|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: London Riots - The Root Cause
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
The land itself is of little value. It is working the land that adds value
I'm sorry, this is twaddle. If I had an ancestor who had claimed a large area inside contemporary London and had handed this down to me it would be worth a lot regardless of whether the generations in between had worked on it or not.
The exclusive claim on the land itself has value.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
The land itself is of little value. It is working the land that adds value
I'm sorry, this is twaddle. If I had an ancestor who had claimed a large area inside contemporary London and had handed this down to me it would be worth a lot regardless of whether the generations in between had worked on it or not.
The exclusive claim on the land itself has value.
That is because people have worked the surrounding land - which is the argument for both taxation on both property and inheritance.
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515
|
Posted
^^ Just to add with regards to that point - the fact is, even if you had a large plot of land in the City of London, it would be worthless to you, unless you decided to claim it or use it.
This could be done through selling the land, or renting it out, or using it yourself. All these actions involve your labour.
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
Property as many understand it to mean, is the fruit of ones labour. It does not have to be restricted to real estate - intellectual property, etc.
How does labour convert into a claim on a particular bit of land? Additionally, 'intellectual property' doesn't operate in the same way as other property. If I own a field, you can't also own it, if I have an idea, there isn't anything to stop you having the same idea.
Ideas do not constitute property, not even intellectual property. It is the expression of the idea, eg a song, book, design, trademark or specification that is treated as intellectual property. My idea can be exactly the same as yours and no law need be contravened: you can only sue me if the my expression of the idea is, to all intents, identical to yours.
As for land, it has intrinsic value through scarcity - look how many wars have been fought over land and the resources of and under it.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
The looting has nothing to do with the cuts or with the Arab Spring. The latter suggestion is risible.
The looting is a manifestation, or possibly a metamorphosis, of a continuing stream of criminality which has been plaguing parts of England's inner cities over the past 20 years if not longer. The gang culture copied from America, which is itself a product of social breakdown, is nothing new. Of recent years, long before any cuts, it took the form of mostly black on black crime such as gang shootings and stabbings linked to other criminal enterprises most notably drug trading. Although the authorities set up Operation Trident to counter this and occasionally these gun and knife murders cause public dismay, provided they are left to the ghetto they do not cause the authorities to take any particularly significant action.
Now that the problem of lawlessness has moved out of the ghetto and affected the general public it has hit the headlines. It festers and occasionally erupts because the authorities have been until now too craven to deal with it effectively. Whether anything will change is a moot point.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Some of the looters are hardly poor. It seems a case of 'I think I can, so I will'.
I'm glad to see that at least one mother has turned her son in.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
I think Chesterbelloc was pointing out that property owners actually mean everyone in opposition to Ken, whose phraseology could be read as indicating that the police and other authorities favoured the privilleged (at the expense of the poor).
No, I think Chester was pointing out that "defending property owners" applies as much to ensuring no-one steals your playstation as it does to ensuring no-one destroys your place of business.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
People in the UK see news reports of people in the Middle East and North Africa being unhappy with their lot, and having riots to change it - and everyone praises how brave they are. And the people who are unhappy with their lot think "Not fair! They get to smash the system - but we don't!"
Maybe. From what I understand of this, based on the rigourously scientific method of looking at reports on the news, facebook, and this thread, it seems to me that there isn't a single category of people involved in these events and that talking about 'the rioters' is just a bar to understanding.
On the first night, and possibly the other night, there were people who were genuinely angry that somebody had been shot and it wasn't obvious that it was justified.
Then there are people who are angry about the fact that the system is not operating for their benefit. Again, rioting on the first night.
Then there are people who just have fun smashing things: bascially, vandals.
Then there are the people who are opportunistic looters: everyone else is getting hold of stuff so why shouldn't we?
And finally there are the organised criminals who again were taking advantage of the police being tied up in anti-riot cordons to loot with premeditation.
Groups three and four are certainly not intentionally protesting against anything.
However, the fact is that classes three and four would probably not exist, or would have far fewer people in them, if their members felt that they had more of a stake in the system. On the whole, people in the middle to upper tax brackets, who believe that if they work hard they will be rewarded, choose less ostentatious ways of expressing their anti-social impulses.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
This is one of the arguments for property rights being a natural right, that is a person owns themselves and therefore their own labour - when a person works, that labour then becomes an object, and the object becomes the property of that person.
That's certainly the usual Marxist line. However, in our society when you work your labour becomes an object that is the property of your employer. Your employer does not pay you the market value for the object you produce: your employer pays you the market value for your time x skills. That's worth less than the object produced is worth, which is how your employer can make a profit.
Now you can object that this situation violates the workers' natural rights if you like. But it doesn't look like the revolution is happening any time soon.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
The land itself is of little value. It is working the land that adds value - you can either do this work yourself, or hire people to do this.
This contradicts the claim that we have a natural right to the product of our labour. If we have a natural right to something, we cannot alienate that right, at least not without equivalent compensation. So we can't be hired to sell our labour to somebody else - on this picture, that's not essentially different from selling ourselves into slavery. If someone hires us to work their land, and we have a natural right to the product of our labour, then the product of our labour naturally belongs to us regardless of what the hiring agreement says. The person whose land it is can buy the product of our labour off us, but they can't hire our labour on this picture.
