They should have the right to marry.

Now the bible says we should not eat shellfish…because of the health risks, but it is not one of the Ten Commandments.

Do we say that people who eat shellfish cannot marry?

 We have progressed in this rights struggle for people of different races, creeds and the female gender; we allow them to marry, why stop now?

How does marriage hurt a feminine man or a manly woman?

How does marriage hurt a homosexual or a lesbian?

How would that human right hurt the people in our country?

I think it would make them and us safer.

Did God say he was against homosexuals getting married? Not that I recall but He does not approve of the sexual act because it is unnatural and obviously a health risk.

Because God loves humans he tells them about the risks ahead of time to help protect them no matter who they are, homosexual or heterosexual. African or Roman. Jewish or Palestinian. American or Russian. ETC.

Obviously, each and all of us are imperfect by His design.

I haven’t seen, neither met, nor known anyone that was perfect.

He created humans with flaws or we would be perfect and since angels fell they must have been imperfect too!

That face sure looks familiar to me!

Cardinal John Patrick Foley

Cardinal John Patrick Foley

Jackie o?

Compare the picture above with this picture of Jackie

you have to admit they do look similar.

“During his tenure, the Archbishop once sparked outrage in the homosexual community by describing the AIDS pandemic as a “natural sanction for certain types of activities.”^[12

Makes you wonder who is responsible?

He also defended the Church's exclusively male priesthood, once saying, "Jesus clearly did not ordain women to the priesthood, nor did he authorize the Church to do so."

How would he know?

When angels think they are God. 

I guess  "natural sanction for certain types of activities."

 is not very exact kind of like the Mustard Seed Parable.

 Please read about natural sanctions in this link:

THE PARABLE OF FAITH – PART ONE

The Parable of Faith – Part two

Pope Benedict XVI and the Mustard Tree

Parable of the Mustard Seed Part 4

-------------------------------------

D.C. gay rights groups evacuated after bomb threats

What is a marriage called when a gay person marries a straight person?

Half gay marriage? Half straight marriage?

How about if the other person isn't aware of the other persons sexuality? What if the person isn't even aware of their own sexuality?

Then what? Does that mean they are forever married until death even though it is a bad arrangement?

I don't think it is fair to draw a line on this human right. I wonder how many unnecessary tragedies have occurred because of this type of hypocrisy especially when it comes to arranged marriages over the history of this world. How many murders have occurred to coverup ones sexuality because of what "the church" deemed legitimate?

Anne Boleyn and others come to my mind!

=======================

 I would rather see a homosexual have one partner and learn about marriage than live wildly and not learn about marriage. Marriage tends to stabilize a person which is good for many reasons. Depriving a person of a stabile loving environment is cruel and certainly doesn't help.

Marriage is a private relationship between adults so they should be able to marry as long as the other person wants the same, just as I believe a person has the right to a divorce if things don't work out, without ramifications.

I should have the right to raise my child my way without hindrance from others such as my government and my government school system. I should be able to homeschool if I so choose with out interference from my government. It is not my governments business how I raise my child.

 Sodom and Gommorah

I believe the reason the angels blinded the crowd wasn't because of their sexual orientation. It was because they were demanding attention from the angels and forcing themselves upon the angels, Lot, and his family. They had no right to do that and Lot should not have offered his daughter to them. They were forcing themselves upon Lot, his family, and the angels. That is why I believe they were blinded.

God did not destroy Rome or Greece and I think they also had homosexuals living in their countries. But our bibles tell us that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

Did Jesus destroy homosexuals when he came?

I don't recall that he did, but he healed people with various imperfections,

but not everybody.

Why was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed?

The bible says that it was because of the sin of the people had basically gotten so bad that God could not ignore it anymore. It wasn't just the homosexuals.

It was everyone in those cities.

I do not know what Gomorrah means but this is what it says is the definition:

Sodom means:

Sodomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So we have wickedness, depravity, anal sex and beastiality, and I don't know what the other non-penile/vaginal copulation means ....maybe oral sex, heavy petting and other things.

So basically the two names of the two cities doesn't exclude a particular gender. The definition of the names of those two cities does however seem to point to sexual sin and wickedness. 

Men, women, children, and animals were destroyed.

Obviously sin was rampant amongst all the people and tolerated by Lot and his family.

Abraham made a deal with the destroying angels hoping to spare the two cities, if the destroying angels could find a certain amount of righteous people would God spare the cities from destruction. I forget the amount that they agreed upon but it was not just a few but it seems they could not even find that amount because the bible says those cities were not spared.

From that I glean that it is a good idea

to allow righteous people to be righteous,

because it is those people and their righteousness that keep the world safe.

 In the Gospel of John after Jesus had arisen he said

John 14:1

Let not your heart be troubled:

ye believe in God, 

believe also in me.

------------------------------------------------

We should help people to believe in humane, thoughtfully kindly ways within the laws of the countries and not persecute believers or non believers, or disembowel them and kill them, lie to them, or torture them, or trick them because they are imperfect.

Christians are imperfect.

Nobody said that a believer was perfect.

Christians should not expect perfection in non believers either.

Non believers should not expect perfection in believers.

Angels are imperfect too.....

Putting someone on the rack doesn't improve them. I don't expect the Roman Catholic establishment to be perfect either. They have made huge mistakes but should also have to live by the laws of the land and own up to their mistakes. They have accomplished some good things too and we cannot discount their service in some capacities. Most Roman Catholics are wonderful people and imperfect.

The Roman Catholic Church established a Court of the Gentiles

about the same time as they felt they were being persecuted

because of their abuse of children

and not because of their beliefs.

That is the lie.

It is not a coincidence.

Now the RCC and the Pope and their "protection"

won't allow anyone to see their secret files,

because they perceive themselves to be HOLY  and above the laws of the land

but want us to suffer their subtly maniacal inquisitions

with the powers that they have established for over 2000 years

through deception.

That is the EPITOME of TREACHERY!

I believe if they own up to their mistakes they as a church could be healed and survive because they are human,

Obviously that power has corrupted them.

If they go down we all go down. That's how these cowards do business.

Vatican Investigating Girl Scouts

for Links to Safe-Sex Education Groups

Ignorance is their ace in the hole, you might say. That is why there was such a thing as the Dark Ages when the lay people were not allowed to read the bible, in essence, they want to discern for us and deceive us. It is their power. Everything they do is toward that purpose. Education on the other hand gives power back to the individual and out of their hands.

Abusers of mankind!

==============

Case in Point:

Vatican Investigating Girl Scouts

for Links to Safe-Sex Education Groups

Ignorance is their ace in the hole, you might say. That is why there was such a thing as the Dark Ages when the lay people were not allowed to read the bible, in essence, they want to discern for us and deceive us. It is their power. Everything they do is toward that purpose. Education on the other hand gives power back to the individual and out of their hands.

