As I recently keep happening upon the terms: “Responsible Capitalism” and “Moral Markets”, which to my untrained ears sound somewhat oxymoronic, I was determined to find out a little more.
I think the best piece I have read on this so far is written by Catholic economist Philip Booth, and is worth a read if this topic is of any interests to you.
On Sunday I received notice of an intent to pursue me legally for this blog post which would presumably come under the law of defamation and specifically libel.
This was part of the correspondence I received:
I have referred the rest of your grossly inaccurate comments about the situation with [names forum] to my legal advisors, and have sent them a copy of what you have published here.
Confusingly, today there appeared to be something of a backtrack with a denial of intent to pursue legal action. Apparently, passing information relating to an accusation of libel to your legal advisors, should not be conflated with a threat to pursue me legally?
Not exactly sure how else you could view it!
This chap is now awaiting to hear from his legal advisors, to weigh his options, even though of course, he’s never threatened me with legal action!
This was the second comment I received:
Still lying, Stuart, don’t worry, so many people on [names forum] know what you have done I doubt you will ever be able to show your face there again without people laughing at you. You have made a mockery of a religion that used to be mine but will never be yours, you will never make any sort of Catholic, your behaviour demonstrates that you know nothing of the Christian faith at all, only the words.
Which speaks for itself.
Today a request was made for me to demand the removal of blog posts written by other bloggers on this incident.
I’d like at this point to mention that this particular guy had been previously suspended from the forum, due to his malicious comments towards me.
The unending stream of continuous attacks against me still rumble on….
To the obvious question, “How could the banks make the same mistake twice?” the obvious answer is, “What mistake?” The actions of the banksters were and are quite rational, given the system we have, and they have profited handsomely from both the bubble and the bust. In truth, the only ones who profited from the bust were the ones who caused it. The “Too Big To Fail” banks are bigger than before, having used government money to buy out smaller competitors. It would not be true to say that the banksters learned nothing; rather they learned what they already knew: that they could take insane risks, pocketing the gains and socializing the losses. The only “change” is that things are more like they were than they ever were before. The results, of course, will be the same.
What an an intriguing legal conundrum. The crux is this:
Encouraging or assisting suicide is an offence under section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961, carrying a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment. On a literal reading of the Act, even obtaining information about euthanasia for someone who plans to commit suicide could constitute a breach of section 2.
This is especially applicable to health care professionals and those “persons in authority”.
And so the question becomes: Are those lawyers, acting on behalf of those wishing to commit suicide, in danger of ‘encouraging or assisting suicide’?
This is such a concern for lawyers acting for “Martin” – a stroke victim with locked-in-syndrome – seeking to amend the Director of Public Prosecutions’s 2010 guidelines on assisted suicide, they have sought, and received, an “exceptional” legal declaration, protecting them from prosecution.
The lawyers are now free to research assisted suicide methods and give “Martin” advice in this regard, as well as contact Dignitas and help him identify anyone – including professionals – willing to help him commit suicide.
Lord Justice Toulson is quoted as saying:
This is a tragic case, it raises thorny legal and ethical issues.
Isn’t that the truth.
I’ve just received an email from Christian Concern entitled: Lesley Pilkington Appeal.
I originally blogged about this a year ago, but if you don’t know the details, it revolves around Lesley Pilkington, a Christian psychotherapist, who currently faces being stripped of her accreditation to the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) after treating a patient who had told her he wanted to be “cured” of his homosexuality.
It transpired that the “patient” was in fact prominent homosexual rights campaigner and journalist, Patrick Strudwick, who secretly recorded two sessions of the “Sexual Orientation Change Efforts” (SOCE) counselling, and subsequently complained to BACP and attacked her in the press.
BACP ruled last year that Lesley Pilkington was guilty of professional misconduct and had broken the ethical code.
This has hit the news again as Lesley Pilkington is appealing the decision today (30th Jan) seeking to have her disciplinary case ‘struck out’ on the basis that the original hearing was unfair, lacked in due process and discriminated against her Christian faith.
Added to this is the fact that Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey and two serving bishops (as well as others) have today called for Lesley Pilkington to be restored to full professional status.
Here’s the text of the letter:
Lesley Pilkington is a practising psychotherapist who distinguishes very carefully between her non-directive counselling and the biblical and pastoral counselling which, as a Christian, she also offers. She was approached, at a conference, by a man who said he was unhappy being homosexual, and wanted her to help. Lesley explained to him that she only works in this area within a biblical Christian framework, after which he claimed that he was a Christian.
After two sessions he announced that he was in fact a gay journalist, wanting to ‘expose’ her and people like her. He then lodged complaints against her with the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP). He objected to the biblical Christian values used in this case of therapy, and also to the claim that ‘change is possible’ even though he had expressed his willing agreement to undergo this therapy.
Psychological care for those who are distressed by unwanted homosexual attractions has been shown to yield a range of beneficial client outcomes, especially in motivated clients. This is supported by recent empirical evidence from Byrd, Nicolosi, Shaeffer, Spitzer, Jones and Yarhouse. Such therapy does not produce harm despite the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) and others maintaining the contrary. In this area, the RCPsych seems to be guided by the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Mental Health Special Interest Group, and could therefore be partial to one view.
We believe that people who seek, freely, to resolve unwanted same-sex attractions hold the moral right to receive professional assistance. Whether motivated by Christian conscience or other values, clients, not practitioners, have the prerogative to choose the yardstick by which to define themselves. Not everyone stakes their identity on sexual feelings.
