Edgar Griffin
Patsie Jarman
related to a person of a different political view be expelled also without a
full democratic hearing?
Best wishes,
Patsie Jarman
Staffordshire, England
The Archangel Gabriel
"Patsie Jarman" <pat...@kingswellbromley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
If they work for or actively support a different party, that's entirely
reasonable. Answering the BNP hotline is (hopefully) incompatible with
Tory membership, but you do have to wonder sometimes...
Ben Nunn
"The Archangel Gabriel" <archange...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:archangel.gabriel-C...@slb-newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> In article <9mfskd$d7b$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Patsie Jarman" <pat...@kingswellbromley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Because Mr Griffin warrants expulsion for the Tory Party, will every
member
> > related to a person of a different political view be expelled also
without a
> > full democratic hearing?
> >
>
> If they work for or actively support a different party, that's entirely
> reasonable. Answering the BNP hotline is (hopefully) incompatible with
> Tory membership, but you do have to wonder sometimes...
bi-partisanship - for want of a better word - is nothing new. Many people
who are members of one of the 'big two' that actually make up government or
opposition also have links with smaller fringe parties.
Certainly there have been plenty of Labour Party members also active in the
SWP, maybe even a few in the Communist Party, Socialist Allicance, Sinn Fein
etc.
It follows that on the 'right', there are going to be a few hardliners who
are also involved with the BNP, National Front (didn't they rename
themselves National Democrats a while back?) and other fringe groups.
Then there are other sectors of the Tory party who are members of radical
libertarian groups.
People's hearts say: go with the smaller party, their heads say: go with
either X or Y, and so they go for both.
BTN
Mark Bowen
> bearing in mind most people already knew the Tories pandered to racism
> anyway.
Definition of racism:
<quote>
the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the
members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, which
results in the other races being treated unfairly
</quote>
You provide a list of examples where and when we have pandered to that?
> The Tories haven't really got any sort of a reputation to lose when it
comes to racism.
Race is only an issue for a minority of sad people, like yourself.
Ben Nunn
news:9mhbuq$fua$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > The Tories haven't really got any sort of a reputation to lose when it
> comes to racism.
>
> Race is only an issue for a minority of sad people, like yourself.
Indeed. The fact that - shock, horror! - there are actually several
non-white, non-British and non-Christian Tory party members, and thousands
of others in the party who are friends to them is lost on people like Mr.
Gardner, for whom this sort of fact only serves to threaten their
small-minded, ill-conceived reactionary and downright inaccurate stereotypes
of who Conservatives are.
It's a case of "let's ignore the black and asian Tories, just like we ignore
the young Tories, the gay Tories, and anyone else who doesn't fit our agenda
for making the party look bad".
And yet when there's even a sniff of racism in the party, everyone jumps on
it immediately, suggesting that there must be thousands more cases where
that came from etc.
Historically, it's been the Tory party that breaks the new ground. We've
already given the country the first woman PM, the first gay PM, the first
non-Christian PM, and the first non-white member of parliament. Of course,
don't let facts stand in the way of a good smear...
BTN
David Boothroyd
<ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Historically, it's been the Tory party that breaks the new ground. We've
> already given the country the first woman PM, the first gay PM, the first
> non-Christian PM,
'The first gay PM' doesn't really count because whoever you want to pick
(the younger Pitt is the most frequent choice) was not openly gay, and
in any case the idea of 'a homosexual' is mid-19th century.
There has never been a non-Christian PM so I do not know where that claim
came from. Benjamin Disraeli could not have been Prime Minister had his
entire family not converted to the Church of England after his father had
a row with his rabbi when he was 9; Jews were not permitted to take their
seats in Parliament until 1857.
> and the first non-white member of parliament.
Not quite. This was Dadabhai Naoroji, a Liberal, in Finsbury Central
in 1892. The first Conservative non-white MP was Mancherjee Bhownaggree
in Bethnal Green North East in 1895.
