Should the church sell paintings?
Richard Emblem
The planned sale of historic paintings in a
bishop's palace has not been realised more than six months after
a vigorous campaign was launched to keep them in place. The
paintings have hung in Auckland Castle, the seat of the bishop of
Durham, since they were brought to the castle by Bishop Richard
Trevor in the mid-18th century. Painted by the 17th-century
Spanish artist Francisco de Zurbaran, the set shows Jacob and his
12 sons, representing the 12 tribes of Israel.
ENI Online - www.eni.ch
Ecumenical News International
--
Richard Emblem
How good and pleasant it is
when God's people live in unity.
(Psalm 133:1)
_______________________
h
> bishop's palace has not been realised more than six months after
> a vigorous campaign was launched to keep them in place. The
> paintings have hung in Auckland Castle, the seat of the bishop of
> Durham, since they were brought to the castle by Bishop Richard
> Trevor in the mid-18th century. Painted by the 17th-century
> Spanish artist Francisco de Zurbaran, the set shows Jacob and his
> 12 sons, representing the 12 tribes of Israel.
This is just one facet of a much bigger question - how should churches
judge what material things they should invest in.
One of the things my church did shortly before I left was to spend huge
amount of money on some really posh padded stacking chairs for the
congregation. I was incensed (possibly overly so, in hind-sight) when I
thought of my offering going towards something so ... well ... superfluous.
Buy a dozen for the elderly and sensitive-of-bum, perhaps, but why spend
all that money on new chairs when the old ones were functional and
dagnammit there's people in that very church who are struggling to make
ends meet.
It troubles me that the CofE is (AIUI) responsible for the upkeep of all
the historic churches around our land - hence all the 'save our spire'
funds. Fine, the buildings are historically interesting and there's a case
for preserving them, but at the moment it seems to be at the cost of
churches' main functions, evangelism/fellowship/worship etc. The church is
*not* the building.
Personally I reckon churches should be allowed (and willing) to sell
whatever valuables they have if the money is to be used for God's work. I
wish the CofE could pass ownership of the churches over to the public; and
if the end-result was that church buildings were turned into tourist
centres then the church should move to someone's front room or a village
hall or wherever - yes, nice architecture is nice, but £10 could do more
good at street-level than it could restoring an old building.
Just my 2 pee
[a still red faced] h
Tony Bryer
> It troubles me that the CofE is (AIUI) responsible for the upkeep of
> all the historic churches around our land - hence all the 'save our
> spire' funds.
The CofE is only responsible for CofE buildings, but all the other
established denominations have the same problems/challenges. Of course
the demand that 'our' church must be preserved often comes loudest
from those who never visit 'their' church from year to year. In one
case that I have been involved in for many years, the local
conservationists got 1,000 signatures on a 'Save our church' petition.
The average congregation is about 25. Where are the 1,000 on a Sunday
morning ??
> Fine, the buildings are historically interesting and
> there's a case for preserving them, but at the moment it seems to be
> at the cost of churches' main functions, evangelism/fellowship/
> worship etc. The church is *not* the building.
I received a less than sympathetic response when I had a letter
published in the Architect's Journal some years ago saying that bad
architecture was the best investment as it left you free to knock down
a building that had outlived its usefulness and start again, on the
same site or elsewhere. The letter was in response to the sad case of
a church on the South coast whose 1950's building had been listed.
Changes in the town meant is was in the wrong place, it was now too
big, and the architecture wasn't matched by careful design, so IIRC
around £400K was required to put this unwanted building back into good
order. Of course the listing effectively made it unsellable. We ended
up selling one URC building to the local council for £1: the
alternative would have been them putting a repairs notice on it
requiring a huge expenditure.
> Personally I reckon churches should be allowed (and willing) to sell
> whatever valuables they have if the money is to be used for God's
> work. I wish the CofE could pass ownership of the churches over to
> the public; and if the end-result was that church buildings were
> turned into tourist centres then the church should move to someone's
> front room or a village hall or wherever - yes, nice architecture is
> nice, but £10 could do more good at street-level than it could
> restoring an old building.
There's no one answer to this. I have seen small churches being
liberated by replacing their Victorian heritage with a new building
that meets their current needs. Equally there is something moving
about going into a church and knowing that people have worshipped
there every week for centuries. I think that the right decision
depends on where the building is on the asset-challenge-liability
scale. As to selling our 'treasures' so as to good with the money
raised, my problem with this is that it requires us (or our agent) to
find some moneyed soul and say to him/her "don't give your money to
good causes; buy this painting/antique/etc instead".
One of the fundamental problems of the United Reformed Church is that
our buildings tend to be located where people lived when
Congregationalism and the chapel building movement was at its height
in the late Victorian period. If we could start again with the same
number (or fewer) buildings, they would probably be in very different
places.
--
Tony Bryer
Debbie
wrote:
>Personally I reckon churches should be allowed (and willing) to sell
>whatever valuables they have if the money is to be used for God's work. I
>wish the CofE could pass ownership of the churches over to the public; and
>if the end-result was that church buildings were turned into tourist
>centres then the church should move to someone's front room or a village
>hall or wherever - yes, nice architecture is nice, but £10 could do more
>good at street-level than it could restoring an old building.
Oddly enough, a lot of churches share your view. So they try to, for
example, re-order the church to make the space more flexible so that
other groups may use the premises - and want to flog a couple of old
paintings to pay for it. Or they would like to make an expensive,
over-sized old building redundant and move into a smaller, modern
building with cheaper running costs. And who makes all the fuss?
The people who don't use the building regularly. The people who want
a pretty church for the odd family wedding, who don't have to sit on
uncomfortable chairs in a draught week after week and who want the
churchgoing congregation to preserve their heritage for them. It's
the same people who throw a wobbly when they come for their once a
year visit and discover that they have to use a modern liturgy instead
of 1662. They are the people who complain if the churchyard gets
overgrown, but petition all and sundry if the PCC wants to move the
gravestones to make mowing easier.
If you look round any average old-ish church, you can see immediately
that some bits were built in the 14th century, bits were added in the
15th & 16th centuries, a doorway was closed up and a bit knocked
through in the 18th century and some new windows were put in in 1894.
What was originally an open floor space has, over time, had box pews,
victorian pews and 1960s wooden hooked chairs. A 15th century rood
screen disappeared during the civil war along with a lady chapel, but
the church may now have a victorian rood screen and a 1930s lady
chapel. The original altar may have been replaced by a plain table
altar in the 17th century and then again by a more solid altar during
the Anglo-Catholic revival before the current nave altar arrived in
the 1970s. The original village band has been replaced by a
harmonium, then a pipe organ, then an electronic organ which is now
supplemented by a piano and an ad-hoc music group.
The church building and the church community have evolved, and
continue to do so. Part of God's work in any community is providing
a place where worship and gathering can take place. £10 might buy
three rough sleepers with a decent meal, but a church hall can provide
a weekly lunch club for a couple of dozen people. So having church
buildings per se is probably a good use of Christians' giving. If a
church can pay its way and fund its own overheads, good luck to it.
If not, it should be the congregation - those who have a personal
stake in the place - in consultation with the incumbent, the
archdeacon and the bishop, who should be allowed to decide what can or
can't be done. If a building has particular architectural merit,
then let those who want to keep it as an artistic spectacle pay for
the maintenance and repairs.
Let me give you an example of what a congregation can do when it is
allowed to be prophetic - and pragmatic - about premises. In the
1996, a Victorian Methodist church in inner city Sheffield became very
run down and its congregation shrank to just four elderly people.
They were minded to try and keep the church going, or failing that, to
close it altogether. A visionary minister had an idea to sell the
church and replace it with something more appropriate to the area -
and his congregation supported him - unanimously! So they bought a
recently closed pub in the middle of a sink housing estate. It's now
a worship centre, a community meeting place, a cafe, an educational
support unit for children who are having problems with schooling, the
only launderette for miles, and the community manage a number of
community commercial and social premises. For anyone interested,
their websites are at
http://www.holidayjunction.com/furnival/
http://www.furnival.org.uk/
Oh...did I climb on a soapbox? OK, I'll get down now and go quietly.
--
Debbie
Urban Theology Unit, Sheffield
Views expressed in this email are my own and are not
necessarily those of the University of Sheffield or UTU.
Kim Tame
> It troubles me that the CofE is (AIUI) responsible for the upkeep of
> all the historic churches around our land - hence all the 'save our
> spire' funds. Fine, the buildings are historically interesting and
> there's a case for preserving them, but at the moment it seems to be
> at the cost of churches' main functions,
> evangelism/fellowship/worship etc. The church is *not* the building.
>
> Personally I reckon churches should be allowed (and willing) to sell
> whatever valuables they have if the money is to be used for God's
> work. I wish the CofE could pass ownership of the churches over to
> the public; and if the end-result was that church buildings were
> turned into tourist centres then the church should move to someone's
> front room or a village hall or wherever - yes, nice architecture is
> nice, but £10 could do more good at street-level than it could
> restoring an old building.
Here I find myself schizophrenic.
Some buildings are a millstone around the necks of congregations, and the
church is not in the business of maintaining expensive museums.
OTOH, a beautiful building is a joy to worship in (I actually worship in an
ugly old heap atm, soon to be redeveloped), an old church is testimony to
the long continuity of Christian worship, and a geographically prominent
church is well, prominent, in a way (say) a house church isn't.
Kim
Richard Emblem
<h...@nospamplease.howiem.com> writes:
>Personally I reckon churches should be allowed (and willing) to sell
>whatever valuables they have if the money is to be used for God's work.
I agree.
Ken Down
> One of the things my church did shortly before I left was to spend huge
> amount of money on some really posh padded stacking chairs
Depends who made the decision. If it was some authority figure, your
annoyance is perhaps justified. If, on the other hand, it was a majority of
those who contributed the money, well, they have a right to do what they
like with it.
> It troubles me that the CofE is (AIUI) responsible for the upkeep of all
> the historic churches around our land - hence all the 'save our spire'
> funds. Fine, the buildings are historically interesting and there's a case
> for preserving them, but at the moment it seems to be at the cost of
> churches' main functions, evangelism/fellowship/worship etc. The church is
> *not* the building.
While agreeing that the church is not the building, I have to say that I
often pop into churches that are open because I enjoy the peace and quiet
and I find the atmosphere conducive to prayer. There is something about
praying where thousands of people have prayed for hundreds of years.
