xmas 2008

[Woolfe]

Sweety, they still haven't managed to correlate a religion that preaches peace in theory with a practice of warring over aforesaid religion.

"Do as I say, not as I do" springeth to mind.

Or perhaps almost as eloquently, "Going to war of religion is like fighting over who has the best imaginary friend."

Frankly, fuck 'em!

XD

Ky xxx

[Phil]

Frankly, fuck 'em!

Seconded!



And the proof...

[Woolfe]

Is it a pope? Is it a pain?

Of course it is, it's bloody insane!

xx

[huw cymru]

Thanks for the posts guys. The 'poem' was just a bit of doggerel I threw out in anger , because someone had to say something in response to what the pope said. Why? Because organised religions are power structures, and politicians across the world take the views expresed by relgious leaders seriously.
And as we head deeper into global recession politicians of certain ilk will look for easy scapegoats, and gays will make an easy target once again.

[Woolfe]

Have to disagree with the last comment I'm afraid, at least to an extent, due to public opinion increasingly combining with parliamentary and establishmentary desire for disestablishmentarianism - after-all, nobody likes to reach and office and then be dictated to by an unelected force which may or may not affect the same views as oneself.

Aside from which, as well as the assorted organised religions making for fairly good scapegoats (CoE land ownership and overall wealth, Catholic Church inequality of beneficiary, Muslim extremism, etc) for any economic or indeed assorted other national crises... I don't think the establishment would hesitate too forcefully if they felt that sufficient public will was in agreement with the overall full separation of influence of church from state, etc.

Frankly, as impressive as the Christian lobby (as the most affluently beneficial of the assorted religious lobbies) may be, the commerce and industry lobbies continue to outpace by a significant extent and as a result of sheer unadulterated greed (good or bad being a matter of opinion) and entirely undiscriminatory self-beneficial opinions.

Personally, I'd take pure unaffected greed and undiscriminatory whoring of the figurative or literal kind over the purist, discriminatory and righteous variety any day - with the former, it is the proverbial devil that one knows.

Ky xxxx

[huw cymru]

Thats a very good reply that leaves me not knowing where to start to reply.
Firstly perhaps we should exclude arguments about 'disestablishmentarianism' at least in the formal sense of its meaning , relating to a church being an established part of the state, as although it may apply to anglicanism in England, it doesn't elsewhere in the UK.
I wasnt suggesting religions as scapegoats - I was suggesting some elected politicians would happily jump on a religiously inspired bandwagon.
As for elected politicians not wanting too be dictated to by an unelected force to affect their views , sadly the alegedly apocriphal story comes to mind of the small town US politician who ended a speech by saying.....

' Those are my views.
Thats where I stand.
And If you dont like 'em...
I'll Change em.

[Woolfe]

I can only argue so much with that, but I would say that in much the same way as the oldest profession, the second oldest has a tendency to do what is demanded there and then, and the moment, the religious lobby is far from the most powerful in any of the assorted countries which make up the United Kingdom.

I wasn't suggesting that religious bodies of any variety should be made as scapegoats, my point was simply that those said religious groups would most likely be easier and far more practical than the LGBTQ groups or, for example, the disabled unemployed, immigrant populations, etc, all of which P.R. attempts would make for difficult and mostly back-firing media coverage - the British public and moreso the British media love nothing quite so much as an underdog, and there's no fresher media-friendly underdog than our own LGBTQ community. The DS press office know this too well to attempt anything so foolish.

Whether or not the backlash results in the absolutely overdue reduction of religious influence or whether it results in absolutely infair persecution in the other media-friendly areas of society remains to be seen, but whichever the DS choice is, it will undoubtedly effect the outcome of an already tenuous race for Number 10 - already, a return to the equation of Conservative with Christianity and Labout with open Liberalism (as indeed should be the case, if Keir Hardy is to be remembered) has began and any Labour attempt to blame any underdog, however well spun, can only damage an already poor position.

Imo.

Ky xxx

[huw cymru]

Sadly I think that organised relgion is more powerful in the UK now than at any time for the last 25 years. The culture of 'consultation' that now permeates government ( from westminster via regional and national to local) , demands that religious groups are included in many consultation process. Faith groups are allowed to set up academy schools /colleges, become partners in community regeneration projects etc.

I must say I love your statement

the British public and moreso the British media love nothing quite so much as an underdog, and there's no fresher media-friendly underdog than our own LGBTQ community


Whilst I wish I could agree the best I could say is that whilst homophobia is officialy frowned on, it is still rampant, and it still requires bravery in many places to confront it.

