York Minster launches £10m Lottery funded restoration bid (From York Press)

HLF hoop jumping is a long and laborious marathon. It requires the energy of Hercules and the patience of Job - good luck!
.
BTW. To even the score will this mean a new £10 million Mosque with Minaret for the Muezzin to call the faithful to pray in York?

If anyone gets chance to visit the Minster's normally unseen areas, then grab it with both hands...it's a fascinating experience.

So now the Church supports gambling!

I hope we do get a mosque with minaret and muezin in the city--and hopefully the imam will call loud enough to drown out all those simperimg middle class and racist voices that we have put up with.A cheap jibe from Garrowby Turnoff....

sane121 wrote:
So now the Church supports gambling!

Yep looks like it...Maybe they should have a lottery terminal in their gift shop..

I also thought the church were one of the richest organisations/landow
ners around so should they be going cap in hand to the lottery??
Just a thought.

Ghost of Oscar Deutsch wrote:

sane121 wrote: So now the Church supports gambling!

Yep looks like it...Maybe they should have a lottery terminal in their gift shop.. I also thought the church were one of the richest organisations/landow ners around so should they be going cap in hand to the lottery?? Just a thought.

Have you any idea what the minster costs to upkeep? No of course you don’t, its far more than it takes in donations and revenue made from the gift shop.... this isn’t condoning gambling, I refuse to believe people are so naive and therefore conclude you must be stupid??

The Church (universally) has always had an uneasy and ambiguous relationship with gambling. Broadly speaking, the "higher" the churchmanship, the less of an issue it appears to be, whereas the "lower" the churchmanship, the greater the chances of objection. Thus Catholics - whether "Roman" or "Anglo" - are usually quite happy to set up a Tombola or hold raffles at the church fete, but most Evangelicals wouldn't countenance such a thing.

The arguement against gambling is not so much that it is in itself wrong,(it's not specifically condemned in the Bible after all!), but that, because so many people find it addictive and ultimately destructive, Christians shouldn't put temptation in their way and "cause a weaker brother to stumble". The same arguement is often used of drink. This is why so many non-conformist churches use non-alcholoic communion wine.

The counter arguements are that Christians could perhaps set a good example by by enjoying these things responsibly and in moderation (no one enjoys a flutter on the horses more than an Irish priest, after all!); or perhaps should simply accept that, since the lottery is here to stay, they may as well make sure it's exploited for genuinely good causes; in other words play "structural evil" at its own game!

It's a massive grey area, even from a purely secular perspective. and individuals must square their own consciences in the light of their faith/ reason/personal revelation. (I know plenty of atheists and agnostics who vigorously oppose the lottery on the grounds that it excuses the Government from funding all sorts of worthy causes directly.)

Interestingly, many continental visitors to English cathedrals are astonished and appalled to discover that we have no "Church Tax" to cover their upkeep. Mind you - I can't see any British party putting that in its election manifesto!

yorknights wrote:
I hope we do get a mosque with minaret and muezin in the city--and hopefully the imam will call loud enough to drown out all those simperimg middle class and racist voices that we have put up with.A cheap jibe from Garrowby Turnoff....

£10 million - cheap? It's an expensive jibe.

Hieronymous wrote:
The Church (universally) has always had an uneasy and ambiguous relationship with gambling. Broadly speaking, the "higher" the churchmanship, the less of an issue it appears to be, whereas the "lower" the churchmanship, the greater the chances of objection. Thus Catholics - whether "Roman" or "Anglo" - are usually quite happy to set up a Tombola or hold raffles at the church fete, but most Evangelicals wouldn't countenance such a thing. The arguement against gambling is not so much that it is in itself wrong,(it's not specifically condemned in the Bible after all!), but that, because so many people find it addictive and ultimately destructive, Christians shouldn't put temptation in their way and "cause a weaker brother to stumble". The same arguement is often used of drink. This is why so many non-conformist churches use non-alcholoic communion wine. The counter arguements are that Christians could perhaps set a good example by by enjoying these things responsibly and in moderation (no one enjoys a flutter on the horses more than an Irish priest, after all!); or perhaps should simply accept that, since the lottery is here to stay, they may as well make sure it's exploited for genuinely good causes; in other words play "structural evil" at its own game! It's a massive grey area, even from a purely secular perspective. and individuals must square their own consciences in the light of their faith/ reason/personal revelation. (I know plenty of atheists and agnostics who vigorously oppose the lottery on the grounds that it excuses the Government from funding all sorts of worthy causes directly.) Interestingly, many continental visitors to English cathedrals are astonished and appalled to discover that we have no "Church Tax" to cover their upkeep. Mind you - I can't see any British party putting that in its election manifesto!

Hmm. In France the state owns the cathedrals, not the church. Compared with many continental cathedrals English (C of E) cathedrals are well run, friendly, clean and in very good condition. One of the most dispiriting places to visit is Paris ND. San Marco, Venice is little better. If you wish to go onto the roof of Milan Cathedral you run the gauntlet of a couple of spivs who seem to run a private enterprise operation. English cathedrals do a terrific job and although they have some outside funding, most of the cash they raise is through visitor donations. As for the lottery; abolish it and raise income tax.

Ghost of Oscar Deutsch wrote:

sane121 wrote: So now the Church supports gambling!

Yep looks like it...Maybe they should have a lottery terminal in their gift shop.. I also thought the church were one of the richest organisations/landow ners around so should they be going cap in hand to the lottery?? Just a thought.

Because they simply don't have vast amounts of cash. Most of the money is tied up in property and pension funds. Clergy have to be paid, vicarages maintained and the whole structure of the organisation has to be run in the same way as a business.

A lot of the Las Vegas gambling operation is run by Mormons. They argue that it is better having it run by moral people/organisations
.

The gambling isnt the problem, the problem is that the Lottery fund wants you to jump through so many hoops that you lose your soul to get the money. How much lottery money will the minster spend (or has already spent) on all the 'extras' demanded by the lottery fund themselves? One day the dean will wake up and find he has got a prizewinning theme park with a gold star from the lottery but its hardly a church anymore. The lottery has had to bend its own rules for the minster and the minster has dumped its principals for the lottery. Hope they are happy together.

Bet they don't get it!

Henry Swanson wrote:

Ghost of Oscar Deutsch wrote:

sane121 wrote: So now the Church supports gambling!

Yep looks like it...Maybe they should have a lottery terminal in their gift shop.. I also thought the church were one of the richest organisations/landow ners around so should they be going cap in hand to the lottery?? Just a thought.

Have you any idea what the minster costs to upkeep? No of course you don’t, its far more than it takes in donations and revenue made from the gift shop.... this isn’t condoning gambling, I refuse to believe people are so naive and therefore conclude you must be stupid??

And I conclude you must have no sense of humour??