Showing posts with label Archbishop of Canterbury. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Archbishop of Canterbury. Show all posts

Friday, March 16, 2012

On the whole this is good news

The Archbishop of Canterbury, His Bloviation, Dr Rowan Williams is departing for greener pastures, to wit, Magdalene College, Cambridge. On the whole, this is good news. I don't care all that much about his travails with homosexuality in the Church apart from being puzzled why it had not been foreseen as a problem.

I do, however, care about his moral relativism, which is not what the Archbishop of Canterbury ought to be preaching, his trendy politicking and his refusal to stand up for Christians under attack, especially in certain Third World countries. Some previous postings on the ArchDruid are here, here, here, here, here and here. Nobody can accuse me of being silent on the subject.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Better assure everyone of my existence

Over on ToryBoy blog Jonathan Isaby has produced another one of those "where, oh where are the right-wing female bloggers" postings. He had been accused of not linking enough to female bloggers and decided to look around, finding that there were none or very few and all of them either stalwart Conservatives or cloggers, that is bloggers on newspapers. Then everyone else piled in discussing why women do not blog or are not right-wing or both or neither. Some people named a number of other right-of-centre female bloggers and one kind reader linked to his blog (for which much thanks).

The idea that Jonathan Isaby somehow knows all the bloggers out there on the right in Britain or anywhere else is laughable. None of us know them all. I could reel off a few but I would never pretend that there were no others. Then again, I am not ToryBoy.

It occurred to me that what with one thing and another I did not comment on the only two British political stories of the last few days (unless you consider the His Bloviation, the ArchDruid of Canterbury making a fool of himself a story): election of Nigel Farage as leader of UKIP (reprise) and a judge deciding that Parliamentary candidates are not allowed to tell lies about their rivals for fear of having the election annulled.

OK, let's get the ArchDruid out of the way. Why the Grauniad should think his extraordinarily stupid intervention should be a set-back to Iain Duncan Smith's plans is a mystery. Why should anyone care what His Bloviation says? If he really thinks that the unemployed are that through no fault of their own then surely doing community work will enhance their battered self-esteem rather than sending them into despair. Surely it is not having work that takes away that hope and self-esteem.

Nigel Farage. I don't need to link to the story as it was everywhere. I have made my views clear a while ago: I do not suffer from the widespread Nigelitis but I do think that this is a smart move either for the party or for Mr Farage; they are now seen as being symbiotically linked and unable to do without the other. Mr Farage's performance in Buckingham was lamentable and, while he is an excellent communicator on the media, he falls a good deal short of being a good manager or leader. All we can hope for is that he will not engineer the departure of two of his rivals and that he allows the structures that Lord Pearson put into place to continue.

Phil Woolas. Well, naturally, we are all glad to see the back of him but are we all that glad with the situation in which elections will be second-guessed in courts on the basis of whose electoral literature was acceptable or otherwise. Where will that stop? Shall we reach a position in which electoral literature will be published and simply sent to special courts who will then decide on the truth, honesty and decency of every candidate's output, pronouncing that candidate the winner?

Monday, November 16, 2009

Who will rid us?

The Archbishop of Canterbury, who has been having a certain amount of trouble keeping the Church he is supposed to be in charge of together, has been pontificating again. This time, he addressed the TUC Economics Conference (there's glory for you) and explained that he thought higher taxes were a GOOD THING. Whether his audience agreed with him we do not know as the article was written ahead of the event.

Why are higher taxes a good thing? Well, because unlimited growth is neither possible nor desirable, it being one of those things that erode our habitat and our society so clearly we need to control it through taxation.
Dr Williams claimed that the “fantasies of unlimited growth” had led to a “vicious cycle” in which consumers are encouraged to buy more goods, which also uses up limited energy and raw materials.

Instead, he said the economy should be geared towards creating a secure and sustainable environment for families.

As part of this, the archbishop said: “We have to ask about ‘green taxes’ (including ‘green’ tax breaks) that will check environmental irresponsibility and build up resources to address the ecological crises that menace us.

“It is of course connected with other proposals about currency exchange taxation – the ‘Tobin tax’ idea: the point is that we should be thinking about taxation neither as an unreasonable burden on enterprise nor as a simple mechanism of redistribution but as a potentially sophisticated tool for long-term ‘economy’ – housekeeping.

“Taxation builds a habitat – already, quite properly, through state welfare provision, but potentially in other less familiar ways.”
The man seems to be economically, historically and politically ignorant. Resources are not limited in that new ones can be found or invented as they have been for centuries. One of the things that restrains development of that kind is government control and high taxation.

Furthermore, has His Bloviation actually examined what high taxation and the ever growing welfare state as well as the ever growing bureaucracy, which snaffles up a very large part of the tax, have done to this country, its society and its habitat? Truly, he exhibits the infantilism of the Left.