This is not how most societies, other than Marxist utopias, work.
The other problem of course is that it's not clear how much labour counts as labour. If I am walking along a creek and I spy a gold nugget on the ground and I pick it up does the act of picking it up really constitute 'labour'?
Suppose I then stake a claim to that bit of creek by putting up a sign at each end of the creek saying 'claimed'. Does that constitute 'labour'?
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
God help me, I'm turning into a Telegraph reader*. I thought this piece by Peter Oborne was absolutely superb. Where it points blame, I think it does so with pinpoint accuracy.
*(If you see a group of four horsemen outside, hurry on by.)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
I think Chesterbelloc was pointing out that property owners actually mean everyone - in opposition to Ken, whose phraseology could be read as indicating that the police and other authorities favoured the privilleged (at the expense of the poor).
No, I think Chester was pointing out that "defending property owners" applies as much to ensuring no-one steals your playstation as it does to ensuring no-one destroys your place of business.
You're both right, actually. I have slightly altered the emphasis of angelicum's words above to avoid any possible ambiguity.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
God help me, I'm turning into a Telegraph reader*. I thought this piece by Peter Oborne was absolutely superb. Where it points blame, I think it does so with pinpoint accuracy.
Yes - brilliant article (And the first I've ever read in the Telegraph). It was not good to see the very MPs who had been cheating on their expenses standing up and shouting outrage.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I'm glad to see that at least one mother has turned her son in.
Oh, no - apparently such 'disloyalty' is to be lamented. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Jerry Boam: The attention of the state rarely helps. The mechanisms of `justice` tend to grind people up and spit them out. Rehabilitation is not an actual goal. The rough embrace of that system is not something we want to see for our loved ones even if they are throroughly guilty.
First of all, I think it very much depends on the sort of `attention of the state` you have in mind. Early intervention and job training programs might actually help. Secondly, even if your assertion were true, it`s preferable to change the mechanisms of justice rather than abandon them.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
Property as many understand it to mean, is the fruit of ones labour. It does not have to be restricted to real estate - intellectual property, etc. This is one of the arguments for property rights being a natural right, that is a person owns themselves and therefore their own labour - when a person works, that labour then becomes an object, and the object becomes the property of that person. He is therefore entitled to legitimate means of defending this property.
Good point - although this raises the question of what it means to be "entitled" to something. It is meaningless to say that anyone is "entitled" to anything in the absence of a civic structure.
What this means in practice is that if there's no government, then it's all very well to say that you have a "right" to protect what you have made by the fruits of your labour - but there won't be anyone to defend that right for you.
The state that provides that protection will only exist if you are prepared to pay its tithes or taxation, and comply with its other rules that are necessary for you to qualify as a "citizen". You don't have to pay the taxes and comply with the rules if you don't want to - however, that means you'd have to up sticks and go find somewhere else to live that isn't part of that state's jurisdiction. If you're not prepared to do that, then you have to pay the taxes and obey the rules.
Citizenship and real-estate ownership are not to be confused with each other. It's possible to be a citizen without being a real-estate owner - and, likewise, it's possible to be a real-estate owner without being a citizen. That's why the cost of real estate rights enforcement would never be paid for out of general taxation.
After all, if you were a UK taxpayer who was a tenant in a property that was owned by someone who lives in a different country and who doesn't pay any UK tax, then would you be happy if your taxes were used to pay the costs of the enforcement of the rights of the landlord who does not pay UK tax? I suspect the answer to that question would be no. Such an arrangement would largely defeat the point of you being a UK citizen at all.
So I think there is a distinction to be made between the general property rights you can expect as a result of being a citizen, and the specific rights you get that derive from real estate ownership - since it's possible to own real estate in the jurisdiction of nations of which you are not a citizen.
For example, if a UK resident and citizen owns real estate in California, but falls victim to a robbery in the UK in which the robber steals documents that allow them to commit ID fraud, thereby claiming the rights to the California estate for themselves - then it's not unreasonable to expect the UK authorities to do something about that. But if they're not a victim of ID theft, and simply want to evict tenants in California, then they have to invoke the legal system of California, and pay the relevant fees. Neither the UK treasury nor the California treasury will pay the fees for them.
So, the question is, what general property rights can we expect to be able to enforce, as a result of merely being a citizen of a particular jurisdiction?
I have a nasty suspicion that it's not quite as much as many of us would like to think. For example, if you've got valuable but uninsured jewellery in your flat, and someone burgles your flat and pinches it, do you really have an enforceable right against the authorities to have that jewellery recovered for you, such that they would compensate you if they fail? I highly suspect that the answer to that question is no. It's difficult to see how contents insurance would exist at all otherwise.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by angelicum:
[qb]After all, if you were a UK taxpayer who was a tenant in a property that was owned by someone who lives in a different country and who doesn't pay any UK tax, then would you be happy if your taxes were used to pay the costs of the enforcement of the rights of the landlord who does not pay UK tax? I suspect the answer to that question would be no. Such an arrangement would largely defeat the point of you being a UK citizen at all.
at all otherwise.
