[Politics] Brexit

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Speaking as someone who is soon to be retiring from working in a Church environment, it is not about trying to understand the modern world in terms of the Bible (or the Quran). It is about trying to apply Christian principles and teachings to the world in which we find ourselves today. It is not about "God made the world in 6 days and then had a day off" (ok for some people it is), but for anybody from the Churches with any sense it is about justice, tolerance, fairness, about our stewardship of the planet and its resources, about seeking peace etc etc etc.

For example, in Genesis God gives mankind (or personkind) "dominion" over the planet and all its resources - animals, plants etc. I am not a Hebrew Scholar or whatever, but the original meaning (which I would love to be able to read and understand) is about looking after, not plundering and using.

In terms of BREXIT, a general election and so on, the challenge would be to think about and come to conclusions about these matters in terms of those values. If, for example, someone's pro-BREXIT stance is based on an intolerant immigration and racist mindset, then that is clearly wrong.

Having said that, the Marx "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs" has always to me sounded fairly sensible, not a million miles from a sensible attitude to a Christian Faith, and something which was not lived out in the Soviet and Chinese Communist states. That is a grossly oversimplistic comment on a minute part of Marx's thinking, but there we are...….

OK, perhaps my analogy, and dig at Corbyn and chums, was bound to have no resonance with a man of the church.

My point was that in the moden world attempting to present a political plan for the future that will appeal to the electorate by selecting a nineteenth century two class model and resultant hypothetical solution to the problem of one class holding sway (and it did hold sway in a way folk today would find horrendous - only one class having the vote and access to many 'rights') that is rooted in the idea of taking the property and worldly goods from the few and redistributing them, and then rewarding people not by their hard work but by their needs (a green light to pop out as many kids as time permits, thus getting handed a massive house to live in) is simply ludicrous old bollocks.

The 'masses' were liberated in part by laws that make us all 'equal' but also by a society that allows the able to reap rewards. I believe in a system that allows all that, and ensures (via the minimum wage, and by high quality state education and a health system and - yes - council housing or some better modern equivalent) that nobody slips below a certain level. After that, if you are clever and talented and find yourself becoming very well off, good luck to you; that said, I neither support taxing the rich till they emigrate nor allowing them to pay no tax via all the wheezes and tricks the tories permitted that allowed the likes of Lord Vesty to famously pay a tenner of tax on his squillions one year in the 70s.

Also, back to religion, a cynic might argue that the church and other forms of charity have a vested interest in there being a poor underclass - if the state did a better job, and didn't keep pandering to people obsessed with 'scroungers', the church and charities would lose much of their raison d'etre. Well, there are souls to save, of course, but well-fed souls oddly become less concerned with the afterlife, which explains how religious obsevance has declined so much in the UK. There is the rub. We are no longer a society that needs Marxism (or massive amounts of charity - most junior schools including my own were founded by the church to educate the poor, and are now part of a state system). It is no longer relevant or appropriate, and those labour members who cling on to Marxism like it's a lucky charm or soother are not going to take the modern version of socialism forward. By that I mean, firstly, getting elected, and secondly making a decent job of their first crack at power. Mr Tony understood that...

 

[lawros left foot]

[TWEET]1191386612233646081[/TWEET]

I guess they must be blocking it because it exonerates them completely and they don't want people to think too highly of them.

I bet the BBC don't think that cuddly tousled haired lovable little rascal, Boris had anything to do with this.
And if it's proved he did, they won't report it anyway.

#teflon

I hope someone breaks it to the Daily Mail, it's Johnson who is the Russian spy,not Corbyn

 

[Guinness Boy]

OK, perhaps my analogy, and dig at Corbyn and chums, was bound to have no resonance with a man of the church.

My point was that in the moden world attempting to present a political plan for the future that will appeal to the electorate by selecting a nineteenth century two class model and resultant hypothetical solution to the problem of one class holding sway (and it did hold sway in a way folk today would find horrendous - only one class having the vote and access to many 'rights') that is rooted in the idea of taking the property and worldly goods from the few and redistributing them, and then rewarding people not by their hard work but by their needs (a green light to pop out as many kids as time permits, thus getting handed a massive house to live in) is simply ludicrous old bollocks.

