Today, some links that have been rattling around in my notes for a while, with some quick thoughts on them.
From the Church of Scotland: “We want to ensure we have the right people in the right places at the right time equipped to deliver God’s work and word.”
My thought: Those who blatantly rebel against God’s Word aren’t going to be the right people….
Another “conviction by statistic” under scrutiny: “Despite no direct evidence linking him to any of the patients….”
My thought: Can we stop destroying lives by convicting people without any direct evidence? If Colin Norris is guilty, Scripture says he should have had the death penalty. But where are the real witnesses, real evidence? People call the Old Testament penal system “barbaric,” but it had real safeguards against false convictions. Barbaric? Imprison someone for 30 years or more without any real evidence. That’s barbarism.
My thought: I understand what they are trying to say. But that name…. Irreverent? (worship is supposed to be about God, not about us) Arrogant? (other people aren’t worshipping?) Just trying to be too clever/cute? Maybe it is just me, but this rings lots of bells with me, and they are all the wrong ones.
Calling for tightening accessibility to Internet porn: “There is enough evidence to suggest that if we can put more barriers towards guys getting to child abuse images, fewer of them will do it and more children will be safe.”
My thought: Wow! A government official who isn’t brain dead! How many sex crimes and murdered children will we have before people wake up to the fact that easy access to sexually charged visual images is not necessarily a good idea?
It’s not just the Internet, though: “I think it has reached a point where we need to detox our High Streets, and make Britain a family-friendly country again.” “It’s time to tackle raunchy pop videos, and huge billboards featuring sexualised images of women, she said.”
My thought: Yes, yes, and yes. My second thought: Diane Abbott, why didn’t you actually influence policy when your party was in power and pushing the hyper-sexualisation and moral trashing of Britain? But I’m glad you are saying it now, anyway, since the current government has been no better. I hope everyone reads her comments.
Drinkers aren’t telling the truth about how much they drink: “Experts said much alcohol use went unreported, partly because drinkers did not admit or keep track of how much they consumed.”
My thought: Maybe University College London should research something that everyone doesn’t already know the answer. My second thought: Alcohol abuse may be the single biggest cause of poverty, unemployment, family breakdown, NHS overspending, crime, depression, and probably a host of other social ills. We don’t even know who is consuming half the stuff. A sane society would try to reduce its use, not encourage it. Responsible press and entertainers would stigmatise it rather than glorify it. But “responsible press and entertainers” is apparently an oxymoron.
Tax system bias against stay-home mums: “The tax system should be at the very least neutral between full-time mothers and working ones.”
My thought: It almost certainly won’t happen. The powers-that-be will not implement policies that encourage mums to stay home and actually direct the raising of their children. They are too busy glorifying aberrational “families.”