An Obsession?

Who knows whose obsession I'm talking about - but anyhow it's interesting to contrast the posts from "Cranmer" and Gillan at God and Politics UK on Eric Pickles's latest comments on Christians in the UK.

For me, "Cranmer" reflects his usual desire to associate true Christianity with Conservatism (with a capital C), and assert that it's preposterous for anyone to be part of a different party, let alone socialist, and Christian. "Cranmer" willingly asserts Pickles must be Christian whereas Gillan only makes statements based on what is publicly known about his own faith. I imagine both are probably trying to say the same thing; I can't quite put my finger on why I'm much more persuaded by Gillan though without putting too much thought in during the day when I need to be doing other things work wise.

It pricks my conscience most of all I think because "Cranmer" basically suggests that Pickles is a true Tory, the Church is really Tory, and clearly thus, if we are to support and encourage Pickles in fighting for Christians in the corridors of power, we really have to be Tory. Maybe I'm inferring too much, but that's the impression I always get. On the other hand, Gillan ends by saying these wise words:

If Eric Pickles genuinely wants to fight this cause on behalf of the Christian faith, then we should all get behind him and offer our support, whatever our political persuasion.

Much better. I can quite easily sympathise with one or two members of a party if they happen to talk sense, just as I can baulk at the idiotic comments of others in that party (Ed Balls, George Osborne spring quickly to mind). Of course, at some point if I'm to vote (come 2015) I have to decide on balance which party to vote for.

But why do people, particularly "Cranmer", insist on always trying to make the case that it's Christian to be a Tory - to ignore all the parts of the party that are anything but Christian - to essentially call them "Blair" elements, to make them essentially Labour. Why not simply recognise all parties are a mixed bag of people appealing to the votes of people in their constituency in the way they see best. Some might say that to be open about being a Christian (or whatever faith they hold) is the best way to win votes, others might think it is a private thing. But why try to keep asserting that one party is "Christian", and the others are anti-Christian?

I personally always feel attacked by this sentiment, and it's the main reason I set up this blog with heady hopes a few years back now. No party is Christian, not the Tories, not Labour, not the Lib Dems. All have Christians in their ranks, and we should praise God for that.

Belated thoughts: Right-wing Christians and the Royal Family

As a left-leaning Christian, I find the level of attention afforded by Conservatives, and also those of a Christian persuasion, to the Queen and Royal Family more generally, a little perplexing.

From an economic point of view it just seems so internally incoherent. Talk all the time of living within our means, austerity, cutting back all that wasteful government spending, get government out of our way, then turn a blind eye to the funding of the Jubilee, forget the impact of an extra Bank Holiday, and be happy and jolly because our notional head of state has been on the throne 60 years. Intervene to ensure councils are having parties, even if councils don't really care to, and so on. I find it all a little too ideological really- that's the only way I can explain the contradictions just listed.

But added to this, for Christians, we're supposed to celebrate even more so because it happens this Queen does actually preach the Gospel when afforded a chance. Moreover, from what I understand we're supposed to support the monarchy on the basis that they are our God-appointed rulers. But if we got rid of the monarchy and replaced it with a republic, say, then why wouldn't the rulers then be appointed by God too? He would still be sovereign wouldn't he?

Now don't get me wrong, it's great the Queen takes her (rather arbitrary) role as head of the church seriously and makes statements consistent with the Gospel.

But why should my right leaning friends hate on my concern that the monarchy is really just one rather large use of funds that could just as well be put elsewhere?

Social Engineering, the Bible, Tradition and Political Ideology

Quite a grand title, and I'm not sure I'll manage to collect all those strands together in this quick (I hope!) post, but I'm responding to that person denigrating the name of Archbishop Cranmer once again.

In the post linked, he bemoans the whole gay marriage thing that's currently going on here in the UK. The simple gist of things is that the state is legislating for marriage to no longer be between a man and a woman. This is, unfortunately, affording many church leaders great opportunities to make statements that play into the media and general public's characterisation of them as out of touch and homophobic. "Cranmer" lists a few of these.

