| quantum leap |
Fri, 08 February 2008 09:54  |
|
Did Britain fast forward to April 1st yesterday?
First we have the utterly execrable idea of the Premiership Globetrotters, and then the equally ludicrous suggestion that we should acknowledge some elements of Sharia law in the UK.
Once upon a time you needed a witty and insightful comedy writer to create great satire - now it writes itself. 
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Fri, 08 February 2008 14:12  |
|
Maybe the Archbish' should take a quantum leap too?
He has an excellent source of information about Islam in the Bishop of Rochester but somehow I suspect he didn't discuss the issues with Bishop Nazir-Ali before he opened his mouth.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Fri, 08 February 2008 21:57 |
|
He's a bit of a plonker really!
Does he have any idea of what bringing in Sharia Law means in this country?
I suspect a fair few muslim women might tell him in due course.
Still, the prospect of being stoned to death for adultery might put a few errant men and women off doing the dirty.
There are far too many good marriages going to the wall because of the actions of stupid people who think the grass is greener on the other side of the road.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Sat, 09 February 2008 00:08 |
|
|
All the images on this site, and the forums, would be verboten on day 1.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Sat, 09 February 2008 08:45 |
|
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573
Here's the transcript of the ArchBish's interview for anyone who wishes to read it.
His thought processes are so lofty that I find it hard to follow so it's no wonder that the press has jumped all over him.
To summarise a senior Anglican lay person on the news this morning: The man (Rowan Williams) is a brilliant academic, kind, caring and in person a fine Christian, but he's not a leader and should go back to the academic world where he can discuss issues like this with fellow academics without damaging the Anglican Church.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Sat, 09 February 2008 11:57 |
|
In Britain we live under the provisions of English law (or Scottish law, north of the border), that is, by 'the law of the land', as they say.
Whatever people may do otherwise they must still be constrained by the law of the land; there can be no exceptions.
It is this law, distilled down the centuries, that has provided the political and social stability which underpins the prosperity that attracts people to this country.
Wherever they have come from, something about the countries and cultures of their birth did not provide what they wanted, so they came here.
Those who might prefer Sharia law are free to go and live in a country where it applies.
This is taken from Shakir's translation of the Koran:
9:29 Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
9:30 And the Jews say: Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!
I think you will find from the above that Sharia inflicts its strict code on Muslims and non-Muslims alike. One really cannot have 'elements' of Sharia within British law. It is all or nothing. Additionally, to even consider introducing Sharia denies the rights of the majority of Muslims who have settled in Britain after fleeing the excesses of Sharia imposed against their will in their own countries.
For a 'brilliant academic...' he has played into the hands of extremists on both sides; essentially, has Dr Williams's intervention made distrust and trouble more or less likely?
lacewing.
|
|
|
| |
| Re: quantum leap |
Sun, 10 February 2008 22:12 |
|
He was, it would appear, talking along the lines of the Beth Din model. How do you feel about Beth Din?
Dave.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 13:34 |
|
I see Beth Din as an arbitration and reconciliation service conducted under Jewish law and applicable, as is any arbitration fairly entered into, under - not superior to - the law of the land.
The major difference is that Judaism is not a proselytizing religion with a mission to convert the world by any means at its disposal to Judaism, whereas the stated aim of Islam, indeed its duty, is to do just that.
lacewing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 14:55 |
|
To the best of my knowledge this is what was being suggested. Not something which is above the law of the land. Rather something that could be entered into under the agreement of both parties. It amuses me that people are so quick to jump on anything Islamic, yet can be fully understanding of Judaism. I fear people hear what they want to hear.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 15:43 |
|
Perhaps, but although the position of women in Judaism leaves much to be desired, they are effectively 'non-persons' in Islam; the so-called 'Sharia courts' are run entirely by and for the benefit of the male-dominated system that is Islam.
Some, like ABC, may feel comfortable burying their heads in the sand of woolly-minded liberalism, but others of us know about Chamberlain's shameful attempt to 'buy off' Hitler with appeasement and what ultimately became of that.
As someone once said, appeasement is the vague hope that the crocodile will eat you last.
Incidentally, the EU has declared Sharia law to be 'incompatible with democracy' and on this occasion I fully agree with them.
lacewing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 16:22 |
|
And again I say, this wasn't about replacing our law, this was about allowing for some element of arbitration under Islamic law, much as we allow for Jewish people. So wether or not Sharia law replacing our law would be a bad thing, it's not what is being talked about. Unless of course you subscribe to the, give them an inch and they'll take a mile, school of thought. Actually, scratch that, it's clear you do as you explained in your appeasement reference. So Muslims, give them and inch and they'll take a mile. Jews, well heay they are no were near as bad as the Muslims.