> Of course, don't let facts stand in the way of a good smear...
You don't have the facts on your side, unfortunately for you.
--
David Boothroyd
http://www.election.demon.co.uk/election.html
Ben Nunn
news:david-29080...@election.demon.co.uk...
>
> There has never been a non-Christian PM so I do not know where that claim
> came from. Benjamin Disraeli could not have been Prime Minister had his
> entire family not converted to the Church of England after his father had
> a row with his rabbi when he was 9; Jews were not permitted to take their
> seats in Parliament until 1857.
I think you'll find most Jews, certainly Orthodox Jews, consider Judaism to
be for life.
In any case, I was referring to Canning - widely believed to have been an
avowed Atheist. The idea that every Prime Minister ever has been a Christian
is laughable, and an insult to every true Christian. It holds as much water
as the argument that every PM has been a Mormon, purely because according to
the Mormons, every human being is automatically baptised into their faith.
Disraeli was still great.
> > and the first non-white member of parliament.
>
> Not quite. This was Dadabhai Naoroji, a Liberal, in Finsbury Central
> in 1892. The first Conservative non-white MP was Mancherjee Bhownaggree
> in Bethnal Green North East in 1895.
OK, I stand corrected. I guess I was thinking of us vs the first non-white
Labour member.
...Fucking Liberals again. GRRR! Three years out... bastards... You have to
feel sorry for me here.
> > Of course, don't let facts stand in the way of a good smear...
>
> You don't have the facts on your side, unfortunately for you.
Of course I could now argue that there are no *facts* there is only
interpretation, spin etc. etc.
The big annoyance for me is that this was a last minute aside, and you've
chosen to ignore the far more important jist of the thread. Perhaps you'd
like to use your obviously vast knowledge of historical 'fact' to dispute
the existence of an active libertarian wing in the party? Or to prove that
the party is institutionally racist?
BTN
Lyn David Thomas
Boothroyd) wrote:
>There has never been a non-Christian PM
Some would argue that Unitarians are not Christians - and with quite a
bit of justification.
--
\/ Lyn David Thomas
Webpages start at:
http://www.cibwr.freeserve.co.uk
David Boothroyd
l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:22:50 +0100, da...@election.demon.co.uk (David
> Boothroyd) wrote:
>
> >There has never been a non-Christian PM
>
> Some would argue that Unitarians are not Christians - and with quite a
> bit of justification.
Not an opinion I would agree with, and in any case Grafton and Chamberlain
(the two unitarians) were not known for causing any trouble in the
Church.
The unitarians may not believe in the Trinity but they certainly accept
the scripture.
David Boothroyd
<ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote:
> "David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:david-29080...@election.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > There has never been a non-Christian PM so I do not know where that claim
> > came from. Benjamin Disraeli could not have been Prime Minister had his
> > entire family not converted to the Church of England after his father had
> > seats in Parliament until 1857.
>
> I think you'll find most Jews, certainly Orthodox Jews, consider Judaism to
> be for life.
That is neither here nor there. Disraeli left the faith and was an
Anglican throughout his time in Parliament.
> In any case, I was referring to Canning - widely believed to have been an
> avowed Atheist.
This belief is not so wide as you think. Canning was an Anglican and
attended church.
> The idea that every Prime Minister ever has been a Christian
> is laughable, and an insult to every true Christian.
"All the Prime Ministers have been Protestants." - 'Facts about the
British Prime Ministers' by Dermot Englefield, Janet Seaton and Isobel
White, page 374.
> Disraeli was still great.
I think you'll find him quoted approvingly in the frontispiece of my
book.
> > > and the first non-white member of parliament.
> >
> > Not quite. This was Dadabhai Naoroji, a Liberal, in Finsbury Central
> > in 1892. The first Conservative non-white MP was Mancherjee Bhownaggree
> > in Bethnal Green North East in 1895.
>
> OK, I stand corrected. I guess I was thinking of us vs the first non-white
> Labour member.
