Anglican Mainstream

By Cristina Odone, Telegraph

Those of us who care about religion, and especially its role in public life, were delighted to hear that a think tank was organising a series of debates on the topic. That the think tank should be Theos made it all the more interesting. The nice people at Theos belong to the "accommodating" wing of the Church of England, who believe Christians should make room for other religions and viewpoints (ie atheists a la Dawkins) even if in doing so they are being squeezed out of the public space. That they should want a debate on religion in Britain means things really are serious.

When I received the invitation to the debates, I scrolled down the list of topics – and was disappointed that although Theos had invited Richard Dawkins to speak on faith schools, they had not scheduled a discussion of the eradication of our Christian heritage. My heart also sank at the title of the session that, tomorrow, will kick off the series – religion and "superdiverse" societies. Were we being asked to take seriously a buzzword like "superdiverse"?

Yes, I fear we are. I've now read one of the contributions, from Kim Knott, Professor of Religious Studies and the Director of Community Religions Project at Leeds University. The professor berates the "doom and gloom" of those who feel religion is being marginalised, mocked or misunderstood. Calm down, dear, the Prof says, finger-waggingly – look at the successes of UK multiculturalism: representatives of all faith communities have become "agents" in national and local life; religious groups have had a role "in key strategy documents and public programmes"; and religious identity has become central to the equal rights agenda.

Read here

By Rebecca Seales, Mailonline

• 66,000 women and girls in England and Wales subjected to illegal and barbaric practice, say experts
• 24,000 under 15-year-olds believed to be at high risk

The public would be 'shocked' to know how many young girls are subjected to female genital mutilation in the UK, Home Secretary Theresa May said yesterday.

Speaking in the Commons, she said the Government was doing everything it could to warn young women about the dangers of the practice.

Although the secrecy surrounding female genital mutilation (FGM) means it is hard to determine the scale of the problem, there are thought to be around 66,000 affected women and girls living in England and Wales.

The practice occurs in 28 African and Middle-Eastern countries, and is most common among Britain's 600,000 ethnic Africans.

Mrs May said: 'Sadly, what we see are too many examples of this terrible crime continuing to take place. I think most people would be shocked to know how many young girls within the United Kingdom are subjected to female genital mutilation.
 
Read here

By Ed West, Telegraph

By Simon Walters, Mailonline

Calls to scrap curbs on smacking have overwhelming public support – and parents believe such a move would help prevent a repeat of last summer’s riots.

It would also lead to a general improvement in behaviour by young people. But one in three parents is scared to smack for fear of getting into trouble with the authorities.

These are the findings of a Mail on Sunday survey conducted after our report last week on comments by David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham, North London, where the riots began.

He said parents in his constituency opposed the 2004 change in the law by the last Labour Government that means parents who smack their children can be jailed if it causes ‘reddening of the skin’.

They were frightened to smack their children in case they were taken away by the authorities, said former Education Minister Mr Lammy. 

Read here

By Peter Saunders, CMF

The costs of sexual freedom and relationship breakdown to the taxpayer and wider economy total some £100 billion annually; about twice as much as alcohol abuse, smoking and obesity combined.

This is the astounding conclusion of the latest ‘Cambridge Paper’, ‘Free sex: Who pays? Moral hazard and sexual ethics’, by Jubilee Centre researcher Guy Brandon.

Rather than addressing fundamental moral issues around sexual freedom, Brandon employs a utilitarian approach and attempts to quantify its financial impact. He argues that sexual freedom ‘represents an enormous moral hazard and, as a result, unsustainable and unjust public expenditure’. Furthermore, these costs are imposed on society as a whole, rather than borne solely by the individuals most directly responsible.

He first surveys the ‘changing landscape of sexual freedom’. The average age of first intercourse has fallen from 21 in the 1950s to 16 now. The divorce rate has risen from 4.4 per 1,000 in 1970 to 11.1 people per 1,000 in 2010. Forty years ago 85 per cent of first unions were marriage but now 85 per cent are cohabitations. Sexually Transmitted Infections (STIs) in England rose 74 per cent between 1998 and 2009 and abortions increased from 54,819 in 1969 to 189,574 in 2010. 
  
Read here

By Jeff Randall, Telegraph

This is modern Britain, where a foreign-born paedophile cannot be put on a plane back to Pakistan but traditional Christians are arrested for disobliging comments on homosexuality — a triumph of intolerance over faith.

