Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Bubbles on November 14, 2015, 07:28:55 AM
-
.
-
Apparently it was all committed in the name of God..
Quelle surprise.
-
Apparently it was all committed in the name of God..
Quelle surprise.
Hardly the time to make cheap shots. You know as well as I that this has nothing to do with God, only with a bunch of evil, homicidal maniacs.
-
We are due to take 20,000 of them ( refugees) and I'm not totally happy about that after this.
I wasn't happy with the idea of allowing more in, but now I'm not sure about the 20,000. Yes I'm jumping to conclusions, but there is going to be lots of jumping to conclusions.
But the 20K we are due to take are people who have been victims of both the regime and of ISIS, Rose. They are a very different group of people to the migrants who have been flooding Europe through the year.
I think Isis is going to be the death of Islam, not its saviour ( which they seem to think they are).
They have certainly had a negative impact on my veiw of it, which was positive at one point.
I suppose it's all about who's Islam.
The Islam down the road from me ( mosque) is pretty much peaceful as are its adherents.
But I am getting less tolerant of it. :o
( if it was an attack by communists, it would lower my opinion of communism in the same way).
The world is now too small and there are too many of us, to tolerate any narrow minded and violent group.
I think your uncertainty, as expressed here, highlights the fact that all philosophies have their extreme adherents. As a result, we need to be even more tolerant of those we believe to have peace at heart, not less, and to support them in their opposition of the extremists. Unfortunately, as some experiences here show, there is a tendency to judge all by the extremists.
Why can't we all just live peacefully?
Why do idiots go out and shoot innocent people they don't know?
I understand anger born out of pain of losing someone, and lashing out. It's wrong to lash out, but I get why it happens.
I don't get why someone like jihadi John, suddenly gets this desire to behead women and children ( and there are women proud and wanting to do the same).
Rightly or wrongly, Muslim extremeists believe that their way of life is under threat from the West, Rose. For them, they are doing what they do as a form of 'lashing out' - just in a more coordinated manner than that term suggests. The same goes for just about any extremist, whatever belief-system thery hold to.
I think some people hate our freedom and want to enslave everyone, make their lives a misery.
France is very secular and has freedom among its values.
'Freedom' is a very 'loose' concept. What you may understand by the term may well be very different to another person's understanding. Think, for instance of the reasons given by Timothy McVeigh for the Oklahoma City bombing back in 1995. He, and those like him, regarded the US Federal state as restrictive and anti-freedom.
-
Apparently it was all committed in the name of God..
Quelle surprise.
Hardly the time to make cheap shots. You know as well as I that this has nothing to do with God, only with a bunch of evil, homicidal maniacs.
In contrast to the wars of the last century, Islamic State is profoundly about religion. The clue is in the name.
-
Apparently it was all committed in the name of God..
Quelle surprise.
Thrud, unless you know something the authorities don't (in which case you ought to be passing that information on to them), no-one has claimed responsibility for the attacks, so whose name they were committed in is only surmise at present.
Mind you, I'd agree with your description of your jumping to conclusions - 'Quelle surprise'!
-
In contrast to the wars of the last century, Islamic State is profoundly about religion. The clue is in the name.
But at present, the involvement of ISIS, Al Quaeda, Boko Haram, Westboro Bapotist - or whoever - is stil uncertain. There have been suggestions made by journalists and politicians, but no claim of responsibility and no certainty. Until that exists, Thrud's post was no more than a pot-stirring cheap shot.
-
Apparently it was all committed in the name of God..
Quelle surprise.
Hardly the time to make cheap shots. You know as well as I that this has nothing to do with God, only with a bunch of evil, homicidal maniacs.
In contrast to the wars of the last century, Islamic State is profoundly about religion. The clue is in the name.
Let me enlighten you: it is done in the name of a perverted "interpretation" of Islam, as all reasonable Muslims - the massive majority who are - constantly affirm. Yet another cheap attempt to score points, and at a time when all should be extending sympathy to those poor people. Shameful!
-
It's not a "cheap shot" bashers, it's a fact
The gunmen are reported to be shouting "Allahu Akbar" whilst murdering innocent people.
All part of Gods plan apparently?
-
It's not a "cheap shot" bashers, it's a fact
The gunmen are reported to be shouting "Allahu Akbar" whilst murdering innocent people.
All part of Gods plan apparently?
I won't bother to repeat myself: I tried to explain it to you in M25.
-
In contrast to the wars of the last century, Islamic State is profoundly about religion. The clue is in the name.
Let me enlighten you: it is done in the name of a perverted "interpretation" of Islam, as all reasonable Muslims - the massive majority who are - constantly affirm. Yet another cheap attempt to score points, and at a time when all should be extending sympathy to those poor people. Shameful!
If we view all such people as nutjobs and random criminals then we fail to grasp the full import of the situation. This is middle eastern war spilling onto the streets of Europe and the war has political and religious drivers.
