Translate

Showing posts with label C of E. Show all posts
Showing posts with label C of E. Show all posts

Thursday, 19 April 2018

Neoconservatism is just another name for American imperialism

Leo Strauss says Classical Liberalism is the religion of American imperialism, but where is its scripture and what are its principles?

Before Conservatism, the political parties were divided between Whig and Tory. The Tories were represented by the owners of land, and the Whigs came to represent the new rich of the Industrial Revolution in favour of free trade to better sell their wares in the British Empire.

The new rich got their way when the Corn Laws were repealed which allowed them cheap imported corn for the urban proletariat.

Classical Liberalism is really Conservatism, and Conservatism was created as a defence against the ideas of the French Revolution. What the French Revolutionaries were rebelling against was the Catholic clergy. It can be deduced therefore that Conservatism was really Theocracy Lite, "lite" because it was a synthesis of the old hierarchical and patriarchal ideas of the Bible and the revolutionary idea of egalitarianism.

It is probably time to consider whether we should just have the real thing and stop pretending we know better than scripture when we are only in the mess we're in because we have ignored what are said to be God's commandments. At least with established religions their scripture does not change while what we think is our political ideology is altered with as much frequency as the leader of a political party changes his mind about something or, sometimes more frequently.

God's laws were laid down long ago and, being omniscient and morally perfect, if He exists, He does not make mistakes. A theocracy would at least stop the laws from changing so frequently because our law-makers keep making mistakes and changing their minds.

When once the Church of England was considered to be the Tory Party at area, the Tory Party is now on record of having a Prime Minister that legalised gay marriage.

We need the rules to be clear and stay the same just as we need the day to be 24 hours long and the week to be 7 days long.

The moral chaos we now have is directly related to the frequency of how often our political leaders change their minds. Women, you may have noticed, change their minds more often than men, many Western world leaders are now clueless childless women, and many Western leaders are men afraid of women.

No good will come of this.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/59/Leo_Strauss_Neoconservative

Sunday, 5 February 2017

What I propose is already being done

The Nuffield Council on Bioethics launched an enquiry in 2006 into critical care in fetal and neonatal medicine, looking at the ethical, social and legal issues which may arise when making decisions surrounding treating extremely premature babies.

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, in its submission, recommended that a public debate be started around the options of "non-resuscitation, withdrawal of treatment decisions, the best interests test and active euthanasia" for "the sickest of newborns". The College stated that there should be discussion over whether "deliberate intervention" to cause death in severely disabled newborn babies should be legalised; it stated that while it was not necessarily in favour of the move, it felt the issues should be debated. The College stated in this submission that having these options would save some families from years of emotional and financial suffering; it might also reduce the number of late abortions, "as some parents would be more confident about continuing a pregnancy and taking a risk on outcome". In response to this proposal, Pieter Sauer, a senior paediatrician in the Netherlands, argued that British neonatologists already perform "mercy killings" and should be allowed to do so openly.

The Church of England submission to the enquiry supported the view that doctors should be given the right to withhold treatment from seriously disabled newborn babies in exceptional circumstances, and the Christian Medical Fellowship stated that when treatment would be "a burden" this was not euthanasia.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability_in_ancient_Rome#Roman_laws_on_disability

The Twelve Tables included a law that said disabled or deformed children should be put to death, usually by stoning.

In addition, Dionysius of Halicarnassus wrote that the city's founder Romulus required children who were born disabled to be exposed on a hillside. Historians think that this was a fairly common practice due to a believed high number of congenital defects, which are sourced due to poor nutrition, incest, and disease.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pater_familias#Children

The laws of the Twelve Tables required the pater familias to ensure that "obviously deformed" infants were put to death. The survival of congenitally disabled adults, conspicuously evidenced among the elite by the partially-lame Emperor Claudius, demonstrates that personal choice was exercised in the matter. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Ironside

Ironside received attention after her appearance on BBC One's religious discussion programme, Sunday Morning Live, in 2010. She stated "If a baby's going to be born severely disabled or totally unwanted, surely an abortion is the act of a loving mother." and added "If I were the mother of a suffering child - I mean a deeply suffering child - I would be the first to want to put a pillow over its face... If it was a child I really loved, who was in agony, I think any good mother would."

http://www.freethesaurus.com/terefah


The questionable viability of newly born infants, due, at least in part, to doubts as to whether they were premature or full-term, led Jewish law to exempt one who kills a child less than thirty days old from human prosecution, just as it treats the person who kills the terefah.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9710426/Children-placed-on-controversial-death-pathway.html

Tuesday, 12 April 2016

Why Muslims hate liberalism and how liberals are suffering from hypocrisy and dementia


Friday, 15 January 2016

Giles Fraser blocks Claire Khaw after she praises him for his positioning and says he is attractive to C of E women


"started telling your followers to love X"


Thursday, 14 January 2016

Elizabeth Oldfield of Theos does not address the points Edward Lucas and I raised

"Christians believe a hopeful habit of mind is worth cultivating." Elizabeth Oldfield - 14/01/16
In the early hours of yesterday morning, President Obama gave his last State of the Union address.
It's always a difficult speech, with time running out to propose a legislative agenda... Instead, as well as delivering a robust defence of his legacy, he returned to the language of his presidential campaign, with a speech focused around hope.

Political rhetoric often swings between two poles, two defining elements of human experience: hope and fear.

Sadly, fear is the one that usually comes more easily, both in life and politics. And so despite the President’s efforts, the current political landscape in the U.S. is evolving into a competition to see who can paint the most apocalyptic vision of the future.

Neither side is immune from using the politics of fear, painting a picture of horrors to come - that only they are qualified to deliver the nation from.

Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks recently raised serious concerns about this trend, calling on the Republican presidential candidates to back off from what he calls a “fear-driven brutalism” and adopt a more hopeful approach.

The trouble is, hope is hard, and not just politically. It feels naïve and dangerous. Many people listening to the President will feel sceptical. I certainly did. Surely all this ‘Hopey changey” stuff just leaves us open to disappointment and mockery. In the ancient biblical book of Proverbs, it says "hope deferred makes the heart sick". The hard headed, grown up thing to do often seems to involve taking Camus' advice to "think clearly and not hope any more".

I spend quite a lot of time thinking about what Christians might be able to offer a society, which in the main, no longer calls itself Christian. What we could give, as those who feel we've been given much. And maybe it's partly this: acting as cheerleaders for the gritty work of hope. Pulitzer Prize winning novelist Marilynne Robinson has written repeatedly on this. She makes two points: “first, contemporary America (and I would argue the UK too) is full of fear. And second, fear is not a Christian habit of mind”.

Christians believe a hopeful habit of mind is worth cultivating. Not because hope is easy, or that there is nothing to be afraid of, but because there is something to hope in. And because, as behavioural psychologists would agree, our habits of mind become habits in our lives, and habits affect outcomes.
Choosing to hope draws us out beyond ourselves, while fear drives us inward. Hope gives us courage to face the very real pain and horror of the world, and not to cower in fear, but to set about doing what we can to make a dent in it.

Bet Noel fancies Elizabeth something rotten. What do you think, dear reader?


I am not the only one who thought this sermon was more than a bit lame.



Will TLC ask Objectivist Craig Biddle why he won't engage with me?

  12:02 PM @OfficialSecularKoranism ​​Would people like to help me troll Craig Biddle? 12:02 PM @OfficialSecularKoranism ​​I guess I am sort...