Unless the tenant was living there rent free the landlord would have to pay UK tax on the property income.
But I cannot see what any of these meanderings have got to do with the riots.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
God help me, I'm turning into a Telegraph reader*. I thought this piece by Peter Oborne was absolutely superb. Where it points blame, I think it does so with pinpoint accuracy.
*(If you see a group of four horsemen outside, hurry on by.)
I agree. It put what I've been thinking into words. One of the few things I admire about the US justice system is that it treats white collar crime as seriously as it does other crime, and hands out sentences that are just as long. For years in this country fraudsters have been treated leniently whilst robbers get the book thrown at them. Neither are victimless crimes - ask anyone whose savings or pension have been wiped out by fraud.
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The looting is a manifestation, or possibly a metamorphosis, of a continuing stream of criminality which has been plaguing parts of England's inner cities over the past 20 years if not longer. The gang culture copied from America, which is itself a product of social breakdown, is nothing new.
[My italics]. Exactly. Social breakdown = 'there is no such thing as society' = lawlessness.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
Leaf posted: No, you would not actually prefer to live in such a world. The attitude of "protect your own, even when they are doing evil things" is a great medium in which to develop crime. It means that crimes cannot be investigated because of uncooperative witnesses, criminals have impunity, injustice rolls on like a polluted river.
The attitude may be understandable, given past relations between the police and [insert oppressed group here]. But even those oppressed groups eventually get tired of protecting criminals and fostering crime, which usually affects them most directly. It takes particular courage to break the group's silence for the sake of justice, for the sake of an unknown neighbour from outside the group.
In the US it is well documented that poor people and particularly poor people of color cannot count on getting fair treatment from the justice system and so members of these communities are often reluctant to turn even guilty family/community members in since it's been repeatedly demonstrated that they will not receive just treatment or reasonable punishment.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Social breakdown = 'there is no such thing as society' = lawlessness.
There's a massive misquote in the middle of that equation. Or at the least a massive misunderstanding of what was actually being said.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:
Leaf posted: No, you would not actually prefer to live in such a world. The attitude of "protect your own, even when they are doing evil things" is a great medium in which to develop crime. It means that crimes cannot be investigated because of uncooperative witnesses, criminals have impunity, injustice rolls on like a polluted river.
The attitude may be understandable, given past relations between the police and [insert oppressed group here]. But even those oppressed groups eventually get tired of protecting criminals and fostering crime, which usually affects them most directly. It takes particular courage to break the group's silence for the sake of justice, for the sake of an unknown neighbour from outside the group.
In the US it is well documented that poor people and particularly poor people of color cannot count on getting fair treatment from the justice system and so members of these communities are often reluctant to turn even guilty family/community members in since it's been repeatedly demonstrated that they will not receive just treatment or reasonable punishment.
Did you miss the part where I said it was understandable? Is =/= ought.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
...in opposition to Ken, whose phraseology could be read as indicating that the police and other authorities favoured the privilleged (at the expense of the poor).
That is so obviously the case that I'd have trouble believing that anyone could honestly deny it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
The land itself is of little value. It is working the land that adds value
I'm sorry, this is twaddle. If I had an ancestor who had claimed a large area inside contemporary London and had handed this down to me it would be worth a lot regardless of whether the generations in between had worked on it or not.
The exclusive claim on the land itself has value.
Er, building stuff is a kind of working!
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The looting is a manifestation, or possibly a metamorphosis, of a continuing stream of criminality which has been plaguing parts of England's inner cities over the past 20 years if not longer.
Go away and read some history. Mob violence were a lot worse in London in the 18th and for a lot of the 19th century, and never quite died out. There was no Golden Age.
And the idea that "this sort of thing is copied from America" is risible.
Also things aren't (yet) anywhere near as bad as the early 1980s. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Ideas do not constitute property, not even intellectual property. It is the expression of the idea, eg a song, book, design, trademark or specification that is treated as intellectual property. My idea can be exactly the same as yours and no law need be contravened: you can only sue me if the my expression of the idea is, to all intents, identical to yours.
Except there is no 'natural right' to intellectual property. It's a temporary monopoly granted by a state to reward creative work.
quote:
As for land, it has intrinsic value through scarcity - look how many wars have been fought over land and the resources of and under it.
Yes. The exclusive right to the use of a piece of land has intrinsic value, it's not purely a function of my labour (which is what angelicum was claiming).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
leaf posted:
Oh, no - apparently such 'disloyalty' is to be lamented.
Did you miss the part where I said it was understandable?
I'm not sure what you are advocating.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
The land itself is of little value. It is working the land that adds value
I'm sorry, this is twaddle. If I had an ancestor who had claimed a large area inside contemporary London and had handed this down to me it would be worth a lot regardless of whether the generations in between had worked on it or not.
The exclusive claim on the land itself has value.
