The Politics Thread

[TANGODANCER]

I'm quite capable of understanding and differentiating between private and public spheres

clearly not. counting the number of mosques in Bolton and proclaiming that they are somehow not in the private sphere??

And are those mosques not in the public sector when seeking council approval to be built? They wouldn't even get that permission if religious cooperation wasn't a public issue and very much in the open. Do employers not provide prayer facilities or allow employees to observe religious festivals in factories and offices? Pru seemed to be saying that not to be the case and it was somehow compartmentalised. Religion is as much an issue publicly as anything else. Maybe you've been far to removed from Bolton and district for too long.

[bedwetter2]

F*ck me, don't look under the bed.

I'd watch out for that Sadiq Khan, too.

Ha! Do you remember that old saying about reds under the bed? It seems that you do. There was some 270 million people in the old Soviet Union, a large proportion of whom were less than committed to the socialist principles of that state. The Soviets were the main threat to the West (China had no power to speak of).

Muslim states account for more than 2 billion of the current world population and are outbreeding Western populations by a factor of at least 2. All evidence from current conflicts, asymetrical or not, points to a level of threat to our liberal societies much greater than during the 'cold war' era.

I assume by Sadiq Khan you mean that ineffective socialist politician. Waste of time.

So, not so much muslims under the bed as in, on top, under and surrounding it.

I don't remember it, I'm not a crusty, but I've heard of it .

By Sadiq Khan I mean that muslim, democratically elected politician, for whom politics is not religion, and who, for example, voted for gay marriage (along with four others for whom, presumably, religion is not politics).

Islam is by its nature no more or less proselytizing than Christianity. The difference being that in the west we've had 200 years post-Enlightenment is secular democracy where we've generally established that the place for religion is in the private sphere, not the public.

It's not that long ago that your religion here was enough to get you burnt at the stake so the idea that trouble separating religion and politics is a problem unique to Islam, or Muslims, is pish.

Here's an idea: instead of pursuing a foreign policy of short-term gain propping up oppressive regimes who give us no current grief and let us get at their oil, only to eventually collapse in chaos to rebels led by jihadis who genuinely seem like the lesser of two evils; or an isolationist policy where we let the crackpot few terrorise the normal peaceful majority, instead we support the f*cking good guys so that secular-democracy beats theocracy and the world's nutters have no desperate oppressed they can manipulate. That'd be good.

So much to consider, then reject as an inconsequential argument. I would agree that the only proselytizing the muslims do involves a sword and your neck.

I knew the Sadiq Khan that you mentioned was the socialist politician. One swallow doesn't make a summer, you know, and if there was four of 'em that doesn't constitute a flock. They do tend to vote for their party leadership (all MPs) if only because of the whipping system. Labour doesn't have good democratic credentials when it comes to their muslim council representatives or MPs - vote-rigging allegations spring to mind.

Religion does not interest me per se, although I do see the historical influences which have in turn affected whole nations.

As to your last point, I can but agree with you if only you could define who the good guys are. I'm sure al Sisi in Eygpt would not be to your taste and I can't see many in other muslim ruled countries. I don't advocate isolationism, rather suggest that quarantine may be a good idea until the offenders join the civilised world. If ever.

Even if I had said that, you wouldn't agree, because your initial post was that 'they' can't separate religion and politics and would attempt to convert by force or subterfuge everyone even the infidel TD.

Yes, that Muslim socialist politician (if you want) who has separated his politics from his religion, almost as if he were a human being. As for five of them not making a flock, well overall five voted for it and only one against it, a somewhat higher proportion than the rest of their whipped colleagues who voted about 2.25 to 1 for it.

The good guys are the secular democrats. That's who we should be supporting, wherever we can.

And the civilised world? The Muslim world was the civilised world for a long time. Quirks of history are all that separate us, no inherent superiority. They're people, who for the main part just want safety for the families, food on the table and if possible a nice bit of consumerism.

I now see that all along I have been writing about the negative global influence of Islam but you are really only interested in what happens in the London bubble. Whether Sadiq Khan or his socialist colleagues are truly on the secular democratic roundabout or not matters not one jot when measured against the evil done in the name of his 'private' religion across the world.

The civilised Muslim world included the invasion of Europe by the Moors shortly after the invention of that religion, stopped from going further north only by the Carolingians in Aquitaine. After the sack of Byzantium by the Muslim Caliphate after several previous attempts, the armies of Islam again headed for the heart of Europe, finally being stopped by the Serbs. All completely civilised, democratic and bloodless I am sure. The Muslim armies had previously democratically rampaged across North Africa destroying the greater part of the Christian Coptic/Orthodox populations on the way before turning their sights on Spain and the north. This mainly happened before any Crusade nutters turned up in the holy land or whatever you want to call it.

They (Muslims) don't forget and their ambitions have and will never waver. It is commanded of them in the Koran. Whether a few token, maybe sincere, Labour politicians disagree is irrelevant. They cannot influence their own young electorate.

[William the White]

I'm quite capable of understanding and differentiating between private and public spheres

clearly not. counting the number of mosques in Bolton and proclaiming that they are somehow not in the private sphere??