Wikipedia head joins Vatican meeting, talks about abortion controversy 

Wikipedia and peace

-----------------------

There were 2 other cities in the plain besides Sodom and Gomorrah which were destroyed. It is quite possible since no one knows where or for sure where these 4 places are located that Sodom and Gomorrah is a prophecy. Don't discount that possibility.

==============

What is sin?

Obviously wickedness, depravity, bad behavior, and bad morals.  The bible says that homosexuality and beastiality are an abomination. Obviously, disobeying the Ten Commandments is considered to be sin.  The rapid decline in the morals of this country by the average citizen seems to coincide with the dismissal of the rule of law.

Whose law?

God's law.

We have so many new laws in this country, much more than we had 50  years ago. Obviously, it isn't the addition of these new laws, but the dismissal and disregarding of God's law in our country that is affecting our country.

Lawlessness and disobedience 

Most of our kids don't remember or were not alive when debates about the Ten Commandments were occurring in this country, but I remember it was my generation that rebelled against the monuments of God's law. As I recall, it was the atheists that were the initiators of this mission, because they don't believe in God. Free love and the hippie movement were also accepted by some of the population and are now standardized in our relationships in various ways. Abortion also was debated and now we have legal abortion for the rights of the mother and against the rights of the baby. The drug trade and drug usage prospered, homosexuals started to come out of the closet.

 I believed in a government separation of church and state.

I went to an Episcopal church for a couple of years in my early teens.

The Church I attended was hit by lightning and burned up. It coincided with a Gay/effeminate Rector taking over the position at about the same time that the church had invested in a new organ. I noticed the new rector because he swished down the aisle and I thought he was weird, but at the time I did not know about homosexuality in any form. Clueless!  When my family attended this church on many Sundays both my brother and I would get nauseated and have to leave early. It was a real symptom. Either something was wrong with me and my brother, or the church. Well, my brother and I did not get struck by lightning or burn up. So obviously something was wrong with the church. Neither did the rector. The fact is I can't remember if I didn't have that same symptom before the new rector. Maybe it meant that God does not approve of a homosexual leading the church. I cannot say for sure. Maybe God did not approve of the church itself. I highly doubt the organ was the problem, but it also burned in the church fire. Maybe God didn't like the model of the organ.

We ought to regard and erect the monuments of God's Law

to remind the humans and angels about

the Ten Commandments

that God designed

so that our children and other generations to follow

might have the chance to marry.

I have read a lot of the bible but I have not read the whole bible. I have compared the gospels for a number of reasons and I have chosen whom I believe. The Gospel of John. I am not positive in my conclusions to the 100 percentile, but He makes sense to me. I cannot say that the things told in the other 3 gospels did not occur, but does that make it true and I guess by that I mean the content and the conclusions made by the three synoptic gospel writers and all of their quotes attributed to Jesus.

The Gospel of John gives details that are not present in the other three gospels. He names names of the people in his gospel as if he knew them and was a witness. He makes sense. Jesus doesn't come off as a fruit cake or a tyrant in this gospel. The other three gospels make Jesus sound like a lunatic and I don't believe them for that cause. I think he was preceded and shadowed by lunatics and copycats.

Think about the coverup of the assassination of JFK. It is similar to what happened to Jesus except that JFK did not say he was the Messiah. He did have a message though and he paid dearly for it.

I do know that when I started to compare the gospels and write about it, it seemed to stir up a lot of controversy. That was not my intent. Maybe it is just coincidence, but I don't think it is. I think it is a real threat to the establishment of religion, but that was not my intent either,

but it is scary to see how deceptive the clergy have been.

I think it should be a human right to worship whom you believe.

I do not believe I have the right to kill, maim, or force others to believe what I believe. But I do have the right to express my beliefs. It is a human right, just like African Americans have the right to work in public businesses, worship, eat, sleep, drink, marry, drink from a public water fountain, buy a house in any neighborhood, get loans, own a business,  and go to a public school or public college without hindrance because of their race.

I do not go to their bedrooms because it is private.

It is none of my business what they do there. 

It is between them and God

and whether they believe or not is between them and God.

1 Corinthians 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, 

nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Who is this referring to? Obviously not mankind

The bible says that the effeminate do not inherit the kingdom of God .....

who determines that measure of manliness that does inherit the kingdom of God?

Mitt Romney? George Bush? Billy Graham? Joel Olsteen? The BGEA? Ted Nugent?

The Secret Service? The Jesuits? Putin? Hillary Clinton? The Swiss Guard?

I suspect that the effeminate are the cowards

that aid and abet that power

that abuses mankind.

That is why Revelation says:

Revelation 18:4
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

By remaining you empower the enemy of mankind and that is cowardly,

which is effeminate.

It is not how manly or feminine you are,

but whether you are an abuser without remorse of your fellow human

like a Nazi.

Here is a site you should listen to and hear. Has quite a few you tubes worthy of contemplating about the Roman Catholic Church and other subjects:

 Stephen Fry dismantles the Roman Catholic Church

"......Do you know who would be the last person ever to be accepted as the Prince of the church? The Galilean carpenter. That Jew. They would kick him out before he tried to cross the threshhold. He would be so ill at ease in the church....."

-------------------------------------

============

"The Roman Catholic Church faces permanent disruption and banishment in at least five countries if it does not comply with ten “non-negotiable measures” by September 15, 2012, according to a global coalition of

survivors of church rape and torture.”

Catholic Church Faces Disruption and Banishment

as Irish Cardinal Set to Resign

by Kevin Annett

Are Human Rights

the same or different

than Moral Rights?

I don't know.

God gave us the choice to believe Him or not to believe. 

God has the right to judge us however he sees fit to do so as a country and individually.  He created us.

His standard is written about in the bible and it is up to each of us individually to decide and make the choices that please him or displease him.

It is a high standard if you include the other books of the Old Testament as well as the other books of the New Testament.

The Ten Commandments are pretty basic though.

Our country was born by invading this continent with lots of different peoples that escaped from other countries of all different religions and races.

Our government is supposed to represent the people that are here.

That happens to include homosexuals because they are human, as far as I know.

Human rights. What does that mean?

It means if you are human you should be able to enjoy the same rights that other humans have legally.

I believe that includes marriage,

but not sodomy.

Privacy is a human right. Sex is a privacy right.

I'm not sure about that,

but it makes sense to me.

I don't believe it was intended by God for people to be homosexual, but obviously it was a possibility. I don't think He approves of homosexuality or any other sin. Did God intend for marriage to be between a man and a man? No, I don't think so since He doesn't approve of sodomy, but it was a possibility. The bible says that God will deal with sodomites. It is not my business what happens in their bedroom. It is between them and God. My sins are not their sins, and visa-versa. Unless of course done in the public eye.

What is public?

Well, if our government and religious institutions are disobeying our privacy rights that might include what we do in the privacy of our own homes via computers, the internet, tv, telephone

and anything wired electronically, etc.

Are babies not human?

Do they have the right to live?