A couple of years back I happened to pass an ancient stone circle called
Mitchell's Fold and turned off the road to visit it. Although it stands on a
pleasant open hillside, the atmosphere there was evil and I felt a real
sense of relief when I left the place. (A subsequent visit several months
later produced no such feelings.) I discovered over the weekend that there
are regular gatherings for pagan worship at the Fold and, calculating the
dates, I reckon that my first visit was shortly after one of these
occasions.
Just as evil actions can produce an atmosphere of evil - it is almost as if
demons were summoned and lingered - so good actions produce an atmosphere of
goodness - as if angels had been summoned and lingered. That's why I like
old churches.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.argonet.co.uk/education/diggings
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Paul Hardy
>
> Here I find myself schizophrenic.
>
> Some buildings are a millstone around the necks of congregations, and the
> church is not in the business of maintaining expensive museums.
Neither am I, but like all UK citizens I am forced to subsidise the
maintenance of church buildings (and Mosques and the rest) since
Gordon Brown created that VAT tax dodge to allow them to reclaim 12.5%
of the VAT on repairs.
The best example of how to preserve these old buildings can be seen in
my home town, where the former Unitarian Chapel has been been
sympathetically converted into a pub/restaurant of truly heroic scale
and grandeur. It must be the only church with a queue outside it
every night of the week. And it isn't costing me a penny any more.
The Unitarians, showing uncanny foresight, moved to a smaller mill
building in the old Lace Market. They are now probably sitting on
about £5million worth of potential luxury apartments so maybe they'll
be on the move again soon.
Another example might be St.Werburgh's Church in Bristol which is now
an excellent indoor rock-climbing arena.
Don't assume that just because these fine old buildings are no longer
used for worship that they are doomed.
Paul
Tony Comer
Debbie <deb...@removethiscybertheology.org.uk> wrote in message
news:uh2fhuorq5nrcsbf8...@4ax.com...
But what about the rights of all the people who contributed to building the
church in the first place? And the people who ordered and reordered the
place for worship? It was never theirs to sell: it was theirs to maintain,
beautify and pass on.
Belonging to the most philistine and anti-aestheticdenomination in this
country, it grieves me to see somebody whose Church holds something of
aesthetic and numinous value, able to turn her back so completely on what it
is that her Church actually possesses!
Tony
--
Paciencia y barajar
Richard Emblem
<deb...@removethiscybertheology.org.uk> writes:
>their websites are at
>http://www.holidayjunction.com/furnival/
>http://www.furnival.org.uk/
>
>Oh...did I climb on a soapbox? OK, I'll get down now and go quietly.
No, no Debbie! Thanks for introducing us to the Furnival - a wonderful work!
Theo Markettos
> Some buildings are a millstone around the necks of congregations, and the
> church is not in the business of maintaining expensive museums.
>
> OTOH, a beautiful building is a joy to worship in (I actually worship in an
> ugly old heap atm, soon to be redeveloped), an old church is testimony to
> the long continuity of Christian worship, and a geographically prominent
> church is well, prominent, in a way (say) a house church isn't.
Agreed - but in some cases the fact that a church is a tourist attraction
can also make it a tool for evangelism. By being interesting, it encourages
people to come into church who wouldn't in someone's front room.
For example, Cambridge Christian Heritage have a mission based on the Round
Church and the history of Christianity in the City. This has significant
numbers of visitors coming through the door (I forget the figure, but of the
order of tens of thousands a year), and both through history and the present
is leading people to enquire about the gospel.
So village churches aren't on this scale, but they can be used either to get
people in who wouldn't normally come (flower festivals, carol services etc),
or just there for visitors. I certainly found open churches in Greece helpful
when I became a Christian a few years ago...
Theo
Gareth McCaughan
> "Kim Tame" <kim.tame'nospam'@virgin.net> wrote in message news:<eqMR8.3570$k_6.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
>>
>> Here I find myself schizophrenic.
>>
>> Some buildings are a millstone around the necks of congregations, and the
>> church is not in the business of maintaining expensive museums.
>
> Neither am I, but like all UK citizens I am forced to subsidise the
> maintenance of church buildings (and Mosques and the rest) since
> Gordon Brown created that VAT tax dodge to allow them to reclaim 12.5%
> of the VAT on repairs.
In what sense, exactly, are you subsidizing this? Surely all that's
happening is that they're paying less tax than they otherwise would
have done. Do you consider that you're subsidizing everyone who
pays less tax than anyone else?
Perhaps I'm missing the point here somehow. If so, I'll be glad to
be enlightened.
--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc
h
> But what about the rights of all the people who contributed to building
the
> church in the first place? And the people who ordered and reordered the
> place for worship? It was never theirs to sell: it was theirs to
maintain,
> beautify and pass on.
> Tony
Do dead people have rights?
h (not dead yet, so don't get any ideas)
David Ould
news:e3bcf730.0206...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Here I find myself schizophrenic.
> >
> > Some buildings are a millstone around the necks of congregations,
and the
> > church is not in the business of maintaining expensive museums.
>
> Neither am I, but like all UK citizens I am forced to subsidise the
> maintenance of church buildings (and Mosques and the rest) since
> Gordon Brown created that VAT tax dodge to allow them to reclaim 12.5%
> of the VAT on repairs.
but then you're not actually paying. The church is simply paying less
tax.
David
Debbie at work
<to...@comerfamily.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>But what about the rights of all the people who contributed to building the
>church in the first place? And the people who ordered and reordered the
>place for worship?
They are all long dead!
> It was never theirs to sell: it was theirs to maintain,
>beautify and pass on.
Seems to me that the only useful and pragmatic way to view it is that
the building *does* belong to the present users thereof in all
meaningful senses. They have to pay for a new roof when it fails its
quinquennial, find the money to deal with dry rot and find the
premiums for the buildings insurance.
>Belonging to the most philistine and anti-aestheticdenomination in this
>country, it grieves me to see somebody whose Church holds something of
>aesthetic and numinous value, able to turn her back so completely on what it
>is that her Church actually possesses!
I thought you were RC...? The RC cathedral in Bristol is sublime.
I'm not "turning my back" in any case. I'm quite happy for old
church buildings to continue to be loved and used by the community if
the community - church or secular - is willing and able to pay for
their maintenance. I just don't see why the worshipping church
should have to be stuck in cold, damp, expensive, inappropriate
monuments for the benefit of people who wouldn't dream of getting up
before noon on a Sunday. Let those who want their monuments have
them, and pay for their upkeep.
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>But what about the rights of all the people who contributed to building the
>church in the first place?
Most of them are long-dead, so the only "rights" they have are the
sentimental ones afforded to them by the living. And, unless they
actually left written instructions on what could or could not be done
with the building, any assumption of their opinions is just that - an
assumption. How do we know that, for example, Christopher Wren
wouldn't have had St Paul's rebuilt to use modern technology
effectively, if he was still alive?
> And the people who ordered and reordered the
>place for worship? It was never theirs to sell: it was theirs to maintain,
>beautify and pass on.
But what for? What was the purpose of the construction in the first
place? If it wasn't for worship, then what was it? If it was for
worship, why object to re-ordering the building to suit the needs of
the worshipping congregation?
Mark
--
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
"All this talk of getting old, it's getting me down my love"
Paul Hardy
> Paul Hardy wrote:
>
> > "Kim Tame" <kim.tame'nospam'@virgin.net> wrote in message news:<eqMR8.3570$k_6.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>...
> >>
> >> Here I find myself schizophrenic.
> >>
> >> Some buildings are a millstone around the necks of congregations, and the
> >> church is not in the business of maintaining expensive museums.
> >
> > Neither am I, but like all UK citizens I am forced to subsidise the
> > maintenance of church buildings (and Mosques and the rest) since
> > Gordon Brown created that VAT tax dodge to allow them to reclaim 12.5%
> > of the VAT on repairs.
>
> In what sense, exactly, are you subsidizing this? Surely all that's
> happening is that they're paying less tax than they otherwise would
> have done. Do you consider that you're subsidizing everyone who
> pays less tax than anyone else?
Of course, well everyone who pays less tax than me anyway. I don't
always object to that; I believe in the welfare state. But I do
object when I have to subsidize religion.
I live in a grade II listed house (by choice admittedly) for which the
cost of upkeep is considerable. If I declared my home to be a Temple
of Vishnu or a Church of Scientology I could presumably reclaim 12.5%
of the VAT spent on maintenance. Since I'm not prepared to do that I
will have to continue to pay the full whack and preserve the building
for posterity.
Paul
Tony Bryer
> I live in a grade II listed house (by choice admittedly)
> for which the cost of upkeep is considerable.
The crucial words are 'by choice'. Most listed churches have had
their rights to do what they choose with their property taken away
by (legal) force.
--
Tony Bryer
Tony Comer
news:l44jhusukuadvfpa4...@4ax.com... and h and Debbie at work
concurred:
> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:03:39 +0100, Tony Comer put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
> >But what about the rights of all the people who contributed to building
the
> >church in the first place?
>
> Most of them are long-dead
(Debbie at work and h said something slightly different but the message was
the same)
It doesn't matter how dead they are.
Leaving aside the Communion of the Saints (which, for those who believe in
what we say when we recite the Apostle's, Nicene or Athanasian Creed as part
of our liturgy, means that the dead are only physically no longer with us),
you can't just ignore why something was done in the past just because it
doesn't suit you now. (Can't, meaning morally shouldn't: this is a value
judgement, not a statement of fact!)
(Actually, it might be a statement of fact: if I leave £10,000 in my will to
beautify a church in perpetuity and the legacy is accepted, I don't know if
your heirs have the right to overturn the gift and the acceptance of it.
Maybe a lawyer would know.)
The value judgement is based on the concept of the Church as something that
lives across time; "Church" is not just something that is here and now: it
is its past and its future too.
I wish I had the quote to hand, but Chesterton said (rather better than what
follows) that tradition was the democracy of the dead. In the same way as
the democrat discriminates against nobody because of the way he lives, the
traditionalist discriminates against nobody because of the fact of his
death.
Change is inevitable: we live in a fallen world. Hence the changes to a
church Debbie described (sounding like Betjeman at his best) showing how the
development of faith and belief is reflected in the way the building in
which we worship is reordered. But to abandon the building, on a here and
now whim - it doesn't suit those of us who are here, now - is to abandon
part of the deposit of the faith for mere circumstance.