Given that many different possible interpretations of Islam are possible, it must take a particular psychology to adopt the most violent and extreme. And then to go on to fight for Al Qaeda or ISIL, or bring the terror here. Of-course they will latch onto political or religious issues, but maybe we could try and catch them before they "turn"?
-
In contrast to the wars of the last century, Islamic State is profoundly about religion. The clue is in the name.
Let me enlighten you: it is done in the name of a perverted "interpretation" of Islam, as all reasonable Muslims - the massive majority who are - constantly affirm. Yet another cheap attempt to score points, and at a time when all should be extending sympathy to those poor people. Shameful!
If we view all such people as nutjobs and random criminals then we fail to grasp the full import of the situation. This is middle eastern war spilling onto the streets of Europe and the war has political and religious drivers.
Given that many different possible interpretations of Islam are possible, it must take a particular psychology to adopt the most violent and extreme. And then to go on to fight for Al Qaeda or ISIL, or bring the terror here. Of-course they will latch onto political or religious issues, but maybe we could try and catch them before they "turn"?
All Islamic State has to do is look to the founder. Islam is a religion which was spread by the sword from the very beginning. It's in its DNA, so to speak, which is one reason why we shouldn't be letting half the Middle-East into Europe.
-
Let me enlighten you: it is done in the name of a perverted "interpretation" of Islam, as all reasonable Muslims - the massive majority who are - constantly affirm. Yet another cheap attempt to score points, and at a time when all should be extending sympathy to those poor people. Shameful!
Let me enlighten you - they have the same source material, the same book, as all the rest. Yes, it's an interpretation of Islam, as are they all. There is no 'right' Islam, there's just versions we prefer and versions we don't, just like there is in Christianity and just like there is in Judaism.
The problem is in the nature of religion: the idea that there is an absolute justification for something that people have the capacity to interpret for themselves lends itself to totalitarian nutjobbery.
Religion is, by its nature, dangerous.
I know that the convention is the prayer forum is off-limits for discussion, I know it's done with the best of intentions, but the irony of someone starting a thread there to 'pray' for the victims in Paris last night really sticks in the craw. What happened in Paris last night WAS a prayer. Look at how much help it was.
O.
-
Let me enlighten you: it is done in the name of a perverted "interpretation" of Islam, as all reasonable Muslims - the massive majority who are - constantly affirm. Yet another cheap attempt to score points, and at a time when all should be extending sympathy to those poor people. Shameful!
Let me enlighten you - they have the same source material, the same book, as all the rest. Yes, it's an interpretation of Islam, as are they all. There is no 'right' Islam, there's just versions we prefer and versions we don't, just like there is in Christianity and just like there is in Judaism.
The problem is in the nature of religion: the idea that there is an absolute justification for something that people have the capacity to interpret for themselves lends itself to totalitarian nutjobbery.
Religion is, by its nature, dangerous.
I know that the convention is the prayer forum is off-limits for discussion, I know it's done with the best of intentions, but the irony of someone starting a thread there to 'pray' for the victims in Paris last night really sticks in the craw. What happened in Paris last night WAS a prayer. Look at how much help it was.
O.
Sin is the elephant in the room here Outrider.
-
Dear Outrider,
The nature of religion!?
Sorry, maybe for another thread.
Gonnagle.
-
Let me enlighten you: it is done in the name of a perverted "interpretation" of Islam, as all reasonable Muslims - the massive majority who are - constantly affirm. Yet another cheap attempt to score points, and at a time when all should be extending sympathy to those poor people. Shameful!
Let me enlighten you - they have the same source material, the same book, as all the rest. Yes, it's an interpretation of Islam, as are they all. There is no 'right' Islam, there's just versions we prefer and versions we don't, just like there is in Christianity and just like there is in Judaism.
The problem is in the nature of religion: the idea that there is an absolute justification for something that people have the capacity to interpret for themselves lends itself to totalitarian nutjobbery.
Religion is, by its nature, dangerous.
I know that the convention is the prayer forum is off-limits for discussion, I know it's done with the best of intentions, but the irony of someone starting a thread there to 'pray' for the victims in Paris last night really sticks in the craw. What happened in Paris last night WAS a prayer. Look at how much help it was.
O.
Sin is the elephant in the room here Outrider.
I don't think so.
'Sin' is just a little word that relieves us from having to figure out why people do awful things.
-
Sin is the elephant in the room here Outrider.
Sin? That's it, defend the fairy tales with another speculative piece of bronze-aged bullshit.
No. People who accept ideas without justification or basis are the elephant in the room, here.
People who claim these are the 'wrong kind of Muslims', as though there were a check-list are the elephant in the room, here. People who claim 'faith' to defend their own position, but decry the bad outcomes of that as the fault of something else are the elephant in the room, here.
Religion, and the antiquated idea that its tenets deserve some sort of acceptance and respect are the elephant in the room, here.