They can't speak till they learn to speak and they in fact are dependent on their human mothers womb until they are designed in the womb

created by God

so shouldn't they be protected by humans and their human rights

since they are human too and so that they may enjoy the right to marry?

How about children?

They have a right not to be sexually abused by their teachers and the clergy so that they might enjoy the right to marry and not be screwed up in their future relationships and marriage. The clergy should be forthright and offer assistance and openness of their accounts and records

instead of hiding and stalling. 

Do the right thing.

It is a human right,

unless you are not human.

========================

If homosexuality is a learned trait then I leave that to Our Father and Jesus to heal the person of this trait when He decides is the right time for that particular individual. Same goes for a Hindu or a Buddhist, etc. Our Father reaches a person however and whenever that He does. I don't think forcing the religion of Christianity upon another person by using bully tactics like Haarp or other facilities to cause mayhem and earthquakes (which I believe is occurring now) is the right way. If God Himself intervenes that's His business!!!!! But I know that lately our government and other governments are using these places to scare and intimidate people.

I can't say positively that HAARP is responsible for the tsunami/earthquake in Japan last year, but it seems highly likely and should be investigated.

But if it was a judgement from God then what did it mean?

Here are some interesting coincidences that were occurring at that particular time as far as I know in Japan involving the Pope, The Neocatechumenal Way, Roman Catholic leaders and the Japanese people. I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg but nevertheless ought to be scrutinized. Please read:

Japan Quakes after Confirmation of the Neocatechumenal Way

Maybe the power that is used at places like HAARP have been around longer than we know.The reason I say that is because of what happened at Yodfat. Please read:

Josephus and His Footprints

Using bully tactics like keeping files on every person in the country to blackmail them, coercing them, is DIS-GRACEFUL.  Our government should not be doing this to anyone and it seems that they are, from what I have witnessed and written about in my posts.

It is that kind of business that in essence is a Disgraceful Force that might incite Our Father to intervene such as occurred at Sodom and Gomorah.

Things are pretty rotten in America and the world

and have been declining for a long time.

Why?

I believe we have misinterpreted our bibles.

I also believe we have misinterpreted the signs,

partially because of the powers and those that wield them

who want us to misinterpret these signs.

I do not have any power over any one so I am not responsible for what is happening in our country and abroad, nor do I want to have that power. But I am speaking out and at this time still have a right to voice my opinion and display what I have uncovered over the internet and what I have learned as a believer in God and Jesus written about in the Gospel of John.

I came to those conclusions by reading the bible and comparing the gospels and comparing them to the Old Testament.

and disregarding what is obviously fraudulent and maniacal.

The Fruits of the Vatican

Mitt Romney’s 2006 Rally Against Gay Marriage

Pope Benedict XVI and His Power of Suggestion

Obviously, my beliefs do affect how I react to human rights, people in general, religion and government.

If these facilities are using their power to incite, coerce, create signs such as earthquakes, tsunamis, the right to earn money or inhibiting buying and selling, behavior modification via electronic devices or anything wired to force people to accept a religion or belief or behave in a bad way then I would say they are INHUMANE. I would say they who are doing this obviously don't agree with humans having human rights and are waging terrorism against the public. If that is true then a homosexual married couple might be at risk from those that are against this human right and humans in general.

Case in point:

Cracks in the Washington Post story on Romney’s ‘pranks’ emerge

A question emerges in reading the Washington Post piece on Mitt Romney today: How can Romney’s old pal Stu White tell the Washington Post that he has “long been bothered by the Lauber incident” — and then later admit to ABC News that he was “not present for the prank” and “was not aware of it until this year when he was contacted by the Washington Post”?

Romney Friend Stu White Says Campaign Wants Him to Counter Prank Accusations

"One former classmate and old friend of Romney’s – who refused to be identified by name – said there are “a lot of guys” who went to Cranbrook who have “really negative memories” of Romney’s behavior in the dorms, behavior this classmate describes as “like Lord of the Flies.”

The classmate believes Romney is lying when he claims to not remember it.

“It makes these fellows [who have owned up to it] very remorseful.  For [Romney] not to remember it? It doesn’t ring true.  How could the fellow with the scissors forget it?” the former classmate said.

In a radio interview Thursday morning,

Romney offered an apology for the pranks,

but said that “homosexuality” was never on his mind”

==============

Which reminds me of what God said to Abraham when Abraham took his son Isaac to Mt. Moriah to sacrifice him.

After Abraham had built an altar and had bound his son and was about to kill him in the act of sacrifice,

God intervened and told Abraham not to kill his son and said 

That sacrificing Abraham’s son Isaac was never on his mind.

Then Abraham found a ram with its horns caught in the bushes

which God had provided.

Then Abraham sacrificed the ram/lamb (depending on which bible version you read) instead.

I’m sorry and need to apologize

for the above statement:

I made a mistake because I went back to read about Abraham and Isaac and what I had written that God had said (that sacrificing Isaac was never on his mind) is not true. I don’t know how that happened honestly, but God blessed Abraham for his fear of God and his willingness to offer Isaac his only son. I really thought I had read the above but now I cannot find it.

Please read:

Genesis 22

⁹ And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood.

¹⁰ And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

¹¹ And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.

¹² And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him:

for now I know that thou fearest God,

seeing thou hast not withheld thy son,

thine only son from me.

¹³ And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.

¹⁴ And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.

¹⁵ And the angel of the Lord called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,

¹⁶ And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

¹⁷ That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;

¹⁸ And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

But what about Ishmael? Wasn’t he also Abraham’s son? Hmmm. I guess from this God did not consider that Ishmael was Abraham’s son.

Maybe because God knew something not revealed? 

Still I know that we do make mistakes in God’s name and in the name of Jesus as I have demonstrated so personally. Sorry!

Please read:

Binding of Isaac

“While it is often imagined that Isaac was a small child, some sources claim he was an adult (noting that Jews are considered adults at age 13). The Talmudic sages teach that Isaac was thirty-seven, likely based on the next biblical story, which is of Sarah’s death at 127 (she was ninety when Isaac was born). Bishop Ussher’s chronology would place Isaac at about 20 years of age.”

Genesis 22:14 states that it occurred at “the mount of the LORD”: in 2 Chronicles 3:1; Psalm 24:3; Isaiah 2:3 & 30:29; and Zechariah 8:3, the Bible seems to identify the location of this event as the hill on which Solomon was said to later build the Temple, now known as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.^[c

Obviously, people jumped the gun

and made some horrible mistakes

in the name of God and in the name of Jesus

and do the same now!

———————

=====================

Communication between humans is tough sometimes. I noticed through experience that men have a tough time communicating with each other where as women have an easier time communicating. Men are imperfect that way. Women on the other hand are more emotional and tend to be imperfect that way.

Even angels were imperfect.

We humans and angels were made with flaws for a purpose. It is our nature to be imperfect and until God perfects all of us we have to cope with those imperfections in ourselves, each other and the others,

because who knows if God will decide to turn the tables and when.

