Corporations Profit From Permanent War: Memorial Day 2010

The following article by Bill Quigley is reproduced from today's Truthout under an Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Creative Commons Licence.

US law officially proclaims Memorial Day "as a day of prayer for permanent peace."

However, the US is much closer to permanent war than permanent peace. Corporations are profiting from wars and lobbying politicians for more. The US and the rest of the world cannot afford the rising personal and financial costs of permanent war.

Number One in War

No doubt, the USA is number one in war. This coming year, the US will spend 708 billion dollars on war, and another $125 billion for Veterans Affairs - over $830 billion. In a distant second place is China, which spent about $84 billion on its military in 2008.

The US also leads the world in the sale of lethal weapons to others, selling about one of every three weapons worldwide. The USA's major clients? South Korea, Israel and United Arab Emirates.

Our country has 5 percent of the world's population, but accounts for more than 40 percent of the military spending for the whole world.

Harm

Our nation does not respect our soldiers by engaging in permanent war. War is grinding up our children. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost over 5,000 US lives and tens of thousands more lives of people in those countries. Over 20 percent of those in our military who served in these two wars, 320,000 people, have war-related traumatic brain injuries. Suicide rates are up by 26 percent among 18- to 29-year-old male veterans in the latest Veterans Administration study. Mental health hospitalizations are now the leading cause of hospital admissions for the military, higher than injuries. On any given night, over 100,000 veterans are homeless and living on our nation's streets.

Rising Costs of War

Since 2001, the US has spent over $6 trillion (a trillion is a million millions) on war and preparations for war. That is about $20,000 for every woman, man and child in the US. Iraq and Afghanistan alone have cost the US taxpayer over a trillion dollars since 2001.

No End in Sight

Earlier this month, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chair of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Army Times that the US can expect continuing war "for as far as the eye can see."

In the name of this perpetual war against terrorism, the US still jails hundreds without trial in Guantanamo, holds hundreds more in prisons on bases and in secret detention worldwide, tries to avoid constitutional trials for anyone accused of terrorism, admits it is trying to assassinate an American citizen Muslim cleric in Yemen and launches deadly drone strikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, killing civilians and suspects whenever they decide.

Who Benefits From Permanent War?

One support for permanent war is that there are corporations in the US which openly lobby for more and more money to be invested in war. Why? Because they profit enormously from government contracts.

President Dwight Eisenhower, who believed in a strong military, warned the US about just this in his farewell address to the nation in 1961. "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

War Is Big Business

War is very big business. People know that private companies are doing much more in war. In January 2010, the Congressional Research Service reported that there are at least 55,000 private armed security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan and maybe many more - as many as 70,000 in Afghanistan alone.

But much bigger money is available to defense contractors. In 2008 alone, the top ten defense contractors received nearly $150 billion in federal contracts. These corporations spent millions to lobby for billions more in federal funds and hired ex-military leaders and ex-officials to help them profit off war.

For example, look at the top three defense contractors, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman. They demonstrate why perpetual war is profitable and part of the reason it continues.

Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin is the largest military contractor in the world with 140,000 employees, taking in over $40 billion annually, over $35 billion of which comes from the US government. Lockheed Martin boasts that they have increased their dividend payments by more than 10 percent for the seventh consecutive year - perfectly in line with the increase in war spending by the US. Its Chairman Robert Stevens received over $72 million in compensation over the past three years.

Lockheed's board of directors includes a former under secretary of defense, a former US Air Force commander of the US Strategic Command, a former deputy director of Homeland Security and a former supreme allied commander of Europe. These board members receive over $200,000 a year in compensation. Its political action committee gave over a million dollars a year to federal candidates in 2009, and is consistently one of the top spending PACs in the US. They appeal to all members of Congress because they strategically have operations in all 50 states. And since 1998, Lockheed has spent over $125 million to lobby Congress.

Northrop Grumman

Northrop Grumman is a $33 billion company with 120,000 employees. In 2008, it received nearly $25 billion in federal contracts. Its Chairman Ronald Sugar received over $54 million in compensation over the past three years.

Northrop's Board includes a former admiral of the Navy, a former 20-year member of Congress, a former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former commissioner of the Security and Exchange Commission and a former US naval officer. The members of its board of directors received over $200,000 each in 2009. Its PAC is listed as making over $700,000 in federal campaign donations in 2009. Since 1998, it has spent over $147 million lobbying Congress.