Er, building stuff is a kind of working!
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
The looting is a manifestation, or possibly a metamorphosis, of a continuing stream of criminality which has been plaguing parts of England's inner cities over the past 20 years if not longer.
Go away and read some history. Mob violence were a lot worse in London in the 18th and for a lot of the 19th century, and never quite died out. There was no Golden Age.
And the idea that "this sort of thing is copied from America" is risible.
Also things aren't (yet) anywhere near as bad as the early 1980s. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember.
To bring up the eighteenth century mob as being in some sort of historic continuum with the present violence is not only a hackneyed and not very credible cliche but fatuous in the extreme. You really ought to stop purveying this tired old nonsense.
London's modern crime gangs have adopted an American gang culture lock stock and barrel, from their dress, and even a lot of the language they use.
But then living in Lewisham you would know all about these things!
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
quote:
aumbry posted: To bring up the eighteenth century mob as being in some sort of historic continuum with the present violence is not only a hackneyed and not very credible cliche but fatuous in the extreme. You really ought to stop purveying this tired old nonsense.
London's modern crime gangs have adopted an American gang culture lock stock and barrel, from their dress, and even a lot of the language they use.
But then living in Lewisham you would know all about these things!
And what do you think the historical basis of American gang culture might be?
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:
aumbry posted: To bring up the eighteenth century mob as being in some sort of historic continuum with the present violence is not only a hackneyed and not very credible cliche but fatuous in the extreme. You really ought to stop purveying this tired old nonsense.
London's modern crime gangs have adopted an American gang culture lock stock and barrel, from their dress, and even a lot of the language they use.
But then living in Lewisham you would know all about these things!
And what do you think the historical basis of American gang culture might be?
Not the London mob! Read the National Gang Center's history of American street gangs here (pdf). In the U.S. we have street gangs mostly because immigrants and black people have been economically and culturally marginalized. It's all an ethnic/racial thing, not something you can say of the historical London mob.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
The point is that western gang culture has its beginning in Britain and was imported to the Americas and so although current members may prefer the American flavor it's not like it's some uniquely American creation being brought to their shores. It has its basis in European social unrest and inequality that predates America and so I think it is related to the original point.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
quote:
leaf posted:
Oh, no - apparently such 'disloyalty' is to be lamented.
Did you miss the part where I said it was understandable?
I'm not sure what you are advocating.
Let me be more clear then. The first sentence you quoted was sarcasm. My actual position is that such 'disloyalty' is to be commended because it is doing the right thing which may come with personal cost.
I can understand the temptation not to report the criminal activity of a family, or fellow oppressed group member, to the police. Just because I understand a temptation, that does not mean I approve of it when someone chooses that route.
I am advocating less of a small-tribalism mentality. I support programs that break down mistrust between oppressed groups and police, and create greater economic opportunities for the former. If you would like, I can provide examples from my context. Such programs have not yet brought in the Kingdom of God, but they attempt (with varying degrees of success) to improve on the past situation.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
The point is that western gang culture has its beginning in Britain and was imported to the Americas ... It has its basis in European social unrest and inequality that predates America ...
That inequality is a root cause of the development of gangs seems obvious. The development of street gangs in the US has always been fueled by the economic hardship and discrimination that has accompanied large-scale immigration and internal population shifts. Each wave of European immigration in the 19th century saw the rise of street gangs, as did the internal migration of black people out of the south. So you could say that we have gangs in the U.S. because of European social unrest, except that the earliest origins of gangs in the American west go back to Mexico, but not back to Spain.
But the culture of American gangs -- not the fact that we have gangs, but their culture -- was not imported from Britain; it has come from the cultures of the immigrants and internal migrants. Where I live, that means, in order of their development, East L.A. barrios and Mexico and Central America for the Latino gangs, and the South Central L.A. ghetto for the black gangs and, interestingly, for the Asian gangs -- some of the Asian Boyz sets (who are Cambodians) are affiliated with the Crips. The culture of the Asian gangs in San Francisco was also not imported from Britain; it comes from China and Hong Kong.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
I hadn't seen this thread and posted in the wrong place, and ken answered me there:
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
quote:
Again, as a Detroiter, I'm suspicious of the term "riot." Police and media will always make it look like it's just looters and thugs and people with too much time on their hands.
If anything the media are talking this up. The TV representation of the bit of London I live in made things look far worse than they were.
I think this is nothing like Detroit, or Watts, or LA after Rodney King was attacked - even though the original spark was so similar. For a start, so far, many fewer people have been killed. I get the impression that large parts of Detroit or LA became no-go areas during, or even after, the riots. And that rioting there was entirely or almost entirely black. And that white people would not have been safe walking the streets.
That was not the case in London this week (I don't know about Birmingham or Manchester). Even in the "rioting" areas most people, of whatever race, were able to go about their business comparitively normally. It was scary, but not - as it turned out - actually very dangerous, outside the immediate vicinity of street fighting or fires. For example Lewisham station, used by more then ten thousand people each day, operated normally even though there was serious trouble only about 100 metres away.
