Comments policy

Comments on this blog are moderated before publishing. I like the phrase "moderated", conveying as it does the much-needed calming process demanded by the fevered ravings of the online community. Here at Always Hope most comments pass through the net quite easily, but as traffic increases, one or two have sadly not made it. I'm aware that a couple of people may now be disappointed that their comment didn't get displayed, so here's my comments policy for all to see.

  1. Derogatory comments about religion or faith in general, trolling, ranting, and otherwise wasting my time will not be indulged. Take it to a site where comment is free (but not always worth reading).
  2. Any comments which are racist, sexist, or in any way demeaning to our fellow human beings will not be accepted.
  3. Anything insulting to the blog author will not be published. Exceptions may be made if you are sufficiently witty or I like you enough, but don't push it.
  4. Comments will only be published if they contribute something pertinent to the topic of the post. Anything repetitious, irrelevant, feeble or inane will not make the cut. The definition of the foregoing is the moderator's sole and final decision.
  5. If the decision is borderline, anonymous or unknown commenters are unlikely to get the benefit of the doubt. If you want to be rude, have the courage to identify yourself.
  6. All genuine comments are welcome. You don't have to agree with me, in fact sometimes it's more interesting when you don't.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Delia Knox - Miracles and healing, cynicism or wonder?

Today the story of Delia Knox has jumped out of Christian subculture into the mainstream UK media, with this story on the Daily Mail website. Knox is filmed leaving her wheelchair after being prayed for at the Bay of the Holy Spirit Revival in Mobile, Alabama. Watch the 13 minute video embedded there, if you can. Most people will have one of two reactions to this: either you will be deeply moved, or you will find yourself overwhelmingly cynical about the whole thing. The second of the two seems to be the reaction of choice for Mail Online readers, who queue in droves in the comments section to pour scorn on the whole thing. Why are people sceptical about spiritual and miraculous healing? Mostly because they simply don't believe it. The prevailing secular atheist worldview has no slot available for this kind of thing - it simply doesn't happen (although a more thoughtful and informed atheist might allow for some kind of psychosomatic factor in healing). But even among those w...
Read more

let the vicar have a day off

I began writing this on Tuesday, my usual day off. Not normally a day when I would be hunched over the keyboard, but this week I had the time because I'm luxuriating in a whole week off. A perfectly usual experience, except in the case of vicars, when the idea of a "week off" becomes quite complex and problematic. Last week on Twitter I intercepted someone's tweet who had spotted a clergy friend who was enjoying an entertaining day out. His reply was along the lines of "blimey, what it is to be a vicar and live the life of Riley" etc. I have no complaint against this person, who is a good guy and obviously meant no harm. It was just a variant on the age-old witticism that every parish priest hears on a more or less weekly basis, "of course you only work on Sundays, don't you?" There are a few versions of this, my personal favourite being "not another holiday?" if one takes leave at any time within about a year of having previously d...
Read more

lessons from the Cornwall B&B case

Comment is called for on the judgement in the case of Peter and Hazelmary Bull , because it is a significant one, and because of the Cornish connection. While some of the responses have been predictable and stereotyped, most commentators have recognised that Judge Andrew Rutherford has treated the Bulls with respect, even though he has found against them. The case turned on the principle that Martyn Hall and Steven Preddy, as civil partners, were entitled to the same rights under law as a married couple. This meant that the Bull's argument that they would equally discriminate against an unmarried heterosexual couple was not accepted, because Hall and Preddy were, for the purposes of this case, married. This is a tricky one. The Bulls didn't really have a strong case, but it's difficult not to have sympathy for them. They come across in the media as a harmless couple just doing what seems right to them. It's also hard to shake off the sneaking suspicion that they have be...
Read more