If practitioners reject or challenge a client’s right to self-determination, they risk causing potential harm to that client’s well-being. They would also be violating professional ethical codes which, among other things, call for respect for client autonomy.
The mental health profession, which professes to be sensitive and respectful towards diversity and equality, should be aware of taking a paternalistic line that says, effectively, ‘Not all clients know what is best for their lives.’ Furthermore, competent practitioners, including those working with biblical Judeo-Christian values, should be free to assist those seeking help.
Just a couple of quick points.
There appears to be some indication that Pilkington views homosexuality as mental illness. This is obviously not a view shared by her profession, as homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
Both BACP and the Royal College of Psychiatrists are opposed to sexual reparative therapy and as I’ve said recently, I for one could not imagine any amount of therapy reorienting my sexual proclivity. However, if a person seeks treatment for an unwanted sexual attraction, I feel they should be free to do so, and psychotherapists should be free to offer this service.
Another issue surrounds Pilkington’s use of a biblical Christian framework in the counselling, which was picked up on at the BACP hearing. It must be borne in mind that Strudwick approached Pilkington at a “largely Christian conference” and agreed contractually with her for this particular Christian based sexual reorientation service.
Anyway, Pilkington was most certainly the victim of a cunning sting operation and it will be interesting to see how this all pans out.
Yesterday, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a non-binding resolution (Resolution 1859) stating in section 5:
Euthanasia, in the sense of the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit, must always be prohibited.
I’m no expert, but this sounds like good news….
I must confess that I was one of the folk cheering from the sidelines when the hacktivist group Anonymous attacked, took down, and defaced the website of the hate group: The Westboro Baptist Church – The nasty “God hates fags” folk who like to picket funerals for some unknown reason.
I was amused when a poll conducted on a hacking forum revealed Christianity to be the religion of choice for their members.
I was disturbed when the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) requested unfettered website censorship powers from Nominet.
I was even more disturbed to learn that two US bills – “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) in the House of Representatives, and the “Protect IP Act” (PIPA) in the Senate – might actually inhibit sound doctrine online and impede the Internet fight against “False Teachers”!
In order to to make it clear to the US government just how strong the opponents of Internet laws such as SOPA and PIPA are, Anonymous are proposing an attack against Facebook.
Now, it’s interesting to note at this point, that an extensive study conducted by National Religious Broadcasters (NRB) and the American Center for Law and Justice entitled: An Examination of the Threat of Anti-Christian Censorship and Other Viewpoint Discrimination on New Media Platforms, found the following relating to Facebook in their key findings:
Facebook has partnered with gay rights advocates to halt content on its social networking site deemed to be “anti-homosexual,” and it is participating in gay-awareness programs, all of which suggest that Christian content critical of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, or similar practices will be at risk of censorship.
And it was earlier this month that Facebook apologised for deleting DIY abortion posts.
Given all of this, should Christians support the activites of Anonymous; or if not fully support, to perhaps feel some sympathy with their cause? Or are their activities just simply immoral and unethical from a Christian vantage.
A few links I found interesting for one reason or another:
Future Shape of Church – Ecumenical Matters
Parchment and Pen – When God Does Not Show Up
Center for Law and Religion – Can the State Order a Church to “De-Baptize” Someone?
Chelliah Laity – Bishops Accused of Not Being So Christian
Slate – That’s Obama’s Jobs Plan?
MercatorNet – Will the “Great Satan” strike a deal with Iran?
I seem to be encountering a growing misconception that the Christian “obsession” with the evils of abortion is a modern construct. Here’s an example of such thinking:
….the Catholic church has decided to make abortion its cause célèbre in its battle for social and moral relevance.
I’d like to point anybody labouring under this misconception to a blog entitled: Early Christians on Abortion, which features just one post majoring on Jewish and early Christian thought relating to abortion.
The blog post leads with:
I’ll also present ancient Jewish and Christian witnesses testifying to the anti-abortion, anti-contraception and anti-infanticide position of the Church through the ages. Prepare for a very long post.
And this post is very long as there is a vast amount of information pertaining to an anti-abortion stance emanating from the ancient Christian and Jewish thinkers.
I leave it to you to hop over and read in order to educate yourselves.
Great post by the Grain of Sand on the modern tyranny of niceness, which is in the same spirit as a fab little article on ‘niceness’ by the Anchoress – Elizabeth Scalia – entitled: The Shushing Tyranny of “Be Nice!”
I am not a nice person. I have no wish to be a nice person. The next person who tells me that the world would be a better place if we were all just a little bit nicer to each other is liable to get a punch in the snoot.
If there is one engine which is relentlessly driving Western civilisation to destruction it is the monstrous tyranny of niceness.
There is a move by the ‘Index on Censorship’ which should be supported by all thinking people, especially thinking Christians, which leaves out progressives. The ‘Index’ has called for the removal of the word ‘insulting’ from the Public Order Act on the basis that the word’s inclusion in legislation has “a corrosive effect on free speech” in the UK.
At present Section 5 of the Public Order Act imposes criminal penalties for using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour causing harassment, alarm or distress.
This should be opposed vigorously and not just because it leaves Christians wide open to charges that we have ‘insulted’ any particular group who take umbrage when we don’t give wholehearted approval to their particular depravity. It should be opposed by all thinking people on the simple grounds that some people, movements and ideas need to be insulted.