This argument is probably meaningless to anybody who doesn't revere
tradition (and, as I said, it's an opinion, not a dogma) but please don't
dismiss anybody who wants to keep old churches - indeed to abandon new ones
in favour of old ones - as necessarily a sentimentalist.
I'll shut up now.
Gareth McCaughan
>>> Neither am I, but like all UK citizens I am forced to subsidise the
>>> maintenance of church buildings (and Mosques and the rest) since
>>> Gordon Brown created that VAT tax dodge to allow them to reclaim 12.5%
>>> of the VAT on repairs.
>>
>> In what sense, exactly, are you subsidizing this? Surely all that's
>> happening is that they're paying less tax than they otherwise would
>> have done. Do you consider that you're subsidizing everyone who
>> pays less tax than anyone else?
>
> Of course, well everyone who pays less tax than me anyway. I don't
> always object to that; I believe in the welfare state. But I do
> object when I have to subsidize religion.
You do not have to subsidize religion. (More precisely: perhaps
you do, but this certainly isn't an instance.) The maintainers
of these buildings are not being paid by the state; they are
just being taxed less than they otherwise might have been.
Imagine that a year ago the maintainers of religious buildings
had been able to reclaim *all* of that tax, and that that had
just been changed to the system as it is now. Presumably you'd
then say that religion was subsidizing you. (Actually, I don't
believe you would. But if you were perfectly consistent, you
would.) Since the actual situation would be exactly the same,
it should be clear that both statements -- "I am subsidizing
religion" and "Religion is subsidizing me" -- are wrong. All
that's happening is that one group of people is paying less
tax than it did last year. Big deal.
> I live in a grade II listed house (by choice admittedly) for which the
> cost of upkeep is considerable. If I declared my home to be a Temple
> of Vishnu or a Church of Scientology I could presumably reclaim 12.5%
> of the VAT spent on maintenance. Since I'm not prepared to do that I
> will have to continue to pay the full whack and preserve the building
> for posterity.
Diddums. :-)
(I don't in fact see any reason why maintenance of religious buildings
should be taxed any less than maintenance of other buildings. Unless
there's a reason for it I haven't thought of, I think the law should
be changed. Nevertheless, when someone pays less tax than he did a year
before, that doesn't mean he's being subsidized by everyone else.)
Richard Emblem
deb...@utusheffield.fsnet.co.uk (Debbie at work) writes:
>>Belonging to the most philistine and anti-aestheticdenomination in this
>>country, it grieves me to see somebody whose Church holds something of
>>aesthetic and numinous value, able to turn her back so completely on what it
>>is that her Church actually possesses!
>
>I thought you were RC...? The RC cathedral in Bristol is sublime.
I think that it is probably very much the exception!
h
> Leaving aside the Communion of the Saints (which, for those who believe
in
> what we say when we recite the Apostle's, Nicene or Athanasian Creed as
part
> of our liturgy, means that the dead are only physically no longer with
us),
> you can't just ignore why something was done in the past just because it
> doesn't suit you now. (Can't, meaning morally shouldn't: this is a value
> judgement, not a statement of fact!)
> The value judgement is based on the concept of the Church as something
that
> lives across time; "Church" is not just something that is here and now:
it
> is its past and its future too.
But does this apply necessarily to the building itself? Local tradition and
history can live on despite a change of venue.
> <snip> But to abandon the building, on a here and
> now whim - it doesn't suit those of us who are here, now - is to abandon
> part of the deposit of the faith for mere circumstance.
I find the hardest thing to stomach is the situations where an old church
acts as a financial millstone around the neck of the congregation or town,
and the opportunity cost in terms of the church's ability to spend money on
the streets or in outreach. A Church Roof Fund is almost cliché now.
Your point that this shouldn't be done on a whim is right though, and I do
wonder whether I'm too quick to dismiss God-related material things. I
liked the fact that my church had no altar, no cross, nothing of historical
interest (it was held in a school hall); I've got it stuck in my head that
materials only come between one and God. Pray to a cross / piece of wood?
But I do see that I may be wrong.
Got me thinking now.
God certainly used to like shiny things; the ark of the covenant and all
that stuff were covered in gold and gems, ISTR. But then I don't see Jesus
as having been interested in material stuff beyond its functionality. I can
see why a beautiful building, built with love by believers, can glorify
God - it is His house, after all, and He is worthy of as shiny a place as
we can make in which to grace us with His presence, but how are we supposed
to balance funds between keeping an intricate old building going and
spreading His Word or helping the afflicted?
<snippety>
> This argument is probably meaningless to anybody who doesn't revere
> tradition (and, as I said, it's an opinion, not a dogma) but please don't
> dismiss anybody who wants to keep old churches - indeed to abandon new
ones
> in favour of old ones - as necessarily a sentimentalist.
Interesting opinion, though - worth thinking about, especially for ppl like
me who found problems with their paths through traditional institutions in
the past. This all has way more shades of grey in it now than it seemed to
have before.
Not doing my dogma any favours.
:)
bestest,
h
Genie
> I find the hardest thing to stomach is the situations where an old church
> acts as a financial millstone around the neck of the congregation or town,
> and the opportunity cost in terms of the church's ability to spend money on
> the streets or in outreach. A Church Roof Fund is almost cliché now.
[snip]
> God certainly used to like shiny things; the ark of the covenant and all
> that stuff were covered in gold and gems, ISTR. But then I don't see Jesus
> as having been interested in material stuff beyond its functionality. I can
> see why a beautiful building, built with love by believers, can glorify
> God - it is His house, after all, and He is worthy of as shiny a place as
> we can make in which to grace us with His presence, but how are we supposed
> to balance funds between keeping an intricate old building going and
> spreading His Word or helping the afflicted?
One way of doing it is to use the building fund in such a way that the
'outreach' efforts will be enhanced. My own church has a Building
Fund, which is going partly to repairing the stone window-frames (I
ever knew stone _could_ rot before), but also to installing running
water and toilets (1) on the one part of the churchyard that isn't
covered with headstones. We need a water supply to make teas and
coffees after services, and offer catering for village events. Atm
every drop gets carried by hand across the village green from the
church warden's own house, and the washing up gets taken back again
after. Being able to offer refreshments for secular events brings
people into the church building, and into contact with the
congregation who are serving them (and with the Traidcraft shop in the
vestry). And once people are inside, a beautiful environment entices
them to stay, and might even have the desired effect without any
further prompting. (2) Cost-effective ideas include beautiful flower
displays and hand-made altar coverings, polished brasswork and
decorations made by the sunday-school. If a church looks loved and
well-kept then it radiates love to all who visit. Our church's
displays etc are donated by the congregation on a rota, so that they
cost the church very little.
(1) Not in the same plumbing system.
(2) speaking as someone who always loved churches even whilst an
atheist, and was privileged to be present when a friend heard the
calling (3) for the first time during a geography field trip when we
dropped into a parish church to look for leaflets for use in a school
project.
(3) The sun suddenly came out from behind a raincloud and shone
through the stained glass window, making a beam directly onto us. A
sense of peace and contentment filled the air. Other than that I felt
nothing, but Natasha spoke of hearing a voice calling her, and feeling
arms wrapped around her. She subsequently became a 'born-again'
Charismatic Christian, and put up with me trying to convince her God
didn't exist for the next two years. (Sincere and deepest apologies to
Natasha, wherever you are now)
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Mark Goodge <ma...@good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:l44jhusukuadvfpa4...@4ax.com... and h and Debbie at work
>concurred:
>
>
>> On Tue, 25 Jun 2002 22:03:39 +0100, Tony Comer put finger to keyboard
>> and typed:
>>
>> >But what about the rights of all the people who contributed to building
>the
>> >church in the first place?
>>
>> Most of them are long-dead
>
>(Debbie at work and h said something slightly different but the message was
>the same)
>
>It doesn't matter how dead they are.
>
>Leaving aside the Communion of the Saints (which, for those who believe in
>what we say when we recite the Apostle's, Nicene or Athanasian Creed as part
>of our liturgy, means that the dead are only physically no longer with us),
>you can't just ignore why something was done in the past just because it
>doesn't suit you now. (Can't, meaning morally shouldn't: this is a value
>judgement, not a statement of fact!)
However, the dead do not communicate their wishes to us now. So any
assessment of what their wishes may be, has to be made by the living.
My opinion, for example, is that the builders of our geat cathedrals,
etc, would be more than happy to see them continually maintained and
adapted to suit the needs of Christianity throughout the ages. Your
opinion may differ, but neither of us has anything more than our
opinion to offer as evidence.
>(Actually, it might be a statement of fact: if I leave £10,000 in my will to
>beautify a church in perpetuity and the legacy is accepted, I don't know if
>your heirs have the right to overturn the gift and the acceptance of it.
>Maybe a lawyer would know.)
You can endow a trust fund and stipulate what the money may be used
for, within certain limits. That is, you can insist that it is used
for maintenance, or to pay salaries, or award an annual prize, or
whatever. But it would still be up to the trustees of the fund to
administer it as they see fit. What, after all, does "beautify" mean?
>The value judgement is based on the concept of the Church as something that
>lives across time; "Church" is not just something that is here and now: it
>is its past and its future too.
Which is precisely *why* the fabric of the buildings is pretty much
irrelevant. The Church does not grow old along with its earthly
property; the Church is as new today as it was when the cathedrals
were new. To insist that we treat our buildings as inviolable is to
anchor the church in a specific time - the time of their construction
- instead of making the buildings the servant of a Church that is
forever "now".
Mark
--
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
"Well it's true today"
Tony Comer
news:3d198bbc...@news.freeserve.net...
(snip)
> >Belonging to the most philistine and anti-aestheticdenomination in this
> >country, it grieves me to see somebody whose Church holds something of
> >aesthetic and numinous value, able to turn her back so completely on what
it
> >is that her Church actually possesses!
>
> I thought you were RC...? The RC cathedral in Bristol is sublime.
(snip)
I am Catholic and the Catholic Church in England and Wales must be the most
philistine and anti-aestheticdenomination in this country. (Read Piloti in
Private Eye.)
I presume you mean Clifton Cathedral: I don't think we'd have much in common
if we ever got together to discuss sacred architecture!
Simon Tebbutt
Very few churches have ready alternative uses and so when declared
redundant cost the tax payer real money - they are only a landscape
feature. All Heritage Buildings contribute to our Tourist Industry,
particularly if they are still part of a worshipping community.
