split the Church — before he steps down to become Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge.

A dying cardinal, his final interview,

and a damning critique that has rocked the Catholic Church 
 

Michael Day  Milan
Monday 03 September 2012
 
One of Italy's most revered cardinals has stunned the Catholic Church by issuing a damning indictment of the institution from the grave, calling for its "transformation".

Hours after Milan's former Archbishop, Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, died on Friday at the age of 85, the leading daily paper Corriere della Sera printed his final interview, in which he attacks the Church – and by implication its current leadership – for being "200 years out of date".

"Our culture has aged, our churches are big and empty and the church bureaucracy rises up, our rituals and our cassocks are pompous," the Cardinal said. "The Church must admit its mistakes and begin a radical change, starting from the Pope and the bishops. The paedophilia scandals oblige us to take a journey of transformation."

Church insiders believe he wished for the interview to be published following his death.

Cardinal Martini, who was on the liberal wing of the church hierarchy, was once tipped to succeed John Paul II as Pope. His chances of being elected fell away when he revealed he was suffering from a rare form of Parkinson's disease and he retired as Archbishop in 2002. Instead, the ultra-conservative German cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI in 2005.

The body of Cardinal Martini has been laid out in Milan cathedral since noon on Saturday, with thousands of people coming to pay their last respects. His funeral will take place there this afternoon.

The left-wing Mayor of Milan, Giuliano Pisapia, who recently angered church authorities by recognising gay couples and providing them with the same rights the city gives married couples, led the tributes to the dead Cardinal. "Difficult times require words of wisdom and hope from great men," he said. "Carlo Maria Martini illuminated the way for the entire city, not just for part of it. For this reason, today more than ever, Milan mourns its Archbishop".

Cardinal Martini was noted for supporting the use of condoms, at least a decade before the Vatican grudgingly accepted they might be acceptable in certain situations to prevent the transmission of HIV. He also questioned the Church's line on gay relationships and divorce – calling on it to reconsider what constituted a family in the 21st century or risk losing even more of its flock.

Conservative voices in the Church tried to repair damage caused by Cardinal Martini's criticism. Marco Tarquinio, the editor of the bishops' daily paper, L'Avvenire, accused the mainstream press of distorting the Cardinal's comments, although he did not give specific examples.

"The attempts to distort and manipulate in an anti-ecclesiastical way the Cardinal's final hours on this earth are a bitter reminder of similar actions against even the blessed John Paul II," he said.

The suspicion – ever present in Italy – that the Vatican has tendrils everywhere, even in the mainstream press, was heightened by the failure of the article to appear on the Corriere della Sera website. Following inquiries by The Independent, Corriere's editor, Ferruccio de Bortoli, said there had been no pressure to keep the article off the website. It was then published online yesterday evening. Other leading newspapers failed to give the cardinals' comments much coverage.

Robert Mickens, the Rome correspondent of The Tablet, called for Cardinal Martini's deathbed comments to be taken very seriously.

"They must be seen in the context of coming from a man who loved the Church and who gave his life to the institution. He made a profound statement, which he had already said many times to Benedict and John Paul II in private," he said.

Cardinal Martini caused controversy in his final days after refusing artificial feeding, contravening church policy on end-of-life issues.

Mr Mickens said that although Cardinal Martini's ideas had "zero support" in the Vatican, he was revered by rank and file members. "The people in the trenches looked up to him. He was a giant. We're in a very conservative period. But that won't last forever. A whole generation have been inspired by Martini's writings. That will be his legacy."

Cardinal Martini: A holy life

Carlo Maria Martini was born in Turin in 1927, entered the Society of Jesus in 1944 and was ordained to the priesthood in 1952. His appointment as Archbishop of Milan, Italy's most important diocese, in 1980 was considered highly unusual; Jesuits are not traditionally given bishop posts. He retired from the post in 2002, the year he was diagnosed with a rare form of Parkinson's disease. He then moved to the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Jerusalem. He passed away at the Jesuit-run Aloisianum College in Gallarate near Milan

What do you do when Mormon's come knockin on your door?

Best Answer (Chosen by Voting):
 
Posted by jazzyknickers Aug 1st, 2012 at 5:52AM

"Put my nuns outfit on.smear cream around my mouth and tell them Father O'Leary can't come to the door right now"

1. Posted by HStoner Aug 1st, 2012 at 6:37AM

"Answer the door in the nude. It has a wonderful deterrent effect on all religiously motivated door-to-door solicitors whom I've encountered."

A question from a reader: Happened to me yesterday.
 
Told ‘em i was agnostic-atheist then proceeded to engage in (peaceful) debate with them about the universe, god, logic, etc.

My friend tells them he’s a Satanist in a demonic voice and slams the door (this is priceless to see in action).

Or - The next time some Mormon missionaries come knocking on your door, try this:

1. First of all, ask them if their parents are Mormons - over 90% will answer yes.

2. Ask them if they know how many Mormons there are in the world - they should know that the answer is about 13,000,000 and, if they don't, you can tell them.

3. Ask them if they know the population of the earth - they might hazard a guess that it is approaching 7 billion and, again, you can tell them if they don't know. It's actually a bit less than that but 7 billion is close enough.

4. Pull out a calculator and divide 13,000,000 by 7 billion which you will find equals 0.00185714.

5. Ask them if they feel lucky to have been born into a family which practices the right religion when over 98.8% of the world's population has got it wrong.

6. As you're shutting the door, tell them that every religion can't be right but they can all be wrong.

“God is not mocked”

Last week at a special Mass, Auxiliary Bishop of Sydney Julian Porteous offered prayers for victims of abuse by members of the clergy.

Many members of the congregation reacted with anger.

Prayers are not enough, and never have been.

Victims and their families are now calling for a Royal Commission into the matter.

Responsibility for these crimes does not rest with the clergy alone.

Australian governments have taken little action to deal with the problem, and the Church itself has shown disregard for the law.

Concealing evidence of a crime is an offence, and senior members of the church have failed to notify police about cases of abuse.

The perpetrators were often allowed to continue their duties in different parishes, where the pattern of abuse continued.

The abuse became a hierarchical system of denials, cover-ups and lies that reached the highest level of the church.

Twenty-five years ago a magistrate dismissed a case involving one victim, Damien Jurd, on the grounds that he was not as reliable a witness as the accused, a teacher at his school.

Tormented by the trauma of his experiences, including the rejection of his case, Jurd later succumbed to drug addiction and committed suicide.

As the ABC’s Four Corners program recently revealed, in 1992 the teacher, known only as “Father F”, confessed to an internal Church inquiry that he had interfered with Catholic alter boys over many years.

Father F was formally defrocked, but only after 13 years.

 Father Brian Lucas, a senior church official who participated in the inquiry, attempted to explain the Church’s lack of action by pointing out that Father F had not given the names of the victims, and that in any case “the first responsibility to report crime is by the victim”.

They therefore decided that no criminal investigation could be mounted.

However, it was up to the police to make that decision, not the Church.

Moreover, anyone who has evidence relating to a crime must report it, regardless of whether the victims have made a complaint or been identified.

Admittedly, the Catholic Church is not the only organisation, religious or otherwise, whose members have committed these crimes, as shown by the recent shocking revelations about abuse of Australian naval cadets. Nor are all priests guilty of such acts. Far from it; most are decent, respected members of the community.

