William Hague does well to remember the full name of the Tory Party is the Conservative and Unionist Party
Why I will be voting to stay in Europe - The EU has its failings but it also provides stability for fledgling democracies and keeps our kingdom united - we would be foolish to leave
'Labour's decline is accelerating. Remarkable decline for a party in opposition. Perhaps not noticed by the Corbynites because things are a little better in London?'
5 out of the 6 constituencies in London that are up by 3.3% are in solid Labour areas.
My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")
Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
My wife just contributed: "Because we have decent Merlot here, and they don't in the Middle East"
William Hague does well to remember the full name of the Tory Party is the Conservative and Unionist Party
Why I will be voting to stay in Europe - The EU has its failings but it also provides stability for fledgling democracies and keeps our kingdom united - we would be foolish to leave
As an historian, it is extremely disturbing that the Christ Myth Theory - an idea comprehensively discredited over a century ago - continues to have traction amongst otherwise sane and rational people. Among historians, it has the same level of credibility as creationism or Holocaust Denial - indeed, some CMT books are published by specialist Nazi publishers, e.g. Anthony Hancock.
The internet is a large part of the problem, I think, as it allows these pseudo-scholars - the likes of Fitzgerald, Murdock, Doherty and Carrier - to put forward complete nonsense wrapped up in apparently impressive language that bamboozle amateurs (like your friend the surgeon, or Dawkins, or Coyne). However, if you actually take the trouble to examine their claims in depth the falsification of their source material becomes truly frightening.
A rather longer and more detailed smack down, admittedly by another amateur, is available here;
I know of only three qualified scholars who think the CMT is even faintly plausible - Robert M. Price, who is known for always trying to shock people, Raphael Lataster, who is a graduate student and makes Dawkins look like a member of Daesh, and Thomas Brodie, who had been unfrocked by the Catholic Church just before his 'conversion'.
I think it's improbable that Jesus wasn't a real historical figure but I think the comparison with Holocaust Denial is going a bit far (just talking about it as a factual issue, regardless of whether it offends people). There is a mountain of evidence for the Holocaust whereas, for the historical Jesus, there is that annoying lack of anything prior to ~AD50.
Also, to be pedantic, @rcs1000's surgeon friend described Jesus Christ as imaginary. The "Christ" could be taken to suggest that we are referring to something more closely resembling the Jesus the church believes in, and it's fair game to call that being imaginary. So far as we can reconstruct an historical Jesus, he was not the Christ.
My own hunch is we'll see some horrific results for Labour next May, in May 2012 it was in the aftermath of the omnishambles budget, and Labour were leading by a lot nationaly. It was peak Miliband, and UKIP were polling the low single digits.
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
The Ranters were perhaps London based, and of all sects may appeal most to PBers:
"London became one of the major centers of English Ranter activity. There seems not to have been any formal association, or any structure at the national level. A casual form of mutual interactions at a certain level may be assumed between to the titular leaders, and large population centers, such as London. Not unlike the Muggletonians, their meeting halls may have just been a particular inn, or local alehouse in the neighborhood where they might meet, drink, play games, and meet women not unlike other Englishmen of the period. It was the ascribed lack of moral restrains, or the unrestrained demeanor of the Ranters that set them apart in the minds of the public normal from the newspaper reports."
You learn something every day. Thank you
Actually the British are very adept at producing religious sects. Once you have split once then it is perfectly reasonable to split again.
I think it was Napoleon who described England disparagingly as a country with more religions than sauces!
Though political ideas were often expressed in religious language in the past here, as they still are in many parts of the world. Corbyn is a Puritan at heart, convinced of his countries Original Sin.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
William Hague does well to remember the full name of the Tory Party is the Conservative and Unionist Party
Why I will be voting to stay in Europe - The EU has its failings but it also provides stability for fledgling democracies and keeps our kingdom united - we would be foolish to leave
William Hague ceased to be eurosceptic a long time ago.
Does Eurosceptic exclusively mean Leavers now?
Probably, now that we're coming to the sticking point. If we vote Remain, I think that it'll be full steam ahead, in terms of political integration.
What is pushing me towards Leave is full political integration is needed to make the Euro work, and thus a Eurozone bloc can force the non Eurozone bloc into things that aren't suitable for them
Funnily enough I was looking at something similar for the Lib Dems over the past few months and their council by-election results have shown some impressive increases in vote shares in the last two months +39% in Torbay, +21% in Belle Vue (Shropshire), +25% Smallburgh (Norfolk), +11% Rochford, +19% Hertford Heath and numerous others.
Didnt stand previously in Belle Vue and possibly some others
Even so...the fact that a party stands in a seat it hadn't previously contested, in itself , indicates an improvement in fortunes.
@Wanderer see my later post. It's not the evidence that's comparable it's the way they treat it. That is unfortunately all too close to the methods of holocaust deniers, creationists, 9/11 truthers, etc.
"London became one of the major centers of English Ranter activity. There seems not to have been any formal association, or any structure at the national level. A casual form of mutual interactions at a certain level may be assumed between to the titular leaders, and large population centers, such as London. Not unlike the Muggletonians, their meeting halls may have just been a particular inn, or local alehouse in the neighborhood where they might meet, drink, play games, and meet women not unlike other Englishmen of the period. It was the ascribed lack of moral restrains, or the unrestrained demeanor of the Ranters that set them apart in the minds of the public normal from the newspaper reports."
You learn something every day. Thank you
Actually the British are very adept at producing religious sects. Once you have split once then it is perfectly reasonable to split again.
I think it was Napoleon who described England disparagingly as a country with more religions than sauces!
Though political ideas were often expressed in religious language in the past here, as they still are in many parts of the world. Corbyn is a Puritan at heart, convinced of his countries Original Sin.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
I'm one of nature's Cavaliers, but in the Civil War I would have been on the side of the Roundheads.
Those figures are highly misleading. Just to take the recent by election in Rochford - Labour vote down by 16% BUT they gained the seat from the Tories who lost even more!
No. Very few of the figures are "highly misleading".
The 5 with the biggest falls are highly misleading.
Funnily enough I was looking at something similar for the Lib Dems over the past few months and their council by-election results have shown some impressive increases in vote shares in the last two months +39% in Torbay, +21% in Belle Vue (Shropshire), +25% Smallburgh (Norfolk), +11% Rochford, +19% Hertford Heath and numerous others.
Didnt stand previously in Belle Vue and possibly some others
Even so...the fact that a party stands in a seat it hadn't previously contested, in itself , indicates an improvement in fortunes.