That would be a misleading comparison as the Labour Party was not formed
until 1900. There was talk of a mischievous nomination of a black man for
Old Sarum in 1801 so it was always accepted that non-white candidates
were qualified, but no Labour members at all were elected until the
electoral system was changed.
> > > Of course, don't let facts stand in the way of a good smear...
> >
> > You don't have the facts on your side, unfortunately for you.
>
> Of course I could now argue that there are no *facts* there is only
> interpretation, spin etc. etc.
You seem to be putting yourself in the position of the historical
personality who asked rhetorically "What is truth?". I shall forbear
to identify this character though I presume you know to whom I am
referring.
> The big annoyance for me is that this was a last minute aside, and you've
> chosen to ignore the far more important jist of the thread. Perhaps you'd
> like to use your obviously vast knowledge of historical 'fact' to dispute
> the existence of an active libertarian wing in the party? Or to prove that
> the party is institutionally racist?
It's all relative. Many in the Conservative Party have been open to
accepting new groups who are sometimes discriminated against. But many
more in other parties have, and it is other parties who have done more
to remove discrimination.
Ben Nunn
"David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:david-30080...@election.demon.co.uk...
> In article <9mjoi7$2nn59$1...@ID-55895.news.dfncis.de>, "Ben Nunn"
> <ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote:
> > "David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:david-29080...@election.demon.co.uk...
> > >
> > In any case, I was referring to Canning - widely believed to have been
an
> > avowed Atheist.
>
> This belief is not so wide as you think. Canning was an Anglican and
> attended church.
There are at least two Wandsworth councillors who attend Anglican Churches
near me. Both lost their faiths years ago. Attending church means very
little - especially if you are leading a party which at the time benefited
greatly from donations from said church...
> > The idea that every Prime Minister ever has been a Christian
> > is laughable, and an insult to every true Christian.
>
> "All the Prime Ministers have been Protestants." - 'Facts about the
> British Prime Ministers' by Dermot Englefield, Janet Seaton and Isobel
> White, page 374.
Can great pretences for the sake of protocol be counted as 'fact'? As a
Christian, I don't consider Canning, MacDonald and Heath to be in good
company with me for a start.
> > > Not quite. This was Dadabhai Naoroji, a Liberal, in Finsbury Central
> > > in 1892. The first Conservative non-white MP was Mancherjee
Bhownaggree
> > > in Bethnal Green North East in 1895.
> >
> > OK, I stand corrected. I guess I was thinking of us vs the first
non-white
> > Labour member.
>
> That would be a misleading comparison as the Labour Party was not formed
> until 1900. There was talk of a mischievous nomination of a black man for
> Old Sarum in 1801 so it was always accepted that non-white candidates
> were qualified, but no Labour members at all were elected until the
> electoral system was changed.
Oh! that time went backwards...
> > Of course I could now argue that there are no *facts* there is only
> > interpretation, spin etc. etc.
>
> You seem to be putting yourself in the position of the historical
> personality who asked rhetorically "What is truth?". I shall forbear
> to identify this character though I presume you know to whom I am
> referring.
Do we have to spell stuff out in this NG, or are the irony radars all
working?
> > The big annoyance for me is that this was a last minute aside, and
you've
> > chosen to ignore the far more important jist of the thread. Perhaps
you'd
> > like to use your obviously vast knowledge of historical 'fact' to
dispute
> > the existence of an active libertarian wing in the party? Or to prove
that
> > the party is institutionally racist?
>
> It's all relative. Many in the Conservative Party have been open to
> accepting new groups who are sometimes discriminated against. But many
> more in other parties have, and it is other parties who have done more
> to remove discrimination.
All depends on which group is discriminated against. Let's start blurring
the boundaries here: War widows, small businesses, Gay people, motorists,
black people, the elderly, General Pinochet, the unmarried, British muslims,
and the wealthy.
Now who's to say who is more deserving than anyone else among this group?