The 'masses' were liberated in part by laws that make us all 'equal' but also by a society that allows the able to reap rewards. I believe in a system that allows all that, and ensures (via the minimum wage, and by high quality state education and a health system and - yes - council housing or some better modern equivalent) that nobody slips below a certain level. After that, if you are clever and talented and find yourself becoming very well off, good luck to you; that said, I neither support taxing the rich till they emigrate nor allowing them to pay no tax via all the wheezes and tricks the tories permitted that allowed the likes of Lord Vesty to famously pay a tenner of tax on his squillions one year in the 70s.

Also, back to religion, a cynic might argue that the church and other forms of charity have a vested interest in there being a poor underclass - if the state did a better job, and didn't keep pandering to people obsessed with 'scroungers', the church and charities would lose much of their raison d'etre. Well, there are souls to save, of course, but well-fed souls oddly become less concerned with the afterlife, which explains how religious obsevance has declined so much in the UK. There is the rub. We are no longer a society that needs Marxism (or massive amounts of chairity - most junior schools including my own were founded by the church to educate the poor, and are now part of a state system). It is no longer relevant or appropriate, and those labour members who cling on to Marxism like it's a lucky charm or soother are not going to take the modern version of socialism forward. By that I mean, firstly, getting elected, and secondly making a decent job of their first crack at power. Mr Tony understood that...

Absolutely tremendous post which I will properly thumbs up when I can open NSC on my laptop. I’d give it two if I could.

People should always keep in mind that a left-leaning churchgoer needs the poor almost as much as the Tories.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

Jolly Red Giant is technically correct. At the time of the financial crises very many conservative economists were quite happy to accept that the collapse was very similar to what Marx predicted.

What he obviously massively underestimated was the ability of Capitalism to "heal itself" and move on.

That doesn't however undermine his analysis of Capitalism. He was just a bit shit on what to replace it with.

Capitalism hasn't 'healed itself' - it bought its way out of the crisis by dumping the cost of the gambling debts of the bankers on working class people and running up massive debt.

Another significant economic downturn is around the corner and the central banks are trying to keep it at bay through negative interest rates and printing money for the banks.

As for replacing capitalism - this reminds me of a quote from Tony Benn in Ken Loach's Spirit of '45 - (paraphrasing here) - at a time of war the government can turn the entire economy over to a plan for the war, they can get the factories and the farms operating to an economic plan designed to produce the products of war - yet when we have a peace they always say that you cannot plan the economy, you must let the market dictate.

A democratically planned socialised economy is significant more productive than any capitalist economy - all capitalism results in is the fact that 52 billionaires own more wealth than half the population of the planet.

 

[Jolly Red Giant]

My point was that in the moden world attempting to present a political plan for the future that will appeal to the electorate by selecting a nineteenth century two class model and resultant hypothetical solution to the problem of one class holding sway (and it did hold sway in a way folk today would find horrendous - only one class having the vote and access to many 'rights') that is rooted in the idea of taking the property and worldly goods from the few and redistributing them, and then rewarding people not by their hard work but by their needs (a green light to pop out as many kids as time permits, thus getting handed a massive house to live in) is simply ludicrous old bollocks.

To start with Marx never spoke about a 'two class model' - nineteenth century society has many social classes. Marx argued that over time capitalism with create a society where the working class would be the overwhelming majority of the population - he was absolutely correct in this because the middle class has dramatically shrunk since WW2 and the working class now number up to 90% of the entire population. The same has occurred at the top where previously a wide layer were part of the elites and it has now effectively shrunk to 1% (with 0.01% of the population - about 6,000 people in the UK - about 300 in Ireland - about 30,000 in the USA - controlling half the wealth).

Socialism is not about taking the 'worldly goods' from the wealthy - it is about democratically planning the economy for the benefit of 99% of the population rather than 1% of the population (who are now building their bunkers in New Zealand preparing for the climate collapse).

The notion that wealthy people work hard for their wealth is also nonsense - that may have been (arguably) the case 200 years ago (in reality it was the men, women and children in the factories that created the wealth) - but it is not today.A manager of a hedge fund, gambling on directives with £billions is not engaged in any productive work, is not adding anything to society - they are gambling addicts who can make fortunes overnight, and when they lose working class people pay for it. I gave the example last week of the Irish government inviting vulture funds into Ireland in 2012 to buy up property at knockdown prices - their tax bill (not matter the size of the profit) was €250 a year - less that I pay every week in income tax. If you think that the wealthy work hard for their wealth then you probably think that Donald Trump is making America great again and Boris Johnson wants to save the NHS.

 

[Baldseagull]

Worrying thing about this election for me is it being the 'Brexit Election'.

People don't give a toss about what else is in the manifesto, all they care about is getting into the power the party that will attempt to deliver, or rescind, Brexit.

