The Politics Thread

[TANGODANCER]

It isn't a silly statement at all. I meant the fact that you have or haven't religious beleifs shouldn't have a bearing on the everyday life of politicians or political matters, the topic of conversation in this thread. I thought you would understand that.

Oh, I understand perfectly. And it's still very silly.

Politicians have to make all sorts of moral judgements every day. Probably more in their job than I do in mine. Are you saying that their religious beliefs shouldn't enter into these? That Catholic MPs should vote in favour of abortion, for example?

Okay. Let's try and put it into context, and bear in mind we are never going to agree about religion. That I accept. That is the main point of disagreement and why we will have conflicting opinions on almost everything that religion can be brought into. It's a fact of life. In itself, that proves one thing conclusively, human nature and every man jack on the planet will disagree about something or other and a lot of it, though certainly not all, will be based on respective belief or disbelief. It won't change anything except opinion. The majority of the East will belive in Islam and Judaism or other religions, the majority of the West in Christianity. Factions of both will be Atheists. It will certainly never be as one in Obama's reign.

A question that's relevant; Before religion was mentioned on here as a topic, were we treating each other differently and just expressing our opinions on anything and everything without a mention of religion or God? Did religion affect our basic lives on here? Did we carry on just being normal people?

Next: So, where did morals and moral judgement originate and who defined them? What are they for?

Before the Bible and the Ten Commandments, what morals were in force and observed? Was Moses the most righteous man on earth and did he suddenly think it all up? Now bear in mind we are talking of a time in excess of two thousand years ago, a time when life bore no resemblance to what we know today. A time indeed when man worshipped many gods and life, and the taking of it, was vastly more barbaric than now. War hasn't changed, it never will, but war is never about God, only power, greed and possession. Obama will, first and foremost, look after his country. He has no choice in that as President. He will try, I'm sure, to do that in a fair and humane way but, if faced with nuclear threat from another country, will he say: "I can't push the button even though we are all going to be wiped out because God said, Thou shalt not kill!"

You claim that religion will affect his moral judgement, but would it in that instance except perhaps inside himself? I claim that religion would have no bearing on his actions as probably the most powerful man on earth. This is one example when the word of God may well be ignored against the word of man. Why, because Obama is a man, dealing with men, not God. Oh, he may pray he is doing the right thing, but if he followed God to the letter would certainly be out of office rapido. As for things like divorce, abortion and contraception, the majority will rule whatever. The Catholics will ignore any law that makes it legal because of what they believe. Atheists will do as they think fit because they don't. God will have little bearing on the overall result as a political ruling unless we're going to build arenas again and throw believers to the lions. Religion will have no bearing on the actions as politics, only as personal beliefs. A politician is pressurised into an action by the weight of public opinion, not by his religious beliefs. If he puts them first his political life will be a very short one. The proof is in yourself; would you obey an anti-abortion law because a politician claimed it wrong on Religious grounds? Morals are allmost all based on the Ten Commandments in some way. If they weren't we'd still be living in the dark ages. The world has been kept in check for a very long time in the belief that a greater power than us all exists. When that ceases totally, the world will end itself.

That's my explanation. Call it silly (which means not jot to me) or whatever you will. I don't try to impose it on you, or anyone else. It's just my view.

[Lord Kangana]

All politicians are lying, cheating, thieving, philandering scumbags. Them being religious or otherwise doesn't seem to affect that aforementioned inalienable truth. Atheist or believer, we're all being screwed.

[TANGODANCER]

All politicians are lying, cheating, thieving, philandering scumbags. Them being religious or otherwise doesn't seem to affect that aforementioned inalienable truth. Atheist or believer, we're all being screwed.

This could well be the very first time we've actually agreed.

[Prufrock]

As you say TD tis only your opinion but i find the notion that all morals are based on the ten commandments superior and wrong. I have never understood this idea that without religion there can be no morality. I also think this idea that everything two thousand years ago was barbaric and vile, and now we are oh so civilised to be a very interesting view on history.

Many people do get their morality from religion. Many people are not at all religious yet still conceive their own ideas of right and wrong. In fact some might argue that the belief that you are only accountable for your actions in this life, and there is no afterlife with a supreme all powerful being to judge you is a sterner test of true morality.

[TANGODANCER]

As you say TD tis only your opinion but i find the notion that all morals are based on the ten commandments superior and wrong. I have never understood this idea that without religion there can be no morality. I also think this idea that everything two thousand years ago was barbaric and vile, and now we are oh so civilised to be a very interesting view on history.