A closed Church generally means a scattered flock.
--
Simon Tebbutt
Ken Down
<h...@nospamplease.howiem.com> wrote:
> but how are we supposed
> to balance funds between keeping an intricate old building going and
> spreading His Word or helping the afflicted?
As Jesus said, when someone raised a similar quibble about extravagance,
"the poor ye have always with you".
To be honest, I don't believe that the poor need money[1]. They can get
enough from the government. What they do need is time and interest. The
child of a single parent who is an alcoholic does not need money - the
mother would only take it off the child and get even more drunk and abusive.
What the child needs is someone who will take an interest, offer refuge,
comb the nits out of its hair, and so on.
Big Shirley, to whom I have referred before, is a wonderful example of this.
Although on benefits herself, she has helped a great number of the deprived
around her, not by doling out money - she doesn't have enough to do that -
but by always being there for them. Beaten wives knock on her door in the
middle of the night, knowing that she will face down the most violent
husband - she is bigger than most of them; teenagers thrown out of home for
some misdemeanour will kip on her sofa until the social services gets them
accommodation - and then come back to learn how to cook; kids in trouble at
school will ask her to break the bad report to their indignant parents.
She is a wonderful Christian.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Note 1: Obviously, there are exceptions.
Tim Rowe
wrote:
>Note 1: Obviously, there are exceptions.
Specifically the poor in money. I grant that what you write is
generally true for those who are poor in spirit (except for the bit
about the government giving them money), but if somebody is getting
government subsidies then they probably aren't "poor" as I would use
the term. Not many are in the UK, but all too many are worldwide.
Mitch B
>To be honest, I don't believe that the poor need money[1]. They can get
>enough from the government. What they do need is time and interest. The
>child of a single parent who is an alcoholic does not need money - the
>mother would only take it off the child and get even more drunk and abusive.
>What the child needs is someone who will take an interest, offer refuge,
>comb the nits out of its hair, and so on.
As somebody who was both an alcoholic and a single parent, I suggest
that you should stop judging folk by the pejorative labels you put on
them.
That statement is unworthy of you.
--
Mitch
Richard Emblem
writes:
Dont be so touchy Mitch, Ken's account of Big Shirley surely counterbalanced
the above.
Mitch B
>In article <3d1d5ae4...@mid.mitchb.org>, Mitch B <un...@unews.mitchb.org>
>writes:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 20:41:32 BST, Ken Down enlightened us all with:
>>
>>>To be honest, I don't believe that the poor need money[1]. They can get
>>>enough from the government. What they do need is time and interest. The
>>>child of a single parent who is an alcoholic does not need money - the
>>>mother would only take it off the child and get even more drunk and abusive.
>>>What the child needs is someone who will take an interest, offer refuge,
>>>comb the nits out of its hair, and so on.
>>
>>As somebody who was both an alcoholic and a single parent, I suggest
>>that you should stop judging folk by the pejorative labels you put on
>>them.
>>
>>That statement is unworthy of you.
>
>Dont be so touchy Mitch, Ken's account of Big Shirley surely counterbalanced
>the above.
Nope.
And when *you* find yourself being written off because you are an
alcoholic and/or single mother then, and only then, can you validly
judge whether I'm being "touchy".
--
Mitch
Paul Hardy
*Everybody* who owns a listed building has certain legal obligations
to preserve its character for posterity. If you can't afford it, sell
up and move on.
Paul
Paul Hardy
>
> You do not have to subsidize religion. (More precisely: perhaps
> you do, but this certainly isn't an instance.) The maintainers
> of these buildings are not being paid by the state; they are
> just being taxed less than they otherwise might have been.
Less than me, yes and illegally according to the European Commission.
> Imagine that a year ago the maintainers of religious buildings
> had been able to reclaim *all* of that tax, and that that had
> just been changed to the system as it is now. Presumably you'd
> then say that religion was subsidizing you. (Actually, I don't
> believe you would. But if you were perfectly consistent, you
> would.) Since the actual situation would be exactly the same,
> it should be clear that both statements -- "I am subsidizing
> religion" and "Religion is subsidizing me" -- are wrong. All
> that's happening is that one group of people is paying less
> tax than it did last year. Big deal.
An organisation (the C of E) with £7.5 billion in assets is paying
less tax on the maintenance of its buildings than little old me. It
is a "Big deal", those bishops in their palaces must be laughing their
heads off.
> > I live in a grade II listed house (by choice admittedly) for which the
> > cost of upkeep is considerable. If I declared my home to be a Temple
> > of Vishnu or a Church of Scientology I could presumably reclaim 12.5%
> > of the VAT spent on maintenance. Since I'm not prepared to do that I
> > will have to continue to pay the full whack and preserve the building
> > for posterity.
>
> Diddums. :-)
>
> (I don't in fact see any reason why maintenance of religious buildings
> should be taxed any less than maintenance of other buildings. Unless
> there's a reason for it I haven't thought of, I think the law should
> be changed. Nevertheless, when someone pays less tax than he did a year
> before, that doesn't mean he's being subsidized by everyone else.)
Huh? When someone is paying less tax than I am for providing the same
service, I am clearly subsidizing them.
Paul
Mark Goodge
keyboard and typed:
>Tony Bryer <to...@sda.co.uk> wrote in message news:<VA.000019f...@sda.co.uk>...
A major difference is that nearly all church buildings were listed
after being built by the present owners, while the majority of listed
residential properties were bought in a listed state. I think it's
reasonable that someone buying a listed building should be assumed to
be fully aware of, and prepared to take on, the responsibilities that
that entails, but I don't think it's necessarily fair to expect the
owner of a property to be forced to take on additional
responsibilities because a third party (the government) has changed
the status of their building.
Mark
--
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
"And so we're told this is the golden age"
Pam Seeker
news:3d1c2735...@usenet.plus.net...
> Specifically the poor in money. I grant that what you write is
> generally true for those who are poor in spirit (except for the bit
> about the government giving them money), but if somebody is getting
> government subsidies then they probably aren't "poor" as I would use
> the term. Not many are in the UK, but all too many are worldwide.
Ken:
I'm not free to give details of the situation a friend of mine is in, but
what you've said is so incorrect I can't tell you. Don't kid yourself that
there is a government safety net for the truly needy and pray that you don't
ever need to test it out.
Pam
Tony Bryer
> *Everybody* who owns a listed building has certain legal
> obligations to preserve its character for posterity. If you
> can't afford it, sell up and move on.
If you buy an already listed building you deserve all the strife or
pleasure it brings you. No argument there.
But if you own an unlisted building other than a Georgian house or
thatched cottage, the chances are that listing will diminish its
value significantly: it's nothing more than confiscation of private
property rights by TPTB. I think I mentioned before that one URC
building ended up being sold to the LA for £1. The fair system would
be that if a building is listed the current owner has (say) three
years during which they can require the local authority to buy it
off them at its pre-listed value. If the LA doesn't want to keep it
they can sell it on, probably at a thumping loss: the cost being met
by the local council tax payers, which is at it should be, as they
are the ones who want the building preserved.
Not a few miles from here a local church agreed with a developer to
sell them most of their site, the proceeds to be used to build a new
church on the retained part with a reasonable amount left over to
equip the building and a useful surplus which would have gone to
help other churches. A government UDP inspector had declared not a
couple of years earlier that whilst the church building was not
without merit there would be no objection to its replacement by a
high quality modern building. With conditional (subject to pp)
contracts exchanged local residents managed to get the building
listed. Result, start again on a new scheme. The church will gets
its new building, but the cost to the local church and wider
denomination runs well into six figures.
--
Tony Bryer
Kim Tame
A sad case reported today: a man starved to death because he was sent the
wrong form to fill in, and then the right form didn't reach him because he
was living in a tent.
Kim
Gareth McCaughan
[I said:]
>> You do not have to subsidize religion. (More precisely: perhaps
>> you do, but this certainly isn't an instance.) The maintainers
>> of these buildings are not being paid by the state; they are
>> just being taxed less than they otherwise might have been.
>
> Less than me, yes and illegally according to the European Commission.
Er, probably not less than you, given how many of these buildings
there are and how large the cost of their maintenance is.
I am surprised the EC has declared this illegal, but since
I think it a bad thing I'm not particularly bothered that
it has. Legal or illegal, it still doesn't amount to making
you subsidize religion.
>> Imagine that a year ago the maintainers of religious buildings
>> had been able to reclaim *all* of that tax, and that that had
>> just been changed to the system as it is now. Presumably you'd
>> then say that religion was subsidizing you. (Actually, I don't
>> believe you would. But if you were perfectly consistent, you
>> would.) Since the actual situation would be exactly the same,
>> it should be clear that both statements -- "I am subsidizing
>> religion" and "Religion is subsidizing me" -- are wrong. All
>> that's happening is that one group of people is paying less
>> tax than it did last year. Big deal.
>
> An organisation (the C of E) with £7.5 billion in assets is paying
> less tax on the maintenance of its buildings than little old me. It
> is a "Big deal", those bishops in their palaces must be laughing their
> heads off.
The CoE is not paying less tax on its maintenance than you are,
because it has more buildings and more expensive buildings than
you do. It may be paying less *in proportion*, but if you're
going to look at proportions then comparing the size of its
bank balance to yours is no longer appropriate. It might be
more to the point to look at what fraction of its spending is
on the maintenance of those buildings, or something. (I have
no idea what the figures are.)
Let's suppose 1% of the population are active CoE members. That's
about half a million people. A total of £7.5bn corresponds to
about £15k per person. That's a lot less assets than you have,
I'd bet. Unless that listed house of yours is astonishingly
small.
>> (I don't in fact see any reason why maintenance of religious buildings
>> should be taxed any less than maintenance of other buildings. Unless
>> there's a reason for it I haven't thought of, I think the law should
>> be changed. Nevertheless, when someone pays less tax than he did a year
>> before, that doesn't mean he's being subsidized by everyone else.)
>
> Huh? When someone is paying less tax than I am for providing the same
> service, I am clearly subsidizing them.
You are not "providing the same service". For instance, so far as I know
you are not making those grade II listed premises of yours available for
the use of an unlimited number of other people on a daily or weekly basis,
thus adding considerably to the wear and tear.
Even if you were, I fail to see how you are "clearly subsidizing them".
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "subsidizing".