There were some attacks on individuals, but very few. And they happen every day in a city the size of London of course. I imagine everyone who was beaten up or robbed on Monday got reported as being attacked by rioters or looters. On an average day there are 200 serious assaults and 100 robberies reported to the police in London.
The one thing I am most afraid of in the near future is if a particular white racist view of this as a race riot takes hold and some thugs try for retaliation by attacking what they percieve as black areas. Partly personal of course - I live in one of the parts of London that might be most affected. But also because it would have a terrible effect on life here for everyone.
If there is anything in the American experience that resembles this its the New York City blackout. Which caused far more damage than has happened here (so far).
Thanks for that. As a side note, the Detroit '67 Uprising was about both race and class (economics), because in the US those are so intertwined they're almost impossible to separate. So it wasn't really a "race riot." (It started with police raiding a "blind pig." Detroit did have a race riot in '43, and that was started by whites who resented Blacks for, so they thought, stealing their jobs.) It's true that in '67 the "rioting" was mostly Black, but that was because there had long been really racist policies in place - something you wouldn't find overtly on the books in the US or the UK in this day and age. Segregation had allowed the city government to push the increasing Black population into smaller and smaller sections of the city, with pretty derelict property, and there were also many racist policies for employment (either on the part of the companies themselves or of unions you had to be in to get a job - interestingly, the UAW desegregated precisely so that the auto companies couldn't hire non-white workers if the union went on strike). Even in cases where income was equal (which would've been really rare), the wealth inequity between Blacks and whites was quite significant, and the lines between rich and poor fell so neatly along racial lines that an uprising of the poor would only be an uprising of non-whites (which, of course, included Eastern Europeans). It was a complicated issue. For some reason, we tend to look back now on racial issues as being rather superficial and simple - probably because that makes it easier for us to think we've gotten beyond racism and its effects, when we haven't.
So in asking whether there were any similarities to Detroit, I actually had economics in mind more than race! And, in Detroit, most people with the means to do so (wealth) pretty much left the city, leaving the burned-out hulk of a city to the people who couldn't afford to leave, and so couldn't afford to fix it. That's an over-simplification, but in broad strokes it gives you an idea. Our famous population decline has actually been slower than our previous population boom in the early 20th c., so most people in Detroit at the time had no real roots there - they were like the seed sown on rocky soil, to use a biblical image. Why would they stay?
Incidentally, in a documentary I saw, one eyewitness who was in the Grande Ballroom during the Uprising said that the place was spared from being burned like buildings around it because "there's music in there." It was, in a sense, sacred! Or at least recognized as not part of the problem. I wonder if any places have been spared in this summer's riots because they were seen in a similarly quasi-sacred, or even sacred, way? But I think that's also a way to tell thugs & looters from genuine protesters. For looters & thugs, nothing's sacred.
And, sadly, in any of these cases, there's going to be opportunists. Even in a true uprising, some people are going to see an opportunity in the chaos to loot, vandalize, and cause trouble. There was a very small-scale protest here in Oakland, CA, not long ago over a white officer who had killed a black man pretty much getting off - he was convicted of manslaughter and basically spent just a couple months in jail since they counted "time served" leading up to his trial. During the protest, looters broke store windows, stole a lot of stuff, and caused a lot of expensive damage to businesses. It turned out to be mostly people from out of town, and even out of state!
Anyway, seeing anything like this, whether an uprising or a riot, really breaks my heart for about a million reasons.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
I wonder why people are so keen to emphasise that circumstances aren't excuses (I wonder, because this seems to state the obvious). Do you see discussion of circumstances as an attempt by liberals to prevent rioters from having to take responsibility for the harm that they've caused?
No. The emphasis is because nearly every time one tries to explore the root cause, one is accused of attempting to exonerate the rioters. Several posts on this thread are examples, as is indeed your post.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Some of the looters are hardly poor. It seems a case of 'I think I can, so I will'.
I'm glad to see that at least one mother has turned her son in.
And as it now appears that the parents of those turned in are likely to be evicted from their homes if they are so fortunate as to live on council estates, I trust you will be standing by with accommodation for this mother and any of her other children who might be rendered homeless as a result of her turning her son in.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And as it now appears that the parents of those turned in are likely to be evicted from their homes if they are so fortunate as to live on council estates
John
Though this is nonsense masquerading as tough talk by the councils, and they know it and assume that the public are stupid.
It would breach the HRA on a number of points, it would smack of collective punishment, and they'd just then be homeless - and the council would then have an obligation to rehouse them (urgently in the case where children are involved).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
The kids have to accept the consequences of their actions. After all, several of the shops, etc. have been rendered 'homeless' by the violence. I'm glad to see that some parents are not afraid to teach their offspring responsibility. Hopefully, the more that do so, the easier it will be for the others.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I'm all for the parents encouraging their children to come forward and face the consequences of their actions. As someone who works with some of those teenagers I would also want to do that - but how am I supposed to want to do that now, when the whole family will end up homeless and other children in what is often a dysfunctional home will have even more problems!
