40 1 min 9 yrs

Can I ask your views on these topics?

1)      Should we allow gay marriage in church?

2)      Should we make it harder to get an abortion?

3)      Do the rich have a moral duty to pay more taxes?

The reason I ask is that I am participating in a new TV show and these are pilot topics, not to be aired but to be discussed.

My answers?

1. No. It was Church to decide what should be allowed in Church, not militant secularists,

2. Yes. Even David Steele, the architect of the 1967 Abortion Act thinks so. Nowadays, for some, it has become a form of contraception.

3. No.

Over to you – imagine you are on the panel, the camera swings onto you, what do YOU think? ALL views welcome!

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

40 thoughts on “THREE QUESTIONS

  1. Church management should decide what happens in their buildings

    The rich should pay a higher tax rate than the working class, no question about it. I’m not sure that they should pay more than they do now. There should be a lot more surgery on government spending.

  2. Should we allow gay marriage in church?

    1. No. It was Church to decide what should be allowed in Church, not militant secularists,

    I don’t think that your answer is consistent David. If you believe that it is up to the Church to decide what is permitted in Church then the answer to the question is “Yes, We should allow (but not require) gay marriage in church”, leaving it up to the churches to decide whether they wish to follow that path.

    At the minute there is a ban on churches conducting gay marriages even if they wanted to.

    In the government’s review document ( http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/equal-civil-marriage/consultation-document?view=Binary ) it says

    “The Government aims to address the following issues as part of this work…

    To make no changes to how religious organisations solemnize marriages i.e. marriages solemnized through a religious ceremony and on religious premises would still only be legally possible between a man and a woman. The Government is not seeking to change how religious organisations define religious marriage and any subsequent legislation would be clear that no religious organisation could conduct a religious marriage ceremony on religious premises for same-sex couples.”

    If civil gay marriage is to be allowed then I see no reason to continue a ban on religious gay marriage.

  3. no
    yes
    no

    response to panel and camera, The policy has been just the opposite, and look at the condition of our society and economics.

  4. Fews

    Sorry, I expressed myself poorly (doing three things at once!!) What I mean is that it is for a given Church to decide if it wants to allow “gay marriage” or not. The issue cannot and should not be imposed on it by whoever. I do not think the default should be to allow it UNLESS the Church thinks otherwise. It is a core Christian view that marriage is a religious institution between one man and one woman. THAT should be the default position. Also, why would a gay couple want a religious ceremony when be definition they are going against religious determination?

  5. 1. A church should be able to decide for itself whether to allow the practice.
    2. I would prefer it rare.
    3. Odd question. A legal duty to pay is there for all. They have a moral duty to pay their share I suppose. Whether that should be more than others depends on the tax code. I think they can afford to pay a different rate, but merely giving them a higher rate in and of itself doesn’t solve problems of government spending.

  6. The church should have the sole say of what sacraments or ceremonies take place within its walls.

    No one else should have any voice in the matter.

  7. Phantom – Well yes, certainly within reason (human sacrifice, stoning out for instance).

  8. “A church should be able to decide for itself whether to allow the practice.”
    “The church should have the sole say of what sacraments or ceremonies take place within its walls.”

    At the moment in the UK, churches are banned from conducting gay marriages. The governments proposal is that even if civil gay marriage is permitted then the current ban on gay marriage in churches still stays in place.

  9. All churches? Not just the Church of England?

    Not only do you not have freedom of speech there, you don’t have freedom of religion either.

    Time for a US Style Bill of Rights, boys.

  10. I think the first question demonstrates well the dilemma facing this country. If we separate Church from State (as I believe will happen) the whole edifice comes tumbling down. The Queen is irrelevant, the pomp and pageantry of state occasions, the traditions of Parliament -all of it.

    The politicians who have been pushing the multicultural “all are equal, all are valid” agenda,and have been pressuring the CofE to accommodate its secular agendas. By separating Church from State, churches can then have Christian ceremonies including weddings, and the State can stop being hypocritical and using the Church as a “whipping boy”.
    So that’s a NO.