Between Christmas and New Year, the 70th anniversary of an event, which in no small way helped change the course of history, passed almost unnoticed. On December 26, 1941, less than three weeks after Japan had attacked Pearl Harbor, Winston Churchill addressed both branches of Congress in the United States. The prime minister, who was in Washington to agree military strategy with President Roosevelt, used the invitation from Senators and Representatives to excoriate the Axis powers and pose a simple question: “What kind of people do they think we are?”
 
This wasn’t Churchill’s finest oratorical effort, but it was clever. As well as denouncing the forces of darkness and the enormity of their aggression, it was an invitation to ordinary Britons, suffering the horrors of war at home, to reflect on the challenge ahead. He was, in effect, asking fellow citizens: “Of what are we made?”
 
Seven decades later, one wonders how the great man would view the kind of people the British have become. What has happened to the freedoms and independence for which he urged us to fight? It’s hard to imagine our wartime chieftain being anything other than dismayed by the erosion of sovereignty, capitulation to the “equalities industry” and enslavement by debt. We have lost control of domestic borders, ceded legal primacy to Europe and allowed the Storm Troopers of political correctness to stamp their corrosive version of right and wrong on British law.

Read here

By Frances Hardy, Mailonline

• Doctor was victimised on internet after criticising standpoint championed by Richard Branson this week
• He was dismissed from Government advisory role before one meeting

Dr Hans-Christian Raabe is a man of gentle demeanour and firm principle who cares deeply about his patients in the deprived area of Manchester where he works as a GP. Indeed, he chose to serve a community where unemployment is high, drug problems endemic and gang warfare rife because he wanted to make a difference.

‘I wanted to care for people in areas of most need, so I opted to work in a disadvantaged community with a high prevalence of social problems,’ he says. ‘And at the root of many of these problems are drugs.’

‘Every day I see the devastation substance abuse causes to individuals, families and communities. I see huge numbers of patients whose lives — whether directly or indirectly — have been ruined by the misuse of drugs.’

As a result of this first-hand experience — and because he felt a public-spirited compulsion to help tackle a national crisis — Dr Raabe volunteered for an unpaid post on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD).

However, he had barely taken up the three-year voluntary position as a Government adviser when a witch hunt against him began. 
 
Read here

by Anthony Bond, Mailonline

British people are less honest than they were a decade ago, a new 'integrity' study has revealed.

Research by academics at the University of Essex found that having an affair, drink driving, underage sex and lying are more acceptable today than they were in the year 2000.

But people have become less tolerant towards those who commit benefits fraud.

The survey of more than 2,000 adults also revealed that younger people were much more likely to condone bad behaviour than older people.

Those under the age of 25 scored an average of 47 points on an 'integrity scale' devised by researchers, while those over 65 scored an average of 54 points. The average score for all age groups was 50.

Study author professor Paul Whiteley, who is the director of the Essex Centre for the Study of Integrity, said he believes young people are becoming more dishonest because of a lack of positive role models.

Speaking to BBC Breakfast, he said: 'We think it is because their role models are not very good – footballers who cheat on their wives, journalists who hack people's phones.

Read here

By Hilary White, LifeSite News

What kind of man sneaks away under cover of darkness from his own sinking ship, leaving nearly 4200 passengers and crew to fend for themselves? What kind of men knock aside old ladies, little girls and young mothers to get to lifeboats first? Why, modern men, sexually emancipated men who have been raised on the tenets of feminism and our “contemporary” mores.

What can an expression like “women and children first” mean to modern men who have been taught all their lives that women are nothing more precious than sexual playthings, and children nothing more than a disposable burden?

The capsizing of the Costa Concordia, one of the biggest cruise ships plying the Mediterranean, filtered into the English language press a week later and everyone has now heard the recorded phone conversation in which coast guard captain, Gregorio De Falco, furiously orders the ship’s captain, Francesco Schettino, to return to his vessel. Schettino replied by repeatedly lying, while trying to flee in a lifeboat.

Passengers were left to rescue themselves aided by hired entertainers and a few crew members. One woman was quoted saying, “There were big men, crew members, pushing their way past us to get into the lifeboats.” Another passenger, a grandmother, said, “I was standing by the lifeboats and men, big men, were banging into me and knocking the girls.”

Read here

By James Chapman, Mailonline

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey today launches an astonishing attack on the five bishops trying to derail the Government’s £26,000-a-year benefit cap.

In an article for the Daily Mail, Lord Carey insists the sheer scale of Britain’s public debt – which yesterday hit £1trillion – is the ‘greatest moral scandal’ facing the country and warns the welfare system is rewarding ‘fecklessness and irresponsibility’.

He is scathing about all opponents of the proposed limit on benefits – who include Labour peers and Liberal Democrat rebels – but reserves his most outspoken criticism for the Anglican bishops, who led the rebellion in the House of Lords.

