Waterangel,

I think that there is a general and a specific point here.

The general point is a accusation that bishops do not take the privilege of their position in the House of Lords seriously., I do not believe this is true. Bishops do have day jobs and most of them are not able to do a days work and then turn up in the middle of the afternoon. The House of Lords is a revising chamber and the important thing is that a Christian voice is heard not that the vote is packed, Indeed if the bishops played the maximum role in the House, the Church would be accused of having too prominent a role in parliament.

The specific point is welfare  reform. There are a number of issues on which the Bishops need to turn up in force. These include moral issues such as abortion, war and the death penalty and reductions in civil liberties. If they are serious about protecting the vulnerable and disadvantaged, a better turnout would have shown that they were serious.

David

Jonathan presents the problem from the point of view of the church. It has been presented from the point of view of the state in the Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/9984619/Margaret-Thatcher-This-is-a-state-funeral-and-thats-a-mistake.html State funerals are listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_funerals_in_the_United_Kingdom and I doubt that Margaret Thatcher is in the same category as the 19th century giants. It does show that this honor is only given to exceptional leaders. The prime ministers who have died since Churchill are Clement Atlee (1967), Anthony Eden (1977), Harold MacMillan (1986), Sir Alex Douglas Home (1995), Harold Wilson (1995), Edward Heath (2005), James Callaghan (2005). A state funeral for Clement Atlee would have created a president . The others were figures from the past at the time of their death whereas Margaret Thatcher remained in public awareness.

I note that a state funeral was given to Lord Mountbatten (1979) but not to Viscount Montgomery (1967)

Iain Murray complains that "In ... 1960, a leading British politician died and, despite his atheism and indifference to Christianity, he was honored in Westminster Abbey, the main shrine of the national church. Archbishop Michael Ramsey...defended that action with the words, “Heaven is not a place for Christians only. . . . I expect to see some present-day atheists there.”"TMSJ 12/2 (Fall 2001) 234" That politician was Aneurin Bevan see http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/TUbevan.htm In 2004, over 40 years after his death, he was voted first in a list of 100 Welsh Heroes, this being credited much to his contribution to the Welfare State after World War Two. Truly a man deserving recognition by church, state and society.

This service illustrates the danger of a national church compromising the gospel. 

The service itself was an appropriate Christian response to Margaret Thatcher's life. If that service hat been held in Grantham or Finchley with a simpler  procession there would be nothing to complain about. Given the number high profile mourners who wanted to attend , the service needed to be in London from a security and practical point of view. 

The Queen decided to attend. Doubtless she knew Mrs Thatcher better than any of us.

Dave

Discussion on Radio 4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01s0df4

We should remember Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones as ( in the words of J I Packer:"a saint, a holy man of God: a naturally proud person whom God made humble; a naturally quick-tempered person to whom God taught patience; a naturally contentious person to whom God gave restraint and wisdom; a natural egoist, conscious of his own great ability, whom God set free from self-seeking to serve the servants of God."  written in 1985 and quoted on http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/03/01/martyn-lloyd-jones-2/ which give you a real thumb nail sketch of the Doctor.

The influence of the Doctor can be seen in J I Packer's new book "Taking God sertiously" which includes his account of schism in New Westminster.

Dave

Richard.

By "too easy" I mean that British nuclear disarmament is a way of looking good without real cost.

Carl,

This is not a matter of playing intellectual games. You are using the criteria of the just war theory in your defense of American first use. The only countries which seem to be intent on increasing their nuclear capability at present are Iran and N Korea. Britain, France, India and Pakistan are content with their current stockpiles of around 100 to 200 warheads. USA and Russia are still well over 5,000 warheads which for all the problems you name, leaves plenty of room for planned mutual reduction. Neither country is in the economic state to run an arms race.

The use of nuclear weapons as anything other than a deterrent to nuclear weapons in problematic. The US policy has been influenced by just war considerations. Destroying any military building in Baghdad over 2 months is a different thing from flattening it a week, which I am sure could have been done by conventional means.

I have taken figures from Wikipedia, I think these are as accurate as any other in the public domain.

Dave

If this were true would we not have a Liberal Democrat government? An alternative theory of politics is that if there are only two parties, the voters are spread on a line. There is a point between the two parties and everyone to the left of it votes Labor or Democrat. This is a strong motive for both parties to be moderate or centrist.

Irrational choice reminds be of the old allegation that the cheapest wine in a restaurant is good value but the next one up is the inferior one he makes the profit on. 

Should we be considering the timing of the churches judgment and comparing this to remarriage after divorce. Even if we cannot declare God's blessing on an institution where he has not done so can the the church declare God's continuing love for those who have entered into such a commitment. In the same way should a army chaplain declare God's blessing on the soldiers even if he is unsure of the justice of the cause?

Dave

Students dub next Principal of Wycliffe ‘Dr Evil’

So says the Church Times

Dave

Richard.

To extend our discussion slightly, the nations which most concern the friends of America i.e. Isreal and S Korea by neuclear development are Iran and N Korea. Neuclear proliferation has largely been dealt with by international treaties. The question now is a more general one of arms build up which is dealt with by diplomatic means. 

The measures you talk of are an addition to multilateral disarmament rather than an alternative. Disarmament needs to be verified by inspection on the ground and by satallite.  Perhaps dual control of a US/Russian deterrant is the end point but then would it be so difficult to use that it failed as a deterrant.

My point is that even if neuclear bombs can be unmade they cannot be uninvented, The question of Brisish neuclear disarmament is too easy, the real moral question is what we want America to do and what would the costs be?

Dave 

The cross section of the BBC I have seen and heard in the last week has presented a balanced picture of Mrs Thatcher. I was particularly impressed with Thusday night - Question Time and This Week. Here we heard from some of here leading citics now and then - David Blunkett, Ming Campbell, Shirley Williams and Polly Toynbee who pointed to her policies without any personal unpleasantness. Indeed it is the stories told by her "friends" which show how difficult she must have been to work for

and Woman's Own (seach for society)

http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

Jonathan aptly summarises the current argument against Trident. There are several other questions which must be considered before we adopt a unilateralist position on weapons of mass distruction, if that is where we are heading. David is right to point to the bombing of the civilian population of Germany. The question is infact old as it relates equaly to seige warfare. The conventional bombing of Germany and the neuclear bombing of Japan had the aim of breaking the will of the enemy and have been justified on the basis of the reduction in (American) deaths. The Cold War did have a strange stability based on the psycology of the Politburo and NATO. There were also cost arguments compared with a conventional build up and balance in Germany. This does not apply to the current situation. My final question is would the world be a safer place if Noth Korea was the only neuclear power?

David