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

  • Replies 425
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am in Manchester and for the area that I live the opposite could be said. In fact when I was a Govenor at the kids school we found it extremely difficul to get any "ethnic" groups involved. For a school that had only a population of less than 20% white kids that was a concern. The area has now got one asian councillor out of 6 and that was only after very aggressive canvassing. I think he is a muslim but it was mates mentioned. I think because of the religious mix in this area it may be best to keep your gob shut.

Edited by Ed209
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am clearly not great on the bath politics so will leave that one.

But on Germany you are talking partial facts..

Nazis and the KPD took well over half the votes, nazis acoustics for around 40%... Higher than any Uk goverment usally gets...

Anyone arguing the nazis rise to power wasn't democratic is talking bollocks..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

so who are the electrorate who vote for this 'democratic principle' of allowing religious practices?

We're talking councils. And in some councils, I'd guess that non-Christian religions are the majority amongst the councillors (but not necessarily the electorate).

So would all these Christians who are outraged by this decision be happy to see (say) Muslim prayers before council business, on the same 'democratic principle' you're saying is right? Or would they start screaming about the immient introduction of Sharia law and how Muslim prayer is an outrage in the governance of 'a Christian country'? :lol:

Less than 7% of this country practice religion - and a large chunk of that 7% are not Christian.

We are not a Chrtistian country. Therefore any council should recognise that and not implement religious practices as any part of governance. Anything else would be anti-democratic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17021831

this is so confusing...

Baroness Warsi warning "Britain is under threat from a rising tide of "militant secularisation"", while also saying "people need to feel stronger in their religious identities and more confident in their creeds"....

What's so confusing? She's a total poodle coconut, who'll say anything for Dave Moron. After all, she was dragged from obscurity as a not very good solicitor for just that purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

In all seriousness, what is confusing these nutty Christians so much? :blink:

A freedom to practice religion absolutely requires an equal and opposite right to be free of any religion - because no one is free to practice their own religion if they're required to suffer an opposite religion against their will and against their own religious scriptures.

Still, this is a hiding to nothing for the tories. While backing the Christians might make their core blue-rinse bridage happy, it'snot going to endear the 95% of the population who have no interest in practicing Christianity to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

She is a Muslim you idiot...

Doh, I'd never noticed. :rolleyes:

Yes, she's a Muslim, but she's being a poodle for Dave Moron in pushing his politically-out-of-touch Christian agenda.

As the saying used to go, the Church of England is the tory party at prayer. The saying might have died out a little but the point remains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

The girl stands up as a Muslim talking about wider religion and you break it down to her arguing in favour of just Christianity... You aren't very bright...

If you take off the blinkers you will find it isn't just Christians raising the issues being raise here. Other faith groups are saying similar things. Its almost a weekly debate point on that Sunday morning show done by Nicky Campbell with the points being made by other faith groups....

But no, you just bang on about Christians... Whatever makes you feel comfortable...

Everything I've read of what Warsi is going to say at the Vatican is to do with promoting Christianity and just Christianity - with phrases such as Europe needing to be "more confident and more comfortable in its Christianity". :rolleyes:

There's been uproar about the "ban" (which isn't a ban) of Christian prayers within councils.

Do you really think there'd be no comment from all of the same complaining pretend-Christians if a council were forcing all its members to attend Muslim prayers in the same way those pretend-Christians think that Christian prayers should be forced on people? :lol:

There'd be even more uproar if that were to happen that there's been about this "ban" (which isn't a ban).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

How many people are speaking out about this ban ?

People use the term "Christian" as to me every one of them... As if they are one group all thinking the same...

It wasn't a topic at my local church on Sunday put it that way... The only person I talked to about it thought it was a storm in a tea cup... I agreed...

The Bishop of Exeter (whose diocese includes Bideford) has basically said that councils should break the law.

An ex-ArchBish of Canterbury (I forget which one) has condemned the "ban" (which isn't a ban, but he's too stupid to realise).

Eric Pickles has said he plkans to introduce emergency legislation to reverse the "ban" (which isn't a ban, but he's too stupid to realise).

Etc, etc, etc. :rolleyes:

PS: I see you're back to church-going, you non-Christian hypocryte. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Been pointing out for a long time that Christian thinking on homsexuals had come an long way. A lot here said I was talking rubbish. Acting like every Christian thinks the same and is a gay hating w*nker. The facts rarely meet the attacks.

the gay-hating w*nkers get the press about it tho. And that 61% gets to say that the other 39% would prefer the dicks of gays cut off. ;)

It wouldn't be half as laughable if the Christian churches weren't the biggest gay clique going.

The simple fact is that less than 5% of this country are practising Christians (from research carried outr by a Christian group!). Why the fuck should the rest of us - 95% - have it forced on us by morons who are too stupid to even realise that this "ban" is not a ban at all?

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people want a battle of ideas and religion loses and none religious feeling grows that is fine...

If people want to be hateful on either side then that's just not healthy... There is a lot of hate towards religious people. Its sick...

At the same time there is hate from religious people and like wise that is sick...

Cut the hate out...

It this "hate" element that is leading to calls of "attack" I feel...

Edited by The Nal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Your whole post gives some support to the idea that religions are under "attack"... Its the level aggression I think that religous people are feeling. To all your posts and other peoples here, you don't stick to the actual facts, and start basically, ranting...

The only "attack" is coming from the Christians onto people such as me me. :rolleyes:

They believe - as the Bideford case got to prove - that they have an absolute right to make non-Christians (or even Christians that don't want to go along with them) have to suffer Christian worship against their will.

If they weren't doing that and wanting to continue doing that, then that court case would never have happened.

Any ranting I'm doing is ranting about their utter stupidity, their inability to understand the simple fact that a freedom to practice religion also requires a freedom to not have to practice a religion if you don't wish to.

To just state it suggests 39% want their dicks cut off is a just stupid, nasty and hateful.

It's an over-statement, said in jest. :rolleyes:

The truth of the matter is that that 39% wish some people to not be allowed the consentual sex life of their chosing without having to risk imprisonment, eternal damnation in hell, or worse for their choice of consentual sex life.

I would of thought it meant people feeling unhappy about gay adoption for example. An issue many none religious people take issue with.

Make it up cointrary to the facts however you wish to. It wouldn't be the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

If people want a battle of ideas and religion loses and none religious feeling grows that is fine...

If people want to be hateful on either side then that's just not healthy... There is a lot of hate towards religious people. Its sick...

At the same time there is hate from religious people and like wise that is sick...

Cut the hate out...

It this "hate" element that is leading to calls of "attack" I feel...

Any hate from me is the result of the religious not wanting me to have the same rights of religious (or non-religious) expression as they wish to have themselves. :rolleyes:

If people wish to be deluded by religion then that's their choice, I have no issue with it.

If people want to try to force me to have to suffer their religious beliefs - which they do do, as the fuss about the Bideford case gets to prove beyond all doubt - then they can go fuck themselves. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Best description of me is a person with faith... I go on Sunday to be with like minded people...

there is no person walking this earth who does not have a similar personal faith. :rolleyes:

So there's no need for you to attend any church to be with "like minded people"unless it's to be with a specific type of like minded people. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

You are talking about Christians as one thinking joined up body again...

You just don't get it... You don't want to get it...

You have your hate...

Oh do fuck off. :rolleyes:

There is certainly "one thinking joined up body" who is able to weild significant political power behind their thinking - as the comments from Pickles last week gets to prove, and the coconut poodle Warsi gets to prove.

If that "one thinking joined up body" wish to put themselves into the background they are more than welcome to and they'll get little comment and not hate from me.

But they don't. They wish to force their beliefs and practices onto me. They can fuck right off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

As vague and as useless as ever... Why you bother posting is beyond me...

says the man unable to grasp that the issue here is not of Christianity being under attack, but those who won't go along with Christianity being under attack by organised Christians. :lol:

Edited by eFestivals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

I can see both sides of it actually... Unlike you...

PMSL.

I can see both sides - which is why I'm able to recognise that religion by force (which is what those organised Christians are wanting) is not the freedom of religious expression that they claim as their motivation.

If we are to have freedom of religious expression then there can be no religion by force.

There IS no other side to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate the notion 'we are a Christian nation'. Em no, we were originally a pagan nation. The Christian religion itself is a mash of Judeo and Pagan beliefs. Saying 'we are a Christian nation' is a s stupid as saying 'we are a white nation'. It completely forgets the thousands of years of history we have, the many waves of immigration over that period(Irish, Roman, Viking, Saxons, Caribbean, Indian etc etc)and all the cultures/faiths/beliefs that they have taken with them. The only thing that can be pinned down on this nation is that we are VERY varied and secularism is the ONLY way for everybody to be treated equally and fairly.

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...