He said they encouraged the culture of welfare dependency which led to ‘poverty of aspiration’, and warned them that they could lay no claim to the ‘moral high ground’.

‘If we can’t get the deficit under control and begin paying back this debt, we will be mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren,’ he writes.

Lord Carey hails Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith as a ‘committed Christian’ who is trying to reform a welfare system which is ‘fuelling vices and impoverishing us all’.

Read here

Read Lord Carey's article:  My fellow bishops are wrong. Fuelling the culture of welfare dependency is immoral

Lord Carey recies the C of E from disrepute by Janet Daley,Telegraph

Lord Carey attacks bishops opposed to benefit cap, Telegraph

By Guy Brandon, Jubilee Centre

Rather than addressing fundamental moral issues around sexual freedom, this paper starts with our culture’s premise by taking a utilitarian approach and exploring the financial impacts. This is in line with the common assumption that what truly matters for public policy can be quantified. It argues that significant costs of sexual freedom are imposed on society as a whole, rather than borne solely by the individuals most directly involved. This represents an enormous moral hazard and, as a result, unsustainable and unjust public expenditure. The paper then explores ways to address this, the most compelling of which is the Bible’s emphasis on rootedness and group responsibility.

The Bible’s message of faithfulness, stability and clarity of relationship in its approach to sexual ethics is positive and life-affirming. Whilst this truth has too often been undermined by deficiencies of presentation and the Church’s own record of both sexual licence and prejudice, our culture’s standards have not adequately been critiqued either. This paper takes a pragmatic approach to unpacking some of the serious problems in our culture’s assumptions about sexual freedom. Although the Bible does not determine the ethics of an action solely on the grounds of whether its outcomes are good or bad (consequentialism), acting against God’s law does have harmful effects: it is a property of the world he has created that there are a posteriori consequences as well as a priori judgement.

A brief survey of some of its best-known stories gives the lie to the idea that the Old Testament era was a golden age of traditional family values and sexual restraint. Abraham had a child by his wife’s maidservant when he assumed God would not honour his promise to give him a son by Sarah; David had several men killed to cover up his adultery with Uriah’s wife; Samson, Amnon and Solomon are just a few other examples. Similarly, we should be careful not to look back to a time before the Sexual Revolution with rose-tinted glasses. Nonetheless, recent decades have seen an undeniable change in attitudes and behaviour, with measurable and serious consequences for society as a whole – notably financial ones, from this paper’s point of view.

Read here

From BBC News

The government is set to come up against strong opposition in the House of Lords over its plans to cap benefits payments to £26,000 per household per year in England, Scotland and Wales.

by Jonathan Sacks, MercatorNet

Stabilising the Euro is one thing, healing the culture that surrounds it is another, says the Chief Rabbi of the UK.

The Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Lord Jonathan Sacks, recently met Pope Benedict XVI and gave an acute and insightful lecture in Rome on the causes of the global financial crisis.
 
As the political leaders of Europe come together to try to save the euro, and with it the very project of European Union, I believe the time has come for religious leaders to do likewise, and I want to explain why.

What I hope to show in this lecture, is first, the religious roots of the market economy and of democratic capitalism. They were produced by a culture saturated in the values of the Judaeo-Christian heritage, and market economics was originally intended to advance those values.

Second, the market never reaches stable equilibrium. Instead the market itself tends to undermine the very values that gave rise to it in the first place through the process of “creative destruction.”

Third, the future health of Europe, politically, economically and culturally, has a spiritual dimension. Lose that and we will lose much else besides. To paraphrase a famous Christian text: what will it profit Europe if it gains the whole world yet loses its soul? Europe is in danger of losing its soul.

Read here

By Alexander Boot

And you thought Big Brother was bad. Over Christmas the Dutch TV channel BNN ran a show called Proefkonijnen (Guinea Pigs) that introduced a whole new viewing experience: cannibalism, in living colour.

Two young presenters, Dennis Storm and Valerio Zeno, each had a small piece of his flesh surgically removed, Mr Storm from his buttock, Mr Zeno, paradoxically, from his belly. A professional chef, presumably the Dutch answer to Gordon Ramsay, then fried the delectable morsels in sunflower oil (recommended by the medical profession as a healthy alternative to butter), but, disappointingly, without any salt and pepper. The two cannibals then had a candle-lit supper on camera, all in the best possible taste, joyously comparing notes on the flavour of each other's meat.