 In any case, we should try to persuade our peers, clergy, friends and neighbors, families, and our government to do what is right.

Just because we are fighting terrorism does not mean we should do the same and become terrorists ourselves. Believe me we will win the war on terrorism if we fight the war

the right way with integrity and mercy!

How we go about doing it is just as important as accomplishing it. Murdering each other, wire tapping each other, raping and pillaging, invading each other’s bedrooms,  intentional disinformation, blackmailing each other, vexing people, impersonating another person, stealing and robbing, starving people, leaving an individual helpless and unable to protect themselves by disarming them, prohibiting each other in inhumane ways is the wrong way to attain human rights and it is the wrong way to change a person’s belief, spirit, and heart.

Lawlessness vs Lawlessness = Lawlessness

Lawlessness + Lawlessness = Lawlessness

which is in essence

war.

Are we at war with God or OG?

Opinion: On gay marriage, Latinos agree with Obama

OBAMA’S GAY MARRIAGE HEAD FAKE

By Roger Stone

“Once Gay Americans are through celebrating President Barack Obama’s “personal” support of Gay marriage equality, they will learn that Obama’s “evolution” changes nothing. Obama’s new position is a bullshit cop-out.

This comes on the heels of an cynical Obama campaign pirouette where Team Obama trotted out first Secretary of State Hillary Clinton then Vice President “Crazy” Joe Biden to say they support gay marriage and imply that the President would too–after the election.

Now, incredibly, Obama says Gay marriage is a state issue. That’s what they used to say about abortion and before that, slavery. Now Obama tells us that gay couples should be able to marry but he doesn’t believe they have a right to do so. Obama would leave the question to the states–in other words -the status quo. This is like saying that public schools ought to be integrated but if the people of Mississippi disagree, well he says, “let the states decide” …

===================================

By the way, what is the 2nd Commandment

of the Ten Commandments?

What is wrong with saying

“do unto others as you would have them do unto you?” 

There are always going to be extremes on any issue. I don’t think we should make determinations of any issues on that basis,

otherwise I would suggest outlawing marriage for heterosexuals.

==================================

Biden apologizes to Obama for marriage controversy

uh huh.

The Trickery and Treachery of Mitt Romeny

“What I am asking about is how the campaign has handled this situation, how he handled the Colorado reporter, how he handled same-sex marriage where

he said he agrees with gay parents be able to adopt,

but he does not agree with same-sex marriage? “

That’s a misnomer.

Homosexuals are good enough to raise kids

but not good enough to be married!

Does Mitt Romney not like orphans, kids, and homosexuals?

Why?

————————————

May be Mitty Romney shavout.

Mitt Romney’s 2006 Rally Against Gay Marriage

This man is sinister, sick, demented,

and speaks in dark sentences!

Romney’s lame response on bullying allegations

Adam Lambert Discusses Gay Rights Anthem “Outlaws Of Love”

What Romney can accomplish at Liberty University

Sometimes looks are deceiving and sometimes they aren’t.

He reminds me of George Ganswein

the Pope Benedict’s Secretary

the man who dresses the Pope.

The times we are living in are treacherous and the leaders we have in our government and religious institutions are as confused as we are because of the treachery and need our help and prayers. We should try to obey the laws of the country we live in as best we can and hopefully all of us can get through the deceit and treachery eventually.

Evangelicals, Taxes, Jobs, and the Consumer

The Monarch, Devil’s Breath, and the Eucharist

Dr Abdulazeez A. Lawal

These are the best of time for Lagos State Polytechnic Students as the institution’s Rector, Dr. Abdulazeez A. Lawal has assured that the issue of lack of hostel in Laspotech will soon become a thing of the Past.

The Rector stated this during a brief interview with Saybog005 in his office on resumption into office last year.

He said different corporate organizations have shown interest to support the hostels construction.

Click the link below to watch a clip of the interview. Watch out for the concluding part next week. Enjoy and drop your comment.

This is a postcard from Daisy Bowers Rector to her mother Mrs. Benjamin Bowers—Dora Brainard Morningstar, the adopted child of my 5^th Great Grandfather Henry Morningstar. I believe the photograph on the front is of Daisy’s husband Ernest and their adopted son Clifton Rector.

Happy Hunting!

Jess

• Wim Holtkamp: ambassadeur van aardewerk uit Rijswijk
• Helena Schuemie: een geboren verteller
• Gretha Schenk: oud worden met een steeds kleiner netwerk
• Kees Kort en Bart Tent: kloppend hart van te Werve
• Mevrouw Camps: een familiemens
• Ton Hertogh: onderwijsmens en vertaler Latijn
• Arnold van Rijn: altijd goed gehumeurd
• Theo van der Kooij: een geboren verteller uit Rijswijk
• Kees van den Bosch: een gedreven kunstenaar
• Theo den Hollander: met een missie naar Indië
• Flory en Leny Meyers: herinneringen aan Rijswijk

Went to a NEEDTOBREATHE and Ben Rector show last night at Club Nokia. The show was phenomenal! I had never seen Ben Rector before and I had seen NTB two other times. Neither failed to amaze me with their showmanship and musical talents. The above video is one that was definitely a favorite of the night. Such a great cover of a great Whitney Houston song! Definitely made me wanna dance with somebody.

The first question was, ‘What is the vision and mission of the university?’ The Rector answered that the university of Saint Joseph has roots that go back to the 16th century and that they experiment, but only with a clear purpose. He said that USJ is not interested in mass education, and students here can therefore experience a unique and ‘different’ learning environment. An experience that is ethical and challenging and provide opportunities for the students to gain more knowledge, as knowledge is power.

“The role of the University is not just being, but to become” he added, saying that what USJ does is much more than just feeding knowledge. It provides the platform for students to find wisdom.

The second question was, “What is the reason to let USJ students attend the Business Knowledge Competition?”

He said that it is good for the students to interact with the others… that competition is good to broaden perspectives and force us to think, but that he believes in cooperation more than competition. So his view is that the most important thing is not to win per-se, but to allow the student to know how to not only take advantage of each other’s competencies, but to allow the student to grow and Test the validity of what they have learned and their skills in the real world.

This interview was taken as part of the 1st Macau-wide Chinese Business Competition and filmed by TDM. (click the link to see the article on the competition)

And, should the world not end on December 21, there will be a future.  Will it be a future redolent with grace and full of glory?  Only if we can imagine it and reach for it.  Many of us are good at handling the necessary evils of daily meetings and fighting day-to-day fires wisely and with dispatch.  Those of us on the Vestry are likely to be among them.  But not so many of us are able to find the time and the imagination necessary to envision a future.  Even fewer are willing to allocate the necessary resources and accept the sometimes disturbing changes that will adapt St. Stephen’s for its life as a parish 50, or even 20, years from now.

