Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Hays Hays Hays, falling back further, thank Gove and May for that..........

UK - YouGov/Sun poll:

LAB 37%
CON 31%
UKIP 15%
LDEM 7%
GRN 5%

Iain Duncan Smith blames rise of food banks on ‘evangelism’ – pot, kettle, black?

Crocodile tears: Everybody thought Iain Duncan Smith had a change of heart at Easterhouse and intended to help people. Instead, under his direction, the Department for Work and Pensions has caused the deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocent people.

The Department for Work and Pensions reckons that the rise of food banks has more to do with Christian evangelism than with helping people who can’t afford food because of Conservative government policies.

According to Political Scrapbook, DWP director Neil Couling said: “For the Trussell Trust, food banks started as an evangelical device to get religious groups in touch with their local communities.”

How interesting.

Has Mr Couling forgotten Iain Duncan Smith’s ‘Road to Damascus’ moment on the housing estates of Easterhouse and Gallowgates in Glasgow in 2002?

Struck by the run-down housing, visible signs of drug abuse and general lack of hope, Roman Catholic Duncan Smith set out – with evangelical zeal – to do something about it.

He now sits in a government that kicks people out of their run-down houses and turns the lack of hope into abject despair by cutting off the benefits they need to survive (his government has pushed wages even further below the amount necessary for people to be able to live without government assistance than ever before).

As New Statesman columnist Laurie Penny puts it, Duncan Smith pretends to be “on a quasireligious, reforming crusade”, approaching his work with “particular fervour and self-righteous indignation”.

So, really, who do you think is misusing the plight of the very poor as an “evangelical device” for his own “quasireligious” ends?

Couling’s attitude defies belief. He refers to a report from Oxfam – one of Britain’s most highly-respected anti-poverty charities – together with Church Action on Poverty and the Trussell Trust, as “unverified figures from disparate sources”.

Okay, then. How about the DWP supplying us with all the figures it collects, and we’ll do the working-out?

We can start with the deaths of people receiving incapacity benefits.

42151 .... perhaps you misread what i am writing .....
1) i have no objection to schools that are orientated towards a specific religion, so long as the teaching there is not subversive

2) i thoroughly agree that such schools, being outside the "norm", should not receive state funding

3) given (2), then i see no reason why those schools should not be selective in their intake

4) some of these schools provide a very good all-round education, so such schools should not be singled out for general opprobrium purely on the basis of the religious base they impose

5) if a school or any other institution is deemed to be a charity, then it follows that it has complied with the rigorous rules that apply and it would certainly be totally wrong to withdraw that status purely because you don't like their religious bent

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Religion should play no part in the education system.

It leaves the system OPEN TO THE ABUSES we have seen over the last few days.

And this is just the tip of the ice berg.

We used to have 'Sunday Schools' where certain religions educated their flock in their beliefs. We could have evening schools now that we have a more diversified population.

It should be the same now.

Religion in every form should be taken out of schools.

I fully endorse Hays here on his comment............. plain common sense.

Haystack - 10 Jun 2014 11:33 - 42149 of 42155

cynic
I have no problem with people following and celebrating their religions. I just don't want to contribute money to it all in any way. I see religion as a force for various bad things. We are heading towards a secular society where religion will have no official part and the sooner the better.

What is Secularism?

Secularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law.

Separation of religion from state
The separation of religion and state is the foundation of secularism. It ensures that religious groups don't interfere in affairs of state, and makes sure the state doesn't interfere in religious affairs.

In the United Kingdom there are officially two state recognised Christian denominations – the Church of England and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The Queen is both head of state and Supreme Governor of the Church of England. There is no established church in Northern Ireland or Wales but the 26 unelected bishops of the Church of England who sit in the House of Lords influence laws that affect the whole of the UK.

Christianity is one major influence among many that shape our current ways of life; we are a nation of many denominations and religions and large sectors of the population do not hold, or practise, religious beliefs.
If Britain were truly a secular democracy, political structures would reflect the reality of changing times by separating religion from the state.

Secularism protects both believers and non-believers
Secularism seeks to ensure and protect freedom of religious belief and practice for all citizens. Secularism is not about curtailing religious freedoms; it is about ensuring that the freedoms of thought and conscience apply equally to all believers and non-believers alike.

Religious Freedom
Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights and freedoms of others. Secularism ensures that the right of individuals to freedom of religion is always balanced by the right to be free from religion.

Secularism is about democracy and fairness
In a secular democracy all citizens are equal before the law and parliament. No religious or political affiliation gives advantages or disadvantages and religious believers are citizens with the same rights and obligations as anyone else.
Secularism champions human rights above discriminatory religious demands. It upholds equality laws that protect women, LGBT people and minorities. These equality laws ensure that non-believers have the same rights as those who identify with a religious or philosophical belief.

Equal access to public services
We all share hospitals, schools, the police and the services of local authorities. It is essential that these public services are secular at the point of use so that no-one is disadvantaged or denied access on grounds of religious belief (or non-belief.) All state-funded schools should be non-religious in character, with children being educated together regardless of their parents' religion. When a public body grants a contract for the provision of services to an organisation affiliated to a particular religion or belief, such services must be delivered in a neutral manner, with no attempt to promote the ideas of that faith group.