Peter R
<snip>
>>>The child of a single parent who is an alcoholic does not need money - the
>>>mother would only take it off the child and get even more drunk and
>>>abusive.
Mitch
>>As somebody who was both an alcoholic and a single parent, I suggest
>>that you should stop judging folk by the pejorative labels you put on
>>them.
>>
>>That statement is unworthy of you.
Richard
>Dont be so touchy Mitch, Ken's account of Big Shirley surely counterbalanced
>the above.
If Ken's story about "Big Shirley" was tainted with the obvious
prejudice shown above then I think one should wonder as to its
correctness.
I took it with a grain of salt from the start. This posting of Ken's
being the latest in his continual string of such bigoted ramblings
confirms to me that I have done the right thing.
Peter R
Ken Down
> As somebody who was both an alcoholic and a single parent, I suggest
> that you should stop judging folk by the pejorative labels you put on
> them.
Sorry, Mitch. Such people as I describe do exist - and if you were
different, I congratulate you. However your experience does not invalidate
mine.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
Phil
Ken didn't write you off.
Phil
Peter R
>> And when *you* find yourself being written off because you are an
>> alcoholic and/or single mother then, and only then, can you validly
>> judge whether I'm being "touchy".
Phil
>Ken didn't write you off.
Phil,
Ken said;
-The child of a single parent who is an alcoholic does not need money
-the mother would only take it off the child and get even more drunk
-and abusive.
Given that Mitch has been a single mum and an alcoholic I would have
thought it fair of her to feel somewhat slighted by this post.
Personally I was surprised at her restraint I think the quote above is
absolutely disgraceful and I would have been far more pissed off than
her.
Peter R
Richard Emblem
writes:
>>Dont be so touchy Mitch, Ken's account of Big Shirley surely counterbalanced
>>the above.
>
>Nope.
>
>And when *you* find yourself being written off because you are an
>alcoholic and/or single mother then, and only then, can you validly
>judge whether I'm being "touchy".
Since (apparently) only first hand experience qualifies me to have an opinion I
shall remain silent.
Richard Emblem
<kim.tame'nospam'@virgin.net> writes:
>A sad case reported today: a man starved to death because he was sent the
>wrong form to fill in, and then the right form didn't reach him because he
>was living in a tent.
The postal services aren't what they used to be. I recall Chris Tarrant telling
that (as a young impoverished teacher) he lived for a year in his car parked
outside the school and regularly received postal deliveries using the car
number plate as the address.
Nick
wrote:
>In article <3d1d5ae4...@mid.mitchb.org>, Mitch B
><un...@unews.mitchb.org> wrote:
>
>> As somebody who was both an alcoholic and a single parent, I suggest
>> that you should stop judging folk by the pejorative labels you put on
>> them.
>
>Sorry, Mitch. Such people as I describe do exist - and if you were
>different, I congratulate you. However your experience does not invalidate
>mine.
However it does invalidate your right to generalise from your
experience
Nick
Ken Down
<seek...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm not free to give details of the situation a friend of mine is in, but
> what you've said is so incorrect I can't tell you.
I did say that there were exceptions.
> Don't kid yourself that there is a government safety net for the truly
> needy and pray that you don't ever need to test it out.
Indeed. In my experience it is the really needy who do not get help, while
those parasites, social workers, cluster like flies around the bogus
claimants.
Eve
<snipped>
>A sad case reported today: a man starved to death because he was sent the
>wrong form to fill in, and then the right form didn't reach him because he
>was living in a tent.
>
How tragic!
Some thirty years ago, before the days of postal claims etc., in Sup
Ben we used to have to go out and make a visit - at home, in hostels
[even went to a gypsy caravan once] Maybe there is a case for
resurecting this type of visiting where there is a special need.
Phil
As the son of an alcoholic father and then of a single mother of five
children I wasn't the least bit upset. My two step sisters and my step
brother were the children of an alcoholic mother who squandered all the
savings of the family and drank herself to death, I'm sure they would
not be offended either.
Mitch can be fairly "robust" when she wants to be and fairly damning of
groups with whom she disagrees. Those who are easily offended ought not
to be so offensive methinks. (Mitch has, I believe, killfiled me so I
won't be upsettinh her any)
Phil
Richard Emblem
<philip....@ntlworld.com> writes:
But she might read this though Phil.
Peter R
>As the son of an alcoholic father and then of a single mother of five
>children I wasn't the least bit upset. My two step sisters and my step
>brother were the children of an alcoholic mother who squandered all the
>savings of the family and drank herself to death, I'm sure they would
>not be offended either.
Me
All the people you describe are victims of bad parenting by alcoholic
and/or single mothers.
I am the son of an alcoholic who was one of the most generous, loving,
giving, and when it came to his children, self sacrificing individuals
that I have ever known. I therefore know from personal experience that
Ken's remarks are untrue and as I say sadly just another
generalisation of people that he happens to want to dehumanise.
>Mitch can be fairly "robust" when she wants to be and fairly damning of
>groups with whom she disagrees. Those who are easily offended ought not
>to be so offensive methinks. (Mitch has, I believe, killfiled me so I
>won't be upsettinh her any)
>
>Phil
Yep, and so can you and I. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the
right to
an opinion.
What's more if you look back you will see that I have had numerous
fracas with Mitch and the moderator regarding her posting style. In
this instance she was, as I said before, remarkably restrained, given
that IMO she had every reason to let loose.
Peter R
Ken Down
> As the son of an alcoholic father and then of a single mother of five
> children I wasn't the least bit upset. My two step sisters and my step
> brother were the children of an alcoholic mother who squandered all the
> savings of the family and drank herself to death, I'm sure they would
> not be offended either.
Thanks, Phil. Mitch, by her own account, (which I believe implicitly, of
course) was the shining exception. Someone commented that my experience does
not give me permission to generalise - but of course that cuts both ways: if
I cannot generalise that alcoholic single mothers act in a certain way,
neither can Mitch.
However I would point out that whereas Mitch is basing her opinion on her
own personal experience (which, however true, is only one case), I am basing
my statement on a multitude of cases - my own experiences, those of my wife,
those of my son and other teachers, social workers who are or have been
members of my churches, and so on.
> Mitch can be fairly "robust" when she wants to be and fairly damning of
> groups with whom she disagrees.
Indeed she can, but just in case she is reading this, I want to assure her
that I have not been upset by her comments and still regard her very highly
indeed.
Phil
> Phil
>> As the son of an alcoholic father and then of a single mother of five
>> children I wasn't the least bit upset. My two step sisters and my
>> step brother were the children of an alcoholic mother who squandered
>> all the savings of the family and drank herself to death, I'm sure
>> they would not be offended either.
>
> Me
> All the people you describe are victims of bad parenting by alcoholic
> and/or single mothers.
Alcoholics only actually. No single parenst were at fault.
> I am the son of an alcoholic who was one of the most generous, loving,
> giving, and when it came to his children, self sacrificing individuals
> that I have ever known. I therefore know from personal experience that
> Ken's remarks are untrue and as I say sadly just another
> generalisation of people that he happens to want to dehumanise.
How do you know so much about what Ken wants?
>> Mitch can be fairly "robust" when she wants to be and fairly damning
>> of groups with whom she disagrees. Those who are easily offended
>> ought not to be so offensive methinks. (Mitch has, I believe,
>> killfiled me so I won't be upsettinh her any)
>>
>> Phil
>
> Yep, and so can you and I. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the
> right to an opinion.
Absolutely correct.
> What's more if you look back you will see that I have had numerous
> fracas with Mitch and the moderator regarding her posting style. In
> this instance she was, as I said before, remarkably restrained, given
> that IMO she had every reason to let loose.
>
> Peter R
I don't think she had a reason to let loose. She wasn't mentioned by
name nor was she refered to even vaguely afaict. Generalisations are, by
their very nature, inaccurate but they can be used to illustrate points.
I don't think Ken insulted Mitch, she says he did. I stood up for him. I
don't necessarily agree with his opinion but unless Mitch can show why
it was a personal insult then I feel she has over reacted.
Phil
Mitch B
>What's more if you look back you will see that I have had numerous
>fracas with Mitch and the moderator regarding her posting style. In
>this instance she was, as I said before, remarkably restrained, given
>that IMO she had every reason to let loose.
Peter R, thank you for your posts on this thread.
FWIW, I returned from a self-imposed 2 month exile determined to make
sure that 'abrasive' does not become 'rude'.
--
Mitch
Peter R
>I don't think Ken insulted Mitch, she says he did. I stood up for him. I
>don't necessarily agree with his opinion but unless Mitch can show why
>it was a personal insult then I feel she has over reacted.
Then perhaps the same could be said of you regarding Paul
Saunders-P????
Actually I have often seen you get rather annoyed at people who make
generalisations when they happen to include you.
Peter R
Peter R
>>What's more if you look back you will see that I have had numerous
>>fracas with Mitch and the moderator regarding her posting style. In
>>this instance she was, as I said before, remarkably restrained, given
>>that IMO she had every reason to let loose.
>Peter R, thank you for your posts on this thread.
>
>FWIW, I returned from a self-imposed 2 month exile determined to make
>sure that 'abrasive' does not become 'rude'.
>
>--
>Mitch
My anger has been very much a product of feeling my dear old dad has
been slighted. But it is a little ironic me saying that you weren't
aggressive enough :-)
Peter R
Peter R
>> I am the son of an alcoholic who was one of the most generous, loving,
>> giving, and when it came to his children, self sacrificing individuals
>> that I have ever known. I therefore know from personal experience that
>> Ken's remarks are untrue and as I say sadly just another
>> generalisation of people that he happens to want to dehumanise.
>
Phil
>How do you know so much about what Ken wants?
Indeed. Good question.
Perhaps I am generalising based on hundreds of such dehumanising posts
that I have read by him over the years. Still if it quacks like a duck
and it walks like a duck......
Peter R
Peter R
>Thanks, Phil. Mitch, by her own account, (which I believe implicitly, of
>course) was the shining exception.
The fact that Ken still insists that there is only *one* exception to
crap he posted only reinforces the depth of bigotry.
To any lurkers; please don't regard Ken Downs attitudes in this mater
as reflecting those of all or most Christians.
Peter R
Se you all in two weeks.
Peter R
Richard Emblem
writes:
>FWIW, I returned from a self-imposed 2 month exile determined to make
>sure that 'abrasive' does not become 'rude'.