I keep promising myself, between this meeting and that one, that I’ll get up a half hour earlier tomorrow to just sit and imagine.  What will the world be like 20 years from today?  Twenty years ago churches didn’t have websites, and most of those using email worked at universities or for the government.  Now, electronic communication is the way we reach out to each other, and it is a primary tool for evangelism.  In 20 years?  The only thing we know for sure is that life will be different, and sometimes, to some of us, disturbingly so.  Churches will need to adapt or continue to dwindle in size and influence, and their parishioners will need to adapt with them.

We could do worse than to occasionally remember this prayer written by Sir Francis Drake, hero to the English and pirate to the Spanish:

Disturb us, Lord, when we are too well pleased with ourselves,when our dreams have come true because we have dreamed too little, when we arrive safely because we have sailed too close to the shore.

Disturb us, Lord, to dare more boldly, to venture on wider seas where storms will show your mastery; where losing sight of land, we shall find the stars. We ask you to push back the horizons of our hopes; and to push into the future in strength, courage, hope, and love.

To this prayer I would add:

Disturb us, Lord, when our busyness keeps us from remembering why we are busy.  Interrupt us, Lord, in the midst of our endless to-do list, the emails, the IMs and phone calls, the meetings and meetings and yes, more meetings.

And today, Lord, I am grateful that our Rector, after a morning of meetings, is working on her own personal goals from home.

Sir Francis Drake’s ship, The Golden Hind, from which he plundered Spanish vessels and enriched English coffers.

As there has been such a positive response to this image, I have also produced the landscape in a 16″x12″ framed format, for sale in my gallery at Glan Conwy Post Office.

As promised, this is the second in a series of truthful postings about what’s really been happening at S. Clement’s Church, Philadelphia. This particular truth deals with the slow elimination of the Anglo-Catholic Traditions long held at S. Clement’s, and how most have been dismissed without any replacement at hand. 

For those who perhaps are not familiar with S. Clement’s, a little history would be suitable (don’t worry; it’s just a summary). The church was built in 1859 as a very typical Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America (PECUSA) in a part of town that was in no way affluent (typical of Anglican churches which were usually established in the needy parts of cities and towns to minister to those who were in need). It was designed as a church typical for that time period – not really an altar, more of a table with no candlesticks, no crucifix, etc. This was the humble birth of S. Clement’s parish.

Little by little, the parish grew, as did the Oxford Movement in England, and caught up to the PECUSA, to Philadelphia, and to S. Clement’s Church. Little by little, the parish became higher and higher in its form of worship. First candles were placed on the table, then a crucifix, eventually, the sanctuary was expanded to fit a high altar, 6 candlesticks, tabernacle, crucifix, shrines, side altars, etc. (over time). The Cowley Fathers came to Philadelphia and took over the administration of the parish which eventually led through to the rectors of the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s when S. Clement’s rose above the other Anglo-Catholic parishes as a diadem (Okay, so I’m using literary license, but it’s still true).

During the 70’s, and the rectorate of Fr. Hendricks, S. Clement’s saw the decline and ultimate decimation of Anglo-Catholic traditionalism. In response to the dictates of the church-at-large, a free-standing altar was placed in the main church and S. John’s Chapel, and the liturgy followed the more modern Book of Common Prayer. Truly, the church halls were full during these years, but not the masses themselves. People would spill into the parish hall on Sundays after mass from the nearby clubs to continue their partying into the afternoon rather than going home.

But, as prayers were answered, a new Rector was called to the parish, and S. Clement’s rose again like the Phoenix from the ashes, and dove deeper into her Anglo-Catholic traditions. Fr. Fitzhugh restored the missal and the traditional lectionary, as well as a regular Sunday evening service. The free-standing altars were taken away and the great traditions of Solemn High Mass and Low Mass were re-instituted. Fr. Laister restored the English Missal, and was a renowned spiritual director and confessor, organized regular parish retreats, and (with Fr. Swain as his curate) the only parish mission at S. Clement’s in modern times. Fr. Swain (as Rector) restored the full Western ceremonies, the silent Roman Canon, the traditional Holy Week, the Roman lessons for much of the year, and the Latin congregational creed, and he organized American Anglo-Catholicism’s millennium “Christ our Future” celebration at S. Clement’s. This was followed by an increased use of the Roman offices, including Vespers on Sundays, and all of the Hours at Christmas and for the Triduum, and the remainder of the Roman lessons.

And through these rectors, the pews at the services of S. Clement’s began to fill.

S. Clement’s had a full parish and liturgical life because it had a Gospel to preach, and everything else grew out of that. S. Clement’s was finally, once again, the hallmark of Anglo-Catholicism. People came to spend time there more than just Sunday mornings. There were weekday Guild masses as well as meetings of the different Guilds; there were large receptions on major feast days that entertained lots of visitors; major feast days were announced, and notices were sent out to people who had an interest in seeing what S. Clement’s had to offer at these times; there were parish dinners, and meetings of committees; there were Lenten activities throughout the season with Stations of the Cross and dinner on Fridays and Lenten talks and instructions. There was a Christmas bazaar and a summer parish picnic, quiet days of reflection and introspection in Lent and Advent for preparation. There were two masses daily, every day. S. Clement’s even volunteered at a soup kitchen once a month – a reflection of times past when S. Clement’s ran a hospital, a hostel for women, and other supports of the community.

The parish had a busy and fulfilling life, and people came because there was something to come to; a use to be had, and a Gospel to be preached. And most importantly, S. Clement’s was at its strongest in holding fast to the liturgy that was “stuffy,” “antiquated,” and a “museum” (as some have called it). Rather than people being turned off by the beauty of the ancient traditions, they were coming to see them, and experience them.

When the current Rector, Canon W. Gordon Reid, was called to S. Clement’s in August of 2003, he swore to defend, uphold, and protect the Anglo-Catholic traditions the parish so dearly treasured and for so long fought. He called to him a curate who was impeccable in qualifications, staunch in the Anglo-Catholic traditions, and eager to learn what he could of the ceremony at S. Clement’s. By Corpus Christi of 2007, the pews were full, and because, for so long, many people wanted to see what a Corpus Christi mass looked like at S. Clement’s, even though they were too far away to attend, a DVD was created, having been recorded live during the mass.

But even by that time, things were changing. The second daily mass had been cancelled Mondays through Saturdays (only kept on Sundays), even though there were enough priests to say those masses (including a Curate and an Honorary Assistant Priest). And over the next couple of years, even with the presence of that Curate and Assistant Priest in residence, our traditions began to disappear for no reason.