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Japes
Shipmate
# 5358
|
Posted
I'm deeply puzzled by the idea of evicting those in council housing. That's not going to be all those who have been involved in rioting, disorder and looting.
What is going to happen to those who don't live in council housing? What additional consequences will be imposed on them?
--------------------
Blog may or may not be of any interest.
Posts: 2013 | From: Somewhere in the middle | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
And as it now appears that the parents of those turned in are likely to be evicted from their homes if they are so fortunate as to live on council estates
John
Though this is nonsense masquerading as tough talk by the councils, and they know it and assume that the public are stupid.
It would breach the HRA on a number of points, it would smack of collective punishment, and they'd just then be homeless - and the council would then have an obligation to rehouse them (urgently in the case where children are involved).
It would also end up costing more and putting further strain on services which are already stretched to breaking point, especially in London. Any family with children under 16 or over that age and still in full time education, would be entitled to immediate emergency accommodation even if they were deemed to have made themselves homeless. There is a shortage of emergency housing and many councils use hotels as a short-term solution. The council also has a legal duty to take care of the family's belongings and this involves putting them in storage. In the long term no matter what the circumstances a family with young children has to be housed.
I'm sick of hearing about 'council housing' as if this is the only form of social housing around. Since the 'right to buy' scheme most former council estates are now a mix of owner-occupier and social housing. There is such a shortage of social housing that many low-income families, especially in London are in private rented accommodation for which they receive housing benefit. This will include many working families because the rents are beyond even an average income. Cameron was also talking about changing the law to be able to evict families like this.
Cameron is talking gobshite but it could be masking a longer term plan to clear poorer families out of many areas of London.
[ 13. August 2011, 08:18: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Roots
Apprentice
# 16193
|
Posted
Watching what had happened in Japan after the tsunami, the pictures and video showed people standing patiently in line to receive help, no looting in any areas (unless we were not shown that), and a respect for others.
I do know that honour means a lot to these people as well as a loyalty to their country. England use to have the same pride and stood firmly against any threat. Mostly as one.
National pride was strong, and anyone who went against it (outside the law) was punished. That doesnt exist anymore, and for us to have the laws changed to reflect stiffer sentencing wont happen while we have two squabbling parties more interested in their own affairs than the country.
Maybe the baton rounds will work. Who knows? I witnessed rioting and burning of tyres and blocking of roads recently, and when two policemen in a Land Rover roared up with these weapons, the people had a respect for pain and actually disappeared. They didnt even need to use them.
Either way, I dont believe there should be no change, it has to happen. I dont think I would like to be the family of a man who has being kicked to death for putting out a fire and I couldnt get the police to act for fear of hurting a rioter or themselves or any bylaw.
From being a God fearing country, how we have fallen!
--------------------
Just waiting for the end of the road....seems so far at times....
Posts: 26 | From: The Centre of the Universe | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't believe that there was ever a Golden Age, Roots, where everyone was God-fearing and respected their neighbour. That isn't to say that I don't believe that certain values have been eroded over the years ... but I'm wary of knee-jerk answers and responses.
I think what we've seen in London and other cities shows both the worst and best sides of people - there have been examples of neighbourliness and people pulling together as well as violence and aggression. I'm not so much of a cynic that I'd say that all the broom-wielding was some kind of 'Big Society' photo-opportunity - although elements of it were certainly hijacked for that purpose in some quarters.
By the way, how do you know whether the police in the Landrover had baton rounds if they didn't fire them?
I know the Met has them, but the officers I spoke to felt that there was no need to deploy them. They did want a robust response but felt that a few judicious truncheon jabs or blows at some of the worst offenders would do the trick and deter the others. I'm not saying they're right or wrong ... just reporting what they told me.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
As a movement that began as, and very often continues as, an urban mission, The Salvation Army has quite a lot to say about what is happening. It does however seem to merely just get on with the task in hand - often unsung, because the media goes to the bigger or, shall we say, more controversial sources for their quotes and stories....
Anyway, the Founder of The Salvation Army before he became a minister, was an apprentice to a pawnbroker in 'inner city' Nottingham and then, for a time repeated this experience in Stockwell, where he saw grinding poverty, hopelessness and all that went with it.
As General of The Salvation Army he was once asked about the future of Britain in the new 20th century. this is what he said:
quote:
“In answer to your inquiry, I consider that the chief dangers which confront the coming century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, salvation without regeneration, politics without God, and heaven without hell.”
The comment on the future attitude of the church and its teaching is interesting enough; it is the inclusion of the 'politics with God' phrase that intrigues me. There have always been Godless politicians and Christian politicians who have had less integrity than they could have; but 'politics without God' seems to me to be a deliberate state of affairs that, in my view has led to a lot of the situation throughout this country.
Alistair Campbell's (that famous pornographer and advisor to Tony Blair) famous statement "We don't do God." is perhaps the clearest distillation of the attitude of Government down through the post-war years.
There are so many acts of Government that have been anti-God:
From the relaxing of the Sunday trading laws, to the promotion of easier abortion, to the situation that has led to Catholic adoption agencies closing; these are some of the actions of an increasingly Godless society.