IMHO you have been neither (yet)
Gareth McCaughan
> In article <Q4yT8.210$0x....@news8-gui.server.ntli.net>, "Phil"
> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> As the son of an alcoholic father and then of a single mother of five
>> children I wasn't the least bit upset. My two step sisters and my step
>> brother were the children of an alcoholic mother who squandered all the
>> savings of the family and drank herself to death, I'm sure they would
>> not be offended either.
>
> Thanks, Phil. Mitch, by her own account, (which I believe implicitly, of
> course) was the shining exception. Someone commented that my experience does
> not give me permission to generalise - but of course that cuts both ways: if
> I cannot generalise that alcoholic single mothers act in a certain way,
> neither can Mitch.
The difference is that you *are* making such generalizations and
Mitch is not.
Ken: "People called Mitch are morons."
Mitch: "Oi!"
Ken: "I know three people called Mitch who are astonishingly stupid."
Mitch: "So?"
Ken: "So I have as much right to make statements about people called
Mitch as you have. People called Mitch are morons. Perhaps you're
a remarkable exception."
The problem here is that my hypothetical Ken, just like the real Ken,
is making *universal* statements without sufficient justification.
And then complaining when someone has the temerity to object.
Mitch is not claiming, or even suggesting, that all alcoholics or
all single mothers are good parents. You *are* suggesting that all
alcoholics and single mothers are bad parents. It's no good trying
to weasel out of it and pretend you didn't mean any such thing;
no one will believe you, because it's obviously not true.
If you don't want to imply that (at the very least) the large
majority of alcoholics and single mothers are bad parents, then
don't say offensive things like
| To be honest, I don't believe that the poor need money[1]. They
| can get enough from the government. What they do need is time and
| interest. The child of a single parent who is an alcoholic does
| not need money - the mother would only take it off the child and
| get even more drunk and abusive. What the child needs is someone
| who will take an interest, offer refuge, comb the nits out of its
| hair, and so on.
That is a universal generalization, and if you don't want to make
universal generalizations then you know how to refrain from doing
so. (Shall I quote some of your words about people who are too sloppy
to write properly?) And if you *do* want to make universal generalizations,
then you should have the courage to stand by them. And, preferably,
the brains to understand when they have been refuted.
Phil
Its probably a computer generated approxiumation of a duck?
Phil
Phil
My dislike of PSP isn't that he insults me, it is that he insults
millions who have no opportunity to defend themselves against the
figments of his imagination that he puts forward as facts.
You will note that apart from replying in kind about Bahai I no longer
respond to PSP. I no longer join in the "hey that group includes me"
defences that I once did either.
I have learnt my lessons from that experience
1) Those who say tolerance often have none when it comes to those with
whom they disagree
2) I am not a group
I'm not saying that I agree with Ken, who appears to be full to the
seams of stereotypes, but I don't feel that he meant to include Mitch in
his statement since if he had meant to I am sure he would have been more
specific.
Phil
Phil
Why where are u going?
Phil
Phil
> Ken Down wrote:
>
>> In article <Q4yT8.210$0x....@news8-gui.server.ntli.net>, "Phil"
>> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
snip
> The difference is that you *are* making such generalizations and
> Mitch is not.
>
> Ken: "People called Mitch are morons."
> Mitch: "Oi!"
> Ken: "I know three people called Mitch who are astonishingly
> stupid." Mitch: "So?"
> Ken: "So I have as much right to make statements about people called
> Mitch as you have. People called Mitch are morons. Perhaps
> you're a remarkable exception."
> The problem here is that my hypothetical Ken, just like the real Ken,
> is making *universal* statements without sufficient justification.
> And then complaining when someone has the temerity to object.
Gareth by your reasoning any generalisation that includes people can be
objected to because we are all people. "People are living longer" "No
they aren't my brother died aged 5". No generalisation is 100% accurate
(except that one) but that doesn't make all generalisations unusable.
> Mitch is not claiming, or even suggesting, that all alcoholics or
> all single mothers are good parents. You *are* suggesting that all
> alcoholics and single mothers are bad parents. It's no good trying
> to weasel out of it and pretend you didn't mean any such thing;
> no one will believe you, because it's obviously not true.
Gareth if you spoke to someone in the street like this do you think you
might keep all your teeth? This is personal abuse, unreasonable and not
like you, are you OK?
> If you don't want to imply that (at the very least) the large
> majority of alcoholics and single mothers are bad parents, then
> don't say offensive things like
Even you accept that Ken probably only meant the large part or a
majority of alcoholic single mothers aren't good parents. Do you
disagree? If so, on what basis?
> | To be honest, I don't believe that the poor need money[1]. They
> | can get enough from the government. What they do need is time and
> | interest. The child of a single parent who is an alcoholic does
> | not need money - the mother would only take it off the child and
> | get even more drunk and abusive. What the child needs is someone
> | who will take an interest, offer refuge, comb the nits out of its
> | hair, and so on.
>
> That is a universal generalization, and if you don't want to make
> universal generalizations then you know how to refrain from doing
> so. (Shall I quote some of your words about people who are too sloppy
> to write properly?) And if you *do* want to make universal
> generalizations, then you should have the courage to stand by them.
> And, preferably, the brains to understand when they have been refuted.
I like the idea of non universal generalisations but
Main Entry: gen·er·al·ize
Pronunciation: 'jen-r&-"lIz, 'je-n&-
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
Date: circa 1751
transitive senses
1 : to give a general form to
2 a : to derive or induce (a general conception or principle) from
particulars b : to draw a general conclusion from
3 : to give general applicability to <generalize a law>; also : to make
indefinite
intransitive senses
Surely Ken is doing 2. That he has been sloppy IYO isn'ty a serious
crime surely? Especially with the level of pedantry for which you are
known.
I don't think Ken's opinion has been refuted, nor has it been proved
since it was a generalisation and thus nobody expects it to be
proveable. If you have some evidence that the majority of alcoholic
single parents are good parents then by all means prove that Ken is
wrong but I don't think such evidence exists. In the same way I don't
think that there is evidence that Ken is right.
I have only ever known alcoholics to be destructive and unpleasant. I
don't know Mitch but if she is different then good for her and if there
are hundreds like her then good for them. My father, the step siblings
mother and all the alcohlics I have met argue that Ken is not a million
miles off base.
Phil
Richard Emblem
<plast...@maxnet.co.nz> writes:
>Se you all in two weeks.
>
>Peter R
Are you inviting us all to an (expenses paid) NZ meet or are you coming to UK
then? :-)
Tim Rowe
<philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Mitch is not claiming, or even suggesting, that all alcoholics or
>> all single mothers are good parents. You *are* suggesting that all
>> alcoholics and single mothers are bad parents. It's no good trying
>> to weasel out of it and pretend you didn't mean any such thing;
>> no one will believe you, because it's obviously not true.
>
>Gareth if you spoke to someone in the street like this do you think you
>might keep all your teeth? This is personal abuse, unreasonable and not
>like you, are you OK?
Er, AFAICS it's not personal abuse, it's an accurate description of
what Ken wrote -- go back and read it. I'd consider what /Ken/ wrote
to be very close to personall abuse. What he wrote was a case of what
I call the "except for Eric" effect. A black aquaintence of mine used
to get quite worked up when his work colleagues would quite regularly
shoot their mouths off about what scum "niggers" where and how they
should all be sent back from whence they came, but then as an
afterthought would drop in "oh, except for you, Eric, you're ok". And,
of course, they could quote /lots/ of cases of black people who had
done bad things, and Eric was only one exception, wasn't he? That
seems to be to be exactly comparable to what Ken is doing to
alcoholics and single mothers.
Richard Dudley
> Mitch is not claiming, or even suggesting, that all alcoholics or
> all single mothers are good parents. You *are* suggesting that all
> alcoholics and single mothers are bad parents. It's no good trying
> to weasel out of it and pretend you didn't mean any such thing;
> no one will believe you, because it's obviously not true.
It is a universal generalisation to state that 'no one will believe
you' - are you going to stand by it ? I'm one person who believes
that Ken may indeed have *not* meant what you are stating here.
He *may* actually believe what you're stating, but what he actually
wrote in this instance means that he considered the intersection of
the two sets 'alcoholics' and 'single mothers' to be poor parents.
You're stating that he considered the union of the two sets to be
poor parents, and that is a significant difference.
Richard
Peter R
>My dislike of PSP isn't that he insults me, it is that he insults
>millions who have no opportunity to defend themselves against the
>figments of his imagination that he puts forward as facts.
Well that would be my contention regarding many of Ken's posts
regarding race, other religions, single mothers, alcoholics, the
unemployed, the poor generally.
<snip
>I'm not saying that I agree with Ken, who appears to be full to the
>seams of stereotypes, but I don't feel that he meant to include Mitch in
>his statement since if he had meant to I am sure he would have been more
>specific.
>
>Phil
That's the point though Phil. One cannot make sweeping derogatory
generalisations and *not* include specific people. If one doesn't want
to include specific people then one would be wise to stay away from
such generalisations.
Peter
Peter R
>> Mitch is not claiming, or even suggesting, that all alcoholics or
>> all single mothers are good parents. You *are* suggesting that all
>> alcoholics and single mothers are bad parents. It's no good trying
>> to weasel out of it and pretend you didn't mean any such thing;
>> no one will believe you, because it's obviously not true.
Phil
>Gareth if you spoke to someone in the street like this do you think you
>might keep all your teeth?
LOL.......is the person in the street a dentist?
>This is personal abuse, unreasonable and not
>like you, are you OK?
With any luck he's pissed off for similar reasons to me. In reality
however I suspect that you are reading a lot more emotion into
Gareth's post than he actually feels.
Peter R
Phil
> On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 08:07:24 +0100, "Phil"
> <philip....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>> Mitch is not claiming, or even suggesting, that all alcoholics or
>>> all single mothers are good parents. You *are* suggesting that all
>>> alcoholics and single mothers are bad parents. It's no good trying
>>> to weasel out of it and pretend you didn't mean any such thing;
>>> no one will believe you, because it's obviously not true.
>>
>> Gareth if you spoke to someone in the street like this do you think
>> you might keep all your teeth? This is personal abuse, unreasonable
>> and not like you, are you OK?
>
> Er, AFAICS it's not personal abuse, it's an accurate description of
> what Ken wrote -- go back and read it.
Thanks I had already done so. Calling someone a liar is personal abuse.