I would also point out that probably the most socially accepted gay community in europe in the 20th century was that which flourished in Weimar Germany , which was then largely doomed to Hitlers concentration camps.

I also find the last paragraph fascinating. Keir Hardie is probably spinning in his grave at both the present day state of both Liberalism and Labour.







.

[Woolfe]

*Has replied to PM on subject, is too lazy at this time on a Sunday to copy-paste it on here, will reply to your reply in here (if you follow.)*

Ky xxx

[marshlander]

Sadly I think that organised relgion is more powerful in the UK now than at any time for the last 25 years. The culture of 'consultation' that now permeates government ( from westminster via regional and national to local) , demands that religious groups are included in many consultation process. Faith groups are allowed to set up academy schools /colleges, become partners in community regeneration projects etc.

I must say I love your statement

the British public and moreso the British media love nothing quite so much as an underdog, and there's no fresher media-friendly underdog than our own LGBTQ community


Whilst I wish I could agree the best I could say is that whilst homophobia is officialy frowned on, it is still rampant, and it still requires bravery in many places to confront it.

I would also point out that probably the most socially accepted gay community in europe in the 20th century was that which flourished in Weimar Germany , which was then largely doomed to Hitlers concentration camps.

I also find the last paragraph fascinating. Keir Hardie is probably spinning in his grave at both the present day state of both Liberalism and Labour.

Interesting discussion

I tend to agree with Huw on two points. The first is that organised religion is being given the opportunity to bed into society in ways that were not available in the past. Our approach to integration over the past few decades has been through a practice of multi-culturalism. This has somehow evolved from a notion of fair play for all to the increasing gettoisation of formal belief structures that exist in many of our towns and cities. Religious belief is unassailable in that it is impervious to reason. I fear about what we are storing up for future generations when we allow religious groups to hide their children away from the rest of us and teach them ... god only knows what. Parents may have a right and a responsibility to raise their kids having a regard for the law and their consciences, but it is not going to be for the improvement of society if we cannot grow up experiencing difference and having a firm understanding of what is acceptable behaviour in a multi-cultured society. It is not just tea and biscuits with the Church of England or the odd absolution via confession any more. When the Plymouth Brethren can open a school (as they have recently done near here) to promote their idiosyncracies, where do those children meet and learn to understand the rest of us? They will grow up damaged by the experience whether they realise it or not. The arguments are the same for any religious group and any cult that claims exemption from reason because they believe their authority to act how they please comes from a place that is beyond the law of the state. I grew up in what I thought was a relatively benign religious family, until I was brought face-to-face witht the consequences in adulthood. It wasn't good.

Woolfe's comments about the media friendly status of LGBTQdom may have been true once, but I don't think it is something upon which we can safely rely. We have probably passed the peak of this form of support and we do need something more substantial to encourage equality of opportunity for all. I hope the impending equality bill discourages us all from being special cases. I just want fairness. How many have heard comments to the effect that "we" are getting things all our own way or "all you see on television these days is gay stuff"? I used to be a teacher and in my first school I was often told "you're only picking on me because I'm black". While I did try constantly to keep my attitudes under review, in case my actions were being influenced by unconscious racism, I felt I also had a responsibility to challenge any behaviour that reduced the opportunities of anyone in my classes to learn effectively. I don't want media sympathy. I just want fairness.

That fairness is going to have to start with the law. We have only recently seen in California and Florida what effects democracy, when referendum-led, can lead to. Huw is right to point out that regardless of whatever protection we now have under the law it will take a long time for cultural and sub-cultural attitudes to catch up, assuming they ever do.

I used to think the French were arrogant in asserting their Frenchness, but I don't believe that tells anything like the whole story. We may be becoming a more secular society, but without a common understanding or expectation of what it means to live in the United Kingdom in the 21st century (an understanding which in the past may have been informed by "the Church") that moral territory is going to be staked out by those noisy minorities who claim their authority comes from on high.

You only have to look at some of the discussions about morality taking place on YouTube to see how a large number of Muslims regard kuffar. That many of these are actively working toward an Islamic world government might be added into this discussion. All it would take is for us to do nothing.

Why do I feel the need to point out that I accept the right of anyone to believe what they like? I will, however, reject completely any notion that such a right extends into my personal space to enjoy the same freedom.