Subsidies for harm?

Wrath aroused

Why subsidised groups who think homosexual are all going to hell and believe that woman are subordinate to their husbands and brothers? Why underpin the finances of a body that discourages contraception in Africa or that believes that investing in  merchants of death is a good way of serving the Prince of Peace?

These are questions that were raised in the ever-varied fare offered by the Public Administration Committee. The subject was the financial boost that the taxpayers shells out to religious charities. Does it make sense any more? One witness    Andrea Williams from the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship preached at us with an evangelical fervour that embarrassed her fellow God bothering witnesses.

She stirred up my wrath by trying to justify public cash because of the work of the church in encouraging sexual abstinence in Africa. The dreadful consequences of that American- backed policy in Uganda was to cut the use of contraceptives and greatly increase the spread of the curse of AIDS. Life expectancy has plummeted from the 50s to the 30s in those African states that have not promoted contraception.

The scary staring Andrea Williams provoked me even more with a claim for the universal benign work of the Christian religion. Not strictly true. There is Northern Ireland and Cortez’s exploration of South America is one of many others. He thoughtfully saved the immortal souls of the indigenous people by baptizing them before slaughtering them in groups of 13, in memory of Christ and the twelve apostles.

Don Horrocks spoke for the Evangelical Alliance. He is fluent in the babbling non-speak of verbal ectoplasm. He burbled a string of non-sequiturs dis-connected from the straight questions asked.
No, he did not admit that some of the evangelicals he represented believed that all homosexuals and Muslims were doomed to hell.  But I am sure they do.

David Pollock of British Humanist Association spoke with clarity and precision. He supported the idea that not all-Christian education is always beneficial. Children are taught an ethical system based on bible stories. Most of them stop believing the bible stories at about the same time they stop believing in Father Christmas. Will they lose faith in their ethics at the same time? Would it not be better to build their beliefs on an enduring secure humanist foundation?

It’s a thought.

Happy nightmares  

Is David Davis sleeping well tonight?

In a panic-edged shriek he begs Labour to stand against him. With our standing in the polls now at a subterranean level, we can understand why he would like a Labour versus Conservative fight. He will not get one.

Is he now suffering the gut-twisting realisation that he has given Labour the best news this year and buried his own glittering career? And it's all his idea.

The hideous nightmare will be to have the Sun’s Kelvin as his main opponent. In the left Corner will be the thinly talented Davis carrying a handicap of a ‘soft on terrorists’ policy that’s unpopular with 70% of the voters. In the right corner will be Killer Kelvin backed by 10 million Sun readers with the populist message that all suspects should be locked up for 400 days without charge, whether they are guilty or not.

The Sun’s feud with David Davies is as bitter and long running as his rivalry with David Cameron. Both will relish the prospect of stealing his constituency and bringing his political career to a full stop.

Perhaps a couple of sleeping pills tonight, David.

Panic mongering

A correspndent writes,

" I have been angered and upset by the Daily Express front pages of the last three days i.e. 11/06, 12/06, 13/06.  If you look at them, you will see they are very deliberately scaremongering and panic inducing  concerning the petrol tanker drivers strike.

In my opinion they have crossed the line of what is acceptable, especially in view of the tragic incident in the London Sainsburys"

The headlines distorted the news and invented a petrol panic in they hope will caues havoc. Presumably, it's all abut low political advantage. Why does anyone buy this contemptable rag?.

Comments

[greg]

Any chance of a comment on the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, especially with respect to the House of Lords Ratification of said bill?

Today's Guardian states:

Everything suggested that Europe's key leaders were urgently conferring on a scheme to steamroller their blueprint through despite the Irish rejection, a course likely to trigger protest from Eurosceptics and deepen Europe's democratic legitimacy problems.

I'd be very interested to hear about this!

Regards

Greg

[Paul Flynn]

Obliged Greg. But I doubt that you will agree.

[Tony]

OK, I can see the frustration at the David Davies by election but you seem just as frustrated at the 42 day legislation so what would you suggest as an alternative?
Rely on the Lords to delay it ? Thats all they can do ultimately
Rely on the Tories to repeal it - doubt it !
And if you can accept his statement at face value what else could he do but make a stand in this way?
If this is a principled stand then I would have thought you would be OK with that - given your stand on on drugs, fganistan , pharmaceuticals etc ?
And on the EU - this is democracy in action. Not the same as parliamentary democracy but democracy all the same. The treaty is 99+% the same as the constitution and when given the opportunity it has been rejected by France , Holland and now the Irish. At what point do the EU think .Ok, so thats not wanted - what is ?' There seemed to be a lot of people in Ireland who did not understand what was being offered - so why would they vote for it? I have alwats wanted us to be awilling participant in the EU - but just maybe , for the time being, this is as far as we can go?
Sorry, lots of questions here but I think these have to be answered at some point ..

[paulflynn]

Thanks Tony.

yes I feel angry and frustrated about the 42 days. But it is a piddling minor issue compared with Global warming, Iraq, Afghanistan, Energy policy and dozens of others. If it passed it will do more harm than good. It's a political game to wrongfoot the Tories and those of us who voted against the 90 days. Why a gesture of surveillance cameras and a DNA database when they can do so much in discouraging crime?

The Irish vote gives democracy a bad name. People did not understand and voted against for crazy reasons - particulary the danger that the EU could force humane abortion laws on Ireland.

Ireland has had more than their fair share of the Euro Budget. We need a two speed Europe with the ingrates in the slow lane.

[Plain Jaine]

I eagerly await the opening of the feeding of the homeless, mothers and toddlers, visits to the sick in hospital, visits to the elderly unable to leave their homes, and work done directly with struggling single parents in some of the poorest communities in Newport - I assume the Humanists will be setting these up soon since it seems religion of any kind has no value?

Or is it just the usual attitude of lapsed catholics thats got you on this?

[Tony]

I'm sorry but I disagree that 42 days detention without trial is a piddling minor issue. The other items may well deter crime although there seems to be some debate as to how much or if it just displaces it - thats not the point. David Davies was right in that its a step at a time so that there is no big issue and then we've lost these basic freedoms . And why should a citizen fear the state - if anything its should be the other way round. Governments are chosen to rule by the people and if the people don't like something and reject it then that should be respected - Ireland is a case in point. Are you suggesting that because Ireland had benefited from EU money for development it had no right to reject the Treaty?
I don't dispute your stand on nuclear, Afganistan , drug law - I just think that this is up there with them and if DD wants to make a stand and tilt at windmills so be it - sometimes its not about logic but gut reation

[paulflynn]

Thank you Plain Jaine. That's an entirely fair point. The minutes of the committe were put on the PASC website today. You can read that we gave full credit for the 'god works' that religious charities do. The questions is (1) whether all their activities are benign and (2) whether all their activities deserve a subsidy from taxpayers who did their share their religious views.

[Huw O'Sullivan]

You're so wrong on the David Davis issue Paul.
Of course its a stunt, most of politics involves stunts. But people are going to feel closer to him and by definition the tories because of this. New Labour not fielding a candidate on what they assure us all is an issue people are in favour of, simply makes them look worse than they already do.
Would he win if they did, damn right, with only the most die hard, dreamy people who have not realised that new labour is further away from the labour party than the tories were before thatcher, not voting for him. Will he win if they don't and your sun competition comes true, yes, and because of this extension to the unecessary extension to how long innocent people can be held without charge, it really is more important than you think.
If I was in his constituency while he would have a hope in hell of getting my vote any other time, he would be getting it in this by election for this reason.