Boeing

Boeing has 150,000 employees and took in over $23 billion in federal contracts in 2008. With revenues of $68 billion in 2009, its Chair James McNerney was paid over $51 million over the past three years. Its board members are paid well over $200,000 a year. Boeing's directors include a former US secretary of Commerce, a former White House chief of staff, a former vice chair of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and a former US ambassador and US trade representative. It hosts the tenth largest political action committee, giving away more than one million dollars to federal candidates in 2009. Since 1998, it has spent $125 million lobbying Congress.

Time to Terminate the Permanent War

These corporations take billions from the government and profit from our perpetual state of war. They recycle some of that money back into lobbying the same people who gave it to them, and hire ex-military and government officials to help smooth the process. Their leaders make tens of millions off this work.

The trillions of dollars that it costs to wage permanent war are taxing the US economy. Yet, where are the voices in Congress, Democrat or Republican, that talk seriously of dramatically reducing our military spending? President Obama and the Democrats are effectively continuing the permanent war policies of the Bush years. It is past time for change.

Remember this Memorial Day that, while thousands have been laid in their graves and hundreds of thousands wounded, private military contractors are prospering and profiting as the business of war booms.

The US should not only remember its dead, but work to reverse the profitable permanent war that promises to add more names to the dead and disabled in this country and around the world.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Happy Families Help Cut the Deficit

It's National Family Week in Britain next week, which is good timing because the new government has pledged to make Britain much more family-friendly.

The appropriately-named Relationships Foundation has calculated that family breakdown is costly not only in human but also in financial terms. The Foundation puts the financial cost of what it terms "family failure" at a staggering £41.7billion, or £1,340 per taxpayer per year.

Strengthening families, therefore, makes sense in terms of public finances, quite apart from its inherent merit.

The Foundation's breakdown of the cost of family failure last year is as follows:

• Tax and Benefits (tax credits and lone parent benefits) - £12.38 bn
• Housing and Council Tax Benefit - £4.27 bn
• Health and Social Care - £13.68 bn
• Civil and Criminal Justice - £8.03 bn
• Education - £3.31 bn

Divorced men and women are also significantly more likely to suffer a range of health problems than married people. These include heart conditions, respiratory problems, injury and poisoning and mental health problems, all of which affect divorced people in greater measure than married.

By contrast, the Foundation has calculated that families provide social care and support worth £73 billion per year in the UK. Family businesses, meanwhile, produce a total turnover of £1 trillion, paying £73 billion each year in tax.

National Family Week are running over 5,000 events across the country aimed at helping families relax, enjoy themselves and build their relationships.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Beyond Indvidualism

I agree with almost all that Professor Kuehne says below and I like the fact that his own professional life combines elements which are all important to me, as an enthusiastic amateur: history, church life and politics.

The Professor's emphasis on relationships as the appropriate response to the excesses of post-modern individualism appears to resonate with the writings of Michael Schluter, who has applied relational thinking to the world of macro economics here. You can read my thoughts on Schluter's essay here.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Twitter: Beginning of the Ban?

First it was ignored. Then it was regarded with amusement. And finally it seems that it is starting to be banned.

The English FA have today informed the squad that Twitter, Facebook et al are out of bounds to the players during and in the run up to the World Cup. All player comments are to be made exclusively through the FA's official website. Which provides a good reason for avoiding the said site, as we are bound to be treated to the usual bland PR speak characteristic of most post-match TV interviews.

The fact that such a ruling can be made by an employer without an apparent murmur reflects a level of restriction on freedom of speech and expression to a degree that our parents' generation would have found remarkable.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Pro Life Feminism

“For many American women, the feminism that once attracted them with its lofty goal of promoting respect for women’s dignity has morphed into something antithetical to that dignity: a movement that equates a woman’s liberation with her license to kill her unborn child, marginalizes people of faith if they support even modest restrictions on abortion, and colludes with a sexist culture eager to convince a woman in crisis that dealing with her unplanned pregnancy is her choice and, therefore, her problem.”

Colleen Carroll Campbell, Pro-life Feminism is the Future, Washington Post

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

The BA Strike and Free Labour

I've been trying to get some thoughts together for a day or two about the court ruling that pulled the rug from under the feet of the BA staff who were planning on going on strike this week.