The only discrimination I personally have is against persistent Labour
voters.
BTN
Iain Bowen
Ben Nunn <ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote:
>Historically, it's been the Tory party that breaks the new ground. We've
>already given the country the first woman PM, the first gay PM, the first
>non-Christian PM, and the first non-white member of parliament. Of course,
>don't let facts stand in the way of a good smear...
Yes, don't. You have not provided the country with several of those.
There has been no PM who was openly non-Christian and no PM who was openly
gay. I also seem to recollect that the first non-white member of parliament
back in the 1880's was not a Tory either, but I could be wrong on that one.
Iain
--
\/ Member of the UK Usenet Committee, also Control for uk.*
Full information on uk.* newsgroups at http://www.usenet.org.uk
Iain Bowen. in deepest B13. Also available at alaric(at)alaric.org.uk
"Me and the Corporal out on a spree, damned from here to Eternity"
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <9mjoi7$2nn59$1...@ID-55895.news.dfncis.de>, "Ben Nunn"
> <ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote:
> > In any case, I was referring to Canning - widely believed to have been an
> > avowed Atheist.
> This belief is not so wide as you think. Canning was an Anglican and
> attended church.
It is, of course, perfectly possible to be a practising Anglican and also
an atheist. Several Anglican bishops have come close to this, and some
Anglican clergymen even closer.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <50qqototalanf4eks...@4ax.com>,
> l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:22:50 +0100, da...@election.demon.co.uk (David
> > Boothroyd) wrote:
> > >There has never been a non-Christian PM
> > Some would argue that Unitarians are not Christians - and with quite a
> > bit of justification.
> Not an opinion I would agree with, and in any case Grafton and Chamberlain
> (the two unitarians) were not known for causing any trouble in the
> Church.
> The unitarians may not believe in the Trinity but they certainly accept
> the scripture.
Someone who believes that Jesus was a "good man" but not "the Christ" is,
by definition, not a Christian. Otherwise, you would have to say that
Muslims are Christians.
Matthew Huntbach
David Boothroyd
> "David Boothroyd" <da...@election.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:david-30080...@election.demon.co.uk...
> > In article <9mjoi7$2nn59$1...@ID-55895.news.dfncis.de>, "Ben Nunn"
> > <ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > This belief is not so wide as you think. Canning was an Anglican and
> > attended church.
>
> There are at least two Wandsworth councillors who attend Anglican Churches
> near me. Both lost their faiths years ago. Attending church means very
> little - especially if you are leading a party which at the time benefited
> greatly from donations from said church...
A person who lost their faith but continues to attend church is clearly
someone who is looking to find it again. It certainly does not fit with
your claim of 'avowed' Atheist, and I do not agree that anyone can be an
'avowed' Atheist as atheism does not involve taking any vows - quite the
opposite in fact.
> > > The idea that every Prime Minister ever has been a Christian
> > > is laughable, and an insult to every true Christian.
> >
> > "All the Prime Ministers have been Protestants." - 'Facts about the
> > British Prime Ministers' by Dermot Englefield, Janet Seaton and Isobel
> > White, page 374.
>
> Can great pretences for the sake of protocol be counted as 'fact'?
It must be acknowledged that religion involves a whole lot more than
having a belief in a god. Membership of a church is a social phenomenon,
just like a lot of other social phenomena to which adherents do not attach
spiritual nonsense. Quite a few people who go to golf clubs no longer play
golf.
> As a Christian, I don't consider Canning, MacDonald and Heath to be in
> good company with me for a start.
That is a statement about you and not them.
> > > > Not quite. This was Dadabhai Naoroji, a Liberal, in Finsbury Central
> > > > in 1892. The first Conservative non-white MP was Mancherjee
> > > > Bhownaggree in Bethnal Green North East in 1895.
> > >
> > > OK, I stand corrected. I guess I was thinking of us vs the first
> > > non-white Labour member.
