Little different from the Victorian belief that, if someone was poor, then it was their own fault and the result of them being sinful.

You can see how that would appeal to Krikstaller, can't you?

Because sometimes daddy doesn't have the energy to bang both and you can't give something to one and not the other. Just ask them priest blokes.

The polarisation between rich and poor will never be cut, ever since the days of Marx and Weber the idea of change and good communism, equal share has just been manipulated into an extreme ala Stalin. Public has given up hope over the last 6 years, remember barracades on the motorways when petrol went over a quid, now it is a £1.40 and nothing is said.

No and I suggest, neither can you unless you live in France

I reckon they must be putting something in the water. It just seems that no body gives a fek anymore.

Aren't you supposed to be the Christian, you massive hypocrite?

He's one of these I'm afraid.

My view on religion is underpinned by the thoughts of the two wise people below.



Having said that, if a bloke called Jesus did live a couple of thousand years ago, all he appeared to say was, ' "Live and Let Live", be good to each other and treat others as you'd like to be treat yourself. Don't be cruel and selfish and try to see the bigger picture.' I think.

How that got ized into the horrific organizations perpetrating directly antithetical dogma to those fairly innocent words and who operate in the poor sod's name to boot I can't conceive.

However, any person claiming to follow the "true" word of Jesus, then coming out with the evil bile that Kirkstaller did then (yes, I can see he is a very prejudicial person anyway) is either deluded or a pharisee.

How about, from a former, now deceased, singer songwriter?

[iGod is a concept
By which we measure our pain
I'll say it again
God is a concept
By which we measure
Our pain[/i

Except Kirkstaller's point was not about poverty but about choices. Children don't just happen. People choose to have them. If they have multiple children by multiple partners but expect the taxpayer to provide for all of them then while that protects the children, it excuses the adults from taking responsibility for their own choices. That has nothing to do with Victorian belief about poverty being equal to sinfulness.

It may come as some surprise to you, but quite often some children are born that were not part of a carefully scripted life plan, there was no spreadsheet to pinpoint the optimum financial moment at which to give birth, some kids just happen.

Especially those who's religion has fobidden the use of contraceptive devices, for instance.

Strange but true.

I do not oppose contraception - that is the Roman Catholic/Orthodox view. My personal view is the non-procreative sex with your spouse is OK. Paul actually teaches that sex within marriage is to control lust, not to procreate (1 Cor 7:9).

It is true that children can come at any point. However, if you do not use contraception then you always know it is a possibility. If your religion forbids contraception, don't have sex. That, or find another way of satiating your desires.

Porn, anyone?

Well indeed. The person he was referring to chose for his previous relationship to end, for instance.

As has been pointed out, children are not always carefully planned by any stretch of the imagination.

And so when people start out by asserting, from a point of assumption, that they know that everything that happens to a person is the result of specific choices, it's very, very much in the terrain of the blaming people for being poor.

That Mary didn't choose to have a child out of marriage, did she? Bloody lucky Joseph was so understanding. Possibly why her son doesn't appear to have been reported as saying much on the matter – expect telling people to pay their taxes and advising that riches will make it difficult to get into his dad's gaff.