There is a large portion of the electorate that does not care one way or the other if we are in or out of the EU, trouble is, many of them don't give a stuff who is in Downing street either, but I think Labour may be able to gather some of them.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

OK, perhaps my analogy, and dig at Corbyn and chums, was bound to have no resonance with a man of the church.

My point was that in the moden world attempting to present a political plan for the future that will appeal to the electorate by selecting a nineteenth century two class model and resultant hypothetical solution to the problem of one class holding sway (and it did hold sway in a way folk today would find horrendous - only one class having the vote and access to many 'rights') that is rooted in the idea of taking the property and worldly goods from the few and redistributing them, and then rewarding people not by their hard work but by their needs (a green light to pop out as many kids as time permits, thus getting handed a massive house to live in) is simply ludicrous old bollocks.

The 'masses' were liberated in part by laws that make us all 'equal' but also by a society that allows the able to reap rewards. I believe in a system that allows all that, and ensures (via the minimum wage, and by high quality state education and a health system and - yes - council housing or some better modern equivalent) that nobody slips below a certain level. After that, if you are clever and talented and find yourself becoming very well off, good luck to you; that said, I neither support taxing the rich till they emigrate nor allowing them to pay no tax via all the wheezes and tricks the tories permitted that allowed the likes of Lord Vesty to famously pay a tenner of tax on his squillions one year in the 70s.

Also, back to religion, a cynic might argue that the church and other forms of charity have a vested interest in there being a poor underclass - if the state did a better job, and didn't keep pandering to people obsessed with 'scroungers', the church and charities would lose much of their raison d'etre. Well, there are souls to save, of course, but well-fed souls oddly become less concerned with the afterlife, which explains how religious obsevance has declined so much in the UK. There is the rub. We are no longer a society that needs Marxism (or massive amounts of charity - most junior schools including my own were founded by the church to educate the poor, and are now part of a state system). It is no longer relevant or appropriate, and those labour members who cling on to Marxism like it's a lucky charm or soother are not going to take the modern version of socialism forward. By that I mean, firstly, getting elected, and secondly making a decent job of their first crack at power. Mr Tony understood that...

I agree entirely!

I am of the Methodist persuasion. Part of what I have been involved with over the years is the Tolpuddle Festival, 5 of the 6 Martyrs being Methodists and 3 of them Local Preachers.... which is what I am.

A very clear part of the story is that the Martyrs did what they did largely because of and through their faith and those values of justice. It is also clear that theChurch of England was on the side of the landowners and oppressors, who were after reducing levels of pay which were already below subsistence level. I have been present on at least two occasions when people (one of them The current Bishop of Salisbury) have apologised for the Church of England's part in it all.

Things are, as you so eloquently point out - very different now, though.

 

[Baldseagull]

OK, perhaps my analogy, and dig at Corbyn and chums, was bound to have no resonance with a man of the church.

My point was that in the moden world attempting to present a political plan for the future that will appeal to the electorate by selecting a nineteenth century two class model and resultant hypothetical solution to the problem of one class holding sway (and it did hold sway in a way folk today would find horrendous - only one class having the vote and access to many 'rights') that is rooted in the idea of taking the property and worldly goods from the few and redistributing them, and then rewarding people not by their hard work but by their needs (a green light to pop out as many kids as time permits, thus getting handed a massive house to live in) is simply ludicrous old bollocks.

The 'masses' were liberated in part by laws that make us all 'equal' but also by a society that allows the able to reap rewards. I believe in a system that allows all that, and ensures (via the minimum wage, and by high quality state education and a health system and - yes - council housing or some better modern equivalent) that nobody slips below a certain level. After that, if you are clever and talented and find yourself becoming very well off, good luck to you; that said, I neither support taxing the rich till they emigrate nor allowing them to pay no tax via all the wheezes and tricks the tories permitted that allowed the likes of Lord Vesty to famously pay a tenner of tax on his squillions one year in the 70s.

Also, back to religion, a cynic might argue that the church and other forms of charity have a vested interest in there being a poor underclass - if the state did a better job, and didn't keep pandering to people obsessed with 'scroungers', the church and charities would lose much of their raison d'etre. Well, there are souls to save, of course, but well-fed souls oddly become less concerned with the afterlife, which explains how religious obsevance has declined so much in the UK. There is the rub. We are no longer a society that needs Marxism (or massive amounts of charity - most junior schools including my own were founded by the church to educate the poor, and are now part of a state system). It is no longer relevant or appropriate, and those labour members who cling on to Marxism like it's a lucky charm or soother are not going to take the modern version of socialism forward. By that I mean, firstly, getting elected, and secondly making a decent job of their first crack at power. Mr Tony understood that...