And that elephant just stampeded through Paris and Beirut. It stampedes through medical care in the US. It stampedes through gay rights in Africa. It stampedes through women's rights all over the world.
Who knows where it's going to stampede next?
O.
-
In contrast to the wars of the last century, Islamic State is profoundly about religion. The clue is in the name.
But at present, the involvement of ISIS, Al Quaeda, Boko Haram, Westboro Bapotist - or whoever - is stil uncertain. There have been suggestions made by journalists and politicians, but no claim of responsibility and no certainty. Until that exists, Thrud's post was no more than a pot-stirring cheap shot.
Hope
Possibly off topic, but I have to ask "Are you OK".
You are not one for typos and tour last two posts are full of them. I hope and truest that your condition has not started to deteriorate, that the cause is just you typing in a hurry!
This not a piss-take! It is a genuinely concerned enquiry.
-
http://tinyurl.com/neo8b63
Moderator: long URL replaced.
-
Sin is the elephant in the room here Outrider.
Sin? That's it,
Yes and the Orthodox and Western Christian understanding of it If we are theologically aware of the concept then what is happening fits the description.
How does moral non realism help us out?
-
And that elephant just stampeded through Paris and Beirut. It stampedes through medical care in the US. It stampedes through gay rights in Africa. It stampedes through women's rights all over the world.
Who knows where it's going to stampede next?
O.
This is just another theory of anything.
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
I know that's not the whole answer but, imo, it would greatly reduce this sort of extreme behavior.
I'm so sorry for all of our very close next door French neighbors and for all of the suffering they must be going through.
ippy
-
Hope
Possibly off topic, but I have to ask "Are you OK".
You are not one for typos and tour last two posts are full of them. I hope and truest that your condition has not started to deteriorate, that the cause is just you typing in a hurry!
This not a piss-take! It is a genuinely concerned enquiry.
Hi Matt, I'm on the mend, but didn't sleep very well last night, and I may well have been a bit dozy earlier as a result.
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
I know that's not the whole answer but, imo, it would greatly reduce this sort of extreme behavior.
I'm so sorry for all of our very close next door French neighbors and for all of the suffering they must be going through.
ippy
The same could be said for Communism which had no religion! In modern times there have been more deaths attributable to political belief that to religious beliefs.
-
Hope
Possibly off topic, but I have to ask "Are you OK".
You are not one for typos and tour last two posts are full of them. I hope and truest that your condition has not started to deteriorate, that the cause is just you typing in a hurry!
This not a piss-take! It is a genuinely concerned enquiry.
Hi Matt, I'm on the mend, but didn't sleep very well last night, and I may well have been a bit dozy earlier as a result.
At the risk of being insulting - Thanks the Goddess for that!
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'
I agree, inflicting religion/philosophies on kids before they are old enough to question their veracity is a very bad idea!
-
Terrible. I understand machine guns and shot guns were involved. This seems to be happening regularly in France despite it's strict gun laws. If people want to kill, they will.
Still trying to justify America's stance on gun control?
Cheap shot!
-
Not true matty. I have always said that the USA needs more gun laws. What I get disgusted with is that when there is a mass shooting in that nation, certain people here put up a thread to bash America and there isn't much outpouring of sympathy for victims and families. When it happens in France a totally different reaction.
-
Not true matty. I have always said that the USA needs more gun laws. What I get disgusted with is that when there is a mass shooting in that nation, certain people here put up a thread to bash America and there isn't much outpouring of sympathy for victims and families. When it happens in France a totally different reaction.
There is a huge difference - how many mass shootings by Isamic terrorists have there been in America?
The outcry is because they are random shootings by Americans - usually either nutcases of American nationality or by cops; there is nothing to connect them with a co-ordinated plan of attck.
There is nothing to show that the perpetrators of the Paris atrocity were French! They were appantly armed with AK47 assualt rifles - the terrorist weapon of choice and were speaking Arabic.
-
Matty,
There are thousands of Arabic speaking Canadians. And even more Arabic speaking Brits I would betcha. French citizens of Arab lineage makes up the second largest minority in that nation Matty. And obviously you are not current. There have been several gun attacks through out the USA by Muslim extremists who are Americans. I understand that shot guns were also used yesterday. Thousands of westerners have flocked to Syria and Iraq to fight with ISIS.
-
Matty,
There are thousands of Arabic speaking Canadians. And even more Arabic speaking Brits I would betcha. French citizens of Arab lineage makes up the second largest minority in that nation Matty. And obviously you are not current. There have been several gun attacks through out the USA by Muslim extremists who are Americans. I understand that shot guns were also used yesterday. Thousands of westerners have flocked to Syria and Iraq to fight with ISIS.
Of all the listed attacks carried out in America by either Muslims or Muslim sympatisers, excluding, obviously, 9/11, there have been only one that has had victims counted in double figures, 13; the entire total since 1972 killed by Muslims in 70 attacks in the US is 121 - since 1972! Less than those killed YESTERDAY.
