What we want is an export led recovery. That is good and is to be welomed. However we will not get it while our main trading partner is the the eurozone. This is because it is cheaper to buy produces fro the eurozone countries then it is form british countries, this means we are at a disadvantage becuase german product are of at least the same qualitiy if not better then ours and as theya re chepaer people will buy them. Now if germany had the Mark back british exports would be higher because the pound would be lower.This same principle is why spain portugal italy greece etc are in trouble, yes their products are cheap becuase of the low euro but the germans can do it for cheaper and better. Now in the good old days of the lira etc the currencey would be devaluved so that italian cars for example would actually be cheaper for people to buy as opposed to german cars. So the best way for the crisis to be sloved is for the euro to be broken up. The other way for the Uk to recover wouold be to allow the pound to completelycollapse which would make our exports cheaper but would then bring about other probelms which we dont want.

And any eurozone growth will be downto germany, the latest prediction say that at best the eurozone will grow by 0.1% over the year though most reckon that it will actually decrease by 1-2% over the year. Our 0.6% growth suddenly sounds very good compared to this and the low figure is put down to lack of growth in the eurozone, if there is more growth in the eurozone our gdp will grow.

Now the other way is to concentrate all effortd not of selling to ethe eurozone but selling to india, china braizil russia etc etc and since direct air links seems important and it will be several years till we get either a new runway or airport near london we should think about cutting flight slots to europe and getting BA/Virgin etc etc to fly to the BRICs after all if we need to do business in france or germany we can travel by eurostar quickly and the general public going to spain for he sun can fly from local regonial airports

Considering the advantages that we’ve had with a separate currency, it is worrying that Britain’s economy has grown at half the rate of France’s growth and less than a third of Germany’s.

question 1) which are the only two european countries to be paid by investors for borrowing money

question 2) who is going to have more growth in their economy in 2012 the UK or the eurozone economies

answers on the back of a postcard please

“Attuitudes change with time what was accepted back 2000 years ago isnt nessecarrily tru today.” And again, why do we no accept the bibles literature? Secular enlightened thinking. It may have been acceptable at the time, but I’m no moral relativist. Just because it was acceptable at the time doesn’t make it moral at all.

Two things with the census statistic. 1. That’s probably been greatly reduced in the 10 years since then and 2. That’s irrelevant regardless. For one we don’t practice everything from above in the post and America has a Christian population of around 80% (ish) but they’re anything but a Christian Nation however much the American right claims they are.

Attuitudes change with time what was accepted back 2000 years ago isnt nessecarrily tru today.

BTW the last census [put christians at 71%, now in anyones book that is a mjority making us a christian country. You dont have to go to church every week to be a christian, heck I dont but I do think of myself as one probably in the same way cameron feels he is a christian.

‘I hadn’t even touched upon the more immoral parts of Christianity.’ This statement one again shows your haphazard approach, not only to Christianity, but to religion as a whole. I am not arguing the case for religion, or proselytising here. I’m just saying that it would be your interpretation of Christianity. An interpretation which in my opinion, seems misinformed and silly. You cannot make sweeping generalisation about one of the worlds largest religious systems.

“Your original post and subsequent rebuttal are, as they say, all frills and no knickers. It lacks coherency, relevancy, contextualisation, basic knowledge and rigor.” – Well then your entitled to delude yourself to that idea

“I’m not defending the fact that we are Christian nation” – And that’s the sole point I’m trying to make, we’re anything but a Christian nation today. If we truly were we’d accept those 13 points. I’m not sure how hard this is to accept. And that’s why I’m quite content to call Cameron up on this. I’ll make no bones about it, Christian theology is one of the single biggest sources of hatred and evil on the planet. That’s why I feel I’m at liberty to tell him he’s completely and utterly wrong.

“The wider scriptural context in which these verses are written, and the sociological context of the Hebrew, Hellenistic and Roman cultures in which they were written.” – Well then you made huge misjudgement on my own personal views on morality. I’m not a moral relativist. Yes, those may have been acceptable to people of the time, it doesn’t make them moral, at all, regardless of the prevailing culture of the time.

“I don’t think we contend in that area.” – Really? I hadn’t even touched upon the more immoral parts of Christianity.

Your reply is just as riddled with inertia and redundancy as your post however. You think enlightenment shaped polity and religion this much over the period of simply one epoch? That is the most ill informed and, quite frankly, ignorant argument you have put forward so far. Anyhow, I’m not defending the fact that we are Christian nation – anything but in fact. I am simply pointing out the fact that if you want to make an argument you must have good methodological grounding, which this lacks; robust substance, of which there is none; and valid claims, and the claims you make are spurious at best.

As per your second point, I did not assert that there was a context where they were acceptable to a western, enlightened and liberal mindset. However, as you seem unaware the world was not always this way. These are not the Christian values Cameron was referring to, and suggest thusly makes you look idiotic. The context I am referring to is twofold however. The wider scriptural context in which these verses are written, and the sociological context of the Hebrew, Hellenistic and Roman cultures in which they were written. Both of these areas you clearly have no credibility in therefore to make bold accustations makes you look, again, misinformed.

Your third needs no further unpacking as I don’t think we contend in that area.

Your original post and subsequent rebuttal are, as they say, all frills and no knickers. It lacks coherency, relevancy, contextualisation, basic knowledge and rigor.

“indeed I think that the majority of things listed above would be inconceivable to most ‘Christians’.” – And yes, why is that? Because we’ve had a secular enlightened thinking play its hand. We’re anything but a Christian nation and it’s a dangerous slope to even claim that we are (just look at the US).

“There is no substance, no context” – I’m not really sure what you mean when you refer to that, if you mean the “context” of the 13 points that were made were taken out of context; then I was unaware there was a context where they were ever acceptable.

“separation of religion and polity,” – And I generally agree with that on the most part. But then I personally don’t believe religion has a privileged position beyond criticism what so ever (especially given the sheer damage it has done to humanity). So when the Prime Minister makes a vague vacuous claim that’s far from anything that is perceivably true, then I’m going to rip him to shreds on that matter

Even for a rant it’s ridiculous.