The Bible and Society

How God’s Word is True

Posts Tagged ‘England’

Anglican Conservatives Foil Attempt to Appoint Gay Bishop in England

Posted by Mats on 10/07/2010

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

BRITAIN, July 9, 2010 ( – An attempt to name an openly homosexual priest as Anglican Bishop of Southwark in England has been foiled by conservatives following the premature revelation of his candidacy, according to reports in the British media.

Dr. Jeffrey John, who lives in a civil union with a man, while claiming to live a chaste life, was rejected after a leak to the media that he was under consideration, provoking a strongly negative response from more conservative Anglicans. It is the second time his candidacy has been rejected. The first rejection, in 2003, happened under similar circumstances.

Dr. Rowan Williams, the Anglican Communion’s leading bishop, was reportedly infuriated by the leak and has launched an investigation to determine who was responsible for it.

The conflict over the abortive appointment of John comes as the Anglican leadership prepares to meet Saturday in a General Synod to discuss another issue of contention in the Anglican Communion: the appointment of female bishops. Female priests are already a cause of bitter division among Anglicans, and for many, female bishops are sufficient reason to terminate their relationship with the Communion.

Anglican conservatives in Britain, the United States, and other countries have broken communion with their local bishops in recent years over such issues, and in some cases have initiated the process to enter into communion with the Catholic Church.

An openly homosexual bishop, Gene Robinson, was appointed as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003, and only two months ago an open lesbian, Mary Glasspool, was named suffragan bishop in the diocese of Los Angeles. Both live with their gay lovers. Their appointments have accelerated the process of disintegration in the Anglican Communion.

Posted in Society | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

British Government Offers Teens Jobs on X-Rated Websites

Posted by Mats on 27/06/2010


Posted by Van Helsing at 8:00 AM | Comments (2)

Big Government can help us in so many ways. Admittedly the massive burden of taxation and regulation it imposes drives millions out of work. But not to worry, bureaucrats are always there to catch you when you fall. They can even help you find a job consistent with their own liberal values:

Some government-run unemployment offices in Britain are offering teenage job seekers a chance to make more than $1,000 a week on x-rated Web sites, the Birmingham Mail reports.

The newspaper says the “job with a difference” is being advertised at Jobcentre Plus offices in Birmingham, Warwickshire and Shropshire by an adult recruiting agency, Faceclick.

The agency encourages applicants to engage in sexually explicit conversations with customers and to perform “activities that you feel comfortable with” when naked in front of a camera, the newspaper says.

There will never be a lack of demand for dirty websites, so long as the world is so full of overpaid bureauweenies with too much time on their hands.

It gets worse. In Germany, a woman was told she would be cut off from the government teat for failing to accept a job as a prostitute.

No matter how many broken crutches Big Government generously bestows (paid for with our own money), it would be infinitely better if it never broke our legs in the first place by crippling the economy.

On a tip from MP.

Posted in Politics, Society | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Erosion of religious freedom threatens Church and nation

Posted by Mats on 25/06/2010

England is becoming the dream of every progressive fascist.

Archbishop Donald Wuerl, photo via

In an exclusive interview obtained by CNA, Dr. John Haas of the National Catholic Bioethics Center asked Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington D.C. about some of the issues facing the Church in the “contemporary context.” In his reply, Archbishop Wuerl spoke about the role of and need for religious freedom in society, a role which is dramatically changing, reports Catholic News Agency.

While there are several “individual issues” right now, said the archbishop, most of which focus on the dignity and value of human life, “there’s a growing concern” that “our very ability to carry on our activities” is being challenged.

Archbishop Wuerl said that what is taking place across the country, which he himself has experienced in his own archdiocese, is that, “when you begin to address specific issues, whether they are life issues, marriage issues, whether they have to do with the definition of marriage or a whole range of very basic concerns,” Catholics are now facing “the presumption that you do not have a right to express your religious convictions and you do not have a right to live out those convictions in those institutions which are a part of our Catholic faith tradition.”

One issue to which the archbishop referred was the definition of marriage, a contentious issue, especially after the City Council of Washington D.C. passed a law allowing the recognition of same-sex “marriage” without allowing voters to weigh in on the issue. The measure resulted in Catholic Charities of Washington D.C. being forced to stop offering benefits to employees’ spouses and to close their adoption program.