    The rules around abortion should be tightened up, and we should stop pretending that in a considerable number of cases abortion is a euphemism for murder.
    So that’s a YES!

    Making the rich pay more in taxes is a NO. (I like the idea of us all paying a flat rate, or taxes on products and services.)

    Go for it David!

  11. All churches? Not just the Church of England?

    Yes, see the linked I included above.

    “The Government is not seeking to change how religious organisations define religious marriage and any subsequent legislation would be clear that no religious organisation could conduct a religious marriage ceremony on religious premises for same-sex couples

  12. The UK law is itself illegal on its face.

    Churches should have the right to conduct their ceremonies as they see fit, subject to state laws against physical violence, etc.

    Whether the state recognizes a single sex ” marriage ” done by the Church of Whats Happenin’ Now is in turn the state’s business.

  13. “At the moment in the UK, churches are banned from conducting gay marriages.”

    No they’re not. They choose to not marry gay couples. In fact gay ‘marriage’ doesn’t exist, and you can’t ban something that doesn’t exist.

  14. From the governments consultation document

    “That is why this consultation is limited to consideration of civil marriage and makes no proposals to change the way that religious marriages are solemnized. It will not be legally possible under these proposals for religious organisations to solemnize religious marriages for same-sex couples. There will therefore be no obligation or requirement for religious organisations or ministers of religion to do this. It will also not be possible for a same-sex couple to have a civil marriage ceremony on religious premises. Marriages of any sort on religious premises would still only be legally possible between a man and a woman.”

  15. “1)      Should we allow gay marriage in church?”

    Who is that, “we”?

    “2)      Should we make it harder to get an abortion?”

    Again, define “we”.

    “3)      Do the rich have a moral duty to pay more taxes?”

    From a humanist point of view, yes of course, goes without saying.

    “My answers?
    “1. No. It was Church to decide what should be allowed in Church, not militant secularists,”

    What on earth are “militant secularists”? Are they the chaps who fly passenger planes into buildings?

    “2. Yes. Even David Steele, the architect of the 1967 Abortion Act thinks so. Nowadays, for some, it has become a form of contraception.”

    For some? You mean those too dense to realize that when an abortion is being mooted conception has already occurred. Duh.

    “3. No.”

    Gosh. There’s a turn up for the books.

  16. “3) Do the rich have a moral duty to pay more taxes?”

    From a humanist point of view, yes of course, goes without saying.”

    Eh? What does that mean, and why does it go without saying?

  17. Pete,

    If you have to ask then you don’t understand the concept of humanism. I suggest you research it.

  18. I know what humanism is (mainly a poncy North London word for godless commies).

    Why do wealthier people have a moral duty to be looted more heavily by the State?

  19. Pete,

    Your response confirms that you know nothing about humanism. Again, I suggest you research it.

  20. Richard,

    Wise approach. Don’t waste time on someone who isn’t genuinely interested.

  21. 2. Yes. Even David Steele, the architect of the 1967 Abortion Act thinks so. Nowadays, for some, it has become a form of contraception.”

    For some? You mean those too dense to realize that when an abortion is being mooted conception has already occurred. Duh.

    Good Lord! I hadn’t realised what a conceited prat Richard Clinton is, although I suspected. Far be it for me to explain what DV meant but I know exactly what he meant: the dense use it as a form of birth control. Is that better, RC?

  22. 1. none of our business

    2. none of our business

    3. no (*)

    (*) not in general anyway. though you could maybe make the case that given the recent enormous transfer of wealth to the super rich, if anyone should be footing the bill for the bailouts etc, it should be them.

  23. ahh whats the matter frank no guts to state your position? Funny your not shy about putting your two cents into anything else.

    won’t hesitate to bash those that have done better than you though.

  24. Troll,

    “ahh whats the matter frank no guts to state your position?”

    My position is posted up there. Have you got nobody there who can read it to you?