The church - evangelical, catholic, liberal, whatever - has been marginalised, unheard, disregarded. Can we wonder then that in the absence of Christian values the country has come to this?
The liberal voice will howl at this and try to suggest that Christian values are not needed in order to have a civilised society; I disagree. It is the 'politics without God' (together with the church's weakness in teaching its own beliefs and values) that has caused this.
They say education is what we need.
Well CS Lewis was very wise when he said:
quote:
Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
I think that what is needed is for the church to be confident once again - I'm not speaking as an evangelical here - and be confident in the message we have and in the standards that we uphold.
We have Good News; we have lifestyles and values that not only require change in people's lives attitudes and action, but we have values that are beneficial to the individual and will give respect, self-esteem, responsibility, pride, a sense of community that people want but have not been able to find in the values of this 'Godless' society.
I know it sounds all simplistic and rhetorical but if the Church cannot offer to the community the very thing it cherishes for its own people, then what's the point of being the church within any community?
We need to live, act and 'be' in such a way, offering our Gospel, so that local authority and national government sit up and ask us what we can offer and begin to 'do God' again.
Politics without God has manifestly failed.
We need to brush aside the liberal, Godless commentators and to coin a phrase 'Stand up for Jesus'.
I repeat, this is not evangelical posturing - all churches can do this - we have all got something valuable and life-enhancing to offer. we've failed in the past because many times we have thought no one wants to hear it! rubbish! Even young people will respond to something ideologically positive and life-enhancing! Look at the crowds of young people of the steps of Westminster cathedral when the Pope came!
Let's be bold and confident and tell the communities that the Church can change them.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Japes:
I'm deeply puzzled by the idea of evicting those in council housing. That's not going to be all those who have been involved in rioting, disorder and looting.
What is going to happen to those who don't live in council housing? What additional consequences will be imposed on them?
None at all.
Council housing has been on a steady decline in Britain since Thatcher brought in right to buy - although, to be fair, I'm led to believe that the rise and fall of social housing in the UK in the 20th century has been mirrored by a similar rise and fall in other European countries; it's not as if the UK is the only country that this has been happening to.
But the point is, council housing has now declined to a point that, to all intents and purposes, it no longer exists. The rent subsidy is not nearly as deep as it once was, and the security of tenure is nowhere near as strong as it once was. Even if you're one of the "lucky" few who still has a council house, the actual benefit that this gives you over private renting is much less than it used to be.
One of the ironies is that initiatives such as this serve to make council accommodation less secure than privately rented accommodation - which some would say largely defeats the point. But there it is.
quote:
Originally posted by justlooking:
Cameron is talking gobshite but it could be masking a longer term plan to clear poorer families out of many areas of London.
Hmm. The Reichstag fire springs to mind. The riots are the perfect excuse to sweep away all the poor (who are obviously all lazy feckless layabouts, mkay?) so that London and the Home Counties are no longer bothered by them.
quote:
Originally posted by Roots:
From being a God fearing country, how we have fallen!
Well, on the plus side, at least the odd riot now and then brings out the Blitz-spirit in everyone else.
Getting it into perspective though, I think London got off lightly this time. Seems to me that the riots in London weren't anywhere near as intense or long lasting - and yet, in spite of the "austerity measures", the London riots got policed a lot more heavily and a lot more early than the Paris riots. Cameron really can afford to cut back the police quite a long way before the situation gets quite as bad as it was in Paris.
So if you think the country has fallen, be rest assured that it could fall a good deal further than it has done - and that other countries have fallen that far.
Here's an interesting article, about the "Riot index".
It refers to a discussion paper by Ponticelli and Voth, which can be found here.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Let's be bold and confident and tell the communities that the Church can change them.
I hope I'm not being pointlessly pedantic, but I'd say 'let's be bold and confident and tell the communities that Jesus Christ can change them'. For sure, God works through his people, the church(es), but I think it's worth acknowledging and reminding ourselves that we should draw people to Jesus, not to ourselves or our church.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The comment on the future attitude of the church and its teaching is interesting enough; it is the inclusion of the 'politics with God' phrase that intrigues me. There have always been Godless politicians and Christian politicians who have had less integrity than they could have; but 'politics without God' seems to me to be a deliberate state of affairs that, in my view has led to a lot of the situation throughout this country.
[...] The liberal voice will howl at this and try to suggest that Christian values are not needed in order to have a civilised society; I disagree. It is the 'politics without God' (together with the church's weakness in teaching its own beliefs and values) that has caused this.
One thing that concerns me is that, traditionally, the secular response to the Christian concept of "virtues" has been "human rights". However, Cameron and his friends in the Press have been systematically trashing the concept of "human rights" for years. Which leaves - er, what, exactly?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure that 'It wasn't anywhere near as bad as Paris' (or LA or Detroit or wherever else) is really an appropriate response. It could have been a lot worse, but what we've had is bad enough ... indeed is a lot worse than it 'ought' to have been ... three dead in Birmingham, one (possibly two if the shooting in Croydon was riot-related) in London.