Stop trying to justify American stupidity by comparing it to incomparable places in the world.
Get current!
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'
I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.
The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.
When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.
There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?
Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.
So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.
ippy
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
I know that's not the whole answer but, imo, it would greatly reduce this sort of extreme behavior.
I'm so sorry for all of our very close next door French neighbors and for all of the suffering they must be going through.
ippy
The same could be said for Communism which had no religion! In modern times there have been more deaths attributable to political belief that to religious beliefs.
Say you're right, why have either of them religion or politics taught to vulnerable young children, undoubtedly both religion and politics cause conflict.
I still think mixing the children of religious parents at schools will contribute to reducing some of the differences the religions have with each other and of course it's not the whole answer but if Ali the child of Muslim parents grows up at school with simon the child of jewish parents and the both hang out with Fred the child of christian parents, this must be lead to a better understanding of each other.
By the way try to not do the Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot completely misunderstood connection as atheist trouble makers, they were not being wicked buggers in the name of atheism, they just happened to be wicked buggers.
ippy
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'
I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.
The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.
When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.
There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?
Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.
So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.
ippy
Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
I know that's not the whole answer but, imo, it would greatly reduce this sort of extreme behavior.
I'm so sorry for all of our very close next door French neighbors and for all of the suffering they must be going through.
ippy
The same could be said for Communism which had no religion! In modern times there have been more deaths attributable to political belief that to religious beliefs.
Say you're right, why have either of them religion or politics taught to vulnerable young children, undoubtedly both religion and politics cause conflict.
I still think mixing the children of religious parents at schools will contribute to reducing some of the differences the religions have with each other and of course it's not the whole answer but if Ali the child of Muslim parents grows up at school with simon the child of jewish parents and the both hang out with Fred the child of christian parents, this must be lead to a better understanding of each other.
Sounded good on first reading but naturally morphs into ignorant bilge
that presupposes that religious people are natural terrorists.
.....What's your opinion of Tarquin, the child of stock brokers not growing up with Wayne, the child of people on zero hours contracts? That seems quite acceptable to many secular humanists.
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
I know that's not the whole answer but, imo, it would greatly reduce this sort of extreme behavior.
I'm so sorry for all of our very close next door French neighbors and for all of the suffering they must be going through.
ippy
The same could be said for Communism which had no religion! In modern times there have been more deaths attributable to political belief that to religious beliefs.
Say you're right, why have either of them religion or politics taught to vulnerable young children, undoubtedly both religion and politics cause conflict.
I still think mixing the children of religious parents at schools will contribute to reducing some of the differences the religions have with each other and of course it's not the whole answer but if Ali the child of Muslim parents grows up at school with simon the child of jewish parents and the both hang out with Fred the child of christian parents, this must be lead to a better understanding of each other.
By the way try to not do the Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot completely misunderstood connection as atheist trouble makers, they were not being wicked buggers in the name of atheism, they just happened to be wicked buggers.
ippy
That's bollocks.
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'
I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.
The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.
When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.
There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?
Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.
So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.
ippy
Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!
Don't you blokes hate the idea of religion being on a level playing field, without privileges?
Go on bring out your bile have a really good go.
ippy
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'
I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.
The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.
When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.
There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?
Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.
So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.
ippy
Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!
It is a shame that the Muslims who oppose the ban on the burkha didn't think of that before that moved there. That kind of action encourages the extremeists to target French muslims for radicalisation or to expect that they will find aid and succour after one of these atrocities.
-
Some of the worst killers recruited by Isis in the UK have come from liberal backgrounds, not extremely religious backgrounds.
They don't seem to join them because they were taught Islam from childhood, some weren't even brought up Islamic.
ippy is just wrong.
Don't they say there's nobody more fanatical than a convert?
-
Some of the worst killers recruited by Isis in the UK have come from liberal backgrounds, not extremely religious backgrounds.
They don't seem to join them because they were taught Islam from childhood, some weren't even brought up Islamic.
ippy is just wrong.
Don't they say there's nobody more fanatical than a convert?
If people who have given up smoking are anything to go by . . .
-
Matty,
Again you fail. Injured ARE victims and there have been over 1000 of these victims not including 9/11 in the USA. Made victims by Muslim extremists. Which has nothing to do with the fact your type jump on the opportunity to bash America when there are mass shootings and offer no sympathies to victims. But you have made it clear your bigotry against the American people so it's not a shocker.
-
How easy is it to convince a person who has been indoctrinated from birth with God, Mohammed and how great he was, the Islamic state and that they must struggle and be ruthless in the defence and procreation of Islam (in the way of Mohammed the perfect example). There are examples in the Quran which tells of how to deal with the "others" ruthlessly. How hard would it be to convince someone who is convinced they are a victim and oppressed like Muslims around the world that they must fight in the way of Mohammed.