A religious rights organization on Monday called on the police to investigate the head of an extremist anti-assimilation group after he published an op-ed branding Christians “blood-sucking vampires” and calling for them to be expelled from the country.
"London became one of the major centers of English Ranter activity. There seems not to have been any formal association, or any structure at the national level. A casual form of mutual interactions at a certain level may be assumed between to the titular leaders, and large population centers, such as London. Not unlike the Muggletonians, their meeting halls may have just been a particular inn, or local alehouse in the neighborhood where they might meet, drink, play games, and meet women not unlike other Englishmen of the period. It was the ascribed lack of moral restrains, or the unrestrained demeanor of the Ranters that set them apart in the minds of the public normal from the newspaper reports."
You learn something every day. Thank you
Actually the British are very adept at producing religious sects. Once you have split once then it is perfectly reasonable to split again.
I think it was Napoleon who described England disparagingly as a country with more religions than sauces!
Though political ideas were often expressed in religious language in the past here, as they still are in many parts of the world. Corbyn is a Puritan at heart, convinced of his countries Original Sin.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
Cromwell enjoyed parties and dancing ;-)
Cavaliers are just amateurish fops. A favourite Cromwell quote:
“i had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else.”
"London became one of the major centers of English Ranter activity. There seems not to have been any formal association, or any structure at the national level. A casual form of mutual interactions at a certain level may be assumed between to the titular leaders, and large population centers, such as London. Not unlike the Muggletonians, their meeting halls may have just been a particular inn, or local alehouse in the neighborhood where they might meet, drink, play games, and meet women not unlike other Englishmen of the period. It was the ascribed lack of moral restrains, or the unrestrained demeanor of the Ranters that set them apart in the minds of the public normal from the newspaper reports."
You learn something every day. Thank you
Actually the British are very adept at producing religious sects. Once you have split once then it is perfectly reasonable to split again.
I think it was Napoleon who described England disparagingly as a country with more religions than sauces!
Though political ideas were often expressed in religious language in the past here, as they still are in many parts of the world. Corbyn is a Puritan at heart, convinced of his countries Original Sin.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
I'm one of nature's Cavaliers, but in the Civil War I would have been on the side of the Roundheads.
Divine Right of Kings? You're having a laugh.
I'm a Cavalier too - and I take the Burkean view of radical change. I mistrust people who want to make radical change, especially if they are sincere and want to do it for your benefit. They are the most dangerous people around.
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience”
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
The Ranters were perhaps London based, and of all sects may appeal most to PBers:
"London became one of the major centers of English Ranter activity. There seems not to have been any formal association, or any structure at the national level. A casual form of mutual interactions at a certain level may be assumed between to the titular leaders, and large population centers, such as London. Not unlike the Muggletonians, their meeting halls may have just been a particular inn, or local alehouse in the neighborhood where they might meet, drink, play games, and meet women not unlike other Englishmen of the period. It was the ascribed lack of moral restrains, or the unrestrained demeanor of the Ranters that set them apart in the minds of the public normal from the newspaper reports."
You learn something every day. Thank you
Actually the British are very adept at producing religious sects. Once you have split once then it is perfectly reasonable to split again.
I think it was Napoleon who described England disparagingly as a country with more religions than sauces!
Though political ideas were often expressed in religious language in the past here, as they still are in many parts of the world. Corbyn is a Puritan at heart, convinced of his countries Original Sin.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
ref your question on the previous thread, timtrevan@biosafety.co
My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")
Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
Well, the Middle East is a very ancient place. They were literate, and discussing religion and philosophy while we were running round bare-arsed.
"Will God be angry if I choose the wrong religion?"
Ouch.
I've gone with. "Julia, no one knows if God exists and that's something you have to choose for yourself. If you treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself you'll probably do OK. Now, if you go to bed now you can read Harry Potter for 20 minutes before I call lights out."
"OK dad!"
"If you treat others as you'd like to be treated yourself you'll probably do OK"
William Hague does well to remember the full name of the Tory Party is the Conservative and Unionist Party
Why I will be voting to stay in Europe - The EU has its failings but it also provides stability for fledgling democracies and keeps our kingdom united - we would be foolish to leave
William Hague ceased to be eurosceptic a long time ago.
Does Eurosceptic exclusively mean Leavers now?
Probably, now that we're coming to the sticking point. If we vote Remain, I think that it'll be full steam ahead, in terms of political integration.
What is pushing me towards Leave is full political integration is needed to make the Euro work, and thus a Eurozone bloc can force the non Eurozone bloc into things that aren't suitable for them
I think it would be better for the EU if we leave, because it will allow them to do the integrations they need to do to make their project work. I think it would be better for Britain if we leave, because we will never be fully committed and our legal and political systems are simply too different.
But that doesn't mean that I don't see the EU as an important market to the UK, and wish it and its constituents all the best for the future. I value the fact that I can go work for any company anywhere in the EU. And likewise I can hire anyone from anywhere in the EU. Do I think governments should be able to discriminate in favour of their own citizens? Hell, yes. The Four Freedoms, mind, are good ones and we should endeavour to keep them.
Mind you, I do wonder if supporters of EFTA/EEA membership will soon be derided as Europhiles on this board.
Labour has no God-given right to exist. If it doesn't win and can't or won't reinvent itself, it will die.
The next few years will show us which of these is likely to happen.
Possibly too early to say but, in retrospect, Blair was able - post the collapse of Communism in 1989-1990 - to successfully paper over the fact that the raison d'etre and the intellectual mothership of socialist parties had collapsed and left, what? Blair's very success masked the emptiness behind Labour.
Now that success has been followed by defeat, Labour is having to ask itself the hard questions it avoided really asking - or, perhaps, really answering - in the heady days post-1989 when History seemed to have come to a Full Stop and Labour had a charismatic salesman at its head and seemed to be the shiny new future in an Age when Bad Things had disappeared (how naïve we were!).
Corbyn is Labour simply going back to what it was pre-1989 when socialism still existed in the world, when even through rose-tinted glasses, the Soviet Union could still be seen as representing some sort of idealistic alternative to the capitalist west. The fact that his future seems to be pre-1959 is neither here nor there. At least socialism had a role then and was attractive to some. Hey, maybe it could be attractive again - is the Corbyn mantra. After all, it's never stopped being attractive to him and look at all the people who voted for him. So, why not?