I don't think any Political ideology should be adhered to dogmatically. I think some of the best things we have in this country, like the NHS, could be considered Marxist policies, and indeed were (are?) considered Marxist and a step towards a Communist society by the Tories, as is "Socialized Medicine" in the US is today.
Some areas thrive on competition, and in others, competition is not possible on an equal footing, and a free market without regulation is a terrible idea, and in some cases a State operated system is better.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I agree entirely!

I am of the Methodist persuasion. Part of what I have been involved with over the years is the Tolpuddle Festival, 5 of the 6 Martyrs being Methodists and 3 of them Local Preachers.... which is what I am.

A very clear part of the story is that the Martyrs did what they did largely because of and through their faith and those values of justice. It is also clear that theChurch of England was on the side of the landowners and oppressors, who were after reducing levels of pay which were already below subsistence level. I have been present on at least two occasions when people (one of them The current Bishop of Salisbury) have apologised for the Church of England's part in it all.

Things are, as you so eloquently point out - very different now, though.

The problem with the CofE at the time was that bishops were chosen by the gentry, and livings at certain parishes to sons of gentry who weren't going to inherit or go into the military.

As for the church needing the poor, what comes down to, is does money make you happy? It makes you comfortable and gives you choice, but it doesn't give you peace of mind.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

To start with Marx never spoke about a 'two class model' - nineteenth century society has many social classes. Marx argued that over time capitalism with create a society where the working class would be the overwhelming majority of the population - he was absolutely correct in this because the middle class has dramatically shrunk since WW2 and the working class now number up to 90% of the entire population. The same has occurred at the top where previously a wide layer were part of the elites and it has now effectively shrunk to 1% (with 0.01% of the population - about 6,000 people in the UK - about 300 in Ireland - about 30,000 in the USA - controlling half the wealth).

Socialism is not about taking the 'worldly goods' from the wealthy - it is about democratically planning the economy for the benefit of 99% of the population rather than 1% of the population (who are now building their bunkers in New Zealand preparing for the climate collapse).

The notion that wealthy people work hard for their wealth is also nonsense - that may have been (arguably) the case 200 years ago (in reality it was the men, women and children in the factories that created the wealth) - but it is not today.A manager of a hedge fund, gambling on directives with £billions is not engaged in any productive work, is not adding anything to society - they are gambling addicts who can make fortunes overnight, and when they lose working class people pay for it. I gave the example last week of the Irish government inviting vulture funds into Ireland in 2012 to buy up property at knockdown prices - their tax bill (not matter the size of the profit) was €250 a year - less that I pay every week in income tax. If you think that the wealthy work hard for their wealth then you probably think that Donald Trump is making America great again and Boris Johnson wants to save the NHS.

No.

Just one thing - I know what socialism is and I know what Marxism is. I was criticising our present labour leadership for their fondness for Marxism. Not socialism.

Yes, I do think the wealthy (I think of myself as wealthy, house paid for, nice pension pot, started with **** all, worked my arse off, all salary and income from my training and expertise) deserve their wealth. Even those who inherit wealth need some smarts to keep it. Trump has done that. BUT what I don't agree with is that people like Trump can still be in business having failed to do a tax return for years. Trump and those other ******** need to be nailed.

It is nuanced, you see.

Sadly I suspect you think that Mr Tony is a class traitor and running dog lacky of the bourgeoisie.

At the end of the day, the left must attract support of the electorate. 99% of Americans think they are middle class. You don't win votes by talking down to people or offering them solutions to problems they don't think they have.

And I want a labour government and the back of the shysters currently ruining everything. So that means an electable labour party. Maybe we have one now....time will tell.

 

[Guinness Boy]

To start with Marx never spoke about a 'two class model' - nineteenth century society has many social classes. Marx argued that over time capitalism with create a society where the working class would be the overwhelming majority of the population - he was absolutely correct in this because the middle class has dramatically shrunk since WW2 and the working class now number up to 90% of the entire population. The same has occurred at the top where previously a wide layer were part of the elites and it has now effectively shrunk to 1% (with 0.01% of the population - about 6,000 people in the UK - about 300 in Ireland - about 30,000 in the USA - controlling half the wealth).

NHS.