I'm all for removing all religion from our society, it's a big bunch of arse as far as I'm concerned 
Dave.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 16:50 |
|
Part of Rowan Williams problem is that he's so academic that even academics have trouble understanding what he's trying to say.
(If he had a good spin doctor he could give Gordon Brown a run for his money in politics.)
As for removing all religion from our society, which type of thinking would you like to ban next, Dave? History has proved that religions aren't the only ones who can generate an "Inquisition."
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 17:15 |
|
| Grandad wrote on Mon, 11 February 2008 16:50 |
As for removing all religion from our society, which type of thinking would you like to ban next, Dave? History has proved that religions aren't the only ones who can generate an "Inquisition."
|
But you've got to admit, they generated the best ones 
I wouldn't ban religion, but I would remove the privileges and links to the state they have, so that they are no more powerful than any secular club or society.
For example, why should the Church have exemption from laws against sexual and gender discrimination?
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 17:42 |
|
| Dave Magill wrote on Mon, 11 February 2008 16:22 |
...unless of course you subscribe to the, give them an inch and they'll take a mile, school of thought. Actually, scratch that, it's clear you do as you explained in your appeasement reference. So Muslims, give them and inch and they'll take a mile. Jews, well heay they are no were near as bad as the Muslims.
I'm all for removing all religion from our society, it's a big bunch of arse as far as I'm concerned
Dave.
|
I can't seem to remember - perhaps you could remind me - when did the Jews last fly aeroplanes into two skyscrapers? Or issue a fatwa on someone for writing something they didn't like? Or kill a hundred or more of their countrymen over a cartoon in a foreign newspaper?
lacewing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 17:49 |
|
Actually Melmoth, I think Jo Stalin and Mao tried harder and would probably be in the running for 1st place.
As for removing all privileges and links to the state, I'd agree with that wholeheartedly. I think the Church could even handle the removal of exemptions.... so long as all such legal things were applied evenly across the board for all clubs, societies. charities and religious groups.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 18:45 |
|
| Grandad wrote on Mon, 11 February 2008 17:49 |
Actually Melmoth, I think Jo Stalin and Mao tried harder and would probably be in the running for 1st place.
|
Fair point Grandad. Uncle Joe was certainly a testament to the power of paranoia!
Still, the bronze medal ain't bad... (sorry, couldn't resist it  )
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 18:59 |
|
| lacewing wrote on Mon, 11 February 2008 17:42 |
I can't seem to remember - perhaps you could remind me - when did the Jews last fly aeroplanes into two skyscrapers? Or issue a fatwa on someone for writing something they didn't like? Or kill a hundred or more of their countrymen over a cartoon in a foreign newspaper?
lacewing.
|
Holy crap that's weak. If we are going to go down that route, who are the only people to have used nuclear weapons?
That the 911 people were Muslims isn't relevant. Did you know that most murders are men? So are all men going to take the blame for the murders? Seriously mate, your argument is weak and shows your bigotry as you are lumping all Muslims in with the small minority of crazies. Do you know any Muslims? Do you class those that you know with the 911 bombers?
Dave.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 19:05 |
|
Oh, also you might not have noticed but the Israelis are Jews and they do a good line in killing people. No doubt you will think that it's an acceptable reaction to something or other.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 19:07 |
|
| Dave Magill wrote on Mon, 11 February 2008 18:59 |
Holy crap that's weak. If we are going to go down that route, who are the only people to have used nuclear weapons?
That the 911 people were Muslims isn't relevant. Did you know that most murders are men? So are all men going to take the blame for the murders? Seriously mate, your argument is weak and shows your bigotry as you are lumping all Muslims in with the small minority of crazies. Do you know any Muslims? Do you class those that you know with the 911 bombers?
|
Abuse me and vilify me as you will, the 9/11 atrocity was carried out by Muslims doing 'Allah's Will' and who were going to heaven to be waited on by a bevy of virgins.
Whatever you may think of my 'weakness of argument', try wriggling out of that one - it was in the notes they left behind.
lacewing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 19:13 |
|
If I leave a note saying that I am killing my wife and kids in the name of Catholicism or even the Pope. Does that mean all catholics are to be bunched in with me. Seriously, this is a weak line of reasoning.
You are quick as hell to group 1.4 Billion people with the nutters who did 9/11. I'm quite sure that makes you a bigot by anyones thinking.
Dave.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 19:19 |
|
| melmoth wrote on Mon, 11 February 2008 18:45 |
| Grandad wrote on Mon, 11 February 2008 17:49 |
Actually Melmoth, I think Jo Stalin and Mao tried harder and would probably be in the running for 1st place.
|
Fair point Grandad. Uncle Joe was certainly a testament to the power of paranoia!
Still, the bronze medal ain't bad... (sorry, couldn't resist it )
|
Yeah, but Torquemada would have been absolutely gutted. 
Funny thing is that Tomas de Torquemada's Granny was Jewish.
(Torquemada had Jewish ancestry: the contemporary historian Hernando del Pulgar, writing of Torquemada's uncle Juan de Torquemada, said that his ancestor Alvar Fernández de Torquemada had married a first-generation Jewish converso (convert). del Pulgar was a converso himself. Also, according to biographer Hope Thomas's book Torquemada: Scourge of the Jews, the grandmother of Torquemada was a converso.)
As I've said before, there's a difference between those who follow Christ in their hearts and those who use the Church as a power base. That principle probably applies to Islam too. 
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 19:49 |
|
As I said before, call me whatever names it pleases you to call me - the fact remains that the attack on the Twin Towers was an act of naked aggression against an innocent people, carried out in the name of someone's religion - if saying that makes me a 'bigoted nutter', I am happy to be one, and so are countless others.
lacewing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 21:22 |
|
|
I didn't call you a nutter. I called you a bigot, which you quite clearly are as you a tarring Muslims with the same brush as the 9/11 attackers. I called the 9/11 attackers nutters. That I am calling you a bigot doesn't undermine the case against your argument. You are ignoring all that I have said and instead are attempting to suggest that I'm just being abusive. You haven't answered any of my questions. This will be my last response to you as you are intent on ignoring what I say.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Mon, 11 February 2008 22:58 |
|
There's a really interesting debate on Radio 5 Live right now.
They're discussing the proposed military trial of the six 9/11 suspects and the waterboarding that they've been subjected to.
The guest, some chap from 'The Weekly Standard', a right wing journal in the US, is saying waterboarding is ok (it's not torture apparently  ), and that enemies of the state do not deserve a fair trial. He also says the idea of a trial in Den Haag is not worth considering because Europeans cannot be trusted to be objective (because some Europeans believe the US government may have been complicit in the 9/11 attack).
Anyone else hear it?
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Tue, 12 February 2008 09:29 |
|
| lacewing wrote on Mon, 11 February 2008 19:49 |
As I said before, call me whatever names it pleases you to call me - the fact remains that the attack on the Twin Towers was an act of naked aggression against an innocent people, carried out in the name of someone's religion - if saying that makes me a 'bigoted nutter', I am happy to be one, and so are countless others.
lacewing.
|
Actually Lacewing, I hate to say this  (seeing as we're on the same side) but Dave has a point. I think you're letting your outrage cloud your normal good sense.
If we were to judge all groups by that standard then you and I bear the blame for the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. We also deserve to be suspect for the acts of abortion clinic bombers and the actions of the various so called "Christian" extremist cults. Don't forget the medieval times when women in our church dominated society had as few rights as the women in some areas of Islam do today.
I know quite a few Muslims who are very responsible citizens and have even been invited to one or two of their celebrations... so far I haven't experienced anything other than kindness and bountiful hospitality.
It's my belief that we need to forget this whole "theoretical group" thing and treat people as individuals. The love of Christ works a lot better than the wrath of God.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Tue, 12 February 2008 09:57 |
|
Mr MaGill.
It is obvious that we will never agree on the subject of Sharia law in non-Muslim countries and will probably never agree on the larger subject of the aims of Islam itself.
To avoid further unnecessary friction within what is basically a 'fun' forum, I shall make no more posts to this thread or those with a similar theme.
I do not withdraw anything I have said, nor do I concede defeat to you. My position is clear; I shall say nothing more on the subject whatever.
lacewing.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Wed, 13 February 2008 20:19 |
|
| lacewing wrote on Sat, 09 February 2008 11:57 |
It is this law, distilled down the centuries, that has provided the political and social stability which underpins the prosperity that attracts people to this country.
|
Yob culture and thousands of illegal immigrants arriving every month!
Aye.
British Law can be an ass at times (can favour the criminal instead of the victim) but your point is well taken all the same and I can agree with parts of it.
It's a storm in a teacup as anything the Muslims want to do (Pakastani families marrying their cousins - very common - for example)that falls within the law of the land is no worse than applying those same laws to your tax returns. IMO anyways.
Still, the guy could have made himself alot clearer.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Wed, 13 February 2008 20:25 |
|
| melmoth wrote on Mon, 11 February 2008 17:15 |
For example, why should the Church have exemption from laws against sexual and gender discrimination?
|
Because it would conflict with its charter - something that has been around long before modern laws. The liberal principle you suggest is just not pragmatic in its application.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Wed, 13 February 2008 20:39 |
|
| melmoth wrote on Mon, 11 February 2008 22:58 |
There's a really interesting debate on Radio 5 Live right now.
They're discussing the proposed military trial of the six 9/11 suspects and the waterboarding that they've been subjected to.
The guest, some chap from 'The Weekly Standard', a right wing journal in the US, is saying waterboarding is ok (it's not torture apparently ), and that enemies of the state do not deserve a fair trial. He also says the idea of a trial in Den Haag is not worth considering because Europeans cannot be trusted to be objective (because some Europeans believe the US government may have been complicit in the 9/11 attack).
Anyone else hear it?
|
Yes. This lot do themselves no favours whatsoever. As much as I am Anti-Anti-American (I love the place) you have to smile as you consider that apart from being a re-enactment of the Communist paranoia of the 1960's, they are of a similar mindset to those they they wish to condemn. Polarised but daft... as a bag of wasps in Bhuddist temple at prayer time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Thu, 14 February 2008 10:01 |
|
| TheRealStrappon wrote on Wed, 13 February 2008 20:25 |
| melmoth wrote on Mon, 11 February 2008 17:15 |
For example, why should the Church have exemption from laws against sexual and gender discrimination?
|
Because it would conflict with its charter - something that has been around long before modern laws. The liberal principle you suggest is just not pragmatic in its application.
|
Just because it's been around for a long time is no justification in my view. Not sure why it's not pragmatic either, apart from the fact that it would upset a some people. Few changes make everyone happy, but consistency with the spirit of the times might make the Church more relevant to people.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Thu, 14 February 2008 10:02 |
|
| TheRealStrappon wrote on Wed, 13 February 2008 20:39 |
daft... as a bag of wasps in Bhuddist temple at prayer time.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Thu, 14 February 2008 17:45 |
|
| melmoth wrote on Thu, 14 February 2008 10:01 |
Just because it's been around for a long time is no justification in my view. Not sure why it's not pragmatic either, apart from the fact that it would upset a some people. Few changes make everyone happy, but consistency with the spirit of the times might make the Church more relevant to people.
|
Hmmmm, I probably would have more credence in something that has stood the test of time for approx 2000 years than rules that are forever changing depending on changing social attitudes.
Perhaps that's being simplistic with respect to a highly complex subject and given time I'd probably phrase it differently, but personally I'm fine with a "club" that has a men-only rule in some parts of its makeup. Everyone knows this beforehand, you are not obliged to join, you can leave if you want and there are plenty of alternatives.
When a minority of people are hell-bent on driving changes to suit their agenda, often the larger and more docile majority find themselves in an area they would much rather not be - the minority more intent on giving a bloody nose to <whatever> than effecting the realisation of their objectives.
But that's the Church.
Have you a similar stance on employment laws, for example, where I (as an EU citizen) can work where I like within the EU and run my business anywhere in the EU.
Football has special dispensation, the only exemption (as far as I am aware off the top of my head) to EU employment laws. Is this a satisfactory arrangement? Does the principle of the matter outweigh the practical realities?
Personally, many items are not at an extreme end of 0 or 100% for me but somewhere in between and I often concede certain elements when salient ones weight the overall picture heavily in this direction.
Just my opinion. No strong opinion on the Church but I can sympathise with their whole charter on this issue.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Thu, 14 February 2008 18:59 |
|
| TheRealStrappon wrote on Thu, 14 February 2008 17:45 |
Have you a similar stance on employment laws, for example, where I (as an EU citizen) can work where I like within the EU and run my business anywhere in the EU.
Football has special dispensation, the only exemption (as far as I am aware off the top of my head) to EU employment laws.
|
Football has no special dispensations or exemptions from EU Law as far as I'm aware ... They want to, but that's a different matter ...