Until that has been tested and is either successful (gulp!) or is tested to destruction, I don't see any change or any push from anyone in Labour to reinvent itself. To answer the child's question: "Mummy, why Labour?"
Forgive the crudity but "that's what happens when you get fucked"
Well, I do forgive you! But I think the "getting fucked" bit happens because there is nothing there rather than the other way around.
I'm not sure I follow your interpretation of my post. I had intended a play on "f'ed", "pregnant", "labour" but it was obviously too much of a stretch. There I go again. At the end of the day I think we're on the same page.
"London became one of the major centers of English Ranter activity. There seems not to have been any formal association, or any structure at the national level. A casual form of mutual interactions at a certain level may be assumed between to the titular leaders, and large population centers, such as London. Not unlike the Muggletonians, their meeting halls may have just been a particular inn, or local alehouse in the neighborhood where they might meet, drink, play games, and meet women not unlike other Englishmen of the period. It was the ascribed lack of moral restrains, or the unrestrained demeanor of the Ranters that set them apart in the minds of the public normal from the newspaper reports."
You learn something every day. Thank you
Actually the British are very adept at producing religious sects. Once you have split once then it is perfectly reasonable to split again.
I think it was Napoleon who described England disparagingly as a country with more religions than sauces!
Though political ideas were often expressed in religious language in the past here, as they still are in many parts of the world. Corbyn is a Puritan at heart, convinced of his countries Original Sin.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
Cromwell enjoyed parties and dancing ;-)
Cavaliers are just amateurish fops. A favourite Cromwell quote:
“i had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else.”
Cromwell's Britain was known for its fun. The Irish have particularly fond memories of him.
Amateurs (that "love" thing again) in the truest sense of the word are what make the world go round; they discover things; they take joy in invention and sharing and curiosity and delight. They smile and laugh. They take and give pleasure.
Cromwell - in your quote - was guilty of the deadliest English sin. He refused to see past the outward appearance to what that person, gentleman or now, really was or could be. For a serious man, he frivolously judged on appearance. Silly man.
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
The Ranters were perhaps London based, and of all sects may appeal most to PBers:
"London became one of the major centers of English Ranter activity. There seems not to have been any formal association, or any structure at the national level. A casual form of mutual interactions at a certain level may be assumed between to the titular leaders, and large population centers, such as London. Not unlike the Muggletonians, their meeting halls may have just been a particular inn, or local alehouse in the neighborhood where they might meet, drink, play games, and meet women not unlike other Englishmen of the period. It was the ascribed lack of moral restrains, or the unrestrained demeanor of the Ranters that set them apart in the minds of the public normal from the newspaper reports."
You learn something every day. Thank you
Actually the British are very adept at producing religious sects. Once you have split once then it is perfectly reasonable to split again.
I think it was Napoleon who described England disparagingly as a country with more religions than sauces!
Though political ideas were often expressed in religious language in the past here, as they still are in many parts of the world. Corbyn is a Puritan at heart, convinced of his countries Original Sin.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
I think it's more complex. Charles II cultivated the image of the Merry Monarch. But, he was a ruthless and vindictive man, who made it his life's work to hunt down the Regicides.
William Hague does well to remember the full name of the Tory Party is the Conservative and Unionist Party
Why I will be voting to stay in Europe - The EU has its failings but it also provides stability for fledgling democracies and keeps our kingdom united - we would be foolish to leave
William Hague ceased to be eurosceptic a long time ago.
Does Eurosceptic exclusively mean Leavers now?
Probably, now that we're coming to the sticking point. If we vote Remain, I think that it'll be full steam ahead, in terms of political integration.
What is pushing me towards Leave is full political integration is needed to make the Euro work, and thus a Eurozone bloc can force the non Eurozone bloc into things that aren't suitable for them
I think it would be better for the EU if we leave, because it will allow them to do the integrations they need to do to make their project work. I think it would be better for Britain if we leave, because we will never be fully committed and our legal and political systems are simply too different.
But that doesn't mean that I don't see the EU as an important market to the UK, and wish it and its constituents all the best for the future. I value the fact that I can go work for any company anywhere in the EU. And likewise I can hire anyone from anywhere in the EU. Do I think governments should be able to discriminate in favour of their own citizens? Hell, yes. The Four Freedoms, mind, are good ones and we should endeavour to keep them.
Mind you, I do wonder if supporters of EFTA/EEA membership will soon be derided as Europhiles on this board.
We live in interesting times. In the past few days elsewhere I read
i) George Osborne is a socialist
ii) The most far right Tory in history, who [moderates] himself every time he kicks the poor in the knackers
iii) A metrosexual metropolitan elite liberal who will destroy the Tory party.
It's only a matter of time before Osborne's economic miracle goes tits-up and a crash is just round the corner.The Labour leader needs to release the energy blockages in his shadow cabinet to establish his credentials in 2016 so he's ready for it even if Osborne is not.
I think Jehadi Jez has already established his credentials.
It's only a matter of time before Osborne's economic miracle goes tits-up and a crash is just round the corner.The Labour leader needs to release the energy blockages in his shadow cabinet to establish his credentials in 2016 so he's ready for it even if Osborne is not.
I think Jehadi Jez has already established his credentials.
Were the economy to go mammary glands up, and the Leader of the Opposition were Corbyn and the Shadow Chancellor McDonnell, the 2020 General Election would be like 1992 with knobs on
Indeed. I wonder what his views are on the statue of Cromwell though.
I always thought Cromwell was a hypocrite. Abolishing the hereditary monarchy, and who succeeded him as Lord Protector? His flipping son!
I was surprised to find that Richard Cromwell is buried in a quaint little Hampshire village called Hursley. Cromwell's estate in the village is now the home of IBM's UK labs.
Actually the British are very adept at producing religious sects. Once you have split once then it is perfectly reasonable to split again.
I think it was Napoleon who described England disparagingly as a country with more religions than sauces!
Though political ideas were often expressed in religious language in the past here, as they still are in many parts of the world. Corbyn is a Puritan at heart, convinced of his countries Original Sin.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
I think it's more complex. Charles II cultivated the image of the Merry Monarch. But, he was a ruthless and vindictive man, who made it his life's work to hunt down the Regicides.
I'm not being entirely serious! And I'm rather using the division to describe people now.
A bit more seriously, there is a division between those who want to tell people what to do and how to do it and those who are inclined to let people get on with it provided they don't frighten the horses. Too much control, too much trying to control will drive you mad.