For anyone to say such things have nothing to do with Islam, I would disagree
As an aside is there any doctrine in Christianity for a "Christian" state and was there any example of a figurehead to facilitate this by any means.
-
Matty,
Again you fail. Injured ARE victims and there have been over 1000 of these victims not including 9/11 in the USA. Made victims by Muslim extremists. Which has nothing to do with the fact your type jump on the opportunity to bash America when there are mass shootings and offer no sympathies to victims. But you have made it clear your bigotry against the American people so it's not a shocker.
Maybe I should get a list of the injured and maimed in Muslim attacks - you really are a case - you will do and say anything to protect your horrendously biased view of the US. Are you sure you live on the right side of the border?
In fact the fact of the closeness of the two countries makes it almost incestuous! Especially the way in which you compare your Prime Minister with the American President.
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'
I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.
The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.
When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.
There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?
Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.
So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.
ippy
Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!
Don't you blokes hate the idea of religion being on a level playing field, without privileges?
I disagree with your ban on teaching about religion. The state school business in which diversity is respected is OK. However your model just happens to favour the Secular Humanist and of course the antitheists so called love of critical thinking never extends to their own thinking.
I hear you but I don't trust you not to establish something which promotes your own intellectual intolerance.
-
Even jihadi John seemed to have a relatively secular upbringing, it sounds the opposite of a narrow religious upbringing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11438545/Jihadi-John-From-ordinary-schoolboy-to-worlds-most-wanted-man.html
IMO this shows Ippy is wrong in his claim that a religious upbringing causes this.
You wanna bet he can't come up wth a reason why he is not and we are!
-
Thoughts of an ex Muslim on twitter tackling people who blame those who finance the murderers (nothing to do with Islam).
To those who are asking who is financing terrorism
You have been raising children on tales of prophets avenging, on celebrating great massacres, on praising heroes beheading enemies, on religious role models killing infidels, on stories of the hell that awaits those on the other side, on exalting martyrdom for murderer and murdered equally (f**k this whole concept by the way), on Armageddon and its war and blood.
And when those you bred start living up to you, your role models, your religion and your God you begin to wonder who is financing them! Who gives a f**k who gives them the money.
You are the one mentally financing them, they just found a source of income to make your tales reality.
Nice one!
-
Some of the worst killers recruited by Isis in the UK have come from liberal backgrounds, not extremely religious backgrounds.
They don't seem to join them because they were taught Islam from childhood, some weren't even brought up Islamic.
ippy is just wrong.
A lot of the recruits have had a secular upbringing, as this article discusses.
Part of the problem seems to be secularism doesn't give some people a sense of identity.
Isis preys on that.
https://www.summit.org/blogs/summit-announcements/murderous-mirages-why-are-western-teens-joining-isis/
Don't forget the geographical position of France figures considerably, by the way I didn't agree with their burka ban, most of the rest of French secularism has got it about right so I don't think you've got it right if you're thinking it's mainly down to the burka ban there's far more to it than that.
I know the burka business isn't all, their history figures largely, where do you start, a thesis, not for the mo I don't think.
ippy
-
Some of the worst killers recruited by Isis in the UK have come from liberal backgrounds, not extremely religious backgrounds.
They don't seem to join them because they were taught Islam from childhood, some weren't even brought up Islamic.
ippy is just wrong.
A lot of the recruits have had a secular upbringing, as this article discusses.
Part of the problem seems to be secularism doesn't give some people a sense of identity.
Isis preys on that.
https://www.summit.org/blogs/summit-announcements/murderous-mirages-why-are-western-teens-joining-isis/
I think it depends what you mean by 'secular upbringing'.
It may be the case that many of those that have become extremists weren't brought up in the most extreme of islamic upbringings but that doesn't mean their upbringing was secular. To my mind that would mean a non religious upbringing. As far as I am aware most were brought up in islamic religious households and were brought up to be muslims, attending mosque etc etc. That isn't secular.
I wonder how many, if any, were brought up in non religious households.
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'
I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.
The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.
When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.
There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?
Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.
So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.
ippy
Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!
Don't you blokes hate the idea of religion being on a level playing field, without privileges?
I disagree with your ban on teaching about religion. The state school business in which diversity is respected is OK. However your model just happens to favour the Secular Humanist and of course the antitheists so called love of critical thinking never extends to their own thinking.
I hear you but I don't trust you not to establish something which promotes your own intellectual intolerance.
Looks to me you've either read my post and misunderstood it or you have read it and missed a lot of things I was saying.
What's the point if you're not going to read things properly or introduce things not said.
Try again but read it properly this time, see if you can send a reply that relates to that post.
ippy
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'
I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.
The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.
When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.
There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?
Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.
So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.
ippy
Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!
Don't you blokes hate the idea of religion being on a level playing field, without privileges?
I disagree with your ban on teaching about religion. The state school business in which diversity is respected is OK. However your model just happens to favour the Secular Humanist and of course the antitheists so called love of critical thinking never extends to their own thinking.
I hear you but I don't trust you not to establish something which promotes your own intellectual intolerance.
Looks to me you've either read my post and misunderstood it or you have read it and missed a lot of things I was saying.
What's the point if you're not going to read things properly or introduce things not said.
Try again but read it properly this time, see if you can send a reply that relates to that post.
ippy
No you said religions (plural) were causing France problems. As far as I can see it is only one.
You said removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus.
You have said that religious peoples children need to mix ........nothing about atheists, agnostics or secular humanists. That betrays a ridiculous assumption that kids in state schools are from agnostics atheists or secular humanist schools.
It all adds up to you holding some profound misconceptions Ippy.
-
Some of the worst killers recruited by Isis in the UK have come from liberal backgrounds, not extremely religious backgrounds.
They don't seem to join them because they were taught Islam from childhood, some weren't even brought up Islamic.
ippy is just wrong.
Don't they say there's nobody more fanatical than a convert?
If people who have given up smoking are anything to go by . . .
I've never have been a religious person, tried a ciggie once thought it tasted horrible never smoked again, mind you have you noticed that most smokers don't even realise how much they actually stink?
ippy
-
I wonder why Dawkins is silent on these matters. Merely condemning religious people is not enough. He should write books about 'Selfish Memes' and such other things. I think that is what these battles... and terrorism are all about. As long as we try to force our beliefs on others (atheism also I mean)...this tendency to eradicate non believers will continue.
We need to understand more about memes and how they try to replicate.
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'
I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.
The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.
When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.
There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?
Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.
So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.
ippy
Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!
Don't you blokes hate the idea of religion being on a level playing field, without privileges?
I disagree with your ban on teaching about religion. The state school business in which diversity is respected is OK. However your model just happens to favour the Secular Humanist and of course the antitheists so called love of critical thinking never extends to their own thinking.
I hear you but I don't trust you not to establish something which promotes your own intellectual intolerance.
Looks to me you've either read my post and misunderstood it or you have read it and missed a lot of things I was saying.
What's the point if you're not going to read things properly or introduce things not said.
Try again but read it properly this time, see if you can send a reply that relates to that post.
ippy
No you said religions (plural) were causing France problems. As far as I can see it is only one.
You said removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus.
You have said that religious peoples children need to mix ........nothing about atheists, agnostics or secular humanists. That betrays a ridiculous assumption that kids in state schools are from agnostics atheists or secular humanist schools.
It all adds up to you holding some profound misconceptions Ippy.
Vlad you're not reading me right you've missed some key parts of my post and you seem to think I have said things that I haven't said, you've miss read me.
You say: "No you said religions (plural) were causing France problems. As far as I can see it is only one".
This is the part of my post you were addressing:
"So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment".
=====
You said:
"You said removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus".
Yes I did say: removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus, which picked out of context misses out where I have actually said:
" There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions"?
=====
You then went on to say:
"You have said that religious peoples children need to mix ........nothing about atheists, agnostics or secular humanists. That betrays a ridiculous assumption that kids in state schools are from agnostics atheists or secular humanist schools".
Where in that previous post of mine I had said:
"Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time".
=====
So you've not really read through my post with very much accuracy Vlad.
I'm not advocating banning religion off of the face of the Earth, I'm only for putting religion in it's place, how can history be rewritten, how could humanities be taught without giving religion a mention, now where I say giving religion a mention is where we part company only I think, not just yourself, most religious believers have this idea that there should be some sort of elevated part of school curriculums for teaching religions, they're all as bad as each other in this respect.
I like most secularist people only want to see a level plating field and that necessitates religion loosing any kind of elevated position it has at present and Secular Humanism should have no more or any less position than any other similar ideas; a level playing field.
I find it difficult to see why you don't get it Vlad, unless you really do think religion should be in some kind of elevated position, particularly in our schools for the very young children.
ippy
-
I wonder why Dawkins is silent on these matters. Merely condemning religious people is not enough. He should write books about 'Selfish Memes' and such other things. I think that is what these battles... and terrorism are all about. As long as we try to force our beliefs on others (atheism also I mean)...this tendency to eradicate non believers will continue.
We need to understand more about memes and how they try to replicate.
Bring your magic carpet down to earth Sriram, park it for a mo and say to yourself several times, so that it sinks in to your airy fairy head, atheism isn't a belief, in fact atheism isn't the word for people that are non-religious, how can any non-religious person which by definition doesn't include god or gods be measured by presenting against a datum that for us doesn't exist?
I can live with being called an atheist although I'm not an atheist, I suppose it's a bit like people call a car radio, now days, a stereo, they were never called a mono in the early sixties before stereo broadcasting started, I can live with either although they are both completely wrong.
ippy
-
I wonder why Dawkins is silent on these matters. Merely condemning religious people is not enough. He should write books about 'Selfish Memes' and such other things. I think that is what these battles... and terrorism are all about. As long as we try to force our beliefs on others (atheism also I mean)...this tendency to eradicate non believers will continue.
We need to understand more about memes and how they try to replicate.
Bring your magic carpet down to earth Sriram, park it for a mo and say to yourself several times, so that it sinks in to your airy fairy head, atheism isn't a belief, in fact atheism isn't the word for people that are non-religious, how can any non-religious person which by definition doesn't include god or gods be measured by presenting against a datum that for us doesn't exist?
I can live with being called an atheist although I'm not an atheist, I suppose it's a bit like people call a car radio, now days, a stereo, they were never called a mono in the early sixties before stereo broadcasting started, I can live with either although they are both completely wrong.
ippy
If not an atheist what?
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'
I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.
The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.
When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.
There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?
Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.
So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.
ippy
Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!
Don't you blokes hate the idea of religion being on a level playing field, without privileges?
I disagree with your ban on teaching about religion. The state school business in which diversity is respected is OK. However your model just happens to favour the Secular Humanist and of course the antitheists so called love of critical thinking never extends to their own thinking.
I hear you but I don't trust you not to establish something which promotes your own intellectual intolerance.
Looks to me you've either read my post and misunderstood it or you have read it and missed a lot of things I was saying.
What's the point if you're not going to read things properly or introduce things not said.
Try again but read it properly this time, see if you can send a reply that relates to that post.
ippy
No you said religions (plural) were causing France problems. As far as I can see it is only one.
You said removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus.
You have said that religious peoples children need to mix ........nothing about atheists, agnostics or secular humanists. That betrays a ridiculous assumption that kids in state schools are from agnostics atheists or secular humanist schools.
It all adds up to you holding some profound misconceptions Ippy.
Vlad you're not reading me right you've missed some key parts of my post and you seem to think I have said things that I haven't said, you've miss read me.
You say: "No you said religions (plural) were causing France problems. As far as I can see it is only one".
This is the part of my post you were addressing:
"So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment".
=====
You said:
"You said removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus".
Yes I did say: removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus, which picked out of context misses out where I have actually said:
" There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions"?
=====
You then went on to say:
"You have said that religious peoples children need to mix ........nothing about atheists, agnostics or secular humanists. That betrays a ridiculous assumption that kids in state schools are from agnostics atheists or secular humanist schools".
Where in that previous post of mine I had said:
"Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time".
=====
So you've not really read through my post with very much accuracy Vlad.
I'm not advocating banning religion off of the face of the Earth, I'm only for putting religion in it's place, how can history be rewritten, how could humanities be taught without giving religion a mention, now where I say giving religion a mention is where we part company only I think, not just yourself, most religious believers have this idea that there should be some sort of elevated part of school curriculums for teaching religions, they're all as bad as each other in this respect.
I like most secularist people only want to see a level plating field and that necessitates religion loosing any kind of elevated position it has at present and Secular Humanism should have no more or any less position than any other similar ideas; a level playing field.
I find it difficult to see why you don't get it Vlad, unless you really do think religion should be in some kind of elevated position, particularly in our schools for the very young children.
ippy
Well let's see:
Lord's spiritual: These are a legacy from an established church. Established because it was known that Government needed a moral and spiritual dimension and the clergy provided it independent of temporal ambition.
In my view that is probably the best reason there has ever been for having a house of Lords in the first place!!!!!!!!!
They aren't in the majority. To say they are stopping secular people from having power and influence and the final veto is just plain rubbish.
If public/civil servants get into power then there is no justification for not having a bit of representation from the churches.
The Lords is problematic but to have Lords like the bishops is probably the best argument for it.
Faith Schools. This is a legacy from when the church provided education in this country..... I have said I agreed that schools should be fully integrated. But then we know what secular means grammar segregation, freeschools segregation, academies segregation, the higher social value public school education.
Charity work. Humanists want this banned because it is religion in the public forum.....but secular giving and sense of community is proving to be a mixed bag.
The charitable and sacrificial aspects of Secular Humanism are giving way to acquisitive materialism, economic survivalism and a spiteful attitude to the poor. OF COURSE when it all goes really tits up and secular Britain has cut those Tax credits it is most likely to be the churches which step in.
-
And that elephant just stampeded through Paris and Beirut. It stampedes through medical care in the US. It stampedes through gay rights in Africa. It stampedes through women's rights all over the world.
Who knows where it's going to stampede next?
O.
This is just another theory of anything.
And that's just another failure to include a point in your point.
O.
[/quote]
-
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'
If you can identify particular philosophies that are feeding into these atrocities then by all means suggest them. If you could suggest what some of these non-religious atrocities were we could even help.
O.
-
Another bunch of religious nutters, another example that demonstrates a need to prevent teaching religion, all religions, to very young children, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.
Since we get atrocities like these carried out by non-religious people as well, ippy, perhaps we need to make sure that we don't teach any 'philosophy' to 'very young people, until such a time where they have acquired the ability to challenge and only after that age.'
I certainly would have been wrong if I had said said it was the whole answer, have another look, I was being precise.
The removal of special set aside lessons for any kind of religion wouldn't have a dogs of a chance of happening if the idea was imposed on any one religion.
When you see the dogged determination of he parents to ram religion into the heads of their young it'll certainly be an uphill struggle, but worthwhile and if we can achieve it, that would be all we could reasonably hope for.
There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions?
Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time.
So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment.
ippy
Eh? France is one of the most secular countries around? France is your secular paradise. Don't seem to have worked, pal!
Don't you blokes hate the idea of religion being on a level playing field, without privileges?
I disagree with your ban on teaching about religion. The state school business in which diversity is respected is OK. However your model just happens to favour the Secular Humanist and of course the antitheists so called love of critical thinking never extends to their own thinking.
I hear you but I don't trust you not to establish something which promotes your own intellectual intolerance.
Looks to me you've either read my post and misunderstood it or you have read it and missed a lot of things I was saying.
What's the point if you're not going to read things properly or introduce things not said.
Try again but read it properly this time, see if you can send a reply that relates to that post.
ippy
No you said religions (plural) were causing France problems. As far as I can see it is only one.
You said removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus.
You have said that religious peoples children need to mix ........nothing about atheists, agnostics or secular humanists. That betrays a ridiculous assumption that kids in state schools are from agnostics atheists or secular humanist schools.
It all adds up to you holding some profound misconceptions Ippy.
Vlad you're not reading me right you've missed some key parts of my post and you seem to think I have said things that I haven't said, you've miss read me.
You say: "No you said religions (plural) were causing France problems. As far as I can see it is only one".
This is the part of my post you were addressing:
"So when you look at the ideal above I'm certain this would reduce all sorts of areas where religions cause problems such as the problem the French are suffering at the moment".
=====
You said:
"You said removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus".
Yes I did say: removal of religions from schools would involve a bonus, which picked out of context misses out where I have actually said:
" There's no need to think removing specifically religious lessons from schools, would involve rewriting history and how could any history teacher tell as near to the truth as possible without covering religions"?
=====
You then went on to say:
"You have said that religious peoples children need to mix ........nothing about atheists, agnostics or secular humanists. That betrays a ridiculous assumption that kids in state schools are from agnostics atheists or secular humanist schools".
Where in that previous post of mine I had said:
"Plus the removal of religion from schools would involve a bonus where all of the children mixing at random, rubbing shoulders with all sorts of religions during in their school years, whatever religion the parents happen to have put forward to their children in their own private time".
=====
So you've not really read through my post with very much accuracy Vlad.
I'm not advocating banning religion off of the face of the Earth, I'm only for putting religion in it's place, how can history be rewritten, how could humanities be taught without giving religion a mention, now where I say giving religion a mention is where we part company only I think, not just yourself, most religious believers have this idea that there should be some sort of elevated part of school curriculums for teaching religions, they're all as bad as each other in this respect.
I like most secularist people only want to see a level plating field and that necessitates religion loosing any kind of elevated position it has at present and Secular Humanism should have no more or any less position than any other similar ideas; a level playing field.
I find it difficult to see why you don't get it Vlad, unless you really do think religion should be in some kind of elevated position, particularly in our schools for the very young children.
ippy
Well let's see:
Lord's spiritual: These are a legacy from an established church. Established because it was known that Government needed a moral and spiritual dimension and the clergy provided it independent of temporal ambition.
In my view that is probably the best reason there has ever been for having a house of Lords in the first place!!!!!!!!!
They aren't in the majority. To say they are stopping secular people from having power and influence and the final veto is just plain rubbish.
If public/civil servants get into power then there is no justification for not having a bit of representation from the churches.
The Lords is problematic but to have Lords like the bishops is probably the best argument for it.
Faith Schools. This is a legacy from when the church provided education in this country..... I have said I agreed that schools should be fully integrated. But then we know what secular means grammar segregation, freeschools segregation, academies segregation, the higher social value public school education.
Charity work. Humanists want this banned because it is religion in the public forum.....but secular giving and sense of community is proving to be a mixed bag.
The charitable and sacrificial aspects of Secular Humanism are giving way to acquisitive materialism, economic survivalism and a spiteful attitude to the poor. OF COURSE when it all goes really tits up and secular Britain has cut those Tax credits it is most likely to be the churches which step in.
All very interesting Vlad but let's get where you've misread my posts out of the way and then when you've addressed my post that you have grossley misunderstood, it would be a good idea to go on to these fresh points for discussion you've brought up, for reasons of your own?
ippy
-
Moderator:
This thread has been created from the transfer of posts in the 'Terror attacks in Paris' thread:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=11165.msg570004#new
Whereas the above thread was mainly about the immediate news aspects the posts in this thread deal more with the wider issues involving religion and terrorism.