Not something I said at all. What we are now is a long way forward, but certainly not perfect. In Biblically historic lands they still stone people to death and cut of hands for stealing. Most of the rest of the world has moved on some. At the back of it all though is still the eternal desire for power. That, I can never see changing. Even elements of my own religion are just mafioso in cassocks and berettas.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Next: So, where did morals and moral judgement originate and who defined them? What are they for?

Before the Bible and the Ten Commandments, what morals were in force and observed? Was Moses the most righteous man on earth and did he suddenly think it all up? Now bear in mind we are talking of a time in excess of two thousand years ago, a time when life bore no resemblance to what we know today.

Well, Moses was supposed to be born in 1391 BC, or 2369 of the Jewish calendar. Before him there was a lot of law enforced. The Egyptians had a civil code about 3000 BC but Ur-Nammu ca. 2112-2095 BC is chiefly remembered for his legal code, the Code of Ur-Nammu, the oldest surviving example in the world. The extent to which law, politics and religion were separate in these ancient civilizations is obviously debatable, especially if the head of state is also a god. Obama is not and I doubt any religious convictions he has will influence his political judgment overmuch.

[Lord Kangana]

I would have thought that not killing each other, not stealing each others stuff, and indeed not coveting one anothers asses were just plain common sense. The fact that it was a 'religious' person that appears to be the first to write this down I don't think conclusively proves they have cornered that particular market. I would suggest its just plain common bloody sense.

And the subsequent monopolisation of 'learning' for many a century afterwards by the religous fraternity hardly conveys benevolence on their behalf.

[TANGODANCER]

I would have thought that not killing each other, not stealing each others stuff, and indeed not coveting one anothers asses were just plain common sense. The fact that it was a 'religious' person that appears to be the first to write this down I don't think conclusively proves they have cornered that particular market. I would suggest its just plain common bloody sense.

And the subsequent monopolisation of 'learning' for many a century afterwards by the religous fraternity hardly conveys benevolence on their behalf.

Common sense maybe, but it's the twentieth century and it's still happening. Minority elements I accept, but only the general concept of right and wrong that was implemented back then and has carried on since is the difference. Mob rule today, as proven in any form of race riot or otherwise promotes an immediate mayhem of looting and destruction. Only the law is the difference. As for the rest, as I've said times enough, we're talking people.

[William the White]

I would have thought that not killing each other, not stealing each others stuff, and indeed not coveting one anothers asses were just plain common sense. The fact that it was a 'religious' person that appears to be the first to write this down I don't think conclusively proves they have cornered that particular market. I would suggest its just plain common bloody sense.

And the subsequent monopolisation of 'learning' for many a century afterwards by the religous fraternity hardly conveys benevolence on their behalf.

Common sense maybe, but it's the twentieth century and it's still happening. Minority elements I accept, but only the general concept of right and wrong that was implemented back then and has carried on since is the difference. Mob rule today, as proven in any form of race riot or otherwise promotes an immediate mayhem of looting and destruction. Only the law is the difference. As for the rest, as I've said times enough, we're talking people.

Shit... where did the last 9 years go???

[TANGODANCER]

Shit... where did the last 9 years go???

Which just shows I've said enough and it's time to quit the topic. Just going round in ever decreasing circles.

[InsaneApache]

LABOUR peers are prepared to accept fees of up to £120,000 a year to amend laws in the House of Lords on behalf of business clients, a Sunday Times investigation has found.

Four peers — including two former ministers — offered to help undercover reporters posing as lobbyists obtain an amendment in return for cash.

Two of the peers were secretly recorded telling the reporters they had previously secured changes to bills going through parliament to help their clients.

Lord Truscott, the former energy minister, said he had helped to ensure the Energy Bill was favourable to a client selling “smart” electricity meters. Lord Taylor of Blackburn claimed he had changed the law to help his client Experian, the credit check company.
Related Links
Price for a peer to fix the law
Time to clean up the House of Lords
Curry King's ‘betrayal’ over peerage scandal

Taylor told the reporters: “I will work within the rules, but the rules are meant to be bent sometimes.”

The other peers who agreed to assist our reporters for a fee were Lord Moonie, a former defence minister, and Lord Snape, a former Labour whip.

The disclosure that peers are “for hire” to help change legislation confirms persistent rumours in Westminster that lobbyists are targeting the Lords rather than the Commons, where MPs are under greater scrutiny.

Brendan Keith, the registrar of Lords’ interests, said on Friday that taking a fee to help amend bills was a breach of the “no paid advocacy” rules which prevent peers from promoting the cause of a paid client in parliament. “The rules say that a member of the House must never accept any financial inducement as an incentive or reward for exerting parliamentary influence,” he said.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, leader of the House of Lords, issued a statement yesterday saying: “I am deeply concerned about these allegations. I have spoken to the members who are the subject of them and I shall be pursuing these matters with the utmost vigour."