By 2008, our Curate was gone, having been called to be the Rector of his own parish, and by early 2011, our Assistant Priest (one who dearly loved just being at S. Clement’s and being part of our traditions) had passed away, having been continuously marginalized by the Rector for his adherence to the catholic faith. There were no more Guild meetings or masses, quiet days of Advent and Lent were never scheduled, and everything else was either cancelled or just deleted from the schedules. The only services retained through this period were Stations of the Cross and Benediction on Fridays during Lent, and Sunday Vespers. That is, until recently, when the Rector saw fit to cancel Sunday Vespers for no other reason than as retaliation against a Vestry which remained vigilant in their fiduciary responsibilities. His reason publicly (on his personal blog) stated that it was merely because there was lack of attendance, even though there were always some people sitting in the pews. It reminded me of the article in the Philadelphia Inquirer in a previous year about the Low Mass (also known as the “Shepherd’s Mass”) on Christmas morning (S. Clement’s being one of the very few churches that still hold it). In the article, the Rector was quoted as saying, “We would continue to do this, even if only one person came.”

If the Rector had never made promises at the time of his selection, this blog entry would never have been written. But the issue remains that he swore and promised to uphold these traditions to the search committee and to the vestry. His direct quotes from the minutes of the 2003 meeting of the search committee: “My heart is with the Tridentine Mass.” English Orthodoxy with its very ancient liturgy is growing,” (when discussing the liturgy at S. Clement’s). Most revealing from the minutes, when discussing the Daily Office, “Father does not mind if it is Evensong or Vespers as long as it is done.” And finally, regarding his priestly duties of care of the sick, “The parish is widespread, and he believes in taking the Blessed Sacrament to the sick.” Sadly, he has not continued with visitations either.

And now we see a parish which was once rich and vibrant with parochial life waning and spiritually starving, and only offering the absolute bare minimum of Sunday Low Mass and High Mass, and weekday Low Mass Mondays through Saturdays, said Evensong Mondays through Fridays, and a “perpetual novena” which is no longer even said on Sundays anymore at the Shrine of Our Lady of Clemency.

The next truth to be unveiled: How a Vestry and Parish can have their Voice stolen from them.

To be continued…

 In Jane Austen’s writing we encounter a number of characters like Edward Ferrars and Edmund Bertram who are planning to take orders. Her readers understood what that meant, but the concept is a little foreign to us, so here’s a quick rundown on what ‘taking orders’ meant.

 The English laws or primogenitor, intended to preserve the integrity of large landed estates, made it a challenge for younger sons of the landed gentry to establish themselves in life. If their family did not possess an additional estate for them to inherit or there was not some other relative to provide an inheritance, they had little choice but to make their way in the world. The question was, of course, how.

By the second half of the 1700’s traditional ‘learned’ professions: the church, the law and medicine, took on a respectable character as ‘liberal professions’ befitting gentlemen. So these, together with the armed forces formed the primary options for gentlemen’s sons.

Requirements for taking orders

 To be considered for ordination, a candidate needed a  degree from Cambridge or Oxford. No theological colleges or courses of study existed so a standard honors degree satisfied the requirement. Afterwards, the candidate needed a testimonial from his college vouching for his fitness for ordination. Finally, he needed to locate a bishop and make arrangements for an examination that would satisfy the bishop of his competency in Latin, knowledge of the Scripture, and familiarity with the liturgy and church doctrine as written in the 39 Articles. Some bishops made only a cursory examination in these areas, only a few took their responsibilities more seriously.

After Japanning (slang for ordination referring to putting on black cloth, from the color of black japan ware) a man was qualified to administer the sacraments of the Church. His career would begin at age 23, as a deacon, assisting an ordained priest. At 24 he could be fully ordained and eligible to be in charge of a parish.

After ordination, a priest (curate, vicar or rector) would still be referred as Mr. Surname as was Mr. Collins in Pride and Prejudice. He would never be referred to as Reverend in speech although he might receive letters as ‘The Reverend W. Collins’. Only if he attained higher standing in the church would his form of address change.

What did the clergy do once ordained?

 The clergyman’s basic duties were to hold church service on Sundays and  hold Holy Communion at least three times a year. The service, which might last as long as three hours, began with the clergyman declaring a the general confession of sins.  The congregation repeated this after him and then he pronounced God’s forgiveness. Following this a psalm of praise and thanksgiving and passages from the Old and New Testaments were read. Then everybody stood and repeated the Apostles’ Creed. After all this, a sermon might be read.

Most priests took their sermons from books published for the purpose. Some would read extracts from the printed text. In other cases, adaptations might be written to suit particular circumstances. In general congregations enjoyed the use of familiar texts. Few clergymen wrote original sermons.

Midweek duties included baptisms, marriages and funerals and visiting the sick. In addition, parish meetings, at which the clergyman officiated, discussed local affairs including charity, parish employment, care of the poor, repair and maintenance of the church and election of the churchwardens. The parish was responsible for the administration of the poor laws and elected Supervisors of the Poor who collected the Poor Rate taxes from the wealthier parishioners. Road maintenance was also a responsibility of the parish and two Surveyors of Highways were appointed to supervise the maintenance and repair of the roads. Thus, the clergyman played a major role in the life of his parish community.

 For more information see:

Collins, Irene. (1998)  Jane Austen, The Parson’s Daughter . Hambledon Press.

Collins, Irene. (2002)  Jane Austen & the Clergy. Hambledon Press.

Day, Malcom. (2006) Voices from the World of Jane. Austen David & Charles .

Grose, Captain (Francis). (2004)  Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, 1811 ed. Ikon Classics

Le Faye, Deirdre.  (2002).   Jane Austen: The World of Her Novels. Harry N. Abrams

MacDonagh, Oliver . (1991) Jane Austen, Real and Imagined Worlds.  Yale University Press.

Mayer, Nancy. Nancy Mayer-Regency Researcher

©Maria Grace, Good Principles Publishing.  2012

S. Clement’s Church, Philadelphia, which has long been called the hallmark of Anglo-Catholicism, has seen drastic changes lately in her life and worship. Unfortunately, it’s not an accidental or metamorphic change that’s been happening slowly over time, but rather, what appears to be a very strong-headed few who were never happy with the Anglo-Catholic traditions practiced at S. Clement’s and desired to change them from their first days stepping foot in the church rather than attending another parish that already offered what they were looking for.

At this, you might say just a few who share these views surely cannot make such broad changes in a parish who’s traditional roots run deep through the 150+ years in existence. And truly, you would be right in believing they will, in the end, fail and fail miserably. S. Clement’s has had many issues throughout her history in Philadelphia – fighting against bishops for their right to catholic worship, embattlements in court rooms, past rectors who attempted to destabilize the catholic traditions – and always seemed to come out of those times as a beacon for traditionalism and Anglo-Catholicism.

But when those very few slither into positions where they have access to all financial accounts and try to spend down endowments on frivolity while ignoring the spiritual needs of the parish, it’s time to step up and speak out. These are dark days at S. Clement’s, indeed.

But enough of the vague statements. No more hiding the dirty laundry so everything appears rosy and nice to guests. It’s time to air that dirty laundry to let everyone know what stinks behind that hallowed brownstone, and I’ve personally decided to take that step now. I’ve no intention of being malicious in any way. I merely want to reach out to the Clementines and the public in hopes that others who read this will know the truth, will pray with us, and will fight with us to preserve what is so precious to us. Don’t worry. I won’t over-burden you with everything in a single post (we’d be here for days if I wrote that much truth), so I’ll address particular instances, one at a time (so check back often).