William Hague does well to remember the full name of the Tory Party is the Conservative and Unionist Party
Why I will be voting to stay in Europe - The EU has its failings but it also provides stability for fledgling democracies and keeps our kingdom united - we would be foolish to leave
William Hague ceased to be eurosceptic a long time ago.
Does Eurosceptic exclusively mean Leavers now?
Probably, now that we're coming to the sticking point. If we vote Remain, I think that it'll be full steam ahead, in terms of political integration.
What is pushing me towards Leave is full political integration is needed to make the Euro work, and thus a Eurozone bloc can force the non Eurozone bloc into things that aren't suitable for them
I think it would be better for the EU if we leave, because it will allow them to do the integrations they need to do to make their project work. I think it would be better for Britain if we leave, because we will never be fully committed and our legal and political systems are simply too different.
But that doesn't mean that I don't see the EU as an important market to the UK, and wish it and its constituents all the best for the future. I value the fact that I can go work for any company anywhere in the EU. And likewise I can hire anyone from anywhere in the EU. Do I think governments should be able to discriminate in favour of their own citizens? Hell, yes. The Four Freedoms, mind, are good ones and we should endeavour to keep them.
Mind you, I do wonder if supporters of EFTA/EEA membership will soon be derided as Europhiles on this board.
We live in interesting times. In the past few days elsewhere I read
i) George Osborne is a socialist
ii) The most far right Tory in history, who [moderates] himself every time he kicks the poor in the knackers
iii) A metrosexual metropolitan elite liberal who will destroy the party.
Of course none of these local by-elections involved any risk of Corbyn becoming PM, McDonnell becoming Chancellor, or Livingstone and Abbott being involved in government in any way. So of course you would expect Labour not to do as badly in them as they would in a GE under the current leadership.
Actually the British are very adept at producing religious sects. Once you have split once then it is perfectly reasonable to split again.
I think it was Napoleon who described England disparagingly as a country with more religions than sauces!
Though political ideas were often expressed in religious language in the past here, as they still are in many parts of the world. Corbyn is a Puritan at heart, convinced of his countries Original Sin.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
I think it's more complex. Charles II cultivated the image of the Merry Monarch. But, he was a ruthless and vindictive man, who made it his life's work to hunt down the Regicides.
I'm not being entirely serious! And I'm rather using the division to describe people now.
A bit more seriously, there is a division between those who want to tell people what to do and how to do it and those who are inclined to let people get on with it provided they don't frighten the horses. Too much control, too much trying to control will drive you mad.
I work with a number of agencies in my job, and if I didn't tell them exactly what to do, and how to do it, everything would take half a century to get finished if ever. You should be able to let people get on with it in an ideal world, but in the world we live in, it's just not feasible - it will take you twice as long to clear up the mess.
I think it's more complex. Charles II cultivated the image of the Merry Monarch. But, he was a ruthless and vindictive man, who made it his life's work to hunt down the Regicides.
Ministers who want to campaign for Britain to leave the European Union should resign and stop “undermining” the Prime Minister, a vice-chairman of the Conservative Party has said.
Mark Field has become the first senior party figure to publicly reject calls for a free vote by saying it would be “wrong” for cabinet ministers to be allowed to back exit.
I think it's more complex. Charles II cultivated the image of the Merry Monarch. But, he was a ruthless and vindictive man, who made it his life's work to hunt down the Regicides.
I idolised Charles II as a (weird) child. My sympathies have ground more roundhead as I've got older. Will never be a republican though. Corbyn is way too much of a drip to make a good roundhead.
Indeed. I wonder what his views are on the statue of Cromwell though.
I always thought Cromwell was a hypocrite. Abolishing the hereditary monarchy, and who succeeded him as Lord Protector? His flipping son!
Cromwell's views and positions were pretty complex, and at times in contradiction with one another. It should be remembered that very few people set out intending to abolish the monarchy even among the parliamentary side. Cromwell didn't. Things just kind of spiralled and people did what they could to get by, and used faith and reason to explain what they felt they had to do.
Ministers who want to campaign for Britain to leave the European Union should resign and stop “undermining” the Prime Minister, a vice-chairman of the Conservative Party has said.
Mark Field has become the first senior party figure to publicly reject calls for a free vote by saying it would be “wrong” for cabinet ministers to be allowed to back exit.
Ministers who want to campaign for Britain to leave the European Union should resign and stop “undermining” the Prime Minister, a vice-chairman of the Conservative Party has said.
Mark Field has become the first senior party figure to publicly reject calls for a free vote by saying it would be “wrong” for cabinet ministers to be allowed to back exit.
Actually the British are very adept at producing religious sects. Once you have split once then it is perfectly reasonable to split again.
I think it was Napoleon who described England disparagingly as a country with more religions than sauces!
Though political ideas were often expressed in religious language in the past here, as they still are in many parts of the world. Corbyn is a Puritan at heart, convinced of his countries Original Sin.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
I think it's more complex. Charles II cultivated the image of the Merry Monarch. But, he was a ruthless and vindictive man, who made it his life's work to hunt down the Regicides.
I'm not being entirely serious! And I'm rather using the division to describe people now.
A bit more seriously, there is a division between those who want to tell people what to do and how to do it and those who are inclined to let people get on with it provided they don't frighten the horses. Too much control, too much trying to control will drive you mad.
I work with a number of agencies in my job, and if I didn't tell them exactly what to do, and how to do it, everything would take half a century to get finished if ever. You should be able to let people get on with it in an ideal world, but in the world we live in, it's just not feasible - it will take you twice as long to clear up the mess.
I disagree. Get good people with good judgment, train them well, make clear what your boundaries are, trust them, stand behind them when they make errors so that they and you learn, be available for help and advice and be trustworthy in your turn and you can - and should - let them get on with it.
Maybe it's easier for me, doing what I do and with the team I've built.
What sort of work, if you don't mind me asking, do you do with your agencies?
Ministers who want to campaign for Britain to leave the European Union should resign and stop “undermining” the Prime Minister, a vice-chairman of the Conservative Party has said.
Mark Field has become the first senior party figure to publicly reject calls for a free vote by saying it would be “wrong” for cabinet ministers to be allowed to back exit.
Plainly obvious that Labour is taking a whacking with Corbyn and his 3% strategy.
3% strategy, come on, be realistic, there are unfortunately at least 15% that proactively agree that the UK should take inspiration from Venezuela or Bolivia...
Actually the British are very adept at producing religious sects. Once you have split once then it is perfectly reasonable to split again.
I think it was Napoleon who described England disparagingly as a country with more religions than sauces!