And are those mosques not in the public sector when seeking council approval to be built? They wouldn't even get that permission if religious cooperation wasn't a public issue and very much in the open. Do employers not provide prayer facilities or allow employees to observe religious festivals in factories and offices? Pru seemed to be saying that not to be the case and it was somehow compartmentalised. Religion is as much an issue publicly as anything else. Maybe you've been far to removed from Bolton and district for too long.

It's uncontroversial I think that today, in Bolton, for the most part, most of the time, religious practices of most faiths can be practised openly and comparatively freely. So the personal beliefs of people can be given expression. (Their private sphere).

In other countries the state identifies a particular set of beliefs (Islam, numerous branches of Christianity, Bolshevism) as the officially approved ideology. This places it in the public sphere - society, however expressed, determines what is permissible in matters of faith and belief.

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.

[Montreal Wanderer]

The civilised Muslim world included the invasion of Europe by the Moors shortly after the invention of that religion, stopped from going further north only by the Carolingians in Aquitaine. After the sack of Byzantium by the Muslim Caliphate after several previous attempts, the armies of Islam again headed for the heart of Europe, finally being stopped by the Serbs. All completely civilised, democratic and bloodless I am sure. The Muslim armies had previously democratically rampaged across North Africa destroying the greater part of the Christian Coptic/Orthodox populations on the way before turning their sights on Spain and the north. This mainly happened before any Crusade nutters turned up in the holy land or whatever you want to call it.

They (Muslims) don't forget and their ambitions have and will never waver. It is commanded of them in the Koran. Whether a few token, maybe sincere, Labour politicians disagree is irrelevant. They cannot influence their own young electorate.

And there was I thinking the Ottoman invasion was stopped by Jan Sobieski, with his Polish Army and Austrian/German support at the 1683 Battle of Vienna. The Serbs eh? Well I never.

[Hoboh]

Argue in stratosphere ffs

[LeverEnd]

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.

Completely agree. The US constitution for example.
Or so they would claim, while demonising anyone who is not a Christian.

To clarify, I agree but I doesn't always work out that way.

[Lord Kangana]

Have we really descended to the level of "look what the Moors did"?

[bedwetter2]

The civilised Muslim world included the invasion of Europe by the Moors shortly after the invention of that religion, stopped from going further north only by the Carolingians in Aquitaine. After the sack of Byzantium by the Muslim Caliphate after several previous attempts, the armies of Islam again headed for the heart of Europe, finally being stopped by the Serbs. All completely civilised, democratic and bloodless I am sure. The Muslim armies had previously democratically rampaged across North Africa destroying the greater part of the Christian Coptic/Orthodox populations on the way before turning their sights on Spain and the north. This mainly happened before any Crusade nutters turned up in the holy land or whatever you want to call it.

They (Muslims) don't forget and their ambitions have and will never waver. It is commanded of them in the Koran. Whether a few token, maybe sincere, Labour politicians disagree is irrelevant. They cannot influence their own young electorate.

And there was I thinking the Ottoman invasion was stopped by Jan Sobieski, with his Polish Army and Austrian/German support at the 1683 Battle of Vienna. The Serbs eh? Well I never.

Correct. I don't know why I said the Serbs. In the back of my addled mind I was thinking Serbia in connection with the Turks and there was of course a connection as that part of Europe was subjugated by the Muslims for centuries. I must remember not to rely on remembering half-forgotten history lessons from 40 or more years ago.

[bedwetter2]

Have we really descended to the level of "look what the Moors did"?

Forget the lessons of history at your peril, old chum. There is nothing new in this world, apart perhaps from the inane ramblings of DF.

[Lord Kangana]

Ok. Well that would make the Catholic Church something I should fear more than all of Islam put together and multiplied.

And yet, strangely, I don't. Not because of essentially lazy bigotry - lets be honest, most muslims are brown and I just can't relate to them, but I would find it difficult to pick out a catholic from a lineup and would probably have a more similar life experience to them these days - but because the lessons of history aren't to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over (for that would be idiotic) but to learn from them.

[thebish]

And are those mosques not in the public sector when seeking council approval to be built?

no. just like your house does not become part of the public sector if you apply for permission to build an extension.

I think you might be mixing up the words "private" and "secret".

[bedwetter2]

Ok. Well that would make the Catholic Church something I should fear more than all of Islam put together and multiplied.

And yet, strangely, I don't. Not because of essentially lazy bigotry - lets be honest, most muslims are brown and I just can't relate to them, but I would find it difficult to pick out a catholic from a lineup and would probably have a more similar life experience to them these days - but because the lessons of history aren't to keep repeating the same mistakes over and over (for that would be idiotic) but to learn from them.

You may have a point there. Never trusted those suckers myself Ndiwa....I can address you by your second first name, can't I?

[TANGODANCER]

And are those mosques not in the public sector when seeking council approval to be built?

no. just like your house does not become part of the public sector if you apply for permission to build an extension.

I think you might be mixing up the words "private" and "secret".