“If you take another position than what is presented by people today … you are defined as discriminatory,” he said. “And because of that, you and your institutions can be very, very severely criticized,” or even sanctioned.

Essentially, what we are facing, Archbishop Wuerl stated, “Is the failure to balance the rights of free expression of religion with all these other newly-created rights that are coming up out of our secular society.”

The archbishop said that, once the balance shifts against the rights of freedom of religious expression, both on a personal level and on an institutional level, “we are going to find ourselves in a situation we’ve never faced before in the United States.” He called it the “tip of the iceberg,” saying that the erosion of the freedom of religious expression would spread across the Western world.

“At the heart of the issue is the failure to recognize the important place that religious values, and religious institutions and religious faith, have always played in the history of our country,” Archbishop Wuerl declared. “This idea, this new pressure, to reduce everything slowly and completely to secular values is going to impact us very dramatically.”

The role of all believers and people of faith, he said, is to speak up and make their voices heard so all will be aware just how much religious faith is part of America’s history and heritage. “Religious faith is a thread that is woven into the very fabric of our nation,” he continued. “Remove that thread and we do damage to the whole cloth.”

Posted in Bible, Society | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why do the Left want to kill Margaret Thatcher?

Posted by Mats on 10/06/2010

By Adam Shaw

When an elected Member of the British Parliament reveals that he wishes he had the opportunity to go back in time and assassinate a former (but still living) Prime Minister, one would think that members of his own party would immediately condemn him, and that he would be promptly ejected from the party.

Yet, when Labour MP John McDonnell said this week to an audience of union members that he would like to go back in time to 1980 and assassinate Margaret Thatcher, he was greeted not with derision but with a loud round of applause. There has been no reaction from the Labour leadership.

Indeed, what makes this incident all the more disturbing is that McDonnell is no fringe backbencher.  He is in fact a candidate for the Labour leadership, making him a potential future Prime Minister.  Even worse is that McDonnell made his comments when surrounded by four of the five other candidates for the position, none of whom objected to his desire to kill a democratically elected Prime Minister.

Although tasteless, such remarks (as well as the tepid response from the Labour ranks) are not surprising.  Twenty years after Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister, it is still common to hear such venom spat at a woman who is now extremely frail and struggling with severe memory difficulties.  So why do the left hate Mrs Thatcher so passionately and indeed so much more than any other Conservative Prime Minister?  The answer lies in her success.

When Margaret Thatcher came to power in 1979, Britain was in economic crisis, and had been for some time.  From 1974, the top rate of income tax had been 83%, in some cases rising to an incredible 98%, killing growth, job creation and economic prosperity,[i] while inflation was dangerously high at 27%.  In addition, powerful trade unions had taken control of the country’s many nationalized industries.  The Labour government’s unwillingness to upset the unions — one of their main sources of funding and votes– meant that unions steadily grew in power until they had the entire country by the throat.

Strikes and power cuts became common as powerful unions forced the government to prop up failed industries.  Any refusal by government to meet economy-draining demands by union leaders was immediately met with aggressive and often violent striking.  This culminated in the “Winter of Discontent” of 1978-9 where a series of strikes meant that gas and power stations shut down, schools closed, waste piled up uncollected, trains stopped running and hospitals stopped taking patients.  Famously in Liverpool, dead bodies were left unburied as gravediggers went on strike.[ii]  Britain ground to a halt.

When, in the General Election of 1979, Thatcher’s Conservatives were elected, the Iron Lady hit Westminster “with the force of a tornado.”[iii] Within ten years she had turned the “sick man of Europe” into an economic powerhouse, mostly by exchanging Keynesian notions of tax and spend for classical free market economics in the style of Milton Friedman.  Among the many policies she introduced, Thatcher slashed the top rate of income tax to 40% and cut the basic rate from 30%-20%. The average real income of British families rose by a stunning 37% between 1979 and 1992.[iv]  Britain became the second largest producer and exporter of services, helped in part by a decrease in corporation tax from a crippling 53% in 1979 to a more reasonable 35%.  Productivity and growth sharply increased as new jobs replaced old[v], London became a financial hub of economic growth on an unprecedented scale, and the country was propelled into prosperity.