Though political ideas were often expressed in religious language in the past here, as they still are in many parts of the world. Corbyn is a Puritan at heart, convinced of his countries Original Sin.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
I think it's more complex. Charles II cultivated the image of the Merry Monarch. But, he was a ruthless and vindictive man, who made it his life's work to hunt down the Regicides.
I'm not being entirely serious! And I'm rather using the division to describe people now.
A bit more seriously, there is a division between those who want to tell people what to do and how to do it and those who are inclined to let people get on with it provided they don't frighten the horses. Too much control, too much trying to control will drive you mad.
I work with a number of agencies in my job, and if I didn't tell them exactly what to do, and how to do it, everything would take half a century to get finished if ever. You should be able to let people get on with it in an ideal world, but in the world we live in, it's just not feasible - it will take you twice as long to clear up the mess.
I disagree. Get good people with good judgment, train them well, make clear what your boundaries are, trust them, stand behind them when they make errors so that they and you learn, be available for help and advice and be trustworthy in your turn and you can - and should - let them get on with it.
Maybe it's easier for me, doing what I do and with the team I've built.
What sort of work, if you don't mind me asking, do you do with your agencies?
Marketing. They are PR, web, design print and creative, etc. I didn't choose most of them to be fair.
Ministers who want to campaign for Britain to leave the European Union should resign and stop “undermining” the Prime Minister, a vice-chairman of the Conservative Party has said.
Mark Field has become the first senior party figure to publicly reject calls for a free vote by saying it would be “wrong” for cabinet ministers to be allowed to back exit.
Would Tory posters see Cameron's seeming stickiness on this point to be a sign of strength or weakness?
Depends on how many resignations there are, and who resigned.
And why they resigned e.g. I don't agree with the EU on principle is one thing. I'm resigning because Cameron is telling you a load of fibs about what he's achieved is far more damaging.
Ministers who want to campaign for Britain to leave the European Union should resign and stop “undermining” the Prime Minister, a vice-chairman of the Conservative Party has said.
Mark Field has become the first senior party figure to publicly reject calls for a free vote by saying it would be “wrong” for cabinet ministers to be allowed to back exit.
Ministers who want to campaign for Britain to leave the European Union should resign and stop “undermining” the Prime Minister, a vice-chairman of the Conservative Party has said.
Mark Field has become the first senior party figure to publicly reject calls for a free vote by saying it would be “wrong” for cabinet ministers to be allowed to back exit.
Would Tory posters see Cameron's seeming stickiness on this point to be a sign of strength or weakness?
Depends on how many resignations there are, and who resigned.
And why they resigned e.g. I don't agree with the EU on principle is one thing. I'm resigning because Cameron is telling you a load of fibs about what he's achieved is far more damaging.
I think Gove would be the biggie.
Loyal to Cameron but he wants to vote Leave...
The dead sheep set a high bar
The conflict of loyalty, of loyalty to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister--and, after all, in two decades together that instinct of loyalty is still very real--and of loyalty to what I perceive to be the true interests of the nation, has become all too great. I no longer believe it possible to resolve that conflict from within this Government. That is why I have resigned. In doing so, I have done what I believe to be right for my party and my country. The time has come for others to consider their own response to the tragic conflict of loyalties with which I have myself wrestled for perhaps too long.
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
I think it's more complex. Charles II cultivated the image of the Merry Monarch. But, he was a ruthless and vindictive man, who made it his life's work to hunt down the Regicides.
I'm not being entirely serious! And I'm rather using the division to describe people now.
A bit more seriously, there is a division between those who want to tell people what to do and how to do it and those who are inclined to let people get on with it provided they don't frighten the horses. Too much control, too much trying to control will drive you mad.
I work with a number of agencies in my job, and if I didn't tell them exactly what to do, and how to do it, everything would take half a century to get finished if ever. You should be able to let people get on with it in an ideal world, but in the world we live in, it's just not feasible - it will take you twice as long to clear up the mess.
I disagree. Get good people with good judgment, train them well, make clear what your boundaries are, trust them, stand behind them when they make errors so that they and you learn, be available for help and advice and be trustworthy in your turn and you can - and should - let them get on with it.
Maybe it's easier for me, doing what I do and with the team I've built.
What sort of work, if you don't mind me asking, do you do with your agencies?
Marketing. They are PR, web, design print and creative, etc. I didn't choose most of them to be fair.
OK thanks. Good luck with trying to control creative people! Easier if you can choose your team. I'm very lucky in that respect - or, possibly, ruthless in not having anyone on it that didn't meet my standards. Life's too short to carry moaning passengers.
The college also said it would start a six-month consultation process next February to determine the faith of the statue. However, it is understood Oxford isn’t just considering the removal of the statue but it is considering adding “clear historical context” to his monuments.
Ministers who want to campaign for Britain to leave the European Union should resign and stop “undermining” the Prime Minister, a vice-chairman of the Conservative Party has said.
Mark Field has become the first senior party figure to publicly reject calls for a free vote by saying it would be “wrong” for cabinet ministers to be allowed to back exit.
The college also said it would start a six-month consultation process next February to determine the faith of the statue. However, it is understood Oxford isn’t just considering the removal of the statue but it is considering adding “clear historical context” to his monuments.
How about a sign above every building entrance that says 'People in the past had different views from you, and most of them were racist as well. Can you live with that fact? Good'?
The college also said it would start a six-month consultation process next February to determine the faith of the statue. However, it is understood Oxford isn’t just considering the removal of the statue but it is considering adding “clear historical context” to his monuments.
How about a sign above every building entrance that says 'People in the past had different views from you, and most of them were racist as well. Can you live with that fact? Good'?
The sign would probably have to be a lot longer than that...
'People in the past had different views from you... many were what today we would determine as racist, many had involvement directly or indirectly with the slave trade, many had servants, which today wouldn't have paid them minimum wage or considered their Health and Safety at work...nearly all are men, because women weren't given the same rights to education and other opportunities....etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
The college also said it would start a six-month consultation process next February to determine the faith of the statue. However, it is understood Oxford isn’t just considering the removal of the statue but it is considering adding “clear historical context” to his monuments.
How about a sign above every building entrance that says 'People in the past had different views from you, and most of them were racist as well. Can you live with that fact? Good'?
Add "and people in the future will think you had some horrible views, too."
I think the division into Roundheads and Cavaliers is a pretty good way of assessing people and politicians in Britain even now.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
I think it's more complex. Charles II cultivated the image of the Merry Monarch. But, he was a ruthless and vindictive man, who made it his life's work to hunt down the Regicides.
I'm not being entirely serious! And I'm rather using the division to describe people now.
A bit more seriously, there is a division between those who want to tell people what to do and how to do it and those who are inclined to let people get on with it provided they don't frighten the horses. Too much control, too much trying to control will drive you mad.
I work with a number of agencies in my job, and if I didn't tell them exactly what to do, and how to do it, everything would take half a century to get finished if ever. You should be able to let people get on with it in an ideal world, but in the world we live in, it's just not feasible - it will take you twice as long to clear up the mess.
I disagree. Get good people with good judgment, train them well, make clear what your boundaries are, trust them, stand behind them when they make errors so that they and you learn, be available for help and advice and be trustworthy in your turn and you can - and should - let them get on with it.
Maybe it's easier for me, doing what I do and with the team I've built.
What sort of work, if you don't mind me asking, do you do with your agencies?
Marketing. They are PR, web, design print and creative, etc. I didn't choose most of them to be fair.
OK thanks. Good luck with trying to control creative people! Easier if you can choose your team. I'm very lucky in that respect - or, possibly, ruthless in not having anyone on it that didn't meet my standards. Life's too short to carry moaning passengers.
No need for luck, most of them aren't especially creative, that's the trouble.
The college also said it would start a six-month consultation process next February to determine the faith of the statue. However, it is understood Oxford isn’t just considering the removal of the statue but it is considering adding “clear historical context” to his monuments.
How about a sign above every building entrance that says 'People in the past had different views from you, and most of them were racist as well. Can you live with that fact? Good'?
Add "and people in the future will think you had some horrible views, too."
And "even today some people don't agree with you, they think you have some horrible views..."
Mark Field really is ghastly. I note Hague has surprise surprise turned all Foreign Office as well - what a fraud he is.
Calling honourable men who happen to disagree with you 'frauds' - especially those who, like Hague, are famous for being right - is extremely counter-productive.
My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")
Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
ALL the religions?
Even Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Shintoism?
The college also said it would start a six-month consultation process next February to determine the faith of the statue. However, it is understood Oxford isn’t just considering the removal of the statue but it is considering adding “clear historical context” to his monuments.
How about a sign above every building entrance that says 'People in the past had different views from you, and most of them were racist as well. Can you live with that fact? Good'?
Add "and people in the future will think you had some horrible views, too."
The college also said it would start a six-month consultation process next February to determine the faith of the statue. However, it is understood Oxford isn’t just considering the removal of the statue but it is considering adding “clear historical context” to his monuments.
How about a sign above every building entrance that says 'People in the past had different views from you, and most of them were racist as well. Can you live with that fact? Good'?
The sign would probably have to be a lot longer than that...
'People in the past had different views from you... many were what today we would determine as racist, many had involvement directly or indirectly with the slave trade, many had servants, which today wouldn't have paid them minimum wage or considered their Health and Safety at work...nearly all are men, because women weren't given the same rights to education and other opportunities....etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
Sounds like the "disclaimer" at the start of the Looney Tunes cartoon DVD collection
The college also said it would start a six-month consultation process next February to determine the faith of the statue. However, it is understood Oxford isn’t just considering the removal of the statue but it is considering adding “clear historical context” to his monuments.
How about a sign above every building entrance that says 'People in the past had different views from you, and most of them were racist as well. Can you live with that fact? Good'?
The sign would probably have to be a lot longer than that...
'People in the past had different views from you... many were what today we would determine as racist, many had involvement directly or indirectly with the slave trade, many had servants, which today wouldn't have paid them minimum wage or considered their Health and Safety at work...nearly all are men, because women weren't given the same rights to education and other opportunities....etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
Or perhaps we could have a sign just saying
"If you have the intellectual capacity of a 4-year old, your nearest primary school is over there. Now piss off and come back when you're a grown up."
"Clear historical context" my arse! Is that the fancy new phrase for "We have a library. With books in it. Go and look things up in them. About Rhodes. And other people as well. It's what you're here for. You twits."
The college also said it would start a six-month consultation process next February to determine the faith of the statue. However, it is understood Oxford isn’t just considering the removal of the statue but it is considering adding “clear historical context” to his monuments.
How about a sign above every building entrance that says 'People in the past had different views from you, and most of them were racist as well. Can you live with that fact? Good'?
The sign would probably have to be a lot longer than that...
'People in the past had different views from you... many were what today we would determine as racist, many had involvement directly or indirectly with the slave trade, many had servants, which today wouldn't have paid them minimum wage or considered their Health and Safety at work...nearly all are men, because women weren't given the same rights to education and other opportunities....etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
Or perhaps we could have a sign just saying
"If you have the intellectual capacity of a 4-year old, your nearest primary school is over there. Now piss off and come back when you're a grown up."
"Clear historical context" my arse! Is that the fancy new phrase for "We have a library. With books in it. Go and look things up in them. About Rhodes. And other people as well. It's what you're here for. You twits."
I would have a sign that says.
If you really object to a statue of this individual and are not a massive hyprocrite, please do not enter any building owned by the University of [insert any great university of the world]. In order to complete your education, we are aware that The University of Edge Hill are taking applications...
My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")
Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
ALL the religions?
Even Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Shintoism?
I attended a Cultural Awareness course a year or so ago, and upon hearing about my agnostic/atheist views, the representatives of the various faiths light heartedly tried a sales pitch to try and convert me to their chosen religion. I have to say that Buddhism was the most appealing, but the lack of bacon sarnies was the deal breaker.
My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")
Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
ALL the religions?
Even Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Shintoism?
I attended a Cultural Awareness course a year or so ago, and upon hearing about my agnostic/atheist views, the representatives of the various faiths light heartedly tried a sales pitch to try and convert me to their chosen religion. I have to say that Buddhism was the most appealing, but the lack of bacon sarnies was the deal breaker.
Try Taoism; all the fun of Buddhism but without the dietary requirements.
The college also said it would start a six-month consultation process next February to determine the faith of the statue. However, it is understood Oxford isn’t just considering the removal of the statue but it is considering adding “clear historical context” to his monuments.
How about a sign above every building entrance that says 'People in the past had different views from you, and most of them were racist as well. Can you live with that fact? Good'?
The sign would probably have to be a lot longer than that...