> >
> > That would be a misleading comparison as the Labour Party was not formed
> > until 1900. There was talk of a mischievous nomination of a black man for
> > Old Sarum in 1801 so it was always accepted that non-white candidates
> > were qualified, but no Labour members at all were elected until the
> > electoral system was changed.
>
> Oh! that time went backwards...
Let me explain for the benefit of christians and other stupid people.
The Conservative/Tory Party had the ability, from 1679 onwards, of
nominating a non-white candidate. It did not do so until 1892. The Labour
Party was only formed in 1900 and so only had the ability to nominate
non-white candidates from then. The first non-white Labour MP was elected
in 1923, which was only the second general election in which substantial
numbers of Labour MPs were elected.
> > > Of course I could now argue that there are no *facts* there is only
> > > interpretation, spin etc. etc.
> >
> > You seem to be putting yourself in the position of the historical
> > personality who asked rhetorically "What is truth?". I shall forbear
> > to identify this character though I presume you know to whom I am
> > referring.
>
> Do we have to spell stuff out in this NG, or are the irony radars all
> working?
Do you want me to identify the person who asked "What is truth?"?
> > > The big annoyance for me is that this was a last minute aside, and
> > > you've chosen to ignore the far more important jist of the thread.
> > > Perhaps you'd like to use your obviously vast knowledge of
> > > historical 'fact' to dispute the existence of an active libertarian
> > > wing in the party? Or to prove that the party is institutionally
> > > racist?
> >
> > It's all relative. Many in the Conservative Party have been open to
> > accepting new groups who are sometimes discriminated against. But many
> > more in other parties have, and it is other parties who have done more
> > to remove discrimination.
>
> All depends on which group is discriminated against. Let's start blurring
> the boundaries here: War widows, small businesses, Gay people, motorists,
> black people, the elderly, General Pinochet, the unmarried, British muslims,
> and the wealthy.
You offer no argument. The Labour Party has not discriminated against any
of the groups of people you mention.
> The only discrimination I personally have is against persistent Labour
> voters.
I do hope this is another of your famously incorrect 'last minute asides'
and not a serious observation, because if it were it would of course totally
destroy your argument.
Patsie Jarman
I am so pleased to read that my original posting ( Because Mr Griffin
warrants expulsion for the Tory Party, will every member
related to a person of a different political view be expelled also without a
full democratic hearing?)has diverged into so many interesting discussions
Best wishes,
Patsie Jarman
Staffordshire, England
"Simon Gardner" <66...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk> wrote in message
news:B7B3B4329...@hack.powernet.co.uk...
> In article <9mjg4j$2el4t$1...@ID-55895.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Ben Nunn" <ben...@depro.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > And yet when there's even a sniff of racism in the party, everyone jumps
on
> > it immediately, suggesting that there must be thousands more cases where
> > that came from etc.
>
> That the Tories invariably actively solicit the racist vote is not the
same
> thing as saying that all Tories are racist or even that most Tories are
> racist (though they may well be, who knows?). Indeed, it's particularly
> shameful that those Tories who are not racist largely sit by and let their
> party go about the business of courting the racist vote and boosting
racism
> year in and year out. Honourable mention should be made of Steve Norris,
> who does no such thing.
>
>
sean
That's not quite correct. As Sir Humphrey Appleby pointed out, there
are no atheist clergy, as they could not draw their stipends if they
were atheists. They are "modernists."
Lyn David Thomas
Boothroyd) wrote:
>In article <50qqototalanf4eks...@4ax.com>,
>l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:22:50 +0100, da...@election.demon.co.uk (David
>> Boothroyd) wrote:
>>
>> >There has never been a non-Christian PM
>>
>> Some would argue that Unitarians are not Christians - and with quite a
>> bit of justification.
>
>Not an opinion I would agree with, and in any case Grafton and Chamberlain
>(the two unitarians) were not known for causing any trouble in the
>Church.
No the weren't. You may find that AJP Thompson disagrees with you on
the christian nature of our PMs.
>The unitarians may not believe in the Trinity but they certainly accept
>the scripture.
But they do not believe in the divinity of Christ, so they aren't
Christians in any meaninful sense of the term.
Mark Bowen
> OED> leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people
> OED> of other races, esp. those in close proximity who
> OED> may be felt as a threat to one<cq>s cultural and
> OED> racial integrity or economic well-being.
Give me a list of Conservative Politicians in the last twenty years who have
spoken of racial integrity or of superiority of a particular race?
> > You provide a list of examples where and when we have pandered to that?
>
> Almost everything Michael Howard ever said on asylum.
Provide me a quote attributed to him that is manifestly racist.
> William Hague: 'Foreign Land'.
A useless example because it had nothing to do with the colour of anybody's
skin.
> But then you've been told all this already.
Same blanket, no pillow!
Mark Bowen
on
> > it immediately, suggesting that there must be thousands more cases where
> > that came from etc.
>
same
> thing as saying that all Tories are racist or even that most Tories are
> racist (though they may well be, who knows?).
What is a "racist vote"? You will have to do much better in providing
examples of when the Conservative Party has courted it.
> Indeed, it's particularly shameful that those Tories who are not racist
largely sit by and let their
> party go about the business of courting the racist vote and boosting
racism
> year in and year out.
I have never heard of my party court the "racist vote". Your obsession with
"race" is so sad.
> Honourable mention should be made of Steve Norris, who does no such thing.
He conforms to your stereotypes, does he?
Mark Bowen
> > comes to racism.
> >
> > Race is only an issue for a minority of sad people, like yourself.
>
> Indeed. The fact that - shock, horror! - there are actually several
> non-white, non-British and non-Christian Tory party members, and thousands
> of others in the party who are friends to them is lost on people like Mr.
> Gardner, for whom this sort of fact only serves to threaten their
> small-minded, ill-conceived reactionary and downright inaccurate
stereotypes
> of who Conservatives are.
>
> It's a case of "let's ignore the black and asian Tories, just like we
ignore
> the young Tories, the gay Tories, and anyone else who doesn't fit our
agenda
> for making the party look bad".
Ben,
Be careful about engaging in this discussion on their terms. Skin colour, or
extraction, is not an issue for the Conservative Party. Our doors are open
to all and it is as simple as that. If they ever suggest otherwise, the onus
is on them to substantiate.
You will find that they rarely do. Instead they either resort to personal
abuse or list names with no quotations.
Always ask for evidence because allegations of racism are very serious.
Mark.
Mark Bowen
> >
> > A useless example because it had nothing to do with the colour of
anybody's
> > skin.
>
> Matthew has already explained.
That explanation was bonkers.
David Boothroyd
l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:54:59 +0100, da...@election.demon.co.uk (David
> Boothroyd) wrote:
> >In article <50qqototalanf4eks...@4ax.com>,
> >l...@cibwr.freeserve.co.uk wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 22:22:50 +0100, da...@election.demon.co.uk (David
> >> Boothroyd) wrote:
> >>
> >> >There has never been a non-Christian PM
> >>
> >> Some would argue that Unitarians are not Christians - and with quite a
> >> bit of justification.
> >
> >Not an opinion I would agree with, and in any case Grafton and Chamberlain
> >(the two unitarians) were not known for causing any trouble in the
> >Church.
>
> No the weren't. You may find that AJP Thompson disagrees with you on
> the christian nature of our PMs.
Was that supposed to be A.J.P. Taylor or E.P. Thompson?
> >The unitarians may not believe in the Trinity but they certainly accept
> >the scripture.
>
> But they do not believe in the divinity of Christ, so they aren't
> Christians in any meaninful sense of the term.
I've been in a Unitarian Chapel and apart from some absences it looked
very like all the other Christian Churches.
Bailey Mįrta
hírüzenetben: t9ssot4okqi6jpjme...@4ax.com...