Couching it thus "It's no good trying to weasel out of it and pretend
you didn't mean any such thing; no one will believe you, because it's
obviously not true" Does not lessen the abusiveness imo.
> I'd consider what /Ken/ wrote
> to be very close to personall abuse.
Well you have a very free interpretation of personal abuse then.
> What he wrote was a case of what
> I call the "except for Eric" effect. A black aquaintence of mine used
> to get quite worked up when his work colleagues would quite regularly
> shoot their mouths off about what scum "niggers" where and how they
> should all be sent back from whence they came, but then as an
> afterthought would drop in "oh, except for you, Eric, you're ok". And,
> of course, they could quote /lots/ of cases of black people who had
> done bad things, and Eric was only one exception, wasn't he? That
> seems to be to be exactly comparable to what Ken is doing to
> alcoholics and single mothers.
Well you may ascribe that viewpoint to Ken if you wish. It was a
generalisation and they are never 100% accurate, nevertheless I can
support his viewpoint from personal experience and so can others so your
similar situation slander is imo incorrect.
Phil
Phil
>> Phil
>> My dislike of PSP isn't that he insults me, it is that he insults
>> millions who have no opportunity to defend themselves against the
>> figments of his imagination that he puts forward as facts.
>
> Well that would be my contention regarding many of Ken's posts
> regarding race, other religions, single mothers, alcoholics, the
> unemployed, the poor generally.
Indeed and I don't agree with his generalisations per se.
> <snip
>> I'm not saying that I agree with Ken, who appears to be full to the
>> seams of stereotypes, but I don't feel that he meant to include
>> Mitch in his statement since if he had meant to I am sure he would
>> have been more specific.
>>
>> Phil
>
> That's the point though Phil. One cannot make sweeping derogatory
> generalisations and *not* include specific people. If one doesn't want
> to include specific people then one would be wise to stay away from
> such generalisations.
>
> Peter
I agree that one should avoid sweeping generalisations and I also agree
that I should not sin, alas for me.
Phil
Paul Roberts
> I have only ever known alcoholics to be destructive and unpleasant. I
> don't know Mitch but if she is different then good for her and if
> there are hundreds like her then good for them. My father, the step
> siblings mother and all the alcohlics I have met argue that Ken is
> not a million miles off base.
Phil,
It's not necessarily a question of the generalisation being true or not.
It's about sensitivity.
AIUI, many alcoholics suffer from depression. As I recall, Mitch has
said something on the group about alcohol dependency usually being
symptomatic of a deeper problem. So if people go round saying things
like "alcoholics are destructive/unpleasant/bad parents" then the only
likely effect is that anyone in that position who is reading the message
will be extremely hurt by it.
Whether it's true or not, it's condemnatory. Even if Mitch doesn't
exhibit any of those traits, if she is depressed and has a low
self-esteem, she's going to read such comments in a very negative way.
--
Paul R.
Remove "nospam" for valid email address
Peter R
>>FWIW, I returned from a self-imposed 2 month exile determined to make
>>sure that 'abrasive' does not become 'rude'.
>
Richard Emblem
>IMHO you have been neither (yet)
>--
>Richard Emblem
Indeed..... We now seem to have a reformed Phil and a reformed Mitch.
Only hope it doesn't get too boring round here:-)
Peter R
Peter R
>Even you accept that Ken probably only meant the large part or a
>majority of alcoholic single mothers aren't good parents. Do you
>disagree? If so, on what basis?
I certainly disagree!
I have worked with single mothers, alcoholics (both men and women) for
years, and my experience certainly contradicts it. The suggestion that
a the majority of any of these people would take money from their
child to get drunk and abusive is at best absurd and at worst down
right evil.
Peter R
Phil
> Phil <philip....@ntlworld.com> scribbled:
>
>> I have only ever known alcoholics to be destructive and unpleasant. I
>> don't know Mitch but if she is different then good for her and if
>> there are hundreds like her then good for them. My father, the step
>> siblings mother and all the alcohlics I have met argue that Ken is
>> not a million miles off base.
>
> Phil,
>
> It's not necessarily a question of the generalisation being true or
> not. It's about sensitivity.
Oh oh.
> AIUI, many alcoholics suffer from depression. As I recall, Mitch has
> said something on the group about alcohol dependency usually being
> symptomatic of a deeper problem. So if people go round saying things
> like "alcoholics are destructive/unpleasant/bad parents" then the only
> likely effect is that anyone in that position who is reading the
> message will be extremely hurt by it.
I'm just saying that I don't think that Ken meant to cause offense to
Mitch.
> Whether it's true or not, it's condemnatory. Even if Mitch doesn't
> exhibit any of those traits, if she is depressed and has a low
> self-esteem, she's going to read such comments in a very negative way.
Sad but true.
Phil
Phil
I think "It's no good trying to weasel out of it and pretend you didn't
mean any such thing; no one will believe you, because it's obviously not
true" is fairly dentistry threatening.
Phil
Phil
You agree that these people spend money on large quantities of alcohol.
In what way is that not taking it from their children if they are poor?
They may not say "I won't give this to my kids I'll drink it instead"
but isn't that what they do?
Phil
Tim Whittingham
> On Fri, 28 Jun 2002 19:18:37 BST, Ken Down <digg...@argonet.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In article <3d1d5ae4...@mid.mitchb.org>, Mitch B
>> <un...@unews.mitchb.org> wrote:
>>
>>> As somebody who was both an alcoholic and a single parent, I suggest
>>> that you should stop judging folk by the pejorative labels you put
>>> on them.
>>
>> Sorry, Mitch. Such people as I describe do exist - and if you were
>> different, I congratulate you. However your experience does not
>> invalidate mine.
>
> However it does invalidate your right to generalise from your
> experience
>
You *could* say that an alcoholic is someone whose drinking has an
adverse effect on their behaviour, so to say that some alcoholics don't
behave badly would be nonsense - they aren't alcoholics because their
drinking isn't a problem.
--
Tim W
Who rises from prayer a better man, his prayer is answered.
- George Meredith
Paul Roberts
[snip]
> I'm just saying that I don't think that Ken meant to cause offense to
> Mitch.
>
I agree. But we all need to understand that careless comments *do* cause
offence, whether we intend it or not. That's why making such sweeping
generalisations is not advisable.
Phil
> Phil <philip....@ntlworld.com> scribbled:
>
> [snip]
>> I'm just saying that I don't think that Ken meant to cause offense to
>> Mitch.
>>
>
> I agree. But we all need to understand that careless comments *do*
> cause offence, whether we intend it or not. That's why making such
> sweeping generalisations is not advisable.
Like that one you mean ? ;-)
Phil
Richard Emblem
<plast...@maxnet.co.nz> writes:
Even our new pagan resident seems extremely polite (though his volume seems
likely to get him into the top 10 posters this month!)
Paul Roberts
> Paul Roberts wrote:
[snip]
>> I agree. But we all need to understand that careless comments *do*
>> cause offence, whether we intend it or not. That's why making such
>> sweeping generalisations is not advisable.
>
> Like that one you mean ? ;-)
All generalisations are false, you should know that!
Ken Down
<Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> And if you *do* want to make universal generalizations,
> then you should have the courage to stand by them. And, preferably,
> the brains to understand when they have been refuted.
Have I declined to stand by my statement?
And unlike you, I do agree with the aphorism that exceptions prove
something.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
__ __ __ __ __
| \ | / __ / __ | |\ | / __ |__ All the latest archaeological news
|__/ | \__/ \__/ | | \| \__/ __| from the Middle East with David Down
================================= and "Digging Up The Past"
Web site: www.argonet.co.uk/education/diggings
e-mail: digg...@argonet.co.uk
Gareth McCaughan
That's true. Please consider what I wrote amended to say "all
alcoholics who are single mothers". (Obviously I don't think
Ken thinks all alcoholics, or even most alcoholics, are bad parents,
because I'm sure Ken is aware that many alcoholics are not parents
at all.)
Gareth McCaughan
[I said, to Ken:]
>> The difference is that you *are* making such generalizations and
>> Mitch is not.
>>
>> Ken: "People called Mitch are morons."
>> Mitch: "Oi!"
>> Ken: "I know three people called Mitch who are astonishingly
>> stupid." Mitch: "So?"
>> Ken: "So I have as much right to make statements about people called
>> Mitch as you have. People called Mitch are morons. Perhaps
>> you're a remarkable exception."
>
>> The problem here is that my hypothetical Ken, just like the real Ken,
>> is making *universal* statements without sufficient justification.
>> And then complaining when someone has the temerity to object.
>
> Gareth by your reasoning any generalisation that includes people can be
> objected to because we are all people. "People are living longer" "No
> they aren't my brother died aged 5". No generalisation is 100% accurate
> (except that one) but that doesn't make all generalisations unusable.
It's true that universal generalizations often mean a bit
less than they say, and actually I don't think Ken meant to
imply that absolutely all alcoholic single mothers are bad
parents. I *do* think he meant to imply something close to
that: say, that the overwhelming majority of alcoholic
single mothers are bad parents.
So, when I said
>> Mitch is not claiming, or even suggesting, that all alcoholics or
>> all single mothers are good parents. You *are* suggesting that all
>> alcoholics and single mothers are bad parents. It's no good trying
>> to weasel out of it and pretend you didn't mean any such thing;
>> no one will believe you, because it's obviously not true.
I agree that I overstated my case a little. Please consider
"all" to have been replaced with "more or less all". I don't
think this makes any appreciable difference to what I said.
> Gareth if you spoke to someone in the street like this do you think you
> might keep all your teeth? This is personal abuse, unreasonable and not
> like you, are you OK?
I don't think it is personal abuse as such, though I admit that
it is rude. I am (so far as I know!) OK, but I am very fed up
of reading offensive generalizations from Ken Down. I don't
actually think he gives a damn what I think, so perhaps my
protestations are pointless. Too bad.
>> If you don't want to imply that (at the very least) the large
>> majority of alcoholics and single mothers are bad parents, then
>> don't say offensive things like
>
> Even you accept that Ken probably only meant the large part or a
> majority of alcoholic single mothers aren't good parents. Do you
> disagree? If so, on what basis?
I think Ken's words meant that the vast majority of alcoholic
single mothers are bad parents; more specifically, parents who
would steal from their children, abuse them, not take an interest
in them, and treat them badly enough that they need "refuge".