I've not been able to do so, but thankfully former ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray, now of Lancaster University, has done so far more succinctly than I could have.

I agree with every word Mr Murray says on the subject. Seumas Mines has written a longer background piece on the growing trend of courts banning strikes on technicalities. I quote:

"The heavily one-sided nature of the laws under which these cases are brought means it is almost impossible to hold a court-proof ballot... And judges are increasingly introducing tests of "proportionality" and "balance of inconvenience" between workforce, employer and public, which have nothing to do with the original legislation. The rule of thumb is now that if a strike is likely to be effective, and an employer chooses to go to court, it will be outlawed."

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Life in the River

Watching A River Runs Through It for the first time this evening, I was struck by the idea of finding meaning in the mundane in Robert Redford's Oscar winning film.

The relative pace of the film left me waiting for "something" to happen - I found myself wondering when the "event" was about to take place that would upset the serene tone and pace of the film's beautiful Montana backdrop.

The fact is that, although there is action and tragedy in the film (no spoilers here), much of the plot focuses on the everyday and the ordinary. In this sense, the film is realistic, and a welcome change from the usual diet of bombs, car chases and aliens.

What sets the film apart, though, is the way that the mundane is infused with meaning. Unlike the writings of Camus, for instance, where the ordinary is a motif for the absurd, the semi-autobiographical novella by American professor Norman Maclean which is the basis for the 1992 film reflects a worldview that assumes that life's everyday events are rich in meaning.

This is a worldview consistent with the Christian faith of Maclean's father in real life (and in the film), who was a church minister. The Biblical mind assumes that, since God is creator and Lord of all, that the whole of life is to be lived for the glory of God, and derives its meaning from that orientation.

The motif of the river that flows through the film also resonates with Biblical imagery:

"Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, 'If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.

Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.'"

John 7:37-39

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Grace City: Apple & Porn

Grace City: Apple & Porn

Respect to Steve Jobs who does not appear to believe that the customer is always right.

Good for him.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Big Brother Watch

Big Brother Watch

A £1.2 billion anti-terrorist system that ran 47,000 background checks last year on Britons and others flying to or from the UK has not resulted in a single arrest.

The Problem with a News Hungry Media

When a local television station is desperate for news, it always leaves itself open to this kind of prank. Kenny "S-Strass" Strasser, as the video reveals, knows nothing at all about yo-yo tricks. But this minor detail, unknown to the editors at the time of broadcasting, does not let the station and its reporter get in the way of a good story.

This is actually one of the most excruciating videos I have ever watched.

And therein lies the humour.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Amid Much Gentle Nodding of Heads, Middle England Gets Back to Work and Prepares for the World Cup

Reports of the potential collapse of western civilisation following the election of a hung Parliament have been greatly exaggerated.

There seems to be a noticeable tone of tacit acceptance in the air surrounding the current political settlement - albeit tempered with huge increases in reported applications for membership of the Labour Party following Gordon Brown's dignified resignation speech.

The constructive tone that the leaders of both the winning parties have sought to convey has no doubt helped to create this mood of acceptance. Though the events of the last few days have been unprecedented, they have not been tumultuous.

Indeed. it appears that some from across the political spectrum have things to cheer about in the government's policy package. Immigration caps, scrapping ID cards and ring fenced NHS spending combine with the most radical constitutional and electoral reforms for a century.

All very orderly. All very British.

Roll on South Africa......

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

Britain's New Government: What's the Rush?

Middle England is in a frenzy, assisted in part by sections of the media, who are both benefiting from the current political uncertainty (due to higher readership and viewer numbers) and, who are at the same time implying that the pace of negotiations represents a potential crisis.

In case we were in any doubt about the need to reach a speedy conclusion to the negotiations, we are unceasingly being reminded of how "the markets" might react to the current political "stalemate".

Behind this criticism of the current political process, two issues seem to be implied:

1) The urgent need for "strong leadership"

2) A criticism of the LibDems for not agreeing to support the Conservatives sooner.

In both cases, the issues are controversial. Firstly, "strong leadership" is portrayed as decisive and with a mandate to enforce its decisions. It's true that such characteristics can be seen as "strong". The playground bully is one example of such strength, as is the elected government that takes is country into a war without a legal mandate and against the counsel of its allies, and by pressurising its own MPs to support it.