Goodness me, where do you get this stuff? It’s patently wrong about the UK. Which entire population are you on about?

The middle class has been growing. In fact there’s a Guardian data blog that suggested the middle classes overtook the working class in numbers around the year 2000.

https://amp.theguardian.com/news/da...ore-middle-class-than-working-class-2000-data

Now some surveys since have said more people consider themselves working class but the income data just doesn’t support it. And the point HWT was making is that simply splitting people outside the elite in a binary way is entirely specious. It takes no account of career breaks, gig economy, “mumprenuers”, remote workers and globalisation for a start.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

People harping on about the church as some form of direction not sure who's worse both hypocrites in their own right
Regards
DF

 

[Guinness Boy]

To start with Marx never spoke about a 'two class model' - nineteenth century society has many social classes. Marx argued that over time capitalism with create a society where the working class would be the overwhelming majority of the population - he was absolutely correct in this because the middle class has dramatically shrunk since WW2 and the working class now number up to 90% of the entire population. The same has occurred at the top where previously a wide layer were part of the elites and it has now effectively shrunk to 1% (with 0.01% of the population - about 6,000 people in the UK - about 300 in Ireland - about 30,000 in the USA - controlling half the wealth).

Socialism is not about taking the 'worldly goods' from the wealthy - it is about democratically planning the economy for the benefit of 99% of the population rather than 1% of the population (who are now building their bunkers in New Zealand preparing for the climate collapse).

The notion that wealthy people work hard for their wealth is also nonsense - that may have been (arguably) the case 200 years ago (in reality it was the men, women and children in the factories that created the wealth) - but it is not today.A manager of a hedge fund, gambling on directives with £billions is not engaged in any productive work, is not adding anything to society - they are gambling addicts who can make fortunes overnight, and when they lose working class people pay for it. I gave the example last week of the Irish government inviting vulture funds into Ireland in 2012 to buy up property at knockdown prices - their tax bill (not matter the size of the profit) was €250 a year - less that I pay every week in income tax. If you think that the wealthy work hard for their wealth then you probably think that Donald Trump is making America great again and Boris Johnson wants to save the NHS.

In fact the whole of your post is nonsense.

Let’s take two professions close to NSC’s heart- footballers and chefs.

At the bottom rung of either comes long hours, shit pay (for footballer think semi pro doing another job) and very traditional working class roots. At the top, riches beyond imagination (for chef think Gordon Ramsey).

To get from a to b you need talent, luck and an absolute boatload of hard work. All thanks to capitalism


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dr Bandler]

Great Post

OK, perhaps my analogy, and dig at Corbyn and chums, was bound to have no resonance with a man of the church.

My point was that in the moden world attempting to present a political plan for the future that will appeal to the electorate by selecting a nineteenth century two class model and resultant hypothetical solution to the problem of one class holding sway (and it did hold sway in a way folk today would find horrendous - only one class having the vote and access to many 'rights') that is rooted in the idea of taking the property and worldly goods from the few and redistributing them, and then rewarding people not by their hard work but by their needs (a green light to pop out as many kids as time permits, thus getting handed a massive house to live in) is simply ludicrous old bollocks.

The 'masses' were liberated in part by laws that make us all 'equal' but also by a society that allows the able to reap rewards. I believe in a system that allows all that, and ensures (via the minimum wage, and by high quality state education and a health system and - yes - council housing or some better modern equivalent) that nobody slips below a certain level. After that, if you are clever and talented and find yourself becoming very well off, good luck to you; that said, I neither support taxing the rich till they emigrate nor allowing them to pay no tax via all the wheezes and tricks the tories permitted that allowed the likes of Lord Vesty to famously pay a tenner of tax on his squillions one year in the 70s.

Also, back to religion, a cynic might argue that the church and other forms of charity have a vested interest in there being a poor underclass - if the state did a better job, and didn't keep pandering to people obsessed with 'scroungers', the church and charities would lose much of their raison d'etre. Well, there are souls to save, of course, but well-fed souls oddly become less concerned with the afterlife, which explains how religious obsevance has declined so much in the UK. There is the rub. We are no longer a society that needs Marxism (or massive amounts of charity - most junior schools including my own were founded by the church to educate the poor, and are now part of a state system). It is no longer relevant or appropriate, and those labour members who cling on to Marxism like it's a lucky charm or soother are not going to take the modern version of socialism forward. By that I mean, firstly, getting elected, and secondly making a decent job of their first crack at power. Mr Tony understood that...

