What is in Kelvin's Head?

Blowing up the Red Road Flats – a poor image of the city

03/04/2014

It has been announced that some of the Red Road Flats will be blown up during the opening ceremony for the Commonwealth Games.

I think it is in pretty poor taste. Notwithstanding the fact that people like to watch the spectacle of tower blocks being brought down there is something about making this the focus of a big entertainment production that makes me feel uneasy.

Maybe I just have a sense of humour deficit today but it seems to me that blowing up people’s former homes is always going to be an act that has somewhat mixed feelings attached to it. As well as that, there is the news that one block will be left standing because it is still used for housing for asylum seekers who will have to evacuate that block on the day. They won’t be invited to Opening Ceremony itself but invited to watch from “safe” locations.

Making asylum seekers shelter leave their homes to shelter from explosions is not an image of Glasgow that I think is particularly entertaining and not one that should be beamed around the world.

I’m a supporter of urban regeneration. I’m also one of those who thinks that that Glasgow has gone from being a city which has a fabulous architectural heritage to one whose current architectural aspirations are dull and commonplace. Many of the high towers in Glasgow failed and should be pulled down. I’m far from sure they should be pulled down as entertainment at the Commonwealth Games and sure that there should be an architectural vision for the city which is just as ambitious as that which saw those towers being raised in the first place.

Blowing up people’s former homes and making asylum seekers shelter from explosions is not entertainment. This proposal is in poor taste.

Commonwealth Games, Red Road Flats

10 responses to “So, let me get this right…”

Andrew Page

16/02/2013

I think you have understood if correctly (or at least as fully as it can be understood).

This just shows how confused the church has become, or how keen it is to tie itself into the proverbial knots to appease both progressives and traditionalists.

Either way, this position is both absurd and intellectually unsustainable.

Reply
Kirstin

16/02/2013

Kelvin can I ask what submissions you are referring to, is there a new one?

Reply
Joan H Craig

16/02/2013

I think that, once marriage law is passed, current civil partnerships can convert to marriage by filling form, etc. Don’t think they said what happens if the couple want a religious marriage – or did I miss that?
If our churches persist in saying no to marriage, wouldn’t it be better to do the blessing after they’ve converted their civil status – as in some countries where every marriage is a civil ceremony, and any religious service is done afterwards
I hope everyone has completed the most recent consultation paper

Reply
Rhea

16/02/2013

I think that the church wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants everyone to be happy, and this is probably the best way that it knows to do this.

Is it ridiculous? Of course.

Reply
Kelvin Holdsworth

16/02/2013

There is to be a new one. I’ve not seen it. I understand that the position that the Faith and Order Board is holding to is that “church teaching” is what Canon 31 says – that and nothing else and therefore we are doctrinally against change.

Is that not the case?

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  16/02/2013
  
  So far as I understand it, the SEC has not moved in its position since the first response at all.
  
  The first response included this:
  Question 10: Do you agree that the law in Scotland should be changed to allow same sex marriage?
  The Canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church (Canon 31) state that the doctrine of the Church is that marriage is â€˜a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and as a holy and lifelong estate instituted of Godâ€™. In the light of that Canon, there is no current basis for agreeing that the law should be changed to view marriage as possible between two people of the same sex.
  
  Reply
2. Kirstin
  
  16/02/2013
  
  The SEC’s last response was in line with what the current law was, indeed still is, this consultation asks a very different question. To which the answer ‘well it isn’t legal, so we can’t say’, (I paraphrase) can’t be the answer this time, can it?
  Of course Canon 31 also states it is a “lifelong estate” but had clause 4 added at a later date to allow for divorce and remarriage.
  
  Reply
Rev David Coleman

16/02/2013

I was watching the evidence to the Westminster parliamentary committees the other day. In all these things, even from churches which are prepared to be tentatively in favour, or declining to be opposed, what is missing from all the evidence is the human experience of joy and delight that actually characterises a true and good wedding, of any combination of partners. How can we get across the compelling and converting happiness when processes take the form they do?

Reply
Rosemary Hannah

17/02/2013

Is there any way of getting hold of the board – of ordinary church members getting hold of it and making it listen?? I mean I know my approach tends to lack in subtlety what it makes up for in directness, but then, well, it is very direct.

Reply
Kimberly

17/02/2013

Rosemary, of all the many beautiful sentences you have written, that is the very very best.

Reply