It seems that the advocates of "strong leadership" are confusing strength with style. A consensual or cooperative style of leadership, for instance, can be equally strong, even though it may not resort to tactics of dominance and control quite so often. Indeed, there is a case to be made that any organisation (government included) that can win a broad base of support is likely to be more in tune with those it serves and less likely to take decisions that damage them. Governments elected by a first past the post system, by contrast, will often use their notional majorities to implement policies that are focused on their core supporters rather than the public at large.

The second issue (of the LibDems not supporting the Conservatives more quickly) is easier to see through. The failure of any party to secure an outright majority is a result of the political will of the electorate, with a vote that saw the highest turnout for years. The idea that the LibDems Or any other party should ignore this democratic reality - and simply go along with the wishes of the largest single party - is, to my mind, a foolish and dangerous notion. Franky, it smacks more than a little of sour grapes.

Since the politicians are talking about the formation of the government of the UK, with responsibility for decisions that can affect the lives of millions, it seems more important to talk through the issues now, even if that takes time, than to rush into an coalition or partnership which will collapse within months. Even if it leaves the newsmen standing around with nothing to report on.

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

OK Go

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

The Mutual Way To Put Britain Back On Its Feet | ResPublica

The Mutual Way To Put Britain Back On Its Feet | ResPublica:

"Employee-owned firms have outperformed the FTSE-All Share Index over the last 18 years by an average of 10pc.

When shares are distributed to all employees we see a minimum 5pc productivity gain and often more, according to research."

Worker-owned businesses, co-operatives, distributism. It's the future....

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.

The Observer and Mrs Stroud

It was only going to be a matter of time before the press investigated Philippa Stroud.

An active Christian, whose charitable work over the years has seen her directly involved with some of the most vulnerable members of society, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Sutton and Cheam has been strongly criticised in Sunday's Observer. At the heart of the paper's criticism is the allegation that Phillipa Stroud, "founded a church that tried to "cure" homosexuals by driving out their "demons" through prayer."

In support of this allegation, the paper quotes three individuals who were involved in churches in Bedford and Birmingham in which Phillipa Stroud played a prominent role during the 1990s. All three express varying degrees of criticism of the input they claim to have received through the church(es). Further criticism comes from two quotations from Stroud's 1999 book God's Heart for the Poor.

The article has received over 900 comments on the Observer's web site, the vast majority hostile to Mrs Stroud, many aggressively so. The topic also trended on Twitter on Monday and has exercised opinion on the blogosphere from both supporters and opponents. Stroud herself declined to be interviewed by the Observer over the story but did release the following statement:

“I make no apology for being a committed Christian. However, it is categorically untrue that I believe homosexuality to be an illness and I am deeply offended that The Observer has suggested otherwise. I have spent 20 years working with disturbed people who society have turned their back on and are not often supported by state agencies; drug addicts, alcoholics, the mentally ill and the homeless that I and my charitable friends in the public sector have tried to help over the years. The idea that I am prejudiced against gay people is both false and insulting.”


In assessing the story, and the reaction to it, several points appear in order. I should mention that as this is the longest article I have ever written on this blog, those readers seeking lighter fare should click here now.


1. Perceived Homophobia has Become the Unforgivable Sin in C21 Britain

It is worth pausing to reflect that until 1967 in England and Wales, 1980 in Scotland and 1982 in Northern Ireland, it was a criminal offence to commit a sex act between two or more males. It was only in 2000 that the age of consent for homosexual acts was reduced to 16.

Against this backdrop, the fact that homosexuality is now widely portrayed as a mainstream lifestyle, that civil partnerships are now a fact of British law, that same-sex marriage is being actively canvassed across the political spectrum and that declining to offer commercial services to a same sex couple is now a dismissible offence, all represent a dramatic rate of cultural and legal change within a generation.

This unprecedented cultural shift has resulted in a new vocabulary (including the rarely-defined term "homophobia") and new attitudes in the public sphere. It is also notable that charges of being homophobic rarely need to be proved in order to inflict damage on the one accused. The claim that a person has spoken or acted in a homophobic fashion is often enough to ensure public censure.




2. The Gay Rights Narrative Has Yet to Find a Workable Solution to the Reality of Dissenters

In the context of the huge cultural changes that have taken place over sexual politics in recent years, it is paradoxical that developments aimed at reducing intolerance against gay people appear in some respects to have increased intolerance against those who may disagree with their lifestyle. This, of course, has considerable implications for the freedom of speech in Britain. Although it is rare to find advocates of the re-criminalisation of homosexuality, concern is regularly raised by those seeking to limit the extent to which gay rights should impinge upon the beliefs and practices of others.

Current areas of conflict, inside and outside of Parliament, have focused on whether a church or other religious body can apply a sexual orientation qualification for those it employs in leadership roles and, secondly, whether faith-based schools can teach sex education in ways consistent with their historic moral perspective, which emphasises marriage (defined heterosexually).

John Sentamu, archbishop of York, explains some of the pertinent legal and free speech issues here.

Cries from Observer readers that such individuals "have no place" in modern Britain do not really address this important free speech issue in any meaningful way, having more in common with the ideology of "oppress all oppressors."

The logic of this approach to radically different opinions, at a popular level, is expressed by Elton John who was quoted (by the Observer!) in 2007 saying: "From my point of view I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it."

Since free speech is the right to say things that people don't want to hear, we seem at present not to have found a workable solution to the reality that sections of the population perceive their own rights and freedoms to be under threat from aspects of the gay community as they assert theirs.

The question of how to resolve these two apparently competing assertions of rights has yet to be adequately resolved in ways that contribute to justice and to the common good, in my opinion.



3. Many Evangelicals Struggle to Understand the Media

Reading between the lines of the 900+ Observer comments (yes, I did skim read virtually all of them, I'm afraid!) it was possible to discern the occasional sympathetic remark, and even the odd one which had an implied Christian worldview. These were, however, very much in the minority, implying that (a) either Christians sympathetic to Mrs Stroud chose not to comment on the Observer web site or (b) the comments they made were removed by the paper's moderators for falling foul of rule 5 of the site's comments policy:

We will not tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia or other forms of hate-speech, or contributions that could be interpreted as such.

Outside of the Observer site, Christian comment - via blogs and twitter - have tended to fall into three main categories a) claims that the article was a politically motivated hatchet job aimed at damaging the Tories and/or Christians b) claims that the article was factually inaccurate and made selective use of information c) suggestions that Mrs Stroud got what she deserved for being a Tory.

My own view is that some of my fellow Christian readers reveal a measure of confusion about the function and limits of the press. Although the story certainly sits comfortably within the Guardian/Observer's long-held anti-Conservative editorial bias, there is nothing inherently wrong about a story being consistent with such a bias. Indeed, it would be odd if it were not present. Partisan bias can be found in virtually all of Britain's national newspapers.

Furthermore, the article is triple sourced - three individuals (two named) are quoted. Uncomfortable reading though their testimony makes, it is surely unwarranted to automatically assume that they are lying about their experiences. Legal remedies exist if that should prove not to be the case.

The reality is that any local or national newspaper could find individuals who are unhappy with the pastoral care they claim to have received in virtually any church in the country - including the ones any readers of this blog may attend or even lead! Evangelicals have to accept this reality, rather than automatically dismiss such claims as inherently impossible just because they "know" that such-and-such a church leader is well meaning. As my University chaplain once reminded me, "If all we had to do as Christians was demonstrate our sincerity, we'd have a very easy life!"

The tendency in some quarters to avoid rigorous and critical self-analysis about our beliefs and practices should hardly be considered a virtue. This defensiveness, which at its worst can come across as a kind of corporate brand protectionism, is sometimes confused with the Biblical mandate to "contend for the faith". It is even less consistent with the Biblical injunction to "test everything" - which I take to include our own beliefs and practices, not only those of others. Actually, if we must make a comparison between local churches and corporations, we might want to remind ourselves that the most successful business brands adopt a policy of positively welcoming criticism, seeking it as unpaid-for market research.

The Observer is under no obligation, furthermore, to write about all the positive things that may or may not have arisen from the Bedford church over the years. The press are not apologists for the faith. Every news article, especially a hard news piece such as this, requires an "angle" - a basic perspective on what the story is about. and is typically written under specific time pressures and deadlines In this case, the "angle" is limited to Phillipa Stroud's alleged involvement in prayer sessions aimed at "curing" gay people, and at her current campaign to be elected as an MP from a party that the paper despises.



4. Expelling Demons Remains a Controversial Area Both Inside and Outside the Church

In her brief response to the Observer article, Mrs Stroud does not discuss the substance of the accusations made concerning her involvement in prayer sessions. Rather she defends her motives ("not prejudiced against gay people") and her beliefs ("untrue that I believe homosexuality to be an illness").

Readers may make of this what they will. The fact remains that the expulsion of "demons" is a current practice among some sections of the evangelical, charismatic and pentecostal branches of the church in 2010. Although less overt about the subject, the rite is also included in the Anglican and Roman Catholic communions.

On the one hand, this fact alone is enough to arouse fury among some secularists, and accusations that the language is appropriate only for the Dark Ages. On the other hand, we should take note of the fact that it is increasingly common to hear quite secular people talk openly about "battling with demons" of depression, alcoholism, self-harm or addiction. The language used is certainly emotionally charged; its value, however, is to express the idea that the sufferer feels themselves to be being harmed by malevolent forces. Considering the degree of distress suffered by many who use this language outside of a Christian context, we should be careful about denying such people the right to express in graphic terms what they perceive to be happening to and within them.

Having witnessed a number of prayer sessions in a Christian context over the years which have included the attempted expulsion of "demons", and without reference to any of the specific claims made by the Observer, I frankly confess that as a Bible believing Christian I am personally uncomfortable with some of the practices I have witnessed in these settings.

The Association of Christian Counsellors, at least, has a rigorous code of ethics and professional practice and a comprehensive complaints procedure for those operating under its professional umbrella. I know of few local churches or denominational bodies, by contrast, especially among the new churches, that have any such objective instrument for ensuring best practice in counselling or pastoral care.

In a heavily secularised and, at times hostile cultural environment, it seems important for churches to reflect carefully on their pastoral practices, to remain self aware and self critical and to be unafraid of applying rigorous thought, care and oversight to their actions in the area of pastoral care, especially when working with vulnerable people.

I'm sure that in time, if they don't, the state will.




5. Bryn Jones's Vision is not Without its Challenges

In the early 1980's, a new brand of church began to emerge from Baptist, Pentecostal and Brethren backgrounds in the UK. These "house churches" as they were initially often described have gone on to form some of the more active and numerically successful expressions of church life in the UK in the subsequent decades (though few still meet in homes).

In the formative years of this movement, the late Bryn Jones (then a leading figure among these new churches) predicted the day when such "restored" churches would go to influence British society not only through evangelism and Bible teaching but through social action and direct political activity. Jones's vision, outlined in the influential Restoration magazine, was that in the coming decades, some members of these churches would go on to hold positions within national government and exert a Christian influence within the formation of social and political policy.

It should be noted that Jones did not regard such activity as finding expression in any specific political party. He was no advocate of a "new right" or "British moral majority." Indeed, to the extent that his views could be discerned, Jones, who before his death completed a PhD in Peace Studies from Bradford University, appeared to be more left of centre in his political instincts.

Philippa Stroud is one of a number of a new generation of Christian politicians scattered across the party spectrum in the UK. Although it is easy to pigeonhole her as part of right wing Christian upsurge, the reality is that British evangelical Christians are scattered across the party political spectrum at both local and national level.

Philippa Stroud's experience this week is a reminder that, whatever one's party affiliation, such activity on the part of Christian believers is unlikely to go unchallenged.

Post Script

The original story has been removed from the Observer web site in the week following the general election. Rumour within both the pink press and Christian blogs is that this action was taken following threatened legal action from senior figures within the Conservative Party over the accuracy / legality of the piece.

Since all I know about the story is what I read on the Observer's site, I am happy to stand by this blog post as a summary of the underlying issues that such a story raises, without commenting on the specific claims made in the original Observer article.

Post Post Script

And so it goes on.

Guido Fawkes reports today that Philippa Stroud has been appointed as Special Advser to Iain Duncan Smith.

Fawkes also quotes a source in the Department for Work and Pensions (where IDS is the Minister) as saying, "It's common for newspapers to get a story wrong when their source is ether wrong or lying, but it's pretty worrying when a front page story is based on a source that doesn't exist."

If you enjoyed this post, get free updates by email or RSS.