I agree with Mudfrog and with South Coast Kevin, but would add the caveat that it ain't just about the churches spreading their values but people of good-will of whatever stripe - including those of other faiths and none. Respect, integrity and concern for others is a common denominator across all faiths and most ideologies.
That isn't to say that the churches shouldn't evangelise - of course they should, but I don't think that 'doing God' or 'not doing God' in politics has much bearing on this. The Republican Religious Right in the US 'do God' big time and there's no way in a million years that I'd want to be associated with them.
I'd rather an able atheist as a politician any day of the week than a dipstick who just happened to be a Christian (or a Muslim, Hindu, any other type of theist).
I think General Booth's comment could stand even if he'd substituted 'politics without values' for 'politics without God.'
It strikes me that when we do put too much God into politics, as it were, in an overly explicit sense rather than faith informing our underlying values, then we're heading for trouble. Would you have liked to have lived in Calvin's Geneva? I'm not sure I would ...
I'm not suggesting for a minute that we take God out of the public realm ... but I'm wary of the God rhetoric in the mouths of politicians. We've all seen the harm in can do.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
Amen to that, Gamaliel. I shudder at the idea of a modern-day equivalent of Geneva in Calvin's time, with orthodoxy being enforced by state sanction. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
justlooking
Shipmate
# 12079
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
But the point is, council housing has now declined to a point that, to all intents and purposes, it no longer exists.
Your point is exaggerated. The 2001 census showed about 20% of homes in the uk as social housing owned by councils or housing associations. This may have reduced but there are still millions of such homes.
quote:
The rent subsidy is not nearly as deep as it once was, and the security of tenure is nowhere near as strong as it once was. Even if you're one of the "lucky" few who still has a council house, the actual benefit that this gives you over private renting is much less than it used to be.
Where do you get this from? Have you got figures? Council rents are lower than private rentals but AFAIK rental income in most councils more than covers the costs involved. Those who receive housing benefit to pay for private rentals are being subsidised to a far greater degree.
Some councils have recently changed the rules for new tenants but any existing tenant is still in a fully secure tenancy. The new rules allow for provisional tenancies which can then become secure tenancies if there are no problems.
Private renting is very insecure with most rentals being shorthold tenancies giving landlords a right to move people on after six months or a year. This may be OK for single working people but is not appropriate for most families or for the elderly. Some private landlords won't accept tenants who rely on housing benefit so losing a job can mean losing your home. Other private landlords specialise in providing homes for people on housing benefit but there's little effective regulation to enforce basic standards and this is allowing for the return of slum landlords.
I don't understand your reference to the Reichstag fire. My point comes from the proposed cap on housing benefit which would make it impossible for many families to live in London.
Housing benefit is a huge proportion of the welfare system budget and the impression that this is all used to support people in council housing is wrong. Many council tenants pay full rent, many private tenants have their rent paid in full. I don't know what the figures are but I'd hazard a guess that more is paid out to support private tenants than to support tenants in social housing.
[ 13. August 2011, 13:12: Message edited by: justlooking ]
Posts: 2319 | From: thither and yon | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Let's be bold and confident and tell the communities that the Church can change them.
I hope I'm not being pointlessly pedantic, but I'd say 'let's be bold and confident and tell the communities that Jesus Christ can change them'. For sure, God works through his people, the church(es), but I think it's worth acknowledging and reminding ourselves that we should draw people to Jesus, not to ourselves or our church.
Indeed, you are perfectly entitled to be pedantic in this case ![[Smile]](smile.gif) The church, of course, has no power except Holy Ghost power and no message except the message of the Gospel.
It is Jesus who changes the hearts of people. Amen.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Further to what Kevin has written and in reply to Gamaliel, I would say this - and say it quite strongly I think. 'Values' have been tried and found wanting. What we are talking about - or what I am talking about, with Kevin, at any rate - is more than mere human values that are shared among people of goodwill.
This has been the problem over the last couple of generations: we've talked about these human values whilst totally ignoring or downplaying the person of God in this and in the regenerating, redeeming power of Christ.
It may be foolishness to Greeks (and all those who seek after human answers to these problems); it be well be an 'inter-faith' stumbling block to Jews (and no doubt to people of other faiths), but it is the Gospel of Christ that changes men and nothing else. Well-meaning clerics may well ascribe life-changing power to the tenets of other faiths but it is ONLY the grace of God seen in the cross and resurrection that actually change the heart of a man.
William Booth would not have said 'politics without values' at all - he was most definate in his assertion that it is God in Christ who effects the change, not mere human values.
He said this:
quote:
“To get a man soundly saved it is not enough to put on him a pair of new breeches, to give him regular work, or even to give him a University education. These things are all outside a man, and if the inside remains unchanged you have wasted your labor. You must in some way or other graft upon the man's nature a new nature, which has in it the element of the Divine.”
As Jesus said, you must be born again of the Spirit. Any values that do not regenerate or redeem are at best sticking plasters on a deep and fatal wound.
Only Christ can change the heart.
[ 13. August 2011, 13:47: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
