The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

Pru: To save quoting the above and answer you and Will at the same time: Will said: " My argument - I suspect you may support it - is that it takes a secular society (one that does not place God(s) at its head) to 'protect' religious rights.

I replied (jokingly) "God save the Queen",(Allah save the queen anyone?) our national anthem and a dig at the C of E ruling that prevents Catholic monarchy despite their very kindly now allowing the monarchy to marry said "Catholics". This tends to make religion not quite so democratic or "private zone" as it appears and if it is in any private "sector" it's a political one at best. Some things we don't agree on I accept. A person can smoke a cigarette in their "private sector", but let the smoke come to the nostrils of their non-smoking neighbour it becomes suddenly public. Bad example I accept, but my point wasn't that religion isn't in an "acceptable zone" in as much as an uneasy peace always exists, but certainly not a private one in the sense of not being an issue; not by a country mile. If it were so, radical opinions wouldn't exist or need to. They do though, don't they?

As I said, a constitutional quirk. It's daft, but at the same time I don't feel, as somebody christened C of E, than I'm substantially ahead of you in the race to become the next monarch TD! I think our odds are pretty identical.

We don't live in a country where the Bible would be an authority in court, or where you can't hold certain government jobs (King and Queen aside) if you're of a particular faith etc... It's private in the sense that it's for in your own time, not in the sense that you have to keep it a secret.

As Will says, the best way to protect everybody's freedom to religion is to say that no particular god is at its head. Then everyone can get on in peace.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Pru: To save quoting the above and answer you and Will at the same time: Will said: " My argument - I suspect you may support it - is that it takes a secular society (one that does not place God(s) at its head) to 'protect' religious rights.

I replied (jokingly) "God save the Queen",(Allah save the queen anyone?) our national anthem and a dig at the C of E ruling that prevents Catholic monarchy despite their very kindly now allowing the monarchy to marry said "Catholics". This tends to make religion not quite so democratic or "private zone" as it appears and if it is in any private "sector" it's a political one at best. Some things we don't agree on I accept. A person can smoke a cigarette in their "private sector", but let the smoke come to the nostrils of their non-smoking neighbour it becomes suddenly public. Bad example I accept, but my point wasn't that religion isn't in an "acceptable zone" in as much as an uneasy peace always exists, but certainly not a private one in the sense of not being an issue; not by a country mile. If it were so, radical opinions wouldn't exist or need to. They do though, don't they?

As I said, a constitutional quirk. It's daft, but at the same time I don't feel, as somebody christened C of E, than I'm substantially ahead of you in the race to become the next monarch TD! I think our odds are pretty identical.

We don't live in a country where the Bible would be an authority in court, or where you can't hold certain government jobs (King and Queen aside) if you're of a particular faith etc... It's private in the sense that it's for in your own time, not in the sense that you have to keep it a secret.

As Will says, the best way to protect everybody's freedom to religion is to say that no particular god is at its head. Then everyone can get on in peace.

Don't forget regent and heir apparent/presumptive. Still a smallish chance though.

[William the White]

Pru: To save quoting the above and answer you and Will at the same time: Will said: " My argument - I suspect you may support it - is that it takes a secular society (one that does not place God(s) at its head) to 'protect' religious rights.

I replied (jokingly) "God save the Queen",(Allah save the queen anyone?) our national anthem and a dig at the C of E ruling that prevents Catholic monarchy despite their very kindly now allowing the monarchy to marry said "Catholics". This tends to make religion not quite so democratic or "private zone" as it appears and if it is in any private "sector" it's a political one at best. Some things we don't agree on I accept. A person can smoke a cigarette in their "private sector", but let the smoke come to the nostrils of their non-smoking neighbour it becomes suddenly public. Bad example I accept, but my point wasn't that religion isn't in an "acceptable zone" in as much as an uneasy peace always exists, but certainly not a private one in the sense of not being an issue; not by a country mile. If it were so, radical opinions wouldn't exist or need to. They do though, don't they?

As I said, a constitutional quirk. It's daft, but at the same time I don't feel, as somebody christened C of E, than I'm substantially ahead of you in the race to become the next monarch TD! I think our odds are pretty identical.

We don't live in a country where the Bible would be an authority in court, or where you can't hold certain government jobs (King and Queen aside) if you're of a particular faith etc... It's private in the sense that it's for in your own time, not in the sense that you have to keep it a secret.

As Will says, the best way to protect everybody's freedom to religion is to say that no particular god is at its head. Then everyone can get on in peace.

Don't forget regent and heir apparent/presumptive. Still a smallish chance though.

Once a librarian... I shall now never forget either regent or heir apparent/presumptive... Even if Tango becomes king...

[TANGODANCER]

Once a librarian... I shall now never forget either regent or heir apparent/presumptive... Even if Tango becomes king...

Steady on there, I'm only allowed to marry into the family, not be king, and even rugby players can do that. Jane Austen made me take a closer look at Georges' III and IV and I'm not sure I'd want the crown anyway. A Earldom and bit of land with a castle on it maybe?

[Hoboh]

where we've generally established that the place for religion is in the private sphere, not the public.

Whoa Pru, don't let your own atheist beliefs appear as established anything. Religious freedom of choice is fine, but if it isn't in the public sphere, why are there so many mosques around? There are twenty three currently in Bolton alone, not counting prayer houses (of which there are two within cricket-ball throwing distance of me). Tucking religion tidily out of sight and having it appear almost masonic in nature is a totally wrong thing to do. Let it be right out there in public and everyone free to follow their beliefs and worships whatever they be, in peace. That's real democracy. What's been established in the civilised world is the right for religion to exist, not make it an underground secret society. We went through all that two thousand years ago.

aye, and spent much of the next two thousand killing and torturing people who dared not to believe what your lot especially decreed they should. It is the growth of secular society that is responsible for allowing belief of conscience, and variety of faith to exist without repression.

So, when did this civilised world of yours start? And where does it endure?

That's a one-sided and agressive attitude to take WtW. I'll opt out here so as not to reply in kind.

I apologise immediately, and genuinely, for the first sentence. and ask you if would like to respond to the rest of the post, as highlighted. And hope you will.

Apologise for stating the truth!, you must be an imposter, a hacker even.

[Hoboh]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... cracy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just the ravings of the mad right wing I suppose

[William the White]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... cracy.html

Just the ravings of the mad right wing I suppose

If that tedious non-article is 'raving' I think you've seriously lowered your standards, hoboh.

You could give a much better rave while gagged, constipated and strapped to the lav.

Give yourself a shake.

Disappointing, very disappointing.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Operation Trojan Horse school governors

Just out of interest, and lord I should have my head tested for even entering into this debate, but how many children have Muslim school governors in Birmingham killed with their missiles in say (and lets pull a completely arbitrary figure from thin air*) the last six weeks?



*I'm happy to extend the timeframe if I've arbitrarily excluded any recent or indeed historic massacring of Birmingham school kids by Muslamic fundamentalist school teachers and their navy/army.

Ho ho ho... Very funny.
It was a spectrum going, deliberately, from least lethal to most. No school governor in this country has ever shot anybody. Ask yourself this though, how many Christians are free to live an unfearful life in Pakistan, and then ask yourself how I, with my shitty attitude to religion, would fare in that society.
At the moment I'm dying, and I can no longer tolerate the pro- Muslim apologists and anti-Semites on this forum
Goodbye

[CrazyHorse]

Deary me.

[jaffka]

Some stuff from the seventies batman sum up this!

GADZOIKS

[Hoboh]

H O L Y S H I T !

I happend to quite like LLS!

No body else describes me as liberal

Besides when he didn't have a cobb on he was knowledgable and always put forward good posts.

Dying? If true good luck mate, when you know it effects everything, losing your rag won't help either.

[Worthy4England]

It's all a bit silly - everyone knows that Muslim School Governors use Muslamic Ray Guns not missiles...

[TANGODANCER]

H O L Y S H I T !
I happend to quite like LLS!

Aye, me too. Not the first time politics and religion, or worse, a combination of them, has caused a furore on forums. Always dodgy ground.

[LeverEnd]

H O L Y S H I T !
I happend to quite like LLS!

Aye, me too. Not the first time politics and religion, or worse, a combination of them, has caused a furore on forums. Always dodgy ground.

Sorry to see him go also, but if I reacted like that to reasonable posters I'd think it time to take myself off as well.
Hope he's OK healthwise and the painting chills him out.

[Harry Genshaw]

H O L Y S H I T !
I happend to quite like LLS!

Aye, me too. Not the first time politics and religion, or worse, a combination of them, has caused a furore on forums. Always dodgy ground.

Sorry to see him go also, but if I reacted like that to reasonable posters I'd think it time to take myself off as well.
Hope he's OK healthwise and the painting chills him out.

Well put sir. Agreed

[Montreal Wanderer]

H O L Y S H I T !
I happend to quite like LLS!

Aye, me too. Not the first time politics and religion, or worse, a combination of them, has caused a furore on forums. Always dodgy ground.

Sorry to see him go also, but if I reacted like that to reasonable posters I'd think it time to take myself off as well.
Hope he's OK healthwise and the painting chills him out.

Well put sir. Agreed

Perhaps, Harry. Yet if we know someone is incapable of what we consider rational debate of a subject surely we should not egg them on. We all know, or should know, Spotty holds the strongest views on Muslims and the Gaza business and becomes intemperate on the subject. Perhaps these reasonable posters should not wave red flags at him if they don't want to loose the enraged bull..

[Worthy4England]

H O L Y S H I T !
I happend to quite like LLS!

Aye, me too. Not the first time politics and religion, or worse, a combination of them, has caused a furore on forums. Always dodgy ground.

Sorry to see him go also, but if I reacted like that to reasonable posters I'd think it time to take myself off as well.
Hope he's OK healthwise and the painting chills him out.

Well put sir. Agreed

Perhaps, Harry. Yet if we know someone is incapable of what we consider rational debate of a subject surely we should not egg them on. We all know, or should know, Spotty holds the strongest views on Muslims and the Gaza business and becomes intemperate on the subject. Perhaps these reasonable posters should not wave red flags at him if they don't want to loose the enraged bull..

I think some of them (well at least one) have/has been obdurate on this issue.

[Harry Genshaw]

^ to be honest, I was going to add the line "that said, I've never seen anything remotely anti semitic on this website".

Iirc it was me that raised the issue of Israel & Gaza on here. Spotty didn't have to get involved but chose too. His first epic rant and claims of anti semitism surfaced quite quickly long before many other posters aired their own views.

Much as I liked most of his posts, he alone is responsible for his unreasonable response imo

[Montreal Wanderer]

^ to be honest, I was going to add the line "that said, I've never seen anything remotely anti semitic on this website".

Iirc it was me that raised the issue of Israel & Gaza on here. Spotty didn't have to get involved but chose too. His first epic rant and claims of anti semitism surfaced quite quickly long before many other posters aired their own views.

Much as I liked most of his posts, he alone is responsible for his unreasonable response imo

I don't disagree with what you say, Harry - Spotty is responsible for what he writes and his own reactions. However, we know he has been ill, we know he holds extremely strong views at least on this one subject (Islam) and we know he has anger management issues. It struck me it might be better just to ignore a rant than to badger him with contrary arguments however well formulated. To me it would seem as pointless as trying to get Tango to alter his religious views by showing ones knowledge of the Holy Writ to be greater than his. It is fine to discuss these things but ultimately it can get irritating and offensive if the baiting continues. Granted Spotty has a lower threshold than most, but we know this.

[TANGODANCER]

It struck me it might be better just to ignore a rant than to badger him with contrary arguments however well formulated. To me it would seem as pointless as trying to get Tango to alter his religious views by showing ones knowledge of the Holy Writ to be greater than his.

Ha, ha. Lest you be under some misapprehension that said Tango is some sort of deeply knowledgeable source of Holy Writ, or even pretends to be, let me disillusion you forthwith my Montreal friend. My beliefs and knowledges are at the level that makes then acceptable to me and that's enough. They've been that way since I was old enough to choose. Nothing more is needed. Being an altar boy had the advantages of letting me see the earthly side of things as well as the celestial.