They are Christians as far as English law is concerned. And, although
interesting, all this argument about whether certain PMs were or were not as
Christian as they purported to be or were claimed to be, seems to be
tackling this subject on far too personal a level. The point surely is that
there is still a great amount of (somewhat nebulous) pressure on all MPs
(and especially PMs and party leaders in general) to conform to the WASP
model, even if they are gay black female Jews. Most gay and atheist MPs sre
still firmly in the closet, non-white candidates tend to receive a lower
percentage of the vote than their white counterparts when standing in
predominantly white constituencies, and Mrs Thatcher is the exception that
proves the rule that it is almost impossible for a woman to become the
leader of one our three main parties. MPs who don't conform to the WASP male
stereotype still find the Houses of Parliament a somewhat unwelcoming
place - I know many of Blair's babes have spoken out about the fact that the
working conditions are totally unsuitable for women - the commonest epithet
for the place being that it resembles a gentlemen's club.
To quote a phrase, I blame the media. Oh, and the cosy relationship between
parliament and the C of E. The popular press, believing itself to be some
kind of guardian of national 'standards', avers to the non-Christianity or
homosexuality of politicians as if these statuses were some kind of lurgy.
If a non-white, atheist or gay MP is alleged to have misbehaved in some way
there is always some rabid journo who will try either to 'tar 'em all with
the same brush' or say 'what d'you expect'. The journos claim that they're
only reflecting public opinion, but my experience is that for a lot of
people the only opinion they have about these subjects is what they've
picked up from the media. As for the H of C - C of E relationship, in a
sense it forces all MPs to be Christians, whether they like it or not,
upholding 'standards' by backing compulsory Christian worship in state
schools, etc.
Adrian
Mark Bowen
After reading that contribution I think I best go and sit in a dark room!
Lyn David Thomas
Boothroyd) wrote:
>> No the weren't. You may find that AJP Thompson disagrees with you on
>> the christian nature of our PMs.
>
>Was that supposed to be A.J.P. Taylor or E.P. Thompson?
Sorry - A J P Taylor.
>> >The unitarians may not believe in the Trinity but they certainly accept
>> >the scripture.
>>
>> But they do not believe in the divinity of Christ, so they aren't
>> Christians in any meaninful sense of the term.
>
>I've been in a Unitarian Chapel and apart from some absences it looked
>very like all the other Christian Churches.
Which rather avoids the basics of their beliefs. Christ was a man
inspired by god but not god. Thus they are not Christians.
Matthew M. Huntbach
You could say the same for synagogues.
Matthew Huntbach
David Boothroyd
No I couldn't, I've not been in any.
Bailey Mįrta
hírüzenetben: 9n27tk$5t0$1...@beta.qmw.ac.uk...
You could, but I doubt you'd want to. Okay, churches, chapels and synagogues
are all halls with rows of seats and religious stuff in them, but that
surely goes without saying and is hardly a high level of debate. I can
certainly tell the difference between a synagogue and a church/chapel
without any difficulty. Telling the difference between a Unitarian and a
Baptist church/chapel though (assuming the architecture is the same)
requires a few more moments. That is, unless the Unitarian minister won't
even have a cross displayed.
Adrian
Lyn David Thomas
<bai...@nextramail.hu> wrote:
> Telling the difference between a Unitarian and a
>Baptist church/chapel though (assuming the architecture is the same)
>requires a few more moments. That is, unless the Unitarian minister won't
>even have a cross displayed.
I don't think that I have seen crosses in unitarian chaples before.
Remember Christ did not rise from the dead and is not god incarnate as
a man to the Unitarians - the symbol I have seen them use most is a
stylised roman lamp - representing enlightenment.
Bailey Mįrta
hírüzenetben: 9moghu$df4$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> After reading that contribution I think I best go and sit in a dark room!
Sotet a sotetben.
Or: keep yourself in the dark.
A.