    “Funny your not shy about putting your two cents into anything else.”

    Actually (unlike you) I don’t post on a number of topics that I don’t know much about. Of course if you did that you’d post a lot less often.

  25. Have you got nobody there who can read it to you?

    LOL

    Monica must be out of the house!

  26. 1. As a non Christian i don’t really care what the church allows or doesn’t allow. So for me i would have to adstain on this one.

    2. I can think of only a few reasons why it should be available.

    3. No. Why should we punish someone because he/she has put in the effort to make a better life for themselves?

  27. I would reiterate that whether you like it or not, the history, culture and traditions of the British Isles has been shaped by the Christian church.
    Don’t forget, Henry the Eighth wasn’t trying to abolish the Holy Catholic church and the authority of the Pope; he was trying to get an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.

    So somehow or another,we English ended up with a Catholic church that refused to recognise the authority of the Pope. Intentionally or not, it was the best thing that could have happened, and opened the way for the English to break free of the Roman Catholic straitjacket which held back so many other “loyal” Catholic countries…

    England developed socially with the Church of England as our moral influence and cultural reference point. Destroy that connection and the whole edifice of English/British culture comes crashing down.
    So whilst the issues above are important, the underlying one relates to the death of our English history and values.
    Closet Roman Catholics are probably rubbing their hands with glee! 🙂

  28. ‘Why should we punish someone because he/she has put in the effort to make a better life for themselves?

    I quite agree, but without the structure of a society, no-one would make or sell anything. That structure has to be paid for, and the better it is the more opportunity there is to do ‘better than the average bear’. Ergo, those that benefit the most should contribute more than the less succesful. Come on now – you know it makes sense!

    p.s. and I don’t mean ‘benefit’ as in welfare.

  29. @Ernest – Likewise, i also agree with your conclusions but i think what we are refering to is ‘the perfect society’, which we do not live in at present. Truth be told the Govt don’t want us all to be successful. They need the unthinking lemmings that depend so heavily upon on the state. The serious question that needs to be asked is, what encouragement is the Government giving to folk to make them want to lift themselves out of the lemming bracket? There is no encouragement! So the point i was making was, if without any encouragement or assistance i have managed to get myself into a position of relative financial comfort, what right has the government to punish me with higher taxes? Fair taxation can never be argued with but 50% of my earnings? Many thanks Ernest

  30. DV: “1. No. It was Church to decide what should be allowed in Church, not militant secularists,”

    That’s fine. But remove the Tax free status of the church. If they want to run it their way, they can fund it.

  31. “They need the unthinking lemmings that depend so heavily upon on the state.”

    They need them for what?
    To justify having a bloated government that provides bureaucratic jobs and political careers?
    To justify continued interference by said State into the lives of people who can get along quite well and work efficiently and effectively without the State?

    You know, after the second World War, education was all about giving people the opportunities to better themselves. We actually believed in aspiration and civilisation.
    Now we are going backwards.
    Reality TV and “Dope Operas” keep people’s minds off the really important things -like Democracy and self improvement.

  32. “That’s fine. But remove the Tax free status of the church. If they want to run it their way, they can fund it.”
    He who pays the piper calls the tune. It would be far better to break the financial fetters.

  33. Taxing churches would be the opposite of the situation in many parts of the world, including Europe at times, where mosques can be subsidized by the state – not just tax exempt status, but an active financial support of the religion.

    The ROP wouldn’t like removing tax exempt status.

  34. Phantom,
    In many muslim nations Islam IS the state. That’s one of the reasons democracy is an alien concept. Islam: submission to Allah’s Will.
    I wouldn’t have so much of a problem with it, if it truly was more tolerant.
    But it ain’t.

  35. In many muslim nations Islam IS the state. That’s one of the reasons democracy is an alien concept.

    That would be correct sir. To be an unbeliever is not just to have a different view, but it is to be blasphemer. Which is why minorities are treated the way they are. And how they got to be minorities in the first place.

Comments are closed.