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP, said he would take up the issue with the Lords authorities. “Legislators in the Commons and the Lords are there to pass legislation on behalf of the country, not to change the law in return for financial favours,” he said.

The Sunday Times began its investigation last year after Taylor had been forced to apologise for asking a question in the House on behalf of a paying client without declaring an interest. His friend Jack Straw, the justice minister, was reprimanded last week over an undeclared donation which had been arranged by the peer.

Our reporters posed as lobbyists acting for a foreign client who was setting up a chain of shops in the UK and wanted to secure an exemption from the Business Rates Supplements Bill. We selected 10 Lords who already had a number of paid consultancies. The three Conservative peers did not return our calls and a Liberal Democrat and an Ulster Unionist both declined to help after meeting the undercover reporters.

However, four of the five Labour peers were willing to help to amend the bill in return for retainers. Some were more forthright than others.

Taylor, a former BAE consultant, said he would not table the amendment himself but offered to conduct a “behind the scenes” campaign to persuade ministers and officials. After agreeing a one-year retainer for £120,000, he said he would discuss the amendment with Yvette Cooper, chief secretary to the Treasury, and talk to officials drafting the bill.

Truscott, his Labour colleague, was also keen to help “behind the scenes” — for a fee of up to £72,000: “I can work with you . . . identifying people and following it . . . meeting people, talking to people to facilitate the amendment and making sure the thing is granted.”

He said he would identify and talk to people who could be persuaded to change the legislation. He offered to contact MPs, peers, civil servants and John Healey, the minister in charge of the legislation.

Moonie offered to help for a fee of £30,000 a year and Snape indicated that he would charge £24,000. By contrast Lord Rogan, the Ulster Unionist peer, said: “If your direct proposal is as stark as for me . . . to help to put down an amendment, that’s a non-runner. A, it’s not right and b, my personal integrity wouldn’t let me do it.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p ... 581547.ece

Well done Sir. Another nail in the coffin of this 'whiter than white' government. Election now!

[Bruce Rioja]

Well done Sir. Another nail in the coffin of this 'whiter than white' government. Election now!

Who, let us not forget, played the 'sleaze' card for all it was worth when electioneering in the run up to the 97 elections.

[William the White]

Well done Sir. Another nail in the coffin of this 'whiter than white' government. Election now!

Who, let us not forget, played the 'sleaze' card for all it was worth when electioneering in the run up to the 97 elections.

errrmmm... shadow chancellors on yachts?

two disgraced ministers serving jail time...

freebies in the Paris Ritz...

down with all sleaze, i say...

[Lord Kangana]

At the risk of repeating myself, all politicians are lying, cheating, thieving, philandering scumbags.

Don't vote for any of them, it only encourages them.

[lovethesmellofnapalm]

At the risk of repeating myself, all politicians are lying, cheating, thieving, philandering scumbags.

Don't vote for any of them, it only encourages them.

Beat me to it. Liberal democracy is finished

[Bruce Rioja]

Well done Sir. Another nail in the coffin of this 'whiter than white' government. Election now!

Who, let us not forget, played the 'sleaze' card for all it was worth when electioneering in the run up to the 97 elections.

errrmmm... shadow chancellors on yachts?

two disgraced ministers serving jail time...

freebies in the Paris Ritz...

down with all sleaze, i say...

Your point being? Oh! You don't have one.

[William the White]

Well done Sir. Another nail in the coffin of this 'whiter than white' government. Election now!

Who, let us not forget, played the 'sleaze' card for all it was worth when electioneering in the run up to the 97 elections.

errrmmm... shadow chancellors on yachts?

two disgraced ministers serving jail time...

freebies in the Paris Ritz...

down with all sleaze, i say...

Your point being? Oh! You don't have one.

Rather obvious one, Bruce, shared by many, that greed and curruption can be found in more politicians than those of the current governing party. as can hypocrisy.

you disagree?

[Bruce Rioja]

No, I agree with you entirely, William.

[Worthy4England]

Well done Sir. Another nail in the coffin of this 'whiter than white' government. Election now!

Who, let us not forget, played the 'sleaze' card for all it was worth when electioneering in the run up to the 97 elections.

errrmmm... shadow chancellors on yachts?

two disgraced ministers serving jail time...

freebies in the Paris Ritz...

down with all sleaze, i say...

How could you miss gerrymandering off the list?

[InsaneApache]

or Bernie Ecclestone.