Brilliant post, every word of which I agree with (and you cant say that often). Be careful The Clamp will accuse you of being an apologist for the alt-right.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

The problem is, is that the people who say that Corbyn is un-electable believe this because there's lots of other people saying he is un-electable.

It's a self fulfilling prophecy. But then, when you ask for specifics why he's un-electable, it's mostly because he is a Marxist (a lie) a terrorist sympathiser (a lie) an anti-Semite (a lie) and his policies will create more debt (half truth at best).

But the undoubted fact is, his and Labour policies poll well with a majority of the electorate. If you take away the lies about him, and the people who say he is un-electable vote for the polices instead of on who the leader is, a leader who by the way who has 1/650th of decision making power in the commons, he would be elected. It's a real shame a majority will not vote for their own standards of living and public services to get a unicorn Brexit which never existed and to make themselves worse off through tory polices whilst making the rich even richer.

Let us take the Labour nationalisation policies as an example. The CBI say they will increase public debt. In fact, we will be using public money to create a public ownership. As far as the balance sheet goes, we have the same amount of capital and we can reap the rewards of the profits. The public are already paying out the bum for privatisation through government subsidies.

I don’t know a single person who does not consider share holdings as part of their overall wealth, do you? And do you know what, if did go tits up, guess what? It’s a saleable asset. It’s a win win. Cannot say the same for reversing the damage of Brexit if it ever happened.

Vote Labour for real change because this country is currently the pits.

Thanks for the party political Broadcast Mikey but I'll stick to my original thought that most resonable people can see straight through Corbyn and his far left influences .
a far cry from traditional labour voters
Regards
DK

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Brilliant post, every word of which I agree with (and you cant say that often). Be careful The Clamp will accuse you of being an apologist for the alt-right.

Cheers. Nah, Clampy is sensible. And not as rude as me, apparently

 

[Dr Bandler]

Speaking as someone who is soon to be retiring from working in a Church environment, it is not about trying to understand the modern world in terms of the Bible (or the Quran). It is about trying to apply Christian principles and teachings to the world in which we find ourselves today. It is not about "God made the world in 6 days and then had a day off" (ok for some people it is), but for anybody from the Churches with any sense it is about justice, tolerance, fairness, about our stewardship of the planet and its resources, about seeking peace etc etc etc.

.

Forgive me for going slightly off Brexit, but shouldn't the purpose of religion to teach people the spiritual laws and truths that allow them to connect to something greater, something metaphysical? That is what the great spiritual teachers tried to tell us, but we build religions to worship them, and build rules around that. If you take your premise then the church just becomes a social club for incredibly nice and sincere people (not that there is anything wrong with the values you quote, but you can have them without religion / spirituality).

When I lived in Zurich there was a great guy at the church there; he was a monk amongst other things, and was always haranguing the bland priest and others for spouting well-intentioned but meaningless platitudes. I was part of a rebel, breakaway group that hung around with him - he has great knowledge.

 

[beorhthelm]

A democratically planned socialised economy is significant more productive than any capitalist economy

the evidence for this is?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Sir Lindsay Hoyle (Lab) has just been elected as the new Speaker.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Forgive me for going slightly off Brexit, but shouldn't the purpose of religion to teach people the spiritual laws and truths that allow them to connect to something greater, something metaphysical? That is what the great spiritual teachers tried to tell us, but we build religions to worship them, and build rules around that. If you take your premise then the church just becomes a social club for incredibly nice and sincere people (not that there is anything wrong with the values you quote, but you can have them without religion / spirituality).

When I lived in Zurich there was a great guy at the church there; he was a monk amongst other things, and was always haranguing the bland priest and others for spouting well-intentioned but meaningless platitudes. I was part of a rebel, breakaway group that hung around with him - he has great knowledge.

………….. Oh, I forgot that bit!

Obviously you are right, BUT Once people have made that connection, a vital part of that - a biblical imperative as far as I am concerned - is to care about what is going on in the world around you.

If your monk in Zurich would not agree with that, then I would not agree with him.

In my youth - in the 1970s, say, I would have dismissed the Church, seeing Faith as a way in which people escaped from the world. I had my eyes opened by meeting a girl whose father was a Methodist Minister, and through whom I met numbers of influential people who made that connection very strongly. I therefore took faith more seriously (I would say came to faith, but it was already there) when I realised it could be political - with a small p - i.e. not party political, or at least not when preaching.

And by political, I mean dealing with real world matters, whether it be economic and political, or environmental and poverty.