Then he goes off on one about David Cameron, the current Conservative leader and Prime Minister, who has put the full weight of his support behind gay marriage. "Cranmer" then says that in doing this, Cameron "aligns his conservatism with the rather antithetical socialist instinct to engineer society".

Does he?! Why exactly is the state stepping in and saying who can and can't be married anything other than socialist engineering? If the state says it's just men and women, that's social engineering just as saying it can be men and men and women and women. If anything, loosening this definition is a sign of less socialist engineering.

The bigger point here is another one that "Cranmer" appears lost on - it's the separation of church and state, which has to be a good thing - precisely because it should take us, in an ideal situation, away from social engineering (of course, in reality, the state just engages in a different kind of social engineering, the type pushed by the most powerful lobbying groups).

There's no reason why the state should impose Christian values via the marriage system, and in fact there's a very good argument why it shouldn't, put forward by a great friend of mine in a very insightful blog post this week: "What good is it, other than in a purely utilitarian sense, if a person is kept from sinning at the point of a bayonet?"

Provided there is no equality legislation forcing Christians to marry against their conscience (or athiests to do so, for that matter), then there is no reason why the state shouldn't change its definition of marriage. The church needn't change its. I believe in the linked post, "Cranmer" is too wedded to history and tradition, where the church has had a strong role in the state here in the UK, rather than relying on Biblical principles. I believe that is about as socialist as it gets - if socialism is defined as social engineering.

In case a reminder was needed...

...Jesus also most certainly was not a left winger either, or at least a left winger in the form of someone like Sunny Hundal. The blog is attempting to create some kind of outrage out of the fact that a Christian group called Christian Concern is holding a conference at Exeter College.

This Christian Concern (CC) group is simply labelled as bigotted, and homophobic, without at any point the case against them being put forward. Simply, it seems, Hundal has something rather sinister against Nadine Dorries, and hence any friend of Dorries's must also be very sinister.

Judging by past articles on the Liberal Conspiracy (LC) website, what CC have probably said at some point is that they believe something slightly different to Hundal on homosexuality. They have probably pointed out that some folk of a homosexual orientation are not comfortable with that (just as, presumably, some heterosexual folk are), and perhaps seek some help. Pretty innocuous? Nope - that's bona fide homophobia for you right there!

Thankfully, in reading the comments on Hundal's latest rant, it's clear there are plenty of people ready to put him in his place.

Confused?

I'm not sure I can follow the logic of this. It starts with a fairly commonplace swipe at anyone who happens to not be on the political right - how dare that nasty Labour government have given some folk in parts of the UK some devolved powers.

But then it goes on to rail against attempts to restrict power being devolved to local people - the right for people to utter prayers before a council meeting (does it really matter? I don't get why a conservative is so het up about something as trivial as this - shouldn't ministers' time be better spent elsewhere?).

I don't quite get it - if Labour devolves power it's an unmitigated bad thing, throwing away centuries of history (because history is all that matters when making decisions), yet if the Conservatives do it, it's localism, it's getting the government out of the way, it's an unmitigated good thing.

Does he want powers to be devolved, or not? Or does it just matter what party it is that's doing it?

Courts and Governments

A general stance of those on the right, Christian or otherwise, it seems, is to be anti-Europe, and also in particular, anti-ECHR (European Court of Human Rights). As the right-wing press usually bemoans, it gets in the way of us doing the things we want to. Ten a penny are the Daily Mail stories to this effect.

What I don't quite understand is why this is such a bad thing. If we assume first off that the Court of Human Rights is a court set up to defend the liberties of humans in a fallen world, and does so without bias (but with the odd mistake here and there), then is it a problem if it says to a government that it can't do something that stands in the way of civil liberties?