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Thu, 14 February 2008 19:02 |
|
| TheRealStrappon wrote |
Hmmmm, I probably would have more credence in something that has stood the test of time for approx 2000 years than rules that are forever changing depending on changing social attitudes.
|
But that's the point - has it stood the test of time or is it now an anachronism? Does it exclude people from the Church that might otherwise be embraced? Is it based on sound ideology or old-fashioned prejudice and paternalism? (I'm being rhetorical here...)
I believe in a 'reduced instruction set' when it comes to rules and laws. Exemptions add complexity, unless they have a sound practical/ethical basis (and dogma doesn't count as a sound practical/ethical basis).
| TheRealStrappon wrote |
Perhaps that's being simplistic with respect to a highly complex subject and given time I'd probably phrase it differently, but personally I'm fine with a "club" that has a men-only rule in some parts of its makeup. Everyone knows this beforehand, you are not obliged to join, you can leave if you want and there are plenty of alternatives.
|
Then working men's clubs and golf clubs should have the same rights? There needs to be consistency.
What about the recent smoking legislation? Some dodgy exemptions there too. (Personally, I think that whole piece of legislation is an outrage, but I'm sure that's been covered elsewhere )
| TheRealStrappon wrote |
Football has special dispensation, the only exemption (as far as I am aware off the top of my head) to EU employment laws. Is this a satisfactory arrangement? Does the principle of the matter outweigh the practical realities?
|
I'm not sure what the football exemption is, but I think modern footy has got itself in an awful state - a can of worms I'm not tucking into here
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Thu, 14 February 2008 22:28 |
|
| Dirk wrote on Thu, 14 February 2008 18:59 |
| TheRealStrappon wrote on Thu, 14 February 2008 17:45 |
Have you a similar stance on employment laws, for example, where I (as an EU citizen) can work where I like within the EU and run my business anywhere in the EU.
Football has special dispensation, the only exemption (as far as I am aware off the top of my head) to EU employment laws.
|
Football has no special dispensations or exemptions from EU Law as far as I'm aware ... They want to, but that's a different matter ...
|
My team is Celtic. Brian Quinn tried to see if Celtic could play in the EPL under the EU laws on the rights of businesses to ply their trade in any country where they liked. He was unsuccessful as football was deemed a special case. Off the recent issue in hand at the moment (perhaps I could have chosen a clearer comparison) but that's as I understand it wrt football anyhows.
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Thu, 14 February 2008 22:52 |
|
Jaysus, I hope I get this quote thingy right. <shrugs> Here goes...
| melmoth wrote on Thu, 14 February 2008 19:02 |
But that's the point - has it stood the test of time or is it now an anachronism? Does it exclude people from the Church that might otherwise be embraced? Is it based on sound ideology or old-fashioned prejudice and paternalism? (I'm being rhetorical here...)
I believe in a 'reduced instruction set' when it comes to rules and laws. Exemptions add complexity, unless they have a sound practical/ethical basis (and dogma doesn't count as a sound practical/ethical basis).
|
(I had to look up "anachronism" ya fecker!  ) Ok, many times I have heard that the Church "should move with the times". I disagree somewhat. Today's society is changing on an almost monthly basis where we barely raise an eyebrow at something we may have found offensive not even 10 years ago. Are these de-sensitised liberals the same ones who state the Church should shift its charter accordingly? What about the subset of people who believe in some slightly different set of ethics or morals. The Church may end up like the ball in a pinball machine being driven my a lank haired hoodie with a can of Red Bull perched on top.
The Church has remained entrenched through the various centuries in its central set of values despite substantial social changes on vast scales at various points. How could we change it? What would we change and would this suit everyone? Put 20 people in a room and set them the task of designing a new 50 storey office block and you'll have factions and bickering as will is enforced and ideas give way to resoluteness.
It may well be archaic. But if I am to apply for a job, if I don't like the terms and conditions that keep thousands of its employees happy (no matter what the competitors are offering) then who am I to enforce my right to gain entry and set about changing it to appease my own visions of how it should be run?
| Quote |
Then working men's clubs and golf clubs should have the same rights? There needs to be consistency.
What about the recent smoking legislation? Some dodgy exemptions there too. (Personally, I think that whole piece of legislation is an outrage, but I'm sure that's been covered elsewhere )
|
In an age where so much individualism is being demanded, consisitency is difficult to attain. Bear in mind we are dealing with the same mindset who wish to buy junk food (the £1.99 chicken) by paying as little as possible for it and whilst consuming it at the bbq, informing the audience proudly of how much they spent on their "designer" shirt!