One hesitates to describe the repast as human flesh for that would imply that the two main participants, along with everyone else involved in the production and viewing of such entertainment, are indeed human — which in this case ought not to be taken for granted. But it's beyond doubt that the BNN channel has outdone its previous achievements.

A few months ago it ran the show Shooting Up and Swallowing, offering for public consumption live mainlining of heroin, along with sex acts whose nature is implicit in the show's title. And in 2007 BNN embellished the format of Big Brother (also a Dutch creation, by the way) by presenting The Big Donor Show, where the public was supposed to eliminate one by one gravely ill patients in need of a kidney transplant. All perfectly disgusting of course, but it's the cannibalism that takes the biscuit — or the buttock, if you'd rather.

One hankers after the days olden when people were regarded, at least in the West, as consumers of food, rather than the main course. The human body was thought sacrosanct, but that prejudice was of course only prevalent before Jesus Christ became a superstar. It was assumed that the difference between man and beast was that of quality, not degree. Man wasn't just more intelligent than the chimpanzee or more enterprising than the dolphin. He was created in the image of God, which salient characteristic might not have prevented him from killing or being killed, but it did prevent him from eating others or being eaten by them.

Read here

By Philip Booth, Conservative Home

Professor Philip Booth is the Editorial and Programme Director at the Institute of Economic Affairs. Today the Institute of Economic Affairs have published a new study “…and the Pursuit of Happiness: Wellbeing and the Role of Government”.

[...]  Happiness is also linked with happy marriages, religious belief, employment and economic freedom. This is troubling for the left, though perhaps not quite as troubling for the well-being proponents in the Conservative Party. Should the state promote religious belief? I don’t see well-being proponent Polly Toynbee suggesting that it should any time soon. We do not need well-being economics to tell us that it would be a good idea for the state to stop discriminating against marriage in the tax and benefit system and one half of the coalition does seem to recognise this. David Cameron should, however, reconsider his well-being at work agenda being promoted through policies of promoting more employment rights, parental leave and compulsory holidays. Our study shows that there is little evidence that such policies improve the well-being of the employed. However, if they raise the costs of employment and lead to higher unemployment, these policies will significantly reduce well-being overall.

And this really leads us to the main point. The Government does not need to collect well-being statistics in order to try to educate, exhort and lead society (in the Prime Minister’s own words) in the direction of greater happiness. The Government should do less, not more. Greater freedom from government actually increases happiness in its own right. The side effects of greater freedom from government (more employment, higher incomes and the dismantling of welfare systems that discriminate against work and family) also lead in the direction of greater happiness. In other words, government should not try to make us happy, it should allow us to pursue happiness. It should reverse the half-baked policies of collecting data on how happy we all are and get back to an agenda that ensures that we are free – individually, as families and in broader social networks – to pursue happiness.

Read here

by Emmett McGroarty and Jane Robbins

By Martin Beckford, Telegraph

The Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu warns today that “the nation’s humanity is at stake" unless the elderly are protected from Government cuts.

In a comment piece for The Telegraph, Dr John Sentamu admits savings must be made in public spending but urges them to be applied “with caution and compassion”.

He says some 800,000 people who need special care are “old and afraid of tomorrow” after running out of savings, even though they contributed to the building of the welfare state through their taxes.
 
The Archbishop says society will be judged by how it treats growing numbers of vulnerable pensioners, and points out that the requirement to look after older generations goes back to the Ten Commandments.
 
But Dr Sentamu, the second-most senior cleric in the Church of England and the favourite to become the next Archbishop of Canterbury, adds that the ageing population need not be a burden on the economy.
 
He says many older people are saving the state money by continuing to work or supporting their spouses and grandchildren.

Read here

By Edward Pentin, Zenit

To see how disturbing a secularist and increasingly irreligious society can become, one need only look to Sweden.

By Norman Tebbit, Telegraph

It is encouraging that over the last week or so there seems to be a developing agreement that the problem of providing for our increasing numbers of dependent elderly and disabled people must be resolved through a bi-partisan consensus.

The guiding principle of the NHS has from its birth been that health care would be available free of charge to all regardless of the ability to pay. Apart from minor nibbles at that principle, such as prescription charges, it has remained unchanged for 60 years. However, alongside the NHS there has been a growth in social services mostly delivered through local authorities. These, particularly the provision of care at home, or in care homes, for the elderly and disabled unable to care for themselves and needing more care than friends or relatives could, or are willing to provide, have become increasingly means tested.

Now it seems that such care will be available free at the point of delivery only to those unable to pay. Those with any assets will have to pay until they are virtually exhausted and they join the ranks of the “unable to pay”.

Read here

From MercatorNet