Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 248 comments are related to the topic:
is it time for britain to ban religon??
is it time for britain to ban religon??
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 248
|
By:
banning it would never work, it just plays into the hands of the fanatics.
What's needed is to genuine separation of religion and state rather than the half-hearted system we have now. We need to stop giving religion power, those who listen to the fairy stories have no more right to pontificate on how the country should be run than attendees at a Star Trek convention. Just because you're a bishop shouldn't entitle you to a seat in the House of Lords.... will gay marriage get through the House of Lords next week, if it doesn't, that will be largely down to religion and it's so wrong that this antiquated hocus-pocus is still allowed to rule us. |
|
By:
it is a set of values
no it is not the same as our secular values, at the moment granted but I certainly don't think gay marriage is right tbh I doubt our Government have any more capabilities than attendees at a Star Trek Convention A Klingon's opinion  |
|
By:
To insinuate that only religious people are against Gay marriage is a rather naïve statement.
|
|
By:
the Klingons are against it ....I can tell you that
|
|
By:
true Mac
|
|
By:
it's not a set of values, it's a set of rules, and because those rules are very specific, unless you are a very half-hearted Muslim or live in a country that operates by those rules, you are going to have to largely segregate yourself and/or find yourself at odds with much that goes on around you. Committed Muslims knew that before they moved here, but they still came, and then expected our society to adapt to theirs. It is that which causes so many problems, they can't/won't change because it's their "religion", and if WE don't change, then we're guilty of religious persecution!
Civil war looms |
|
By:
When in Rome do what the Roman`s do.
|
|
By:
re: themightymac 27 May 13 22:48
To insinuate that only religious people are against Gay marriage is a rather naïve statement. I didn't say that. The bill passed the House of Commons (and there were religious believers and objections there), but now that it faces the House of Lords, certain members are there for no other reason than their association with religion. That's my objection, the HOL needs to take its members from all of society, and those bishops need to be kicked out and pronto. |
|
By:
And what about the members that are there for no reason but their Wealth and hereditary titles?
|
|
By:
And help pass bills to favour big business and the gentry?
|
|
By:
we have left gay marriage then
actually you have a point there yeahyeah, but then, was anybody actually asked whether we should allow,(in fact we encouraged) Muslims to come here, our Governments of the last 60 years(both parties) over rode democracy...there was no referendum on this. I believe all religions must abide by secular law, or they leave our shores. Although they are still allowed their belief's and whatever rules they may set themselves, but we are under no obligation, and in fact should not change our own society to accommodate them If we are to be religious, we are in fact, nominally, a Christian society |
|
By:
I am referring to your Muslim post
|
|
By:
As I said, ALL society. I agree with you about hereditary titles and I don't think the amendments of 1999 went anywhere near far enough - the changes are moving at a snail's pace - but at least there have been SOME attempts to ultimately end hereditary titles, religious entitlement is still alive and kicking.
As to how members are selected though... could we just randomly select X amount people for 12 months and set them up with video links? Having sat on a jury it fills me with absolute dread to see what random selection of people can actually get you - the people on my jury didn't give a flying fig about participating in justice, even when someone had died! We need to improve on the jobs-for-ex-politicans though, perhaps limit it to a one-off period of 12 months. |
|
By:
as far as Gay Marriage goes, I hope the Lords returns it with a recommendation for a referendum,
democracy means rule be majority, so although I am against it, I would accept a majority decision ..if we do not do that, the government may yet again have over ridden democracy.. I cant say for sure, because I don't what the outcome of a referendum would be, but opinions polls are not good enough...this must be a secret vote, then people can make their own decision. |
|
By:
I`ve been on Juries where some members were as bright as a 50 watt bulb. Imagine being 100% innocent of the charge and depending on a bunch of half wits for your freedom.
|
|
By:
We elect these people to represent us, so must rely on them to do so. If they support a law in Parliament which we don`t agree with, we don`t vote for them next time round, simples. It would be highly uneconomical and unattainable to hold a Referendum on all political policies and laws.
|
|
By:
I cant see whats wrong with gay marriage. What difference does it make? Its hardly a sacred institution these days, more of a blingy day out prior to the divorce party. Whats the objection?
|
|
By:
re:I believe all religions must abide by secular law, or they leave our shores. Although they are still allowed their belief's and whatever rules they may set themselves, but we are under no obligation,
and in fact should not change our own society to accommodate them and that is a wonderful sentiment, but it's also a completely impractical one. You cannot say they are allowed whatever rules they may set themselves, and also say that they must follow secular law. If those [religious/cultural]rules contravene secular law - what do you do then? Are you going to deny them their religious beliefs - heyho, heyho it's off to the Hague we go.... That's exactly the mess we're in with, for example, gay marriage. Religions (not all I know) have been conveniently let off the hook because the government can't face standing up to them. It's a very dangerous precedent and religions will continue to push and push to get more of their own way. |
|
By:
I know themightymac, I was horrified when I was a juror, others jurors hadn't even listened to the evidence. One didn't mind what we did as long as we were finished by 4pm as she had to get home. Two others just giggled and flirted their way through the whole thing. As you say, it's an utter lottery.
|
|
By:
If those [religious/cultural]rules contravene secular law - what do you do then?
I did say they must abide by secular law what is the confusion??? Dobbo I think it is divisive but that is only my opinion which is why I think we should have a referendum. anyway if they pass it, I am moving to Zambia |
|
By:
 oh my god you're going to persecute me based on my religious beliefs! For centuries my people have lived in this way (nothing like a good ol' stone age fairy story round the campfile...) and now you deny me my most basic of human right... the right to practice my religion.chuck in a few scummy legal aid chasing solicitors, shammi-bloody-chakiribati, appeals to the ECHR, blah blah blah and i reckon this one could run and run... So how would you stop all of that ebulGerry? |
|
By:
make me your ruler and I well tell you
 |
|
By:
actually it is very simple
we withdraw from the EU justice system The government introduces new laws clearly defining the laws and limitations of all religions.. it is not that hard.. and although the government does everything it can to avoid democracy we do need referendums for all important issues the government must listen to 'the great unwashed' or we might as well appoint a Dictator |
|
By:
sb the rights
|
|
By:
One of the problems is that the Church of England is the established church. Its own Canon Law is part of the law of the land, and the head of the Church is also the head of the state. And an un-elected head at that.
This is why the church is so worried that it might be forced to conduct gay marriage, and yet it doesn't want to lose it's state religious privileges. There is also an amendment in the equal marriage bill which will allow Humanists to be able to conduct marriages legally, as in Scotland. At the moment only Christians and Jews can be married by a representative of their religion in England & Wales. Muslims and other religions have to have two weddings, one religious ceremony and one for the civil register. This why sometimes you hear about muslims want sharia, it's because it'll allow them to wed people legally as is the case for Jews and kosher. |
|
By:
I have to agree with ebulGery here.
Democracy for everything important like equality, women's rights, gay rights, human rights, immigration, freedom of speech, death sentence, abortion, welfare state, foreign interventions and aid, national debt, austerity, eu membership, UN membership etc. So we would hold a referendum on those issues alongside our multiple national elections or even every 6 months and any issue can only come back to the electorate once every 10 years and the result will be binding until the next referendum. That will ensure that most people will have a say all important issues and the decisions of one generation of voters will not be binding on subsequent generations. It might bring about mob rule and the majority might oppress minorities but that is the price of democracy which we hold as sacred. |
|
By:
"It might bring about mob rule and the majority might oppress minorities but that is the price of democracy which we hold as sacred."
Not sure you've thought this one through |
|
By:
polybot
To me there are two options: either we follow democracy and apply the will of the majority all the time regardless of principles or the politicians and judiciary decide that certain principles like equality, freedom of speech, human rights etc are so important and the majority will have no say whatever on the matter. We can either have have certain sacred principles or democracy but not both. |
|
By:
Didn't you just say democracy WAS sacred.
|
|
By:
No I am saying we need to choose which one is sacred!!!
Is it democracy as the will of the majority must prevail at all times? Or is it that we hold certain absolute values like human rights, equality, free speech, tolerance etc so dearly we won't allow the wishes of the majority of the population to be taken into consideration if they opposed those values? |
|
By:
The will of the majority at all times is imposible in that you can't vote every 5 minutes on everything, where every resolution can be turned over at will. Concepts like property rights would either collapse almost immediately or be so unstable it would bring down the rest of the dominos soon after. There's a reason why socialist countries become authoritarian.
Constitutional republics, constitutional law, parliamentary systems, representative democracy all exist because they've proven to work depending on implementation. They're not perfect and they don't change easily or quickly but handing power over to the people would be disastrous, have you seen the comprehension some chit chatters have on even simple matters. Personally I'm not optimistic considering what the schools and media are churning out, but the political structures offer some insulation from it for the moment. |
|
By:
It seems like you share Churchill's contempt for the intelligence of the electorate then!!!
The Swiss and Californians show us it is possible to consult the people on most important matters so it is not that unfeasible. So do you think holding on to some absolute values in society are more important than following the will of the people ie democracy? |
|
By:
As dumb as saying "It is time for Britain to ban atheism!" - you can't ban a belief or a non belief!
|
|
By:
the majority might oppress minorities polybot
at the moment some of us think the minorities are oppressing the majority well said boris the animal If we do not trust 'the great unwashed' what on earth is the point of democracy anyway the media probably makes most of our decisions now so 'the great unwashed' will still be easily led Referendums are at least an attempt at real democracy of course we cannot hold them on every piece of legislation but we should for the important ones |
|
By:
Democracy does not mean majority rule, it is first and foremost a set of principles to allow a free and
civil society. Democracy does not of necessity mean that everyone has the vote...this is not democracy in and of itself |
|
By:
fine lfc1971
then exactly what is the point of having elections at all  who decides these set of principles you speak off because if the majority do not have a say in this we do not have a democracy |
|
By:
democracy only meant that a sizeable `minority` should have the vote...not everyone!
the very idea is absurd. |
|
By:
the idea of everyone having a vote is absurd I don't think you quite understand what democracy is lfc1971 because in fact that is what it is |
|
By:
ebulGery
It is purely a practical thing, when everyone is allowed to vote nothing can change, a country will go into a long and slow decline....This is inevitable. |
|
By:
nobody should be elected to parliament. This should be done on purely a voluntary basis. Plenty of pensioners,
unemployed, weekenders etc would be happy to give up their time |