'People in the past had different views from you... many were what today we would determine as racist, many had involvement directly or indirectly with the slave trade, many had servants, which today wouldn't have paid them minimum wage or considered their Health and Safety at work...nearly all are men, because women weren't given the same rights to education and other opportunities....etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
Or perhaps we could have a sign just saying
"If you have the intellectual capacity of a 4-year old, your nearest primary school is over there. Now piss off and come back when you're a grown up."
"Clear historical context" my arse! Is that the fancy new phrase for "We have a library. With books in it. Go and look things up in them. About Rhodes. And other people as well. It's what you're here for. You twits."
I would have a sign that says.
If you really object to a statue of this individual and are not a massive hyprocrite, please do not enter any building owned by the University of [insert any great university of the world]. In order to complete your education, we are aware that The University of Edge Hill are taking applications...
You're far too polite. You're giving them far too much credit. They're babies, only without the charm and with hairier bottoms. Best treat them like babies and deflate their pompous little egos with brutal contempt.
They can rejoin the grown up world when they've, well, grown up.
My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")
Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
ALL the religions?
Even Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Shintoism?
I attended a Cultural Awareness course a year or so ago, and upon hearing about my agnostic/atheist views, the representatives of the various faiths light heartedly tried a sales pitch to try and convert me to their chosen religion. I have to say that Buddhism was the most appealing, but the lack of bacon sarnies was the deal breaker.
Try Taoism; all the fun of Buddhism but without the dietary requirements.
Mark Field really is ghastly. I note Hague has surprise surprise turned all Foreign Office as well - what a fraud he is.
Calling honourable men who happen to disagree with you 'frauds' - especially those who, like Hague, are famous for being right - is extremely counter-productive.
Oh give it a rest fgs. You call other figures lunatics, charlatans, etc. all over the shop. Then when someone impugns the integrity of (shock horror) a member of the cabinet, you come on like a disapproving Great Aunt, chiding the offenders more in sorrow than anger. It's ridiculous.
The college also said it would start a six-month consultation process next February to determine the faith of the statue. However, it is understood Oxford isn’t just considering the removal of the statue but it is considering adding “clear historical context” to his monuments.
My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")
Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
ALL the religions?
Even Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Shintoism?
I attended a Cultural Awareness course a year or so ago, and upon hearing about my agnostic/atheist views, the representatives of the various faiths light heartedly tried a sales pitch to try and convert me to their chosen religion. I have to say that Buddhism was the most appealing, but the lack of bacon sarnies was the deal breaker.
I'd like Judaism - for the mothering and arguments round the dinner table; Catholicism - because it allows you to sin to your heart's content and, if you're into guilt and stuff, you get bloody good novels and art out of it; and Islam for the wonderful architecture, calligraphy and tiles. Plus Hinduism for the sex (though maybe the Kama Sutra isn't a religious book!)
My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")
Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
ALL the religions?
Even Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Shintoism?
I attended a Cultural Awareness course a year or so ago, and upon hearing about my agnostic/atheist views, the representatives of the various faiths light heartedly tried a sales pitch to try and convert me to their chosen religion. I have to say that Buddhism was the most appealing, but the lack of bacon sarnies was the deal breaker.
I'd like Judaism - for the mothering and arguments round the dinner table; Catholicism - because it allows you to sin to your heart's content and, if you're into guilt and stuff, you get bloody good novels and art out of it; and Islam for the wonderful architecture, calligraphy and tiles. Plus Hinduism for the sex (though maybe the Kama Sutra isn't a religious book!)
And a bit of Buddhism for when you need time out.
I'm liking Jediism for the mind control stuff, so I can bamboozle the wife "These aren't the shoes you're looking for. Buy the cheaper ones".
My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")
Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
ALL the religions?
Even Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Shintoism?
I attended a Cultural Awareness course a year or so ago, and upon hearing about my agnostic/atheist views, the representatives of the various faiths light heartedly tried a sales pitch to try and convert me to their chosen religion. I have to say that Buddhism was the most appealing, but the lack of bacon sarnies was the deal breaker.
I'd like Judaism - for the mothering and arguments round the dinner table; Catholicism - because it allows you to sin to your heart's content and, if you're into guilt and stuff, you get bloody good novels and art out of it; and Islam for the wonderful architecture, calligraphy and tiles. Plus Hinduism for the sex (though maybe the Kama Sutra isn't a religious book!)
And a bit of Buddhism for when you need time out.
I'm liking Jediism for the mind control stuff, so I can bamboozle the wife "These aren't the shoes you're looking for. Buy the cheaper ones".
My favourite superficially appealing religion is Zoroastrianism. 'Good thoughts, Good words, Good deeds' (probably a misquote). If I wasn't a God-botherer, that's what I'd be.
I think a lot of people are drawn to Buddhism because it seems quite a la carte. But my understanding is that when you delve deep, it's about total elimination of self. I don't think a lot of its more casual adherents would like that.
My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")
Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
ALL the religions?
Even Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Shintoism?
I attended a Cultural Awareness course a year or so ago, and upon hearing about my agnostic/atheist views, the representatives of the various faiths light heartedly tried a sales pitch to try and convert me to their chosen religion. I have to say that Buddhism was the most appealing, but the lack of bacon sarnies was the deal breaker.
I'd like Judaism - for the mothering and arguments round the dinner table; Catholicism - because it allows you to sin to your heart's content and, if you're into guilt and stuff, you get bloody good novels and art out of it; and Islam for the wonderful architecture, calligraphy and tiles. Plus Hinduism for the sex (though maybe the Kama Sutra isn't a religious book!)
And a bit of Buddhism for when you need time out.
I'm liking Jediism for the mind control stuff, so I can bamboozle the wife "These aren't the shoes you're looking for. Buy the cheaper ones".
"YOU WERE THE CHOSEN ONE! It was said you would destroy the Prequels, not join them! Bring balance to the Franchise, not leave it in darkness!"
My eight year old daughter just asked me the difference between Muslims and Catholics. Tempted as I was to answer as a surgeon friend of mine did when asked by his four year old son who Jesus Christ was, I simply changed the subject. (Answer: "he's just another imaginary person. Like Father Christmas.")
Any suggestions that don't involve terrorism or child abuse?
I don't think Jesus was an imaginary person. He may have imagined he was the son of God, of course, but that's a different matter.
I suppose one difference would be to say that both believe in a religion (a way of setting out some principles by which to live) founded by people who lived a very long time ago - both of them in parts of the Middle East - but that in the case of Muslims they believe that Mohammed transmitted the word of God whereas Catholics believe that Jesus was the Son of God (and - this bit is optional, I suppose - the reason Jesus was here was because God so loved the world that he sent his son down to help save it).
Would that help?
Even before you sent this, I tried down the history route and got a second unanswerable question:
"Daddy, why are all the religions from the Middle East. Why is there no London religion?"
ALL the religions?
Even Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Shintoism?
I attended a Cultural Awareness course a year or so ago, and upon hearing about my agnostic/atheist views, the representatives of the various faiths light heartedly tried a sales pitch to try and convert me to their chosen religion. I have to say that Buddhism was the most appealing, but the lack of bacon sarnies was the deal breaker.
I'd like Judaism - for the mothering and arguments round the dinner table; Catholicism - because it allows you to sin to your heart's content and, if you're into guilt and stuff, you get bloody good novels and art out of it; and Islam for the wonderful architecture, calligraphy and tiles. Plus Hinduism for the sex (though maybe the Kama Sutra isn't a religious book!)
And a bit of Buddhism for when you need time out.
I'm liking Jediism for the mind control stuff, so I can bamboozle the wife "These aren't the shoes you're looking for. Buy the cheaper ones".
Not even a Jedi can control a woman when it comes to shoes. Sorry.
Comments
Now we have ketchup his remark is no longer valid!
'Labour's decline is accelerating. Remarkable decline for a party in opposition. Perhaps not noticed by the Corbynites because things are a little better in London?'
5 out of the 6 constituencies in London that are up by 3.3% are in solid Labour areas.
Also, to be pedantic, @rcs1000's surgeon friend described Jesus Christ as imaginary. The "Christ" could be taken to suggest that we are referring to something more closely resembling the Jesus the church believes in, and it's fair game to call that being imaginary. So far as we can reconstruct an historical Jesus, he was not the Christ.
My own hunch is we'll see some horrific results for Labour next May, in May 2012 it was in the aftermath of the omnishambles budget, and Labour were leading by a lot nationaly. It was peak Miliband, and UKIP were polling the low single digits.
Roundheads think they know best how to live their life and how everyone else should live their life.
Cavaliers are busy living and enjoying living.
Corbyn is a Roundhead.
We also now have more cheeses than the French apparently!
As a historian, I expect that you may well be familiar with this work:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-World-Turned-Upside-Down/dp/0140137327
But other PBers may like to catch up on the wonderful and eclectic world of British Dissenters.
Divine Right of Kings? You're having a laugh.
Nobody has verified the validity of the other 63
PB Tory Trestle Table session cancelled!!
A religious rights organization on Monday called on the police to investigate the head of an extremist anti-assimilation group after he published an op-ed branding Christians “blood-sucking vampires” and calling for them to be expelled from the country.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/head-of-extremist-jewish-group-calls-christians-blood-sucking-vampires/
Edit: Is this a blood libel?
Cavaliers are just amateurish fops. A favourite Cromwell quote:
“i had rather have a plain russet-coated captain that knows what he fights for, and loves what he knows, than that which you call a gentleman and is nothing else.”
“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience”
CS Lewis
So Christian teaching then.
With that, I must be off as I have a funeral tomorrow. Good night all.
But that doesn't mean that I don't see the EU as an important market to the UK, and wish it and its constituents all the best for the future. I value the fact that I can go work for any company anywhere in the EU. And likewise I can hire anyone from anywhere in the EU. Do I think governments should be able to discriminate in favour of their own citizens? Hell, yes. The Four Freedoms, mind, are good ones and we should endeavour to keep them.
Mind you, I do wonder if supporters of EFTA/EEA membership will soon be derided as Europhiles on this board.
I'm not sure I follow your interpretation of my post. I had intended a play on "f'ed", "pregnant", "labour" but it was obviously too much of a stretch. There I go again. At the end of the day I think we're on the same page.
Amateurs (that "love" thing again) in the truest sense of the word are what make the world go round; they discover things; they take joy in invention and sharing and curiosity and delight. They smile and laugh. They take and give pleasure.
Cromwell - in your quote - was guilty of the deadliest English sin. He refused to see past the outward appearance to what that person, gentleman or now, really was or could be. For a serious man, he frivolously judged on appearance. Silly man.
i) George Osborne is a socialist
ii) The most far right Tory in history, who [moderates] himself every time he kicks the poor in the knackers
iii) A metrosexual metropolitan elite liberal who will destroy the Tory party.
A bit more seriously, there is a division between those who want to tell people what to do and how to do it and those who are inclined to let people get on with it provided they don't frighten the horses. Too much control, too much trying to control will drive you mad.
And quite right too
I think it's more complex. Charles II cultivated the image of the Merry Monarch. But, he was a ruthless and vindictive man, who made it his life's work to hunt down the Regicides.
He didn't get us all
Mark Field has become the first senior party figure to publicly reject calls for a free vote by saying it would be “wrong” for cabinet ministers to be allowed to back exit.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12065352/PIC-and-PUB-Ministers-who-want-Britain-to-leave-European-Union-should-resign-Tory-Party-vice-chairman-says.html
Maybe it's easier for me, doing what I do and with the team I've built.
What sort of work, if you don't mind me asking, do you do with your agencies?
Loyal to Cameron but he wants to vote Leave...
The dead sheep set a high bar
The conflict of loyalty, of loyalty to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister--and, after all, in two decades together that instinct of loyalty is still very real--and of loyalty to what I perceive to be the true interests of the nation, has become all too great. I no longer believe it possible to resolve that conflict from within this Government. That is why I have resigned. In doing so, I have done what I believe to be right for my party and my country. The time has come for others to consider their own response to the tragic conflict of loyalties with which I have myself wrestled for perhaps too long.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/12065396/Barack-Obama-chips-in-from-40-feet-in-front-of-worlds-media.html
The college also said it would start a six-month consultation process next February to determine the faith of the statue. However, it is understood Oxford isn’t just considering the removal of the statue but it is considering adding “clear historical context” to his monuments.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/12064936/Rhodesgate-Campaign-to-remove-Rhodes-statue-is-like-Isils-destruction-of-antiques-says-Oxford-don.html
"Comrades, this is your Captain..."
'People in the past had different views from you... many were what today we would determine as racist, many had involvement directly or indirectly with the slave trade, many had servants, which today wouldn't have paid them minimum wage or considered their Health and Safety at work...nearly all are men, because women weren't given the same rights to education and other opportunities....etc etc etc etc etc etc etc
Osborne won't resign.
May/Hammond - looks like positioning for the leadership
Of the next tier of minister, Gove is seen as a "thinker" and loyal and would be the biggest loