Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

"Secularism is a religion...Atheism is a religion"


Guest Kyelo

Recommended Posts

That's fine. The truth is though, whenever you go to church you have to say the Creed which is the declaration of faith where you state that you believe in one God who sent us JC who died for our sins by crucifixtion, only to rise again and asscend into heaven.

Now either you believe that, hence are a Christian. Or you stand up in church every sunday and lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 425
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Admin

these boards can seem very anti-christian, but that's their problem, not yours.

Not so much "anti". It's more the case, like UK society in general, that we will no longer tolerate the religious intolerance that organised religion wish subject us to.

As a clear demonstration of that, this thread only exists because of the religious intolerance of Christians, wishing to force others to be a part of Christian worship against their will and beliefs.

The power of organised Christianity has finally shrunk to the point where the non-Christians are able to successfully stand up against it. And not a moment too soon.

There was no group of atheists offering a support structure like that in my village.

Only if and when athiests were granted the powers and privileges that organised Christianity have had for over a millenia should you expect such a thing.

Oh, along with those athiests also wanting to get organised and exorcise that power over others.

So your whole point there is misplaced.

Yes, Christians do good work, and you saw it first hand. But also, out of your sight much more of the same support was going on in exactly the same way without any need of a religious basis for any of it, as it always has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so much "anti". It's more the case, like UK society in general, that we will no longer tolerate the religious intolerance that organised religion wish subject us to.

As a clear demonstration of that, this thread only exists because of the religious intolerance of Christians, wishing to force others to be a part of Christian worship against their will and beliefs.

The power of organised Christianity has finally shrunk to the point where the non-Christians are able to successfully stand up against it. And not a moment too soon.

Only if and when athiests were granted the powers and privileges that organised Christianity have had for over a millenia should you expect such a thing.

Oh, along with those athiests also wanting to get organised and exorcise that power over others.

So your whole point there is misplaced.

Yes, Christians do good work, and you saw it first hand. But also, out of your sight much more of the same support was going on in exactly the same way without any need of a religious basis for any of it, as it always has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I still don't think you should undermine the fact that some Christians have used that power and privilege as an opportunity to do good.

I don't.

I simply point out that they're not the only ones doing good, and the others that do good have a harder task because they don't have the same power and privileges (so there really should be an even greater amount of do-gooding from the Christians).

And don't forget that the state employed "do gooders" (social workers, teachers, etc, etc) - which are in many ways no different to a salaried vicar - are generally ridiculed from all angles, including from the Christians. And yet they certainly achieve no less.

that doesn't mean we should react to intolerance with similar intolerance.

Wanting and expecting equality is not intolerence.

Demanding privileges at the expense of others freedom very definitely is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't.

I simply point out that they're not the only ones doing good, and the others that do good have a harder task because they don't have the same power and privileges (so there really should be an even greater amount of do-gooding from the Christians).

And don't forget that the state employed "do gooders" (social workers, teachers, etc, etc) - which are in many ways no different to a salaried vicar - are generally ridiculed from all angles, including from the Christians. And yet they certainly achieve no less.

Wanting and expecting equality is not intolerence.

Demanding privileges at the expense of others freedom very definitely is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

whole chunks of our education system are dictated by christianity. Parents will pretend to go to church to get their kids in to the 'better' schools....

it's endemic... it might be better than it used to be, and it's not as bad as it is in America, but just the fact that America is how it is, teaching creationism over evolution in many places, is enough indication that there's still a long way to go in having a genuinely 'fairer' (not sure if that's the most appropriate word..?) society

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

So its true that there is a faith school in the highest income area in the country.... Well done Neil... You just made no point :lol:

if you had half a brain you;'d be lethal. :rolleyes:

In the richest area of the country, the faith schools are in the richest areas of that area.

Got it? It's very simple, and something to put against your claim that that isn't the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

They can set there own admission criteria in accordance with a child's religious background. State schools aren't mean't to be selecting on ability. Can you show me some government legalisation that says they can do this. I would really like to see it.

faith schools are normally hugely over-subscribed.

So they've got to weed a lot of people out. Who do you think they weed out? :lol:

So they don't actually need any specific legislation to select on ability. They have to select - and they use ability to select.

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

So how would they do this if they aren't allowed to select on ability ? If they are doing that they are clearly breaking the law...

and are you suggesting faith schools do this more than the other highly over-subscribed schools ?

Nope, I'm not suggesting that they do this more than other over-subscribed schools (they might do I suppose, but I've no idea if they do).

But the point is that all over-subscribed schools do this to some extent, and so their existing success ensures their future success - and is nothing to do with religion being a part of the schooling.

So (IF) they are doing this then they are no worse or better than other state funded schools...

No.

They ARE doing this. They are no worse or better than other **OVER-SUBSCRIBED** state funded schools...

The remaining schools are left with the hardest schooling task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

What are faith schools doing right that make them heavily over subscribed...

they have or had extra funding over and above the standard state school.

This extra funding created extra success.

That extra success becomes self sustaining because they become over-subscribed.

It's simply the case of joining up some very simple dots.

Considering parent in rich areas are choosing faith schools over the other state school only goes to show that the faith school is doing something extra... Because you would presume the other state school has the same level of fluffy middle class kids you all keep talking about...

PMSL. :lol:

If the better-off parents are (as a generanlisation) sending their kids to the better schools then it cannot be the case that other schools have the same proportion of better-off parents. The maths proves that they MUST have a lower proportion.

You're completely crap at following thru on any thought. I'm continually amazed how quickly your brain comes to a grinding halt. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Ah, well. Never mind, hey.
    • In August 2009, in his Spectator blog he wrote about Harriet Harman, deputy leader of the Labour Party, in unflattering terms. Liddle began the article by asking: "So — Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober."[27] Tanya Gold wrote in The Guardian that Liddle had delivered a "tissue-thin polemic." Pointing out that it was The Spectator's cover story that week.[28] Rachel Cooke in The Observer nearly two months later recalled finding Liddle's piece "disgusting"[29] Cooke went on to say: "I would still like to do something really unpleasant to the man who wrote [the article]." Liddle said two months later that the Harman column "was supposed to be a parody of guttural, base sexism", a joke he assumed readers would understand. After the negative response from Gold (and then Cooke, among other female journalists) he continued: "And then I suppose I came to the conclusion – gradually – that I must have got it wrong."[30] In June 2014, he said that of those he had offended, Harman was the one person to whom he would apologise.[31] In November 2009, again for The Spectator website, he offered "a quick update on what the Muslim savages are up to," a brief article about the stoning to death of a 20-year-old woman in Somalia after she was accused of adultery, and the similar death of a 13-year-old the year before. He made remarks, considered sarcastic, that read: "Incidentally, many Somalis have come to Britain as immigrants recently, where they are widely admired for their strong work ethic, respect for the law and keen, piercing, intelligence."[32][33] In December 2009, on his Spectator blog, Liddle referred to two black music producers, Brandon Jolie and Kingsley Ogundele, who had plotted to kill Jolie's 15-year-old pregnant girlfriend, as "human filth" and said the incident was not an anomaly. He continued: When he was accused of racism, Liddle said he was instead engaging in a debate about multiculturalism.[35][36] In March 2010 the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) upheld a complaint against Liddle, who became the first journalist to be censured over the contents of a blog, because he had not been able to prove his claim about the crime statistics.[37] After the publication of London crime figures in June 2010, The Sunday Telegraph suggested Liddle was largely right on some of his claims, but that he was probably wrong on his claims about knife crimes and violent sex crimes.[38] In October 2010, Liddle called for the abolition of the Welsh language TV channel S4C as a result of the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review. In his article for The Spectator, he described Welsh nationalists as "miserable, seaweed munching, sheep-bothering pinch-faced hill-tribes".[39] On 23 May 2013, Liddle wrote about the murder of soldier Lee Rigby near the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, London. In the original version of a blog article for The Spectator, he referred to the perpetrators as "two black savages".[40] After many objections to his language use,[41] this phrase was modified.[42] Liddle apologised.[40][43] Giving a speech at Durham University in December 2021, Liddle said: "It is fairly easily proven that colonialism is not remotely the major cause of Africa's problems, just as it is very easy to prove that the educational underachievement of British people of Caribbean descent or African Americans is nothing to do with institutional or structural racism."[44] Independent editor rumour and Millwall supporters' website The Guardian reported on 8 January 2010 that the expected purchase of The Independent by Alexander Lebedev, a Russian billionaire, would be followed by the appointment of Liddle as editor.[45] Roy Greenslade wrote on 11 January that the reports were provoking a "major internal and external revolt" by The Independent's staff and readers.[46] The stories about Liddle's posts on Millwall Online apparently further reduced the likelihood of his being offered the job.[47] Finally, on 19 February, Stephen Brook of The Guardian reported that Liddle was no longer in the running for the post.[48] Tim Luckhurst, professor of journalism at the University of Kent, argued that Liddle's prospects of editing The Independent were nullified "by the people behind a viciously intolerant campaign of liberal bigotry".[49] In January 2010, the press drew attention to allegedly racist and misogynist comments posted under the username "monkeymfc"—a name Liddle has used—on Millwall Online, a fan club web forum with no official connection to Millwall Football Club. Liddle attributed some of the comments to opposition fans logging in under his name to embarrass him. He later said he had written some of the posts that were being criticised, including one in support of the BNP excluding Black and Asian people from the party.[50] Another post, in which he joked about not being able to smoke at Auschwitz,[51] led to his being asked to explain what he meant in The Jewish Chronicle.[47] While he said in June 2014 that his comments were taken out of context, he said that he did not regret making them. "No. Never. Absolutely not. I thought about my mates at Millwall Online, God I respect them so much more than these other people, these ghastly f**king people."[31] Stephen Lawrence, disabled and transgender people In November 2011, an article by Liddle for The Spectator suggested the trial of two men accused (and later convicted) of murdering Stephen Lawrence would not be fair.[52] It was referred to the Attorney General Dominic Grieve by the judge for possible contempt of court,[53] and he ordered the jurors not to read it. Having decided that it might have breached a court order, Grieve passed the case on to the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions.[54] The decision that The Spectator was to be prosecuted by the CPS for breaching reporting restrictions was announced on 9 May 2012, with a court hearing scheduled for 7 June, although Liddle as the author was not himself liable for prosecution. Fraser Nelson, the magazine's editor, announced that the prosecution would not be contested,[55] and the magazine pleaded guilty at the hearing. The fine was £3,000, plus £2,000 compensation to Stephen Lawrence's parents and £625 costs.[56] In January 2012, Liddle wrote that many people in the UK were "pretending to be disabled" in his column for The Sun,[57] an opinion defended by James Delingpole.[58] Frances Ryan in The Guardian accused him of "belittling something that on a daily basis affects real people" who can be "a huge benefit to society. Maybe for a month Liddle would like to try that."[59] In May 2015, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) upheld a complaint from Trans Media Watch that Liddle had been discriminatory towards Emily Brothers, a blind and transgender Labour candidate at the 2015 general election, in two Sun columns published in December 2014 and January 2015. In commenting in the way he had Liddle had breached two sections of the editors' code.[60][61] Column on poppers and gay sex During a parliamentary debate on the Psychoactive Substances Bill – which "makes it an offence to produce, supply, offer to supply, possess with intent to supply, possess on custodial premises, import or export psychoactive substances"[65] the Conservative politician Crispin Blunt admitted he used poppers: Liddle responded in his Spectator blog: The satirical and current affairs magazine Private Eye described this as hypocritical, pointing out Liddle's account in The Sunday Times of using Viagra in July 2004.[68][69] A spokesperson from the LGBT rights charity Stonewall said of Liddle's remarks: "Comments like this are shocking and damaging, but we wouldn't expect anything less from repeat offending bigots like Rod Liddle."[70] Column on Muslim voters In October 2019, Liddle penned a column in The Spectator commenting on the forthcoming December 2019 UK general election, which suggested that the election should be held on a Muslim holy day to reduce the Labour vote. The column was criticised by senior political figures including Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid and former Conservative Deputy Prime Minister David Lidington. Liddle defended the content as being humorous. The article also criticised the Labour MP Rosie Duffield's recent speech about her experience of trying to exit an abusive relationship; Duffield described the article as "racist and misogynistic".[74]
    • A true social democrat
    • I thought the same thing I thought when Baresi went which is there sure is a hell of alot of people who don't make the new pension age.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...