I guess the very first truth to be told, is that of the firing of the Rector’s Warden, Dr. John Lilley. Contrary to the story the Rector had been spreading – that Dr. Lilley retired, or quit, or just left because he’d lost interest – he was, indeed, fired for standing up to the Rector to protect the endowment funds. Up until the time of his removal, Dr. Lilley had been selected as Rector’s Warden to numerous rectors; each succeeding Rector selecting him to be their trusted liaison between them and the laity, which Dr. Lilley did admirably for those many years. However, he was fired in a fit of rage in the parish office in front of the Head Server, simply because he opposed the Rector’s spending of endowments on a salary – a curate’s position which had been unfunded for the 2 prior years, and a position which really is not necessary for such a small parish at this time. The trusted position of Rector’s Warden was then appointed to the Rector’s dearest friend and consort, who now has full access to funds, endowments, property, etc.. I might also add at this point, that particular friend and consort was (and, at this writing, is currently) unemployed, and lives with a certain former Vestryman who’s personal design business has profited from work he does for the parish.

The Vestry has tried very hard to work with the Rector, his new warden, and the Property Chairman (another consort who lives with the Rector’s Warden and his partner, the former Vestryman with the personal design business), even trying to negotiate and meet their demands half-way, but to no avail. Every attempt was resisted and pushed aside by the Rector. He wanted what he wanted and would not be swayed from it one bit. For whatever reason, and at whatever cost, he had to have a Curate (almost to the point of an obsession). The fact remained, however, that the money was not (and is not) there for another position, even after the Rector attempted to raise the funds for the past year (having failed to raise even half the amount needed). Rather than letting it go and making the best of it, he and his consort continue to contact the corporation’s attorney in attempts to get around legal Vestry decisions, thus plunging the parish further into debt, then telling anyone who will listen to him that “the Vestry continues to run up attorney fees, even though they can’t pay for a curate.”

The next truth to be unveiled: the Hows and Whys the parish moves away from the use of the Anglo-Catholic traditions which are slowly being replace with … well, nothing.

To be continued…

In short, a living meant a guaranteed income and home for the lifetime of the clergyman lucky enough to be appointed to one. Since the incumbent did not receive a wage or sully his hands with works per se, it was considered a gentlemanly profession and many younger sons of gentlemen pursued the church as their career.

 How many livings existed?

Image via Wikipedia

Approximately 11,500 benefices or livings existed in England and Wales at the end of the 18th century. This sounds like a sufficient number; however, over half the ordained clergy never received a living.

Patrons owned livings. Oxford and Cambridge colleges controlled around 5%, giving them as gifts to fellows and masters who wished to marry and leave academic pursuits. Another 10% or so belonged to the Crown and were  presented to government supporters. Bishops and cathedral chapters possessed about 20%. The gentry and aristocracy held the largest share, on the order of 60%. Most great families had at least one or two livings at their disposal.

 How much income did a living provide?

The majority of England’s parishes were small. An 1802 figure suggests a third of the benefices brought in less than £150 a year and some 1,000 of those less than £100. (Remember, about £50 a year was more or less equivalent to our minimum wage.)  A clergyman needed a  living of £300-400 per annum to be on the level  with the lesser gentry.

Incomes might be increased by serving more than one parish, but this seldom resulted in real wealth.

Only a third of all clergy acquired more than one living. Slightly more than one in twenty held more than two benefices and of these few had as many as four or five.

Additional income might also be found through teaching or cultivating gardens and the glebe (acreage provided by the parish.) The amount of land varied by parish, some only had a field in others, fifty acres or more. The incumbent either chose to farm it himself or rented it out to a tenant farmer.

the parsonage Jane Austen liven in

A living also included a parsonage house. The patron, not the church took responsibility for providing hosing for the clergy. Landowners might improve the parsonage in the hope of attracting an incumbent of education and breeding, fit to dine at his patron’s table. Many vicarages, though, were in poor condition.

 How did one get a living?

The surest way of obtaining a benefice was to be related to the patron. A well-placed relative might well mean walk into a living immediately after ordination. Less well-connected individuals could wait ten or twenty years.

The right to appoint a clergyman to a living was called an advowson and considered a form of property to be bought, sold and inherited. Instead of selling an entire advowson, a gentleman strapped for cash might sell just the ‘right of next presentation’ as did Sir Thomas Bertram in Mansfield Park.

Typically an advowson sold for five to seven times the annual value. Such a sale had to take place during the lifetime of the incumbent. Sales after the incumbent’s death were a crime called Simony and would result in the loss of the advowson. An extremely fortunate clergyman could own an advowson and appoint himself to a living.

 I must admit, after researching all this, I am still left scratching my head as to why Jane Austen’s Lady Catherine would ever have chosen a man like William Collins to serve her parish for life.

For more information see:

Ask Meta filter It’s a living… but WHAT it? 

Collins, Irene. (1998)  Jane Austen, The Parson’s Daughter . Hambledon Press.

Collins, Irene. (2002)  Jane Austen & the Clergy. Hambledon Press.

Day, Malcom. (2006) Voices from the World of Jane. Austen David & Charles .

MacDonagh, Oliver . (1991) Jane Austen, Real and Imagined Worlds.  Yale University Press.

Mayer, Nancy. Nancy Mayer-Regency Researcher 

©Maria Grace, Good Principles Publishing.  2012

This is the cohort who will be the first to sit the new National 4 and National 5 qualifications that are replacing the Standard Grade, Intermediate 1 and Intermediate 2 qualifications in 2013/14.

As much information as is currently available regarding the new qualifications can be found on Education Scotland’s website. There’s not a lot at the moment, certainly little to describe the structure of the new exams or the impact, if any, they will have in the classroom.

Rather than concentrating on a whole new curriculum and assessment process what has Perth Academy decided to do? To add to the unknown quantity that is the N4/N5 they have decided to change this years’ S2 course choice so that rather than take the standard eight subjects in S3/S4, they will have to take  NINE subjects.

Who in their right mind ADDS to the pressure our pupils are already under to achieve  good grades by spreading them more thinly across more subjects?

This year group will already be facing fast-track Intermediates 1&2 in Maths and despite being the first year group to be examined under the new system many will also be fast-tracked through Standard Grade English in S3.  They face leaving school with a mish-mash of SG/Int/Nats at this rate and no employer will have a clue what that mess means.

Who in their right mind proposes all this for the very year group who will, when it comes down to it, be the testing ground for the new qualifications?

To accommodate this extra subject, a reshuffling of the timetable is essential. Obviously this will affect the whole school.

And what will reshuffling the timetable mean exactly?