Since you insist on telling me what I mean and understand, let me tell you that is your opinion, not some sort of law. The words, sphere and sector being added don't change the meaning of public and private in any way and are more relative to things other than religion. Re, the above, your house doesn't become part of the public sector in ownership or you home-life, no, that's private. The permission to build extensions decidedly is public because of the very fact that permission from outside is needed. That whole concept is very much public business. That, however, has nothing to do with religion unless you want to declare your property so, (as in prayer houses which cause a lot of controversy because of council tax avoidance being an issue etc.) in which case again, it becomes very much a public issue.

Pru's reference was to us as a society as a whole, and the innards of religion are in the private parts of our lives only because we are a democracy as a country. We are far from a balanced society in total because racism and religious intolerance live not too far below the surface constantly. To deny that is a blinkered view indeed. The only real privacy is between the person and their deity. Religion as a topic is far far from being only in the private "sector". Pru also has very firm, sometimes volatile and objectionable views on Christianity, particularly the Catholic church which he isn't shy at airing. That's fine as long as he doesn't object to like treatment himself. Religion to him is an issue to contest, not a belief of his own. He treats it as a topic; an example of public and private view if you will.

[thebish]

The words, sphere and sector being added don't change the meaning of public and private in any way

yes - they do.

[TANGODANCER]

The words, sphere and sector being added don't change the meaning of public and private in any way

yes - they do.

Your compulsive obsession to reply/argue to anything with the word "tango" attached is eerily disturbing. Worry not, help is at hand. Just contact wwx.manchuriancandidate.help and somebody will give you a ring...

[Beefheart]

The words, sphere and sector being added don't change the meaning of public and private in any way

yes - they do.[/quote

What about 'school'? Completely flips the meaning.

[thebish]

The words, sphere and sector being added don't change the meaning of public and private in any way

yes - they do.

Your compulsive obsession to reply/argue to anything with the word "tango" attached is eerily disturbing. Worry not, help is at hand. Just contact wwx.manchuriancandidate.help and somebody will give you a ring...

you addressed me directly and asked me what i thought.

a mosque is NOT a public sector organisation or building. It is a private venture. the fact that it is visible or applies for permissions from a public sector body (the council) does not make it part of the public sector.

the use of the words "private" and "public" that Pru used were very different to the use of the words when you might say "he took his trousers off in public" (ie - where it could be seen) or "he took his trousers off in private" (ie - where it couldn't be seen).

pru is right - other than the largely ceremonial and dinosaur remnants of the CofE establishment (Bishops in the house of Lords) we have now organised the UK in such a way that religion is firmly in the sphere of the "private".

counting the mosques in Bolton is an irrelevance - because that is using the word "public" to mean "what can be viewed/seen by the public" - which is not what pru is talking about.

[Prufrock]

And are those mosques not in the public sector when seeking council approval to be built?

no. just like your house does not become part of the public sector if you apply for permission to build an extension.

I think you might be mixing up the words "private" and "secret".

Since you insist on telling me what I mean and understand, let me tell you that is your opinion, not some sort of law. The words, sphere and sector being added don't change the meaning of public and private in any way and are more relative to things other than religion. Re, the above, your house doesn't become part of the public sector in ownership or you home-life, no, that's private. The permission to build extensions decidedly is public because of the very fact that permission from outside is needed. That whole concept is very much public business. That, however, has nothing to do with religion unless you want to declare your property so, (as in prayer houses which cause a lot of controversy because of council tax avoidance being an issue etc.) in which case again, it becomes very much a public issue.

Pru's reference was to us as a society as a whole, and the innards of religion are in the private parts of our lives only because we are a democracy as a country. We are far from a balanced society in total because racism and religious intolerance live not too far below the surface constantly. To deny that is a blinkered view indeed. The only real privacy is between the person and their deity. Religion as a topic is far far from being only in the private "sector". Pru also has very firm, sometimes volatile and objectionable views on Christianity, particularly the Catholic church which he isn't shy at airing. That's fine as long as he doesn't object to like treatment himself. Religion to him is an issue to contest, not a belief of his own. He treats it as a topic; an example of public and private view if you will.

Tango, I thought it was quite clear at the time what I meant, but if not that may well have been my fault. I have since, twice, directly addressed you and what you thought I said, pointing out what I meant. My distinction between 'public' and 'private' was meant to follow the distinction between the state and the individual. Not to indicate that religion is or should be in some way 'secret'. For some reason you still seem to be indicating that that is what I said. Again, it isn't. Will summed out what I meant nicely here:

It's uncontroversial I think that today, in Bolton, for the most part, most of the time, religious practices of most faiths can be practised openly and comparatively freely. So the personal beliefs of people can be given expression. (Their private sphere).

In other countries the state identifies a particular set of beliefs (Islam, numerous branches of Christianity, Bolshevism) as the officially approved ideology. This places it in the public sphere - society, however expressed, determines what is permissible in matters of faith and belief.

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.

[TANGODANCER]

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?

[TANGODANCER]

Have we really descended to the level of "look what the Moors did"?

I'm in agreement with bedwetter about not forgetting history's lessons, but the Moors and Christians ( a topic I know well enough) preceeded by a long way events that occurred on our own doorsteps. Our country isn't a particularly good example of 's history's lessons learned. Glass houses and all that.