Yet Thatcher’s most successful venture was in the fight with the unions, specifically coal unions.  By the 1980’s, Britain’s coal industry had been a disaster for years, as policy had been dictated not by economic common sense, but by the hard-left National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) whose power made it almost impossible for governments to close down pits or lay off workers.  Pits were making enormous losses, and coal that was being mined continually (irrespective of demand) was being stacked up in mountains. Government after government provided billions of pounds every year to subsidize a failing industry that had become little more than an expensive welfare program — and one that was destroying the country.[vi]  Thatcher was determined to change this, and dared to make cuts.

The head of the NUM was a self-proclaimed Stalinist named Arthur Scargill who was not only prepared to fight, but who saw the prospect of a mass strike as the opportunity to effect a socialist revolution in Britain, saying “This battle is certainly about more than the miner’s union.”  In her excellent book, There is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters, Claire Berlinski shows just how dangerous Scargill and the NUM were to democracy and freedom in Britain.

Funded by Libya and the Soviet Union, Scargill could not be negotiated with — his aim was not to help the workers, but to destroy capitalism altogether, bringing Thatcher’s government down with it.  Throughout 1984-85, Scargill’s NUM tried to shut down Britain, with strikes, riots and flying pickets (where miners who wanted to work would be assaulted by Scargill’s mob and prevented from entering the pits) that unleashed chaos all over Britain.  Thatcher’s Private Secretary at that time — Charles Powell– does not exaggerate when he states that Britain was on the brink of civil war.[vii]
Despite Scargill’s mobs being brutally effective, growing more and more violent by the day, and with Britain mere weeks away from running out of stockpiled coal, Thatcher refused to back down, and gave the police even more power to deal effectively with the riots.  Eventually the miners, hungry and defeated, broke rank and went back to work.  The Scargillian revolution collapsed, and Scargill was defeated.  Berlinski notes that “it was the end of revolutionary socialism in Britain.”  The radical trade union movement as a whole was destroyed, only regaining strength in recent years under Gordon Brown.

It is no coincidence that John McDonnell — the Labour MP daydreaming about murdering Mrs Thatcher– worked for a number of unions, including the National Union of Mineworkers.  McDonnell has also recently praised the IRA for their “bravery and sacrifice.”  This is the same IRA responsible for a campaign of terror that included the Brighton Hotel Bombing in 1984 — the assassination attempt on Margaret Thatcher that killed five people but narrowly missed the Prime Minister.

The anger and the hatred from the left towards Mrs Thatcher is still very real, even decades after she resigned.  Yet it must be understood that such people are not angry at Margaret Thatcher because of anything she did wrong, but because what she did worked.  The destruction of the tyranny of the unions, the economic recovery and boom in prosperity, as well as her contribution to the fall of the Soviet Union[viii] dealt a severe blow to socialism in Britain.  Thatcher showed that socialism does not work, and that free market capitalism does, and for that the left will never forgive her.

Adam Shaw is a writer based in Manchester, England and can be contacted at  He specializes in religion and politics, and is seeking work in both the US and the UK.
[i] T Clark and A Dilnot, ‘Long Term Trends in British Taxation and Spending’, The Institute for Fiscal Studies, B.N 25 (found at pp.7-8
[ii] J Campbell, Margaret Thatcher: Grocer’s Daughter to Iron lady (London: Vintage Books 2009) p.105
[iii] Campbell, Margaret Thatcher, 130
[iv] C Berlinski, There is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters (New York: Basic Books 2008) p.147-8
[v] For detailed analysis, see the articles on unemployment in P Minford et al, The Supply Side Revolution in Britain, (Aldershot: Institute of Economic Affairs 1991)
[vi] Berlinski, There is No Alternative pp.203-204
[vii] Berlinski, There is No Alternative pp.230
[viii] For a detailed and readable account of Mrs Thatcher’s role in the fall of the USSR, see J O’Sullivan, The President, The Pope and the Prime Minister, (Washington DC: Regnery 2006)

Page Printed from: at June 10, 2010 – 09:30:50 AM CDT

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

%d bloggers like this: