This week’s quote comes from the late great Michael Joseph Savage:
“It is just as well for us to turn around and have a look at ourselves sometimes. What is not good enough for me is not good enough for the fellow I am representing in this House, whether it is a house or an income. There is enough of the best for all of us, and I want to bring about security for everyone during illness, whether it be temporary incapacity due to accident, or anything else. I should think it was the inalienable right of every person to be secured against distress of any form. That is only commonsense. I so not know whether I would call it ’sound economics’ or not … I do not think it is any use talking about national wealth unless we can use it for national purposes … In a word or two, I would say that is applied Christianity.”
Taken from the Hansard of debate on the Social Security Bill 1938.
“I want to bring about security for everyone during illness, whether it be temporary incapacity due to accident, or anything else.”
Thats awfully nice of Michael, proposing to personally ensure that everyone who is ill is financially secure. What a nice person!
Oh wait, hes not doing this with his own money…
http://www.thoughtsfromaconservativemom.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/socialism_explained1.jpg
Bring Labour back to its roots – from the people, by the people, for the people.
“temporary”
A great quote from a great man
I wonder if the real issues facing the left today is that the great men of Labour’s past virtually all came from backgrounds of great deprivation and they worked passionately to ensure that no one else had to start their lives in such a deprived manner …
Not one member of Parliament today would have exeprienced the hardship faced by men like JA Lee or Savage.
He was doing it with societies wealth which is what it’s there for. Unlike yourself and other RWNJs who think societies wealth is there for them alone.
Marvellous quote – he was a great man! What a pity I had never heard of him when I was at school…
Deb
Nick C – my late father and his brother in law had a flourishing trucking business in the King Country which went belly-up at the beginning of the ‘Great Depression’. They simply had to walk away from the business and their fleet of trucks as all work had dried up. My parents were eternally grateful to Michael Joseph Savage – [yes, they had that photograph of MJS on the wall] and they had at least a vestige of dignity restored with the advent of a benefit to tide them over until my dad found employment again, firstly with a local body council cleaning up the town roads from the horse manure which was liberally applied on a daily basis! My mum said that she quickly learned how to make mince go a long way – I believe that they paid 10/- [shillings] per week for rent and after other expenses had 18/- left over for housekeeping/food. That was the only time my dad was on a benefit and though my parents never really recovered from those times, at least they were able to live their lives out in relative comfort.
“In a word or two, I would say that is applied Christianity.”
Don’t know about anyone else, but personally I found Margaret Wilson’s customary rote-like almost forced reading of the Daily House Prayer, not very much like “applied Christianity” at all.
applied to christianity? blech.
“I should think it was the inalienable right of every person to be secured against distress of any form” This seems straight from the Darryl Kerrigan fishing philosophy handbook. Or a Mao little (on ideas) red book.
I crave the day Labour gets back to its glory days of Lange, Prebble, Douglas & Clark.
I think it was MJ Savage who did not live in Premier House, believing it too grand for him, and instead turned it into a dental clinic for kids.
And Darryl Kerrigan is a good bloke too.
My point isnt that providing people with a minimum standard of living using other peoples money is bad. It is that it isnt nessesarily virtuous to be the politician who proposes it.
“In a word or two, I would say that is applied Christianity.”
I don’t think religion has any place in policy making, freedom of religion is also freedom from religion…
I like that the wealth in our society that is created by our society, is applied for the benefit of society – whats so bad about that? Please, all your right wing dogma followers – explain why societies money has to go to only a select few? What right do you have to claim this as ok? Whats your plan?
Feel free to enlighten me with your vision for society?
“freedom of religion is also freedom from religion”
Indeed it is Jeremy. But why do you think the comment says anything about that?
Nothing wrong with looking after your neighbours, practicing generosity, having forgiveness, planning and putting aside for the future. All good humanistic (and Christian) traits.
@Paul, are you talking to me..?
@Reid, because it does and I can read…
@Loota, very true…
Sorry Jeremy. The quote says:
“In a word or two, I would say that is applied Christianity.”
How is MJS referring in any way to your point?
Noble sentiments. For all I support and stick up for Cullen/Clark’s achievements, housing affordibality wasn’t good enough comrades! A capital gains tax (not on the family home), and a more progressive tax system (look at the Australians and the Japanese) is a must, or quoting that quote is meaningless!
You know a D is just a sideways smile
“In a word or two, I would say that is applied Christianity.”
I don’t think religion has any place in policy making, freedom of religion is also freedom from religion…”
I agree. Societies that have made the most progress (in terms of social equality) are those that have embraced the separation of religion (church) and state. However, applied Christianity doesn’t imply you must believe in God.
It implies you hold and practice this principle: “Love one another”.
@Reid, MJS is talking about Social Security (which is a political policy) and saying that his position is “applied Christianity” hence my point:
“I don’t think religion has any place in policy making,”
I have my own religious convictions but religion has no place in politics IMHO as it makes us less free, hence my second point:
“freedom of religion is also freedom from religion…”