Firstly we can say goodbye to morning registration. No longer will pupils gather in their house groups with the same member of staff each day for 6 years. No longer will they be able to build up a relationship with a consistent contact on the teaching staff. Every day will begin in a different room, with a different group of pupils and a different teacher. How exactly they expect teachers to take register for 5 different groups of up to 30 pupils a week and know who is off/late/at a meeting/has prefect duties/got a note/at the doctor beats me. I am sure the mechanics of box ticking will be surmountable, but the knowledge that teachers build up about their registration class, that will be lost.

Currently each house attends an assembly once a week during registration. I can only assume we can say goodbye to assembly too.

When that 15 minutes at the start of the day is lost to lessons, pupils lose the only time they hear anything about the wider school.

Ethos building? I don’t think so.

To accommodate the new timetable three periods are to be added to the week.

You can’t get three new periods out of registration, it only adds up to 75 minutes a week. Only by shaving 5 minutes here, and 5 minutes there, can the necessary time be freed up.

I’m trying to do the maths.

Currently there are 30 periods in the week split over 5 days. This is made up of  6 periods a day, 4 of 55 minutes and  2 of 50 minutes. Registration is 15 minutes, lunch is 50 minutes and morning break is 15 minutes.

So the school week is 2000 minutes long with 1600 minutes of actual lessons and a further 75 minutes teacher contact in registration. A total of 1675 minutes of teacher contact.

It is proposed to increase this to 33 periods over 5 days, 3 days of 7 periods and 2 of 6. Each period will be 50 minutes long which amounts to 1650 minutes each week, a reduction in total teacher contact of 25 minutes, but an increase in actual lesson time of 50 minutes.

I can only guess at what this might look like.

For S5/6 pupils the three new periods, or 150 minutes each week, will not be allocated to their 5 chosen subjects. Mr Smith has been selling this time to the seniors as study time/free periods/time to spend on charitable work. What he has failed to sell it to them as is 100 minutes each week less spent in lessons. That’s over an hour and a half less teaching every week.

The school day will have to start at 08:40 if the proposed extension of lunch to an hour is to be met. For the three 7 period days school will have to finish later than at present, at 15:40 and for the two 6 period days it will have to finish earlier than at present, at 14:50.

Primary schools all finish at 15:15 so if you have children of both primary and secondary age who need picked up, transported to activities, or heaven forbid if they meet and come home together…. good luck.

If a student starts works at 16:00 those 10 lost minutes could quite feasibly impact on them. And what about pupils who attend after school activities? Are they just to hang around until they start when school finishes at 14:50? Or miss them altogether if a 15:40 finish makes them late?

I think eight subjects is enough. I think eight sets of homework from eight different teachers resulting in eight prelims, then eight exams is enough. I accept that nine can be fitted into the week but I don’t think that because they can they SHOULD.

I have experienced the stress a child is under taking eight subjects and would never have wished another “opportunity” on them.

The good news is that Mr Smith cannot make these changes to the school day without parental support. He needs to hold a referendum (now there’s a buzz word!). In this referendum 75% of parents must vote and 75% of that 75% must support the change if it is to go ahead.

He may argue that 5 minutes off a lesson here and there doesn’t amount to much. He may argue that our children are more than capable of grabbing the opportunity to broaden their education with a ninth subject. He may argue that he is extending the lunch hour and thereby giving pupils more “downtime”. And he may argue that three periods of citizenship or free study are valuable experiential learning for senior pupils.

But the cost? More pressure on pupils. Less teacher contact. Loss of registration and assembly and with it any consistent contact with a staff member. Considerably less teaching time at Higher level, arguably the toughest year they will face. Two different school finishing times.  And an even earlier start.

What will you choose?

The three different types of clergy populated the parish church: the rector, the vicar and the curate. The latter two are the ones we hear about most but it is worth taking a moment to consider the rector, too.

Reverend Canon Edgar Sheppard

Rector

One of the reasons for confusion about this position is that the rector did not have to be an ordained man — it might well be a college, a group, bishop, a nobleman, or even a female. The rector was simply the one who received the ‘greater’ tithes, 10% of the cereal crops grown in the parish, (which might be as much as 75% of the total tithes), in compensation for the freehold (land) used by the church.

Beyond his clerical responsibilities, the rector played an active role in the social life of the neighborhood and in its civil administration, carrying out such duties as the registration of births, deaths and marriages, sitting on the magistrates’ bench and so on.

 Vicar

The vicar is the more commonly encountered cleric. Though some parsons might have been devoted to their flock, the church on the whole had a reputation for idleness. Sincere faith was not a necessary quality for ordination as a minister of the Church of England. With enough money and connections a man might be ordained and installed in a desirable living.

A living, (a parish church), was typically set up so that a rector or a vicar presided. In the Regency period, once installed in a living, a man was there for life. No one less than the bishop could remove him for cause. An income and home for life would certainly be appealing; however, the if the holder of the living wished to retire he had to employ a curate to take charge of a parish

Whether or not a vicar had the resources for hiring a curate depended on the parish itself. His portion would be the lesser tithes, 10% of the parish’s produce and livestock. In some vicarages this might be as little as £50 a year. (For reference, this is roughly the equivalent of a minimum wage job.) In other parishes, the lesser tithes could amount to a considerable sum. Some hints in Pride and Prejudice suggest the Kympton living might have amounted to £500 -£600 a year.

A vicar could resign his duties to a curate once he obtained the permission of his bishop. Many hired a curate, who would be paid out of the vicar’s own pocket, from the beginning of their incumbency. Others only did so when they had to retire. A vicar did not have to give up the parsonage house to the curate. He might continue to live in it himself and leave the curate to find his own living quarters somewhere within an easy distance of the church.  

Curate

A curate was usually a young man just recently ordained, who assisted or sometimes performed the duties of a clergyman. Though they might do all the work of the parish, their salaries were often meager, perhaps as little as £50 per year, not enough to afford a maid.

Even at trifling wages, a curacy was not easy to obtain. In the early 1800’s curates made up close to half of the clergymen. Even with a position, their future was not secure. The death of the incumbent did not imply the curate would ascend to the living. Moreover, there was no guarantee that the successor would even continue to employ the curate.  A curate did not retire unless he had private means of support because the church offered no pensions.

As members of the clergy, curates were regarded as gentlemen. Despite their official standing, the subservient nature of their position and their paltry incomes caused some of the gentry and peers to hold them in disregard.

For more information see:

Collins, Irene. (1998)  Jane Austen, The Parson’s Daughter . Hambledon Press.

Collins, Irene. (2002)  Jane Austen & the Clergy. Hambledon Press.

Day, Malcom. (2006) Voices from the World of Jane. Austen David & Charles .

Mayer, Nancy. Nancy Mayer-Regency Researcher 

Sullivan, Margaret C. (2007) The Jane Austen Handbook . Quirk Books.

Professor Carlos Levi talks about the importance of initiatives for international collaborative projects and the role of scientific research for the development of the university.