For example, with this cleric recently released from jail in the UK; the ECHR has stopped his deportation to Jordan because courts there may try him using evidence elicited via torture.

Now what I don't quite understand here is what the problem is exactly. Do right wingers want us to be a country that hands people over to be tried by courts that use torture to elicit evidence? Wash our hands of them and be done of it?

Now I appreciate this man is charged with something pretty nasty, but he is still a man, and still innocent until proven guilty, and what about the precedent of allowing someone to be tried unfairly, regardless of how unpleasant he or she is? The precedent isn't a great one. So thus, I don't really understand what the opprobrium from the right is here.

Governments generally set the rules; usually, I guess (I'm not an expert here by any means since I'm not a lawyer), they are also confined to act within a constitution. So what is wrong if a court is able to point out to a government where it is behaving illegally, domestically or internationally? Are we really happy to live under governments that feel able to do whatever they like, trampling on the civil rights of citizens? Why shouldn't governments be kept in check?

Of course both governments and courts make mistakes, are guilty of terrible things, but resorting to specific examples where courts made nasty decisions and governments were more noble (e.g. slavery) doesn't really answer the more general point I'm making here: Why shouldn't governments be kept in check? Why do we want governments to be unrestricted in what they do? If we do, then I think we are guilty of a contradiction - we are essentially slaves to governments in the latter situation.

Can someone enlighten me please?!

Christians and Kings

Today is the 60th anniversary of the current Queen of England ascending to the Throne, and Christians, particularly on the right, are lauding this.

I think leftie Christians are often slightly uneasy about this, and I've noted right-leaning Christians making a big play about the fact that this is wrong, that the Queen (and any head of state for that matter) is of course only there because God put him or her there.

This is undoubtedly true, and the fact that the Queen, it seems, does communicate the Gospel will is an added bonus - something to praise God about.

But I'm just not sure that the justification I've given here is a reason for right-leaning Christians to beat left-leaning ones (or even centrists ones for that matter). Surely the same reasoning says Gaddafi was the God-ordained leader of Libya for quite a few years, and Assad is currently God ordained for Syria, right?

Or have I got that wrong?

I almost forgot to comment on this trash...

...a blog post entitled "We Need More Tory Bishops". Oh we do, do we? Apparently, the writer is also "is firmly persuaded that the Lord wants Ed Miliband to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom about as much as He wants Johann Hari to write the Third Testament".  Apparently all Bishops in the Church of England "pore over The Guardian every morning with their mint tea and muesli and intercede fervently for the amelioration of the fortunes of Ed Miliband".

Apparently though, this kind of thing is all humour, because right wingers have a better sense of humour than left wingers (to quote Michael Ehioze-Ediae).

The post, as us usual from this really rather abhorrent imposter of a probably caring, compassionate and non-judging historical member of God's church, descends into a prejudiced and deliberately misleading rant, as perhaps best exemplified by this: "How in the name of St Gemma could an income of £2000 a month be considered poverty?".

Has "His Grace", as this blogger pompously calls himself, considered who might actually get the full amount of benefits?

Has "His Grace" thought about the determinants of this? I guess he probably figures we should shut up such people as his lovely (and totally non-judgementally named) St Gemma in some ghetto areas of town, the slums, rather than have the possibility, shock horror, that they might actually live somewhere near decent, sophisticated people.

Sophisticated people that read the Telegraph and studied A-level economics and thus think they are entitled to judge on exactly how the economy should work, and what governments should and shouldn't do.  But, of course, in writing that, I slip right into the category of "His Grace" in making judgements about people.

The bottom line is this: I'm yet to find a right winger, particularly one who is a Christian, talk about benefits and the poorer in society, without resorting to such vague generalisations about the "kinds of people" who claim benefits - based on no more evidence than what they read in the Daily Mail. The idea that the "kinds of people" that are on benefits are our neighbours, and thus we should love them, as Jesus exhorted, seems very lost on these people.

Go on someone, surprise me.