Secularism is not atheism
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Secularism simply provides a framework for a democratic society. Atheists have an obvious interest in supporting secularism, but secularism itself does not seek to challenge the tenets of any particular religion or belief, neither does it seek to impose atheism on anyone.
Secularism is simply a framework for ensuring equality throughout society – in politics, education, the law and elsewhere, for believers and non-believers alike.
Secularism protects free speech and expression

Religious people have the right to express their beliefs publicly but so do those who oppose or question those beliefs. Religious beliefs, ideas and organisations must not enjoy privileged protection from the right to freedom of expression. In a democracy, all ideas and beliefs must be open to discussion. Individuals have rights, ideas do not.
Secularism is the best chance we have to create a society in which people of all religions or none can live together fairly and peacefully.

we'll agree to disagree then
let me see if i get my point across succinctly .....

all children need to learn a moral code around which to run their lives
all religions have "stories" to help teach or get across the moral point being made
there is nothing wrong or subversive in hearing these stories and being taught the morals within them

there is nothing wrong and indeed much right with children learning about their cultural heritage
inevitably this will mean a certain knowledge of the religious books relating to that religion

the extreme spectrum of any religion breeds prejudice, intolerance and worse
it is that aspect that can be so corrosive to society in general

==========

sticky
please try to avoid just c+p'ing a load of verbiage straight off the interenet!

It is not about their religious bent. It is that they have any religious bent. I would like schools to only teach on the basis of fact and not superstition, fantasy, unsubstantiated beliefs, dogma, silly religious rules, attempts to make people feel guilty and lots more.

Why not have a school that has special lessons about fairies and that the earth is flat. You could then apply to be grant maintained or get charitable status. There is NO difference between this and a Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, CoE, Mormon or Scientology school.

hays - that last post of yours displays an appalling degree of intolerance

No it doesnt. Hes right.

but i should certainly have added that children also need to be taught to THINK and QUESTION
it is brainwashing with dogma that is surely the antithesis of the above

as i'm a very tolerant chap, i would be the last one to insist that you cannot have your own views!

It is not intolerant. I just don't want my taxes spent on religion in any shape or form. I don't want tax breaks for schools or churches that n any way including being a charity. Apart from anything they are clearly not a charity. I want schools to be secular. Even in the US state schools are completely secular as are all public bodies.

Religion has no place in any official capacity in our society. People should always be free to celebrate their religions but only in a non official manner and not funded by the state.

"as i'm a very tolerant chap, i would be the last one to insist that you cannot have your own views!"

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.. Oh gawd I'll print that one out and frame it and when I need a good laugh....What a cracker it's the way he tells em.

Religion needs to be kept out of schools or radicals will use it as a training ground.

I say dont give them the chance or they will snap your hand off.

And for a few bob extra they will snap your leg off.

USE your nogging Cynic.

MP’s Scrounging Is Out Of Control: Cap Esther McVey’s Housing Benefit
Posted on June 10, 2014 by johnny void

Generation-rentMPs are being handed huge subsidies to rent second homes in London whilst thousands of the capital’s poorest residents are being socially cleansed due to slashed benefits and soaring rents.

Unemployment Minister Esther McVey claimed a whopping £17,227 last year to rent a swanky central London pad whilst invisible Housing Minster Kris Hopkins trousered £18,045.

The total bill for MPs languishing in luxury properties at our expense came to over £5 million says pressure group Generation Rent who compiled the figures.

The maximum Housing Benefit available in London is just over £250 a week for a single person, around £100 a week less than McVey scrounges. This benefit goes to people in and out of work alike and was capped shortly after the current government weren’t elected. Soaring rents in London have meant that many new housing benefit claimants are working full time but still cannot afford the eye-watering cost of living in the capital.

Previously ministers, including Iain Duncan Smith, have claimed that there are plenty of properties still available in London to those affected by the cap. So why can’t McVey live in one of those instead of living on hand outs?

McVey earns far too much already to be eligible for housing benefit and in any case it is not payable for second homes, even if you claim you need them for work. She can easily afford to pay her own rent and if not then any state support she receives should be capped at the same level she expects everyone else to survive on. It’s about making the system fair after all, and it might even incentivise McVey to get a real job for once in her miserable life.

Above graph taken from an infographic produced by Generation Rent, for the full image visit their website

hays - why should not religious bodies be deemed as charities, obviously with the proviso that they adhere by the rules for being same?

it happens that i don't subscribe to Christian Aid, but i'm sure that body does much good work and is assuredly a charity as of course is the Salvation Army

Hazyone seems to have the intolerance of a the "converted", a zealot who believes he has seen the light and the folly of their ways and wishes to convert others to his faith.

(Very questionable.)

For me, his belief in a "new god" has the strength of an "anti-belief", of similar strength to those who believed in the "anti-christ", the "golden calve", a "graven image". The latter belief iconic of his "mammon".

To me, he demonstrated the need to justify his own belief, his "conception" of his "true" religion.

( I wonder if he may be worshiping the Anti-Christ.)

Unfortunately, he may have converted GF to his his belief.

Manuel, be careful, or Hazyone may cast a spell on you.

Or, has has already done so?

It may account for your ramblings!

8-)

GF.

Posting

"MP’s Scrounging Is Out Of Control: Cap Esther McVey’s Housing Benefit"

Shows the typical hypocrisy of the present tory leadership and their worshipers, or wannabees!

,