Bishops Put Boot into Brown's Promises & Policies

neverdespairgirl

milliemonster wrote: »

Hmm, in touch with the real british public then?

I would be reluctant to condemn the clergy on the basis of the utterly wrong statements you quoted from another poster.

The average vicar earns quite a bit less than the average British worker.

nickmason

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

My Dad says that the Church used to be called "the Tory party at prayer", but those days went some time ago.

It still is in some parts;)

And I've been seriously impressed by the deportment of many left-wing minded members of the clergy who find themselves in such a milieu.

neverdespairgirl

tradetime wrote: »

As a fulltime trader that would probably not be appropriate, I just happen to consider the clergy to be a bunch of sanctimonious blasphemers, that's all.

I find this a bit odd. Most vicars spend their time visiting ill and elderly people, and the bereaved, dropping in on mother and baby groups, and running prayer groups, and holding services. Quite hard to see that as a force of evil, really.

nickmason

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I would be reluctant to condemn the clergy on the basis of the utterly wrong statements you quoted from another poster.

The average vicar earns quite a bit less than the average British worker.

Indeed - a number don't actually get paid at all (and although they will get a house, it is as much an office - people calling at all times - as a home).

neverdespairgirl

One of my mother's mates is being ordained in the summer. She will be a non-stipendary curate, meaning that she doesn't get paid. Greedy cow that she is!

nickmason

I have wondered how they get away with this vis-a-vis minimum wage?

The Church (and related organisations) does have some odd exemptions; I once helped Worldvision with recruitment. They had a prerequisite that any employee had to be a practising Christian, which was apparently legitimate discrimination.
They were unable to find a suitable candidate, so they decided to reduce the requirements, and say that non-believers could be recruited, but could not have management roles! It was pretty difficult explaining that to some of the very able applicants of different/no faiths.

tradetime

iolanthe07 wrote: »

As a fulltime trader that would probably not be appropriate, I just happen to consider the clergy to be a bunch of sanctimonious blasphemers, that's all.

What a strangely venomous thing to write. I have worked with members of the clergy over many years and, like any other group, they are a mixed bunch. But on the whole I have found them to be sincere and they seem to work quite long hours for the sort of salary most of us wouldn't get out of bed for. I don't know why they deserve a comment like that.

Interesting choice of phrase, who said irony was dead. Well let's see, "sanctimonious" would be based upon personal experience of those I have encountered, not all I must admit, but most, and thus a generalization, unfair on some no doubt, but I suspect that was not the part of my comment you took most dislike to.
That would leave us with blasphemy, which I'm afraid is not so subjective. If you adopt a position as one who teaches the "Word of God" and you profess to follow the teachings of the bible, then you put yourself in a rather precarious position, if indeed that is not what you do. Take some of the mainstays of modern Christianity, the celebration of Christmas, or Easter, these festivals, however much fun they are, are not from the bible. Similarly the adoption of Sunday as "The Lord's day" not in the bible. So, it follows that if you teach things claiming they come from God, then to me that is blasphemy. Now I may not be religious, and therefore as damned as the rest, but at least I'm honest about it.

MiserlyMartin

About time the church did something useful. Although sad that the only big figurehead in the media to see through Browns spend, spend, spend (its global - not my fault) dellusion are the bishops

nickmason

tradetime wrote: »

Interesting choice of phrase, who said irony was dead. Well let's see, "sanctimonious" would be based upon personal experience of those I have encountered, not all I must admit, but most, and thus a generalization, unfair on some no doubt, but I suspect that was not the part of my comment you took most dislike to.
That would leave us with blasphemy, which I'm afraid is not so subjective. If you adopt a position as one who teaches the "Word of God" and you profess to follow the teachings of the bible, then you put yourself in a rather precarious position, if indeed that is not what you do. Take some of the mainstays of modern Christianity, the celebration of Christmas, or Easter, these festivals, however much fun they are, are not from the bible. Similarly the adoption of Sunday as "The Lord's day" not in the bible. So, it follows that if you teach things claiming they come from God, then to me that is blasphemy. Now I may not be religious, and therefore as damned as the rest, but at least I'm honest about it.

Okay - so not actually very venomous. But I think it's fair to say that your perspective does focus rather a lot on the literal word of God bit and rather less on the good work that most members of the clergy do. And using the phrase blaspemers is bound to be inflammatory without the (rather esoteric, and certainly not tacitly obvious) explanation you've now given.

(And FWIW, I'm a resolute atheist.)

neverdespairgirl

nickmason wrote: »

I have wondered how they get away with this vis-a-vis minimum wage?

<vague memory time>

OH was talking about this a while ago. I think vicars etc aren't employees at all., In law, I think they may work for God, and the Church just hands them a few quid to keep body and soul together. It's not a wage.

This is a vague memory, though, don't rely on it!