From the outside looking in, I see a club/organisation for what it is and what it offers and have a gander at the rules. I don't care so much if it is not run in the same way as the one down the road (or across the sea/desert/motorway) as much as I care for it meeting my particular needs. I can always go elsewhere if it does not. Therefore, I am happy to allow latitude to these things. It makes for more interesting choices.
| Quote |
I'm not sure what the football exemption is, but I think modern footy has got itself in an awful state - a can of worms I'm not tucking into here
|
We must discuss this sometime. I feel like tickling a few worms (probably the same ones as you do, mind)
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Thu, 14 February 2008 22:58 |
|
By the way, the Church and its points of view of sexual orientation are the least of my worries right now. The amount of PMs I am getting from men asking do I like strap-on fun (etc) is slightly un-nerving.
(And if yer looking at my profile and seeing this as the last post I have made... then yes, this includes YOU!)
It's a username.
Get....over....it.
Jaysus. 
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Fri, 15 February 2008 09:41 |
|
You present a good argument TRS, and in the case of small secular clubs I tend to agree with you - as I said, 'reduced instruction set' - let them have their own rules and people can make their own choices.
We'll probably never agree on the 'religious club' though. I accept your points about things potentially getting messy, but religion is supposed to set an ethical example to people, and I don't see how they can do that when they are so out of alignment with both modern attitudes and modern law.
I'm sure the footy debate could get for more contentious than this one.
Off now to change my username to TheGimpMask. 
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Fri, 15 February 2008 10:03 |
|
| TheRealStrappon wrote on Thu, 14 February 2008 22:58 |
By the way, the Church and its points of view of sexual orientation are the least of my worries right now. The amount of PMs I am getting from men asking do I like strap-on fun (etc) is slightly un-nerving.
(And if yer looking at my profile and seeing this as the last post I have made... then yes, this includes YOU!)
It's a username.
Get....over....it.
Jaysus.
|
You should have thought of that when you picked the name, TRS. | Quote |
What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
|
Melmoth, I've stated my views on the Church before. Let me pose a rhetorical question... If secular society changes it's ethical stance, does that make it right?
For example,
If secular society decided that compulsory euthanasia at 50 (with exemptions for MPs and certain classes of people) would be beneficial to society, would you say that the Church should go along with that and adapt its' theology to fit?
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Fri, 15 February 2008 11:06 |
|
| Grandad wrote on Fri, 15 February 2008 10:03 |
Let me pose a rhetorical question... If secular society changes it's ethical stance, does that make it right?
For example,
If secular society decided that compulsory euthanasia at 50 (with exemptions for MPs and certain classes of people) would be beneficial to society, would you say that the Church should go along with that and adapt its' theology to fit?
|
Assuming you believe in the 'rule of law', when the official religion of the country disagrees with the law it sends out a conflicting message. Now, a law may be a bad one, as can a government/leader. In that instance I believe in the people's right to revolt (the French have it right there). However, I don't think the idea of equal rights for ALL is a bad one to any rational mind. Plus, it's a fundamental issue, not some obscure or perverse legislation - it's precisely the sort of thing a civilised society should be aiming for. Once we start saying some people are more equal than others, we go down the route of certain Neo-Con Americans who've recently claimed 'enemies of the state' do not deserve a fair trial. If a nation is claiming itself a global role-model (which, like it or not, we do) it has to live up to the standards it preaches, and consistency with the official religion is crucial to that (as an atheist, I wish it wasn't, but it is). If the Church wishes to disentangle itself from the state, remove it's representatives from the House of Lords, and acknowledge itself as no more than a club that certain people belong to, then fine, it can do as it pleases. But that's not the case. It does have power and influence - and therefore responsibility to more than just its own members.
As regards to theology, we've discussed before that much of it comes from quite spurious sources & has been adapted to suit political purposes in the past - so they can change when it suits them.
Finally, I think it would benefit the Church to treat all as equal, as well as making its position more consistent (treat others as you would have them treat you... etc etc).
|
|
|
|
| Re: quantum leap |
Fri, 15 February 2008 11:35 |
|
There's one problem for me in answering your reply, Melmoth...
I agree with you on the issue of the separation Church and State and most of the other issues to a large extent.
Apart from the fact that we approach the questions from a different viewpoint we seem to sing from the same hymn sheet!
Must go......... off to see the Grandkids this weekend.
|
|
|
| | |
Current time: Mon Jul 7 00:55:34 BST 2008
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02408 seconds |