I don't know for certain whether that's true or not. I am quite
sure that Ken doesn't either, and he ought not to say it without
better evidence than he's given us any reason to think he's got.
> Surely Ken is doing 2. That he has been sloppy IYO isn't a serious
> crime surely? Especially with the level of pedantry for which you are
> known.
Yes, he's doing #2. I'm not sure why the fact that what Ken's doing
fits the word I used for it is supposed to invalidate what I said :-).
Being sloppy is not in itself a serious crime. However, there are
contexts in which being sloppy *is* a serious crime. (Consider,
for instance, people responsible for the safety of nuclear power
stations or bacteriological research laboratories.)
It would be an exaggeration to call what Ken did a "serious crime",
but it was -- I think -- certainly wrong. I don't think "I was
being sloppy" is much of an excuse for doing something wrong;
especially not for someone who has had the unsoundness and
unfairness of that exact variety of sloppiness explained at
great length many times before. Wilful sloppiness is a
particularly poor excuse for anything.
> I don't think Ken's opinion has been refuted, nor has it been proved
> since it was a generalisation and thus nobody expects it to be
> proveable.
I expect the statement "The vast majority of alcoholic single
mothers would behave in roughly the way Ken describes" to be
either provable or refutable.
> If you have some evidence that the majority of alcoholic
> single parents are good parents
You're making the same mistake Ken's making. The negation of
Ken's statement is not "The majority of alcoholic single parents
are good parents" but "At least a substantial minority of
alcoholic single mothers are not such bad parents as Ken
describes". I can't prove that one either, but it seems a
much safer bet than "The majority of alcoholic single parents
are good parents".
> I have only ever known alcoholics to be destructive and unpleasant. I
> don't know Mitch but if she is different then good for her and if there
> are hundreds like her then good for them. My father, the step siblings
> mother and all the alcohlics I have met argue that Ken is not a million
> miles off base.
Noted and understood. I would have had no objection if Ken had
said that or something close to it. Unfortunately, what he
actually chose to say was a very different kettle of worms.
Peter R
>> I'm just saying that I don't think that Ken meant to cause offense to
>> Mitch.
>I agree. But we all need to understand that careless comments *do* cause
>offence, whether we intend it or not. That's why making such sweeping
>generalisations is not advisable.
>--
>Paul R.
Moreover gross derogatory generalisations are food for attitudes that
rob people throughout the world of their rights to be free, sentient,
human beings.
It's not generalisations per se that I get hot under the collar about
Phil. It's generalisations that are 1) derogatory 2)about people
3)not even close to being true.
Peter R
Peter R
>>Indeed..... We now seem to have a reformed Phil and a reformed Mitch.
>>Only hope it doesn't get too boring round here:-)
>Even our new pagan resident seems extremely polite (though his volume seems
>likely to get him into the top 10 posters this month!)
>--
>Richard Emblem
Yes and it seems no one is really sure whether that is summit to be
proud of or ashamed about.
Peter R
Phil
I have a problem with them if 3. If they are true and about people and
derogatory then no real problem imo although one ought to try to be
sensitive up to a point.
Phil
Ken Down
abrax...@yahoo.co.uk (Richard Dudley) wrote:
> He *may* actually believe what you're stating, but what he actually
> wrote in this instance means that he considered the intersection of
> the two sets 'alcoholics' and 'single mothers' to be poor parents.
> You're stating that he considered the union of the two sets to be
> poor parents, and that is a significant difference.
Oh gosh! This is getting beyond me. All I said was that A (hypothetical)
single mother who was also an alcoholic would (perhaps I should have said
might) behave in a certain way. I did not use the word "all" or "every".
As I pointed out later, the picture I drew was not at all unknown in real
life, and to that extent I stand by what I said. That there may be
exceptions to the general picture is not excluded by my comment.
Ken Down
<p.t.r...@ncl.nospam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Whether it's true or not, it's condemnatory.
And why should we not condemn something which is bad? I do not subscribe to
the idea that we should tolerate evil. Would you be similarly dismissive of
the comment that the majority of fatal road accidents are linked to alcohol?
In which case, please post your objections to the chief constable of Essex,
from whose annual report I obtained the statistic.
> Even if Mitch doesn't exhibit any of those traits, if she is depressed and
> has a low self-esteem, she's going to read such comments in a very
> negative way.
I am sorry if anyone is depressed and takes a general comment to heart when
it was not directed at them - I didn't even know that the person in question
was a single mother. Nonetheless, I do not see that one person's
sensitivities should prevent the expression of opinion.
"Adultery is being unfaithful to your marriage partner."
"Oy! I committed adultery. Don't trample on my toes. Don't be condemnatory."
Ken Down
<plast...@maxnet.co.nz> wrote:
> I have worked with single mothers, alcoholics (both men and women) for
> years, and my experience certainly contradicts it. The suggestion that
> a the majority of any of these people would take money from their
> child to get drunk and abusive is at best absurd and at worst down
> right evil.
I wonder if alcoholics in New Zealand are different? Up here, social workers
no longer buys new clothes or shoes for children who turn up to school
barefoot or lacking warm clothing. At best they will supply them with
second-hand stuff, but usually they do nothing. The reason is very simple:
the kids wear the new garments home and turn up the next day in rags again -
the parent/s have taken the clothes down to the pawn shop.
Paul Roberts
> In article <afs4sq$kco$1...@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk>, Paul Roberts
> <p.t.r...@ncl.nospam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Whether it's true or not, it's condemnatory.
>
> And why should we not condemn something which is bad? I do not
> subscribe to the idea that we should tolerate evil. Would you be
> similarly dismissive of the comment that the majority of fatal road
> accidents are linked to alcohol? In which case, please post your
> objections to the chief constable of Essex, from whose annual report
> I obtained the statistic.
The problem is in making pejorative and judgmental comments about whole
groups of people without stopping to consider the issues surrounding a
particular trait.
Gareth McCaughan
> I wonder if alcoholics in New Zealand are different? Up here, social workers
> no longer buys new clothes or shoes for children who turn up to school
> barefoot or lacking warm clothing. At best they will supply them with
> second-hand stuff, but usually they do nothing. The reason is very simple:
> the kids wear the new garments home and turn up the next day in rags again -
> the parent/s have taken the clothes down to the pawn shop.
What, all of them?
Gareth McCaughan
> In article <86znxb5...@g.local>, Gareth McCaughan
> <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> And if you *do* want to make universal generalizations,
>> then you should have the courage to stand by them. And, preferably,
>> the brains to understand when they have been refuted.
>
> Have I declined to stand by my statement?
If you have refrained from claiming that you weren't intending
to make a universal generalization, then you have not declined
to stand by your statement. I haven't examined all your articles
to check whether that's so.
> And unlike you, I do agree with the aphorism that exceptions prove
> something.
They do prove something. They prove that the rule was wrong. :-)
Phil
> Ken Down wrote:
>
>> I wonder if alcoholics in New Zealand are different? Up here, social
>> workers no longer buys new clothes or shoes for children who turn up
>> to school barefoot or lacking warm clothing. At best they will
>> supply them with second-hand stuff, but usually they do nothing. The
>> reason is very simple: the kids wear the new garments home and turn
>> up the next day in rags again - the parent/s have taken the clothes
>> down to the pawn shop.
>
> What, all of them?
Yes and actual rags as well ;-)
Phil
Richard Dudley
> Paul Roberts wrote:
>
> > Whether it's true or not, it's condemnatory.
>
> And why should we not condemn something which is bad?
I can think of one good reason. Because you don't want to
condemn yourself ( Luke 6:37 ). Why would you want to do
this ?
> I do not subscribe to
> the idea that we should tolerate evil.
How have you come to the conclusion that condemning something
isn't tolerating it ? Sounds like a big mistake to me.
> Would you be similarly dismissive of
> the comment that the majority of fatal road accidents are linked to alcohol?
> In which case, please post your objections to the chief constable of Essex,
> from whose annual report I obtained the statistic.
The solution is to understand the reasons, not to condemn those
who abuse alcohol. Or have I missed something vital ?
Richard
Peter R
>> I have worked with single mothers, alcoholics (both men and women) for
>> years, and my experience certainly contradicts it. The suggestion that
>> a the majority of any of these people would take money from their
>> child to get drunk and abusive is at best absurd and at worst down
>> right evil.
>
Ken Down
>I wonder if alcoholics in New Zealand are different?
Nope I don't think so...... and nothing you say below proves
otherwise.
Up here, social workers
>no longer buys new clothes or shoes for children who turn up to school
>barefoot or lacking warm clothing. At best they will supply them with
>second-hand stuff, but usually they do nothing. The reason is very simple:
>the kids wear the new garments home and turn up the next day in rags again -
>the parent/s have taken the clothes down to the pawn shop.
What on earth has any of this got to do with what we are discussing?
Peter R
Peter R
>Oh gosh! This is getting beyond me. All I said was that A (hypothetical)
>single mother who was also an alcoholic would (perhaps I should have said
>might) behave in a certain way. I did not use the word "all" or "every".
Surely you can see that in saying "would" you imply "every"?
Peter R
Peter R
>"Adultery is being unfaithful to your marriage partner."
>"Oy! I committed adultery. Don't trample on my toes. Don't be condemnatory."
This analogy does not line up Ken.
What you said was more like you saying;
Don't let someone who has committed adultery anywhere near your
wife/husband they will try to seduce her. which is just nonsense!
Moreover I reject the notion that committing adultery can be aligned
in any way to being a single parent/alcoholic. The latter are far
more out of ones control that the former.
Peter R
Peter R
>As I pointed out later, the picture I drew was not at all unknown in real
>life, and to that extent I stand by what I said. That there may be
>exceptions to the general picture is not excluded by my comment.
On what do you base the idea that it is the "good" single alcoholic
parent that is the exception? I assume it is not research based?
Therefore as one with I suspect a much larger experience in this area
than yourself I refute your picture, and ask you either to withdraw it
or give some reasonable evidence that it is correct.
Peter R
Peter R
>Would you be
>> similarly dismissive of the comment that the majority of fatal road
>> accidents are linked to alcohol? In which case, please post your
>> objections to the chief constable of Essex, from whose annual report
>> I obtained the statistic.
That's my whole point though Ken. While the information above is based
on credible evidence your previous statement was based on.........?
From what you have said so far the answer is "some people I have
met/know about who are solo alcy's".
Peter R