However, the Church has a particularly long and intense history of sexual abuse, resulting from its demand that members of its exclusively male priesthood must remain celibate.

The stated aim was to remove priests from the supposedly corrupting influence of lust, but its original purpose was actually to ensure that they would not have wives or children, and would leave their property to the Church.

A result of that terrible, avaricious policy has been a thousand-year culture of secret sexual affairs and vice.

Girls were particularly at risk because there was less likelihood of pregnancy.

 Children of both sexes could be frightened into silence, having been taught that the Church represents God, who must be obeyed.

As Damien Jurd found out, if all else failed the perpetrator could denigrate the character of the victim, or rely on psychological pressure.

One man has testified that in the 1970s he told the principal of his Sydney Catholic high school he had been sexually assaulted by a science teacher.

He said he had not told his parents; he felt he could not do so because they trusted the teacher.

In due course the teacher was sacked, but no further action was taken.

The victim now intends to lodge a formal complaint about the principal’s failure to notify the police.

The actions of many members of the Catholic clergy are inconsistent with their own religious beliefs, as well as the law.

Their behaviour, and the reluctance of governments and the police to take action on these matters, has made a laughing stock of both religion and the law.

The Bible says “God is not mocked”, and neither is the law.

The victims and their families are determined that those who have abused children placed in their care will be punished.

The Church must also apologise, compensate the victims, and change its policies – and the sooner the better.

UNISON calls on Catholic leaders to halt 7% pay cut

for low-paid workers

by Pete Murray - 30th June 2012, 8.15 BST 
 

UNISON has called on the Archbishop of Glasgow and other senior figures in the Scottish Catholic Church to overturn a decision to slash the pay of low paid workers.

Archbishop Mario Conti sits on the board of the social care charity, The Mungo Foundation, which was set up to provide care and support to adults with learning difficulties across the West of Scotland.

Officials say the charity has ‘lost its way’ by attacking the wages of low-paid staff and is considering possible industrial action.

UNISON says many staff lost their jobs or had their hours cut last year as a result of local authority cuts to its social care budget.

The board is now looking to slash workers’ hourly rate of pay by 7% and cut their hours even further.

The union believes the latest round of cuts is an attempt to create a new workforce that the board can call upon when needed and drop when no longer required.

Simon Macfarlane, UNISON’s regional organiser, said: “The Mungo Foundation says it is rooted in sound Christian values with strong principles of social justice and inclusion.

However, the actions of the board seem to suggest otherwise.

“Attacking the pay, conditions and working hours of low-paid workers, predominantly women, is a major slap in the face for these dedicated staff – many of whom have served the Archdiocese for more than 30 years.

“Our members are seriously concerned that staffing cuts will have a major impact on the service they provide to some of Glasgow’s most vulnerable people.

”The cuts in working hours will particularly impact on those who receive tax credits, as the system requires that workers have a certain amount of contracted hours in order to maintain entitlement.”

UNISON is consulting staff directly affected by the cuts to wages and hours over possible industrial action, as well as balloting all members working at the charity over the imposition of a one-off payment of £350 after a 5-year pay freeze.

Said Simon Macfarlane: “Our members have been called into the offices of the Archdiocese to be told of the cuts, while sitting in a room surrounded by guilt-framed pictures worth countless thousands of pounds.

“It seems the Mungo Foundation has lost its way and we’re calling on the Archbishop of Glasgow, and other board members, to reverse this damaging decision and to end the cuts agenda.”

Rowan Williams pours scorn on David Cameron's 'big society'

Key policy 'comes across as waffle',

 says archbishop of Canterbury in valedictory bombshell

• Toby Helm and Julian Coman
• The Observer, Sunday 24 June 2012

Rowan Williams says David Cameron's 'big society' is 'designed to conceal a deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable'.

The archbishop of Canterbury has denounced David Cameron's "big society", saying that it comes across as aspirational waffle that was "designed to conceal a deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable".

The outspoken attack on the prime minister's flagship policy by Rowan Williams – his strongest to date – is contained in a new book, Faith in the Public Square, that is being prepared for publication ahead of his retirement.

Passages from the book, obtained by the Observer, reflect the archbishop's deep frustration not just with the policies of Cameron's government and those of its Labour predecessors, but also with what he sees as the west's rampant materialism and unquestioning pursuit of economic growth.

Williams also laments spiralling military expenditure, writing that "the adventure in Iraq and its cost in any number of ways seems to beggar the imagination".

But it is his suggestion that the big society – Cameron's personal vision of a more active civic society – is seen by people as a deliberate cover for plans to shrink the state that will be most controversial.

On Saturday night, Cameron revealed he was considering scrapping most of the £1.8bn in housing benefits paid to 380,000 under-25s, worth an average of £90 a week, forcing them to support themselves or live with their parents.

He also told the Mail on Sunday he might stop the £70-a-week dole money for the unemployed who refuse to try hard to find work or produce a CV.

Commenting on the "big society", Williams, who steps down in December after 10 years in his post, writes: "Introduced in the runup to the last election as a major political idea for the coming generation, [it] has suffered from a lack of definition about the means by which such ideals can be realised.

Big society rhetoric is all too often heard by many therefore as aspirational waffle designed to conceal a deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable."

He suggests that ministers have fuelled cynicism over the Cameron vision by failing to define what the role of citizens should be.

"And if the big society is anything better than a slogan looking increasingly threadbare as we look at our society reeling under the impact of public spending cuts, then discussion on this subject has got to take on board some of those issues about what it is to be a citizen and where it is that we most deeply and helpfully acquire the resources of civic identity and dignity."

Williams has never been afraid to wade into sensitive political issues during his decade at Lambeth Palace. But his valedictory work, to be released three months before he leaves office, is more strident in its criticism than anything that has come before.

 It is certain to cause fury in the government, which is being criticised, including from some Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, for lacking a compelling message other than the necessity of public spending cuts and austerity.

A perception that the government is failing to prioritise the needs of the most vulnerable as it pursues growth has spread since the chancellor, George Osborne's, decision to end the top 50p rate of tax on incomes of more than £150,000 a year in his March budget.

In a powerful section questioning economic assumptions that govern modern societies, the archbishop takes issue with the idea that growth, defined as increasing production, is necessarily a good thing.

"Practically speaking, at the individual and the national level, we have to question what we mean by growth," he writes.

"The ability to produce more and more consumer goods (not to mention financial products) is in itself an entirely mechanical measure of wealth."

The archbishop argues this mindset creates new demand for goods and thus new demands on a limited material environment for energy sources and raw materials.

"By the hectic inflation of demand it creates personal anxiety and rivalry.

By systematically depleting the resources of the planet, it systematically destroys the basis for long-term wellbeing.

In a nutshell, it is investing in the wrong things."

No 10 said: "The launch of Big Society Capital in April is a concrete example of the government delivering on its plans – £600m to help create a funding model that is truly self-sustaining and that will help charities and social enterprises to play their part in building a bigger society."

The archbishop says that the Labour party was wrong in 2006 to make incitement to religious hatred a criminal offence, arguing that anti-Muslim statements could show courage.

"The creation under British law of a criminal offence of incitement to religious hatred has provoked bitter and sustained controversy. Disproportionate attention has been given to a hypersensitive minority.

"Some anti-Muslim images or words (foolish and insulting as they may be) may well exhibit courage in a world where terrorist violence reaches across every national boundary."

He also calls for greater integration of Muslims living in Britain and insists they make their loyalty to "the nation state" rather than "the international Muslim community".

"To suggest that the Muslim owes an overriding loyalty to the International Muslim Community [the Umma] is extremely worrying," he writes.

"Muslims must make clear that their loyalty is straightforward modern political loyalty to the nation state."

Publisher Robin Baird-Smith, who runs Continuum, part of Bloomsbury, said that the book was "a powerful, carefully reasoned rebuttal of Williams's critics.

This is not a work of theology. It is a book about the role of religion in public life – it touches on economics, ecology, public morality, atheism," he said.

 "This is thus a book of supreme importance."

 PETER TATCHELL FOUNDATION
Speaking out for Human Rights
 
 
Don't let church leaders block gay marriage 

Make a submission to the government consultation process

Support civil marriage & civil partnership equality for all

 
 
London - 14 May 2012 
 

One month from today, the government's public consultation on legalising same-sex civil marriage will close. June 14th is the end date for submissions to the government.

Church leaders have mobilised over 500,000 people to sign a petition against UK government plans to allow same-sex couples to marry in civil ceremonies in register offices.

We need to counter their opposition to marriage equality; otherwise the anti-gay lobby may win.

Here's how you can help:

Using the model submission below, please respond to the government's public consultation on legalising same-sex marriage here:

https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/v.asp?i=48356xhlqw

or here:

www.homeoffice.gov.uk/equal-civil-marriage

Copy and paste the model submission into Question 16 on the government consultation website. Personalise and amend it, if you wish.

Please also email it to the Government Equalities Office:

equalcivilmarriage@geo.gsi.gov.uk">equalcivilmarriage@geo.gsi.gov.uk

Model submission:

I support full equality. I urge the government to legalise:

* Same-sex civil marriages

* Opposite-sex civil partnerships

* Religious same-sex marriages by clergy who wish to conduct them.

In addition:

* Civil partnerships should be retained for gay and straight couples who want an alternative to marriage.

* Existing civil partners should be given the option to convert their civil partnership into a civil marriage, with a special ceremony if they desire this.

* Any individual minister of religion licensed to conduct marriages should be free to conduct a same-sex marriage in their place of worship, if they wish to do so.

* Married transgender people should not be required to divorce their spouse before they can receive a gender recognition certificate.

The UK's twin legal bans on same-sex civil marriages and opposite-sex civil partnerships are unjust discrimination. In a democratic society, everyone should be equal before the law. I urge that both civil marriages and civil partnerships should be open to gay and heterosexual couples, with no discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Peter Tatchell, Director of the Peter Tatchell Foundation, writes:

"The UK government is committed to legalise same-sex civil marriage (not religious marriage) by 2015. But it is refusing to legalise opposite-sex civil partnerships and refusing to legalise same-sex religious marriages by faith organisations and clergy who want to conduct them.

"The government currently has a consultation process where it is seeking the views of the public. The deadline for submissions is 14 June 2012.

"It is very important that we make submissions supporting equality for all, including for LGBT couples who wish to get married, for heterosexual couples who want a civil partnership and for same-sex couples who'd like a religious marriage.

"In a democratic society we should all be equal before the law.

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone is entitled to equal treatment and protection against discrimination, including the right to marry.

"Legalising same -sex marriage is the recognition that LGBT people are of equal worth, equally part of humanity and have the right to the equal validation of their love.

"The same principle of equality applies in the case of civil partnerships. Heterosexual couples should be able to have a civil partnership if they wish.

"Many heterosexuals supported the campaigns for LGBT equality. We should reciprocate by supporting their right to a civil partnership.

"By participating in the public consultation we can let the government know that we want equality in both civil marriage and civil partnership law. Help us send a message for universal equal rights," said Mr Tatchell.
 

For further information:  
 

Peter Tatchell, Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation  
 

0207 403 1790  
 

Peter@PeterTatchellFoundation.org">Peter@PeterTatchellFoundation.org
 
www.PeterTatchellFoundation.org
 

ENDS

Religious people are more likely to be leftwing,

says thinktank Demos

Research undermines commonly held view that faith group members are more conservative

 

Thou shalt not whinge

According to this minister, Jesus was a commie

The Catholic Church, Birth Control and the Poor       

Written by John Berthelsen    
Monday, 13 February 2012  
 

The Bishops' Kind of President

As they say, what would Jesus do?

Authorities in Philadelphia in the United States announced Saturday that no full autopsy would be performed on Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, a key witness in a Catholic Church sex abuse trial who died on Jan. 31.

It is an affair that Asia’s 120.9 million Catholics should take careful note of.

The late Catholic leader is one of scores of top church leaders who have been ensnared in a decades-long sex scandal so vast that it is almost unimaginable, stretching across at least 27 countries including the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand in Asia as well as Ireland, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Norway and the United States.

Bevilacqua, the retired Archbishop of Philadelphia, died at age 88 the day after a judge ruled that he was competent to testify in an upcoming sex abuse trial involving priests as well as a Catholic school teacher.

His sudden death has raised questions on the part of critics that Bevilacqua, might have taken his own life and thus the vain call for the autopsy although he appears to have been suffering from cancer and dementia.

In the United States, according to a 2004 report commissioned by the US Conference of Bishops, 10,667 reports were made of allegations of sexual abuse against minors by 4,392 priests between 1950 and 2002.

In far too many cases, the priests’ superiors in the church ignored reports of sexual abuse outright or ordered the priests transferred to other dioceses, where they continued to remain in close proximity with young boys.

After publicity roused victims across the world, a cascade of clerical sexual abuse cases against minors were reported and prosecuted. It is estimated that the church in the US alone had paid out more than US$1 billion by 2002 in jury awards, quiet settlements and legal fees.

The cases ranged up globally as high as the Archbishop of Vienna, who was forced to resign his archbishopship -- but was allowed to remain a Cardinal.

This is the same Catholic church whose leaders believed they had the moral authority to block the United States government from requiring religious employers' health plans to cover contraceptives under the so-called Obamacare health plan, accusing the White House of betraying them on the issue.

Ultimately, with the church apparently handing the Republican opposition a potent campaign issue for the November election, the Obama administration was forced to back down in the face of the church’s antagonism, allowing religious employers opposed to birth control to opt out although insurance companies would be required to offer such care, without charging either the religious employer – read Catholic schools, service organizations and hospitals.

But that wasn’t enough for the bishops, who declared Saturday that the president’s compromise didn’t go far enough.

Thus a thoroughly corrupt church foisted its archaic superstitions onto the US government, seeking to deny the right of millions of Catholic women to make decisions regarding their own bodies.

This is despite the fact that according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit sexual health research organization, 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women have ignored their church and used banned contraceptive methods.

Only 2 percent of Catholic women, even those who regularly attend church, rely on natural family planning.

Nearly 70 percent of Catholic women use sterilization or the birth control pill or an IUD regularly, according to the research.

This is not an irrelevancy in Asia, the home of 120.9 million Catholics, according to the CIA Factbook.

Some 75 million of them live in the Philippines, where, as in the United States, the Council of Bishops has waged perhaps an even more implacable war on family planning, using its power to drive politicians from office for opposing them.

The Catholic Church has blocked the passage of a reproductive rights bill for 15 years despite the fact that the ban on birth control not only sentences its families to penury from more children than they can afford to feed and sentences the country to being unable to marshal its resources because its population is growing so fast – 3.23 live births per woman, one of the fastest growth rates in Asia.

This is the same Council of Bishops that in 2002 was forced to apologize for the involvement of 200 Filipino priests in cases of adultery, homosexuality and child abuse, which is considered to be only a fraction of reality. In 2003 at least 34 priests were suspended in a sex abuse scandal involving sexual harassment of women, 20 from a single diocese.

As Asia Sentinel reported on July 11, last year, church leaders were forced to apologize for a 2006 scandal involving allegedly illegal donations of cars to bishops by former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo in what appeared to be an effort to gain church support in the face threatened impeachment for a long series of corruption charges including vote fraud.

Despite the church’s support in her 2006 go-around with the authorities, Arroyo now faces a long list of charges of having plundered her country’s coffers during her 10 years in office.

This is the same Catholic Bishops Conference that has threatened to excommunicate President Benigno S. Aquino III if he supports the reproductive health bills, a package aiming to provide universal access to women for birth control and maternal care.

There is no doubt that ability to control family size is directly correlated to poverty, and that the church is ignoring its duty to the poor.

Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, said: “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

There is nowhere in that sermon, considered Jesus's most important, where he said women should be forced to continue to have babies they couldn't feed, couldn't take care of, were ruining their health and lives and didn't want.

The world’s bishops and cardinals would do well to go back and read it for clues
 

The Inquisition,

Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis (inquiry on heretical perversity), was the "fight against heretics" by several

institutions within the justice-system of the Roman Catholic Church.

It started in the 12th century, with the introduction of torture in the persecution of heresy.^[1]

Inquisition practices were used also on offences against canon law other than heresy.

Ancient Koran goes on display

 

HISTORY: One of the oldest known copies of the Koran went on show at the British Museum today ahead of a new exhibition.

The Koran, believed to date from 8BC, has been lent by the British Library for the exhibition Hajj: Journey To The Heart Of Islam.

The exhibition opens to the public from Thursday January 26 and runs until Sunday April 15.

Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams' Christmas Message 
 
First Posted: 25/12/11 07:48 GMT Updated: 25/12/11 15:31 GMT   

stumble The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke today of the "broken bonds and abused trust" in a British society torn apart by riots and financial speculation.

Delivering his Christmas Day sermon from Canterbury Cathedral, Rowan Williams asked the congregation to learn lessons about "mutual obligation" from the events of the past year.

"The most pressing question we now face, we might well say, is who and where we are as a society.

Bonds have been broken, trust abused and lost.

"Whether it is an urban rioter mindlessly burning down a small shop that serves his community, or a speculator turning his back on the question of who bears the ultimate cost for his acquisitive adventures in the virtual reality of today's financial world, the picture is of atoms spinning apart in the dark," he said.

It is not the first time the Archbishop has referred to last August's disturbances, which spread from Tottenham, north London, to cities across the country.

Writing in The Guardian this month, Dr Williams spoke about the "enormous sadness" he felt during the riots.

But he also said the Government should do more to rescue young people "who think they have nothing to lose".

The Church of England has also been caught up in the struggle between anti-capitalist protesters camped in front of St Paul's Cathedral since October and the Corporation of London, which is fighting a legal battle to disband the campsite.

After the Church initially gave support to the protesters, the canon chancellor of St Paul's, Dr Giles Fraser, resigned from his position on October 27 following reports suggesting a rift between clergy over what action to take concerning the activists.

And Dr Williams suggested last month he was sympathetic to a "Robin Hood tax" on share and currency transactions.

Today he used the Book of Common Prayer - which will celebrate its 350th anniversary next year - as an example of how ideas of duty and common interest can be expressed.

The archbishop quoted the Book of Common Prayer's Long Exhortation to say: "If ye shall perceive your offences to be such as are not only against God but also against your neighbours; then ye shall reconcile yourselves unto them; being ready to make restitution".

Archbishop speaks of 'broken bonds' in society

Dr Rowan Williams will speak of "broken bonds and abused trust" in his Christmas sermon.
 
It is not the first time the Archbishop has referred to last August's disturbances, which spread from Tottenham, north London, to cities across the country.

11:59AM GMT 25 Dec 2011

Delivering his Christmas Day sermon from Canterbury Cathedral, Dr Rowan Williams will ask the congregation to learn lessons about "mutual obligation" from the events of the past year.

Dr Williams will say: "The most pressing question we now face, we might well say, is who and where we are as a society.

Bonds have been broken, trust abused and lost.

"Whether it is an urban rioter mindlessly burning down a small shop that serves his community, or a speculator turning his back on the question of who bears the ultimate cost for his acquisitive adventures in the virtual reality of today's financial world, the picture is of atoms spinning apart in the dark."

It is not the first time the Archbishop has referred to last August's disturbances, which spread from Tottenham, north London, to cities across the country.

Writing in the Guardian this month, Dr Williams spoke about the "enormous sadness" that he felt during the riots.

But he also said the Government should do more to rescue young people "who think they have nothing to lose".

The Church of England has also been caught up in the struggle between anti-capitalist protesters camped in front of St Paul's Cathedral since October and the Corporation of London, which is fighting a legal battle to disband the campsite.

After initially giving support to the protesters, the Canon Chancellor of St Paul's, Dr Giles Fraser, resigned from his position on October 27 following reports suggesting a rift between clergy over what action to take concerning the activists.

And Dr Williams suggested in November he was sympathetic to a "Robin Hood" tax on share and currency transactions.

Today he uses the Book of Common Prayer - which will celebrate its 350th anniversary in 2012 - as an example of how ideas of duty and common interest can be expressed.

The Archbishop quotes the Book of Common Prayer's Long Exhortation to say: "If ye shall perceive your offences to be such as are not only against God but also against your neighbours; then ye shall reconcile yourselves unto them; being ready to make restitution".

Is religion in terminal decline in Britain? 
 
A groundbreaking social survey seems to suggest 'yes', but there is still a role for faith in our lives, argues author.
Last Modified: 20 Dec 2011 07:55

 
The number of British who identify themselves as Christian has significantly declined since 1983 [EPA]

Is religion fading in Britain? According to the latest influential British Social Attitudes Survey (BSA), just released this December, half of us Brits do not belong to any religious grouping or affiliation.

What's more, more than half (56 per cent) of those who identify themselves as belonging to a religion never attend religious services. The ratio gets worse for the young: 65 per cent of 18-24 year olds do not belong to a religion, compared with 55 per cent of the same age group (18-27) in 1983.

Previous reports had already raised a number of interesting issues for humanists and a number of challenges to faith communities.

Between 1983 and 2009, British attitudes toward religion, Christianity in particular, shifted significantly. For example, those who professed no-religion rose from 31 per cent in 1983 to 51 per cent in 2009. Those who identified as Christian fell from 66 per cent in 1983 to 43 per cent in 2009. And those who identified as belonging to "other" religions rose from two per cent in 1983 to five per cent in 2009. Perhaps less surprising was that women, the old and less educated were more religious compared to men, young and better educated people.

There is no dearth of people who, with gleeful smiles, have long-expected that religion will have a slow but certain demise. The growth of New Atheism has joined a chorus of humanists and secularists advocating that religion should be "countered, criticised and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises". In 2008, a group of them came up with a £140,000 ($216,972) advertisement campaign in London's bendy buses and across England, Scotland and Wales, with the message that "there is probably no God… now stop worrying and enjoy your life". In a tit-for-tat advertisement the Christian Party came up with the rebuttal: "There definitely is a God. So join the Christian Party and enjoy your life". Ignore the word "probably" and "definitely" from these adverts, and you expose a great divide that splits the population down the middle.

"There would be little or no modern education system without the Biblical (New and Old) Testaments, as well as the Quranic injunctions 'to learn'."
 

It is true this decline of religion is not only in Britain, but across Western Europe. According to the Centre for the Study on Global Christianity at the Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, "Every major religion except Islam is declining in Western Europe."

What we are talking about here is the decline of organised religions that have existed for millennia (not the new religious movements, beliefs, faiths or cults). To be more specific, for Europe, this is about the three Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - all originating from the same source, Prophet Abraham's pure monotheism. In spite of some secondary differences on theology and rituals, these three religions have had a phenomenal impact on Europe. As Britain has a predominantly Christian legacy, any shift in social attitude towards religion here is primarily about Christianity. However, as Judaism and Islam are now integral parts of British life, the social trend affects them as well. And in our hurry to distance ourselves from religion's failings, we ignore its many successes too - particularly in a time of social hurt and economic confusion, when the need for belief and belonging is more crucial than ever. We risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater, if you will.

Take the issue of education. Education is at the heart of human progress. There would be little or no modern education system without the Biblical (New and Old) Testaments, as well as the Quranic injunctions "to learn". Monasteries, synagogues and mosques have been at the heart of the historical educational infrastructure that has helped shape the learning we have today. The cross-fertilisation of the pedagogy and philosophy of Christian Europe with the Islamic world shaped European Renaissance and Enlightenment. Al-Khwarizmi invented algebra to work out religious inheritance laws, while Isaac Newton wanted to discover and describe the perfect mathematical order of the Creation.

Religion provided the inspiration for their works. Any Muslim with basic Islamic knowledge would be aware that the first revealed word of the Quran was "Read". Albert Einstein in his speech, "My Credo", in 1932 said: "To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our mind cannot grasp and whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly and as a feeble reflection, this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious."

No one can deny the fact that religion has been used to create intolerance, not only between people but within the same religious groupings, too. Europe faced this problem in the past; the Inquisition and Spanish Reconquista were blots on its history. The sectarian killings among Muslims in some countries and al-Qaeda's terrorism in recent times remind us how Islam is constantly in danger of being used in un-Islamic way.

In fact, all religions can be used to foster fanaticism and hatred. While this is unacceptable, we should not accuse religion itself per se. The fact is, throughout human history more killings and cruelty have been carried out for political conquests, economic greed, perverted sense of nationalistic or racial superiority and ideology than for any "religious" notion. Religion is often a convenient scapegoat used by those who wish to cloak their actions in some form of righteousness, by rulers who wish to stir up a populace. The 20th century wars, destruction, banishment of people, ethnic cleansing and other cruelty has surpassed probably all the so-called "religious" atrocities of the past.

As for the question whether God exits or not: This has perturbed the human mind throughout time, including even Abraham's quest for God. Is there any scientific or empirical evidence to prove or disprove this existence? There is none. Science is not in the business of finding "truth", let alone finding God. Science is about statistical probabilities based upon the experimental evidence. All scientific experimentation is subject to errors, because of confounding factors and multiple parameters. The "truth" of Newtonian physics was no longer held to be absolute once it was taken over by Einsteinian physics. However, this "truth" of the last century is now being questioned because of the recent experiments in CERN. When a new "truth" comes up, the previous "truth" gives way. There cannot be orthodoxy in science.

"Religion can be a source of tranquil hearts and inspiration for fight against tyranny, inequality and injustice."
 

The nature of the scientific method - which has undoubtedly led to much technological advancement over the few centuries - is that it cannot answer many questions, let alone the most difficult question of the existence of God. Probability, not truth, is science's language and jargon. An empirical approach can never answer the question whether or not the universe was created by an external force or whether it emerged from forces within itself. One cannot test this scenario. The most that those who reject the idea of a creator can offer are "theories".

This is not about rubbishing science and its method: I come from a background in physics. Nor is it to deny the respect for those who try hard to understand the processes that drive the universe and the nature of things - as Newton and Einstein both did in their time. It is about reminding ourselves of the limitations of science and conclusions one can infer from it. To apply science beyond its remit is bound to bring unnecessary disrepute to both itself and its practitioners.

The question is: How does religion know that there is definitely a God? Well, there is no "proof" here either. Religion starts with belief, based on the same message from all the prophets who were known as truthful in their life. Religions, particularly Islam, demand critical autonomy from its adherents in order to see the observable world, the "ayat" or signs in the creation. Prophet Abraham observed these signs, used his critical autonomy, and "discovered" God. The Quran is replete with exhortation to keep an open mind, observe, reflect, contemplate and act for the benefit of all humans and the creation. Religion's premise is different from that of science. Religion, when properly understood, brings ease of heart and mind and teaches love and care for all.

Religion may be on the decline in Europe, but it is flourishing among some communities and in many other parts of the world. Religion can be a source of tranquil hearts and inspiration for fight against tyranny, inequality and injustice. For argument's sake, even if there is no God, human beings need one to behave responsibly on Earth.

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is a parenting consultant. He is a founding member of The East London Communities Organisation (TELCO), Chairman of the East London Mosque Trust, and former Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain (2006-10).

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy
 

Prime Minister’s remarks ‘bizarre’ and ‘deeply concerning’

 

Archbishop says sorry over abuse scandal

No peace on road to Armageddon

Key facts about the Church of England:

 

Church attendance and visits

 

1.7 million people take part in a Church of England service each month, a level that has been maintained since the turn of the millennium.

Approximately one million participate each Sunday.

Approaching 3 million people participate in a Church of England service on Christmas Day or Christmas Eve.

Thirty-five per cent of the population attend a Christmas service of some sort, rising to 42 per cent in London, nationally, and 22 per cent among those of non-Christian faiths.

The Church of England has the largest following of any denomination or faith in Britain today.

More than 4 in 10 in England regard themselves as belonging to the Church of England, while 6 in 10 consider themselves Christian.

People support their local churches in many different ways at different points in their lives.

Each year 3 in 10 attend regular Sunday worship and more than 4 in 10 attend a wedding in their local church, while still more attend a funeral there

In 2009, 43 per cent of adults attended a church or place of worship for a memorial service for someone who has died and 17 per cent were seeking a quiet space. 

Both these proportions are increases on 22 per cent and 12 per cent respectively in 2001.

85 per cent of the population visit a church or place of worship in the course of a year, for reasons ranging from participating in worship to attending social events or simply wanting a quiet space.

Every year, around 12 million people visit Church of England cathedrals, including 300,000 pupils on school visits.

Three of England's top five historic 'visitor attractions' are York Minster, Canterbury Cathedral and Westminster Abbey.

 

Different Sects Have Different Commandments

 

Jewish
Protestant - Lutheran
Catholic + Lutheran

Exodus 20:1-17
Deut 5:1-22

So which sect is using the correct set?

We know three things
(1) given by god to moses
(2) written on stone tablets
(3) and called ten commandments

So lets see if we can find them in the bible

(7) Which version would Jesus have known?

Archbishop of Canterbury says riots will return unless we reach out to young

UK must rescue those who think they have nothing to lose or face further civil unrest, says Rowan Williams

Bishops bash £500 a week benefits cap

St Paul's branded 'laughing stock' as Dean Graeme Knowles resigns

 

St Paul’s Cathedral was derided as “a national laughing stock” as it was plunged into disarray with the resignation of its dean amid mounting criticism of its handling of the protest camp on its doorstep.
 
 
By Richard Alleyne, Victoria Ward and Martin Beckford
9:00PM GMT 31 Oct 2011

 

The Rt Rev Graeme Knowles, the Dean of St Paul's, stepped down after becoming ever more isolated in his bid to take legal action to evict the Occupy London activists.

He became the third and most senior victim of the debacle, following in the footsteps of the Rev Dr Giles Fraser, Canon Treasurer, in resigning as his position became “untenable”.

Last night, the Rt Rev Dr Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, England’s third most senior cleric, was forced to take charge of cathedral operations as Mark Field, Tory MP for Cities of London and Westminster, said the charade had turned St Paul’s into a “national joke”.

He said: “The whole thing is farcical. You couldn’t make it up.

 It’s gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

This tented community has been there for two weeks and has hardly brought the foundations of capitalism to its knees.

“Ironically, the only capitalist organisation that has lost out is St Paul’s.

I suspect that these resignations will only ensure that these protesters become more entrenched.”

The Dead of St Paul's had pushed hard for the church hierarchy to back legal action by the Corporation of London to remove the 200 or so tents from St Paul’s churchyard.

But the seven-strong chapter, depleted by the loss of Dr Fraser, were increasingly getting cold feet, concerned that the process would end in violence.

Eventually, the dean, already facing criticism over the closing and subsequent reopening of the Church, felt his position was “untenable”.

The development resulted in the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, wading into the fray for the first time, warning that “urgent” issues raised by the protesters needed to be properly addressed.

He said the resignation was "very sad news" and that the events of the past fortnight had shown "how decisions made in good faith by good people under unusual pressure can have utterly unforeseen and unwelcome consequences".

Dr Williams added: "The urgent larger issues raised by the protesters at St Paul's remain very much on the table and we need – as a Church and as society as a whole – to work to make sure that they are properly addressed."

The dean, 60, informed Dr Chartres, of his decision just hours after facing a barrage of questions from protesters as he addressed them directly on Sunday.

In a statement, he said that “criticism of the cathedral” in the press, media and in public opinion” had forced his hand and that a “fresh approach” from “new leadership” was needed.

"I do this with great sadness, but I now believe that I am no longer the right person to lead the chapter of this great cathedral," he said.

His resignation led to an emergency meeting of the chapter which is expected to immediately withdraw support for any eviction.

The Daily Telegraph has been told that the Rt Rev Michael Colclough, Canon Pastor at the cathedral and a former Bishop of Kensington, has been appointed acting Dean but it will take several months for a permanent replacement to be made.

A source said: “Mr Knowles was the strong one.

He was pushing for eviction albeit peaceful but the others were having major doubts.

“Many felt they should have gone with Giles.

They are very, very uncomfortable with the idea of using force to evict the camp.

“The dean knew that if push came to shove, the other members would cave in and the legal action would be dropped at the last minute.”

Dr Chartres, said it was a “tragedy” for the man and “challenging times” for the church.

"I was very saddened and shocked last night to hear his decision,” he told a press conference. “It's been one of the most challenging weeks in the recent history of St Paul's and I think you can understand and sympathise with the decision the dean has taken.

“The organisation of the Church of England is a great mystery to me, so nevermind for (those) outside.”

He evoked the image of the cathedral surrounded by smoke during the Blitz and that it was a symbol of “freedom”.

“The question is now in the 21st century what is the role of St Paul’s,” he said.

He denied that the church would now distance itself from the legal action.“

We are not taking a softer line, the camp site has to disappear at some point,” he said. “It has to scale down.

But I am told by the Chapter that they would not wish to condone violence.”

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s former spokesman, Rev George Pitcher, said the dean had fallen on his own sword after “naively and unwittingly” embarking on a course of action that could only lead to violence.

He said: “The Corporation of London has adopted a very traditional, hawkish City role and I suspect the dean’s feet were held to the fire.”

The Occupy London movement issued a statement saying that the management of St Paul's Cathedral was “obviously deeply divided over the position they have taken in response to our cause – but our cause has never been directed at the staff of the cathedral.”

Dr Fraser, who last week warned that to evict the anti-capitalist activists would constitute “violence in the name of the Church”. said last night: “The dean is a great man and it will be a sad loss to the cathedral.”

He said he had played no part in the chapter meetings as he was on “gardening leave”.

Dean of St Paul's cathedral quits

OccupyLSX protesters face St Paul's eviction bid

Who holds the purse strings?

How did American Jews get so rich?

Since the mass immigration some 100 years ago, Jews have become richest religious group in American society.

They make up only 2% of US population, but 25% of 400 wealthiest Americans.

How did it happen, and how crucial is their aid to Israel?

Tani Goldstein

Published:  10.26.11, 15:23 / Israel Business

World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder sparked a row recently by calling on Israel to launch immediate peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

The statement was perceived as criticism against Lauder's personal friend, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Later, Lauder reiterated his "unequivocal" support for Netanyahu and "policies that seek to create a lasting peace in the Middle East".

Lauder's remarks made headlines and sparked both enthusiastic and angry responses not just because of his important role, but also – and mainly – because he is a very rich man.

 

Wall Street: Many Jews

Forbes magazine estimates his wealth at $2.7 billion.

His family owns the Estée Lauder cosmetics giant, he is one of the biggest art collectors in the world, and owns dozens of television channels and media outlets in the United States and worldwide, including 25% of Israel's Channel 10 TV.

He is a heavy donor to countless Jewish and Israeli organizations, bodies and officials – including Netanyahu.

Jews in all centers of power

Lauder is definitely not the only American Jew funneling money to Israel while influencing the country.

Many Israeli adults used to receive a parcel from "the rich uncle in America" during their childhood.

Thousands of organizations, including hospitals and universities, receive billions of shekels in donations from the US.

A Hebrew University study found that they make up about two-third of all donations in Israel.

Each new immigrant receives aid from the Jewish Agency, whose budget is mostly made up of donations from the US.

Many of us live on lands the Jewish National Fund bought from Arabs by Jewish-American money.

A haredi yeshiva student gets NIS 1,000 ($295) a month from the Israeli government, and another NIS 3,000 ($885) from haredi American donors.

The online Jewish Encyclopedia says some 5.6 million Jews live in the United States (not including half a million Israelis) – about 1.8% of the population.

Most of them reside in rich cities: Miami, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Boston, and mainly New York.

A study of the Pew Forum institute from 2008 found that Jews are the richest religious group in the US: Forty-six of Jews earn more than $100,000 a year, compared to 19% among all Americans.

Another Gallup poll conducted this year found that 70% of American Jews enjoy "a high standard of living" compared to 60% of the population and more than any other religious group.

Hollywood: Many Jews

More than 100 of the 400 billionaires on Forbes' list of the wealthiest people in America are Jews.

Six of the 20 leading venture capital funds in the US belong to Jews, according to Forbes.

Google founder Sergey Brin has a Jewish father, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is Jewish, as is his deputy, David Fischer, the son of Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer.

The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Shalom Bernanke, is Jewish too, as is he predecessor, Alan Greenspan, and the Fed founder, Paul Warburg.

Jews are well represented in Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the US Congress and Administration, Hollywood, TV networks and the American press – way beyond their percentage in the population.

From town to Brooklyn alleys

The United States is among the richest countries in the world, making American Jews one of the wealthiest ethnic groups in the universe.

Their success story is even more phenomenal considering the speed in which they became rich.

Only several thousand Jews lived in the US upon its establishment on July 4, 1776, most of them Marrano and people who were exiled or escaped from Spain in favor of colonies in North America.

In the mid 19th century, some 200,000 Jews immigrated to the US, mostly from Germany and central Europe.

Most of them were Reform Jews, well-established, who saw themselves as Germans and Americans more than as Jews.

They scattered across the continent and set up businesses, from small stores and factories to financial giants like Lehman Brothers and Goldman Sachs.

The great wave of immigration began in 1882.

Czarist Russia, which was home to about half of the world's Jews, went through a failed industrial revolution and was on the verge of collapse, while the Jews living in small towns became impoverished and suffered from cruel pogroms.

Within 42 years, some two million Jews immigrated to the US from Ukraine, western Russia, Poland, Lithuania, Belarus and Romania.

They made up 25% of the Jewish population in those countries, about 15% of the world's Jews, and 10 times the number of Jews who immigrated to the Land of Israel during that period.

The US became the world's biggest Jewish concentration.

The mass immigration to Israel began in 1924, when the US enacted tough laws which halted the immigration.

The immigrants arrived in the US on crowded boats, and most of them were as poor as church mice.

Dr. Robert Rockaway, who studied that period, wrote that 80% of US Jews were employed in manual work before World War I, most of them in textile factories.

Many workplaces were blocked to the Jews due to an anti-Semitic campaign led by industrialist Henry Ford. Most of them lived in crowded and filthy slums in New York – Brooklyn and the Lower East Side.

Many films and books describe the world established in those neighborhoods: Vibrant, but tough and brutal.

There was a lively culture of cabarets and small Yiddish theaters, alongside a Jewish mafia with famous crime bosses such as Meyer Lansky, Abner "Longie" Zwillman, and Louis "Lepke" Buchalter, who grew up in the filthy alleys.

Many of the Jews, who were socialists in Europe, became active in labor unions and in workers' strikes and protests. Many trade unions were established by Jews.

The Jewish immigrants, however, emerged from poverty and made faster progress than any other group of immigrants.

According to Rockaway, in the 1930s, about 20% of the Jewish men had free professions, double the rate in the entire American population.

Anti-Semitism weakened after World War II and the restrictions on hiring Jews were reduced and later canceled as part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, thanks to the struggle of liberal activists, many of whom were Jews.

In 1957, 75% of US Jews were white-collar workers, compared to 35% of all white people in the US; in 1970, 87% of Jewish men worked in clerical jobs, compared to 42% of all white people, and the Jews earned 72% more than the general average.

The only remnant of their poverty is that most of them still support a welfare policy and the Democratic Party.

As they became richer, Jews integrated into society.

They moved from the slums to the suburbs, abandoned Yiddish and adopted the clothes, culture, slang and dating and shopping habits of the non-Jewish elite.

Most Jews left religion when they immigrated to the US, but returned to it later on and joined Reform and Conservative communities, becoming more alike the Americans, most of whom are religious Christians.

'Jews always studied more'

Alongside the Jews, millions of immigrants arrived in the US from Ireland, Italy, China and dozens of other countries.

They too have settled down since then, but the Jews succeeded more than everyone.

Why?

All the experts we asked said the reason was Jewish education.

Jewish American student organization Hillel found that 9 to 33% of students in leading universities in the US are Jewish.

"The Jewish tradition always sanctified studying, and the Jews made an effort to study from the moment they arrived in American," says Danny Halperin, Israel's former economic attaché in Washington.

"In addition, the Jews have a strong tradition of business entrepreneurship.

The Irish, for example, came from families of land workers with a different mentality, studies less and initiated less.

"The Jews progressed because many areas were blocked to them," says Halperin.

 "Many Irish were integrated into the police force, for example, and only few Jews.

The Jews entered new fields in which there was need for people with initiative.

They didn't integrate into traditional banking, so they established the investment banking."

"The cinema industry was created from scratch in the 1930s, and the Jews basically took over it.

To this day there are many Jewish names in the top echelon of Hollywood and the television networks.

Later on, they took high-tech by storm too – another new industry requiring learning abilities."

'Grandpa arrived with $2, dad completed PhD'

"The Jews were the first people to undergo globalization," says Rebecca Caspi, senior vice president of the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA).

"They had a network of global connections way before other nations, and a strong and supportive community.

"The Jewish communal organization is considered a role model for all other ethnic groups.

 It helped the Jews everywhere and especially in the US, which was always more open than other countries and provided equal opportunities, while on the other hand –wasn't supportive of the individual."

How do community institutions help people succeed in business?

"The mutual help allowed poor Jews to study.

My family is an example of what happened to millions.

My grandfather arrived in New York with two dollars in his pocket. He sold pencils, and then pants and then other things, and in the meantime studied English, German and Spanish and established ties.

"He had five children, and the family had a small store in Brooklyn.

They got help from the HIAS Jewish organization, which allowed them to study.

They were so poor that they didn't have money for textbooks, so the siblings helped each other.

My father was the youngest, and until he started university the four older siblings had already managed to settle down, so they all helped him complete his medical studies."

"The Jews had to excel in order to survive," says Avia Spivak, a professor of economic and former Bank of Israel deputy governor.

"I once had a student of Russian descent, who told me that his parents said to him, 'You must be the best, because then you might get a small role.'

"That was the situation of the Jews abroad, and in America too until the 1960s.

 The most prestigious universities didn't take in Jewish students, so they studied in colleges and got the best grades.

When the discrimination disappeared, the Jews reached the top."

Is that why they succeeded in the US more than in other places?

The discrimination lessened in most countries.

I think Jews succeeded in America in particular because capitalism is good for the Jews. Jews have a tendency for entrepreneurship, they study more and have quick perception, know how to seize opportunities and have networking skills.

A competitive environment gives Jews an advantage."

Is that the reason Israelis are not as rich as American Jews?

"I think the 'Jewish genius' – which is not a genetic issue but a cultural issue – is expressed in Israel in other areas. The Jews in America arrived in a country with existing, stable and strong infrastructure.

Here they had to build the entire infrastructure from scratch, under harsh conditions."

'Government hurting aid, but it'll continue'

There is no doubt that American Jews' huge success helped Jews survive in Israel.

"The help is beyond the actual donations," says Caspi.

"The federal aid arrives largely thanks to the Jewish pressure. Israeli businesspeople use their connections in America to open markets and raise funds, especially for the venture capital industry."

The American aid strengthens the connection between the two communities – which together make up about 80% of the Jewish people – but also creates discomfort on both sides:

The Americans view Israel as a "shelter for a rainy day" and feel committed to help the State, but some feel their money is being wasted due to wrong moves; the Israelis live in fear of what will happen if and when the aid stops.

The fear is increasing, with one-third of US Jews marrying non-Jews and stating that they feel less connected to Israel.

"Israel would have been established and would have survived even without the American aid, but it would have been poorer," says Halperin.

"There are areas, like higher education, in which the aid is critical – and if it suddenly disappears, things will be difficult."

Every time there are arguments between the Israeli government and Jews in America, Israeli and American public figures warn that "one day they'll have enough and stop donating."

 Can that happen?

"The scope of donations is decreasing in the past few years," says Halperin.

"The Jews have a sense of belonging to the American society and give their donations to American organizations.

They want to see their names at a New York museum rather than at Jerusalem museum.

"As the Holocaust becomes more distant, the fear for Israel's existence drops.

In addition, Israel is no longer perceived as a poor country. And the Americans have their own problems:

The financial crisis and education in the US, which is becoming more and more expensive.

The donations will gradually drop, and may eventually disappear.

"But it's hard for me to believe that the donations will disappear at once because of a political crisis.

It looks like our government is trying to make it happen with all its might, but fortunately, it can't even do that."

Ramadan begins in United Kingdom

Quick Facts

Name

Philadelphia cardinal quits amid abuse allegations

Teens take on Met over kids' 10-hour kettle ordeal

New Statesman Leader

Thursday 9th June 2011

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has guest-edited the New Statesman in an edition published on 13th June 2011.

The full text of his Leader, widely reported in the press, follows.

I can imagine a New Statesman reader looking at the contents of this issue and mentally supplying: "That's enough coalition ministers (Ed)."

After all, the NS has never exactly been a platform for the establishment to explain itself.

But it seems worth encouraging the present government to clarify what it is aiming for in two or three key areas, in the hope of sparking a livelier debate about where we are going - and perhaps even todiscover what the left's big idea currently is.

The political debate in the UK at the moment feels pretty stuck.

An idea whose roots are firmly in a particular strand of associational socialism has been adopted enthusiastically by the Conservatives.

The widespread suspicion that this has been done for opportunistic or money-saving reasons allows many to dismiss what there is of a programme for "big society" initiatives; even the term has fast become painfully stale.

But we are still waiting for a full and robust account of what the left would do differently and what a left-inspired version of localism might look like.

Digging a bit deeper, there are a good many on the left and right who sense that the tectonic plates of British - European? - politics are shifting.

Managerial politics, attempting with shrinking success to negotiate life in the shadow of big finance, is not an attractive rallying point, whether it labels itself (New) Labour or Conservative.

There is, in the middle of a lot of confusion, an increasingly audible plea for some basic thinking about democracy itself - and the urgency of this is underlined by what is happening in the Middle East and North Africa.

Incidentally, this casts some light on the bafflement and indignation that the present government is facing over its proposals for reform in health and education.

With remarkable speed, we are being committed to radical, long-term policies for which no one voted.

At the very least, there is an understandable anxiety about what democracy means in such a context. Not many people want government by plebiscite, certainly.

But, for example, the comprehensive reworking of the Education Act 1944 that is now going forward might well be regarded as a proper matter for open probing in the context of election debates.

The anxiety and anger have to do with the feeling that not enough has been exposed to proper public argument.

I don't think that the government's commitment to localism and devolved power is simply a cynical walking-away from the problem.

But I do think that there is confusion about the means that have to be willed in order to achieve the end.

If civil society organisations are going to have to pick up
responsibilities shed by government, the crucial questions are these.

First, what services must have cast-iron guarantees of nationwide standards, parity and continuity?

(Look at what is happening to youth services, surely a strategic priority.)

Second, how, therefore, does national government underwrite these strategic "absolutes" so as to make sure that, even in a straitened financial climate, there is a continuing investment in the long term, a continuing response to what most would see as root issues: child poverty, poor literacy, the deficit in access to educational excellence, sustainable infrastructure in poorer communities (rural as well as urban), and so on?

 What is too important to be left to even the most resourceful localism?

Government badly needs to hear just how much plain fear there is around such questions at present.

It isn't enough to respond with what sounds like a mixture of, "This is the last government's legacy," and, "We'd like to do more, but just wait until the economy recovers a bit."

 To acknowledge the reality of fear is not necessarily to collude with it.

But not to recognise how pervasive it is risks making it worse.

Equally, the task of opposition is not to collude in it, either, but to define some achievable alternatives.

And, for that to happen, we need sharp-edged statements of where the disagreements lie.

The uncomfortable truth is that, while grass-roots initiatives and local mutualism are to be found flourishing in a great many places, they have been weakened by several decades of cultural fragmentation.

The old syndicalist and co-operative traditions cannot be reinvented overnight and, in some areas, they have to be invented for the first time.

This is not helped by a quiet resurgence of the seductive language of "deserving" and "undeserving" poor, nor by the steady pressure to increase what look like punitive responses to alleged abuses of the system.

 If what is in view - as Iain Duncan Smith argues passionately on page 18 - is real empowerment for communities of marginal people, we need better communication about strategic imperatives, more positive messages about what cannot and will not be left to chance and - surely one of the most important things of all - a long-term education policy at every level that will deliver the critical tools for democratic involvement, not simply skills that serve the economy.

For someone like myself, there is an ironic satisfaction in the way several political thinkers today are quarrying theological traditions for ways forward.

True, religious perspectives on these issues have often got bogged down in varieties of paternalism.

But there is another theological strand to be retrieved that is not about "the poor" as objects of kindness but about the nature of sustainable community, seeing it as one in which what circulates - like the flow of blood - is the mutual creation of capacity, building the ability of the other person or group to become, in turn, a giver of life and responsibility.

 Perhaps surprisingly, this is what is at the heart of St Paul's ideas about community at its fullest; community, in his terms, as God wants to see it.

A democracy that would measure up to this sort of ideal - religious in its roots but not exclusive or confessional - would be one in which the central question about any policy would be: how far does it equip a person or group to engage generously and for the long term in building the resourcefulness and well-being of any other person or group, with the state seen as a "community of communities", to use a phrase popular among syndicalists of an earlier generation?

A democracy going beyond populism or majoritarianism but also beyond a Balkanised focus on the local that fixed in stone a variety of postcode lotteries; a democracy capable of real argument about shared needs and hopes and real generosity: any takers?

LAMBETH PALACE

Dear

 

Thank you for contacting Lambeth Palace about the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent guest-editorship of the New Statesman.

 

As you can imagine, we have received many hundreds of emails and letters, some two-thirds of which have been positive about what the Archbishop had to say.

This is very many more than Archbishop Rowan can reply to personally, much as he would like to, and as he’s currently away in Africa your message has been passed to me for reply.

 

The Archbishop believes very strongly that the Church is commissioned to stand by the most vulnerable in our society and that means that we have a duty to join the public discourse.

We won’t always agree with each other’s views, but Archbishop Rowan much appreciates your taking the time to express yours.

 

With sincere thanks again for writing to Archbishop Rowan.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

The Revd George Pitcher

The Archbishop’s Secretary for Public Affairs

Lambeth Palace, London , SE1 7JU

www.archbishopofcanterbury.org

Christians use Bible to predict end of statisticians

Rowan Williams: no one voted for coalition policies

Archbishop of Canterbury issues broadside against 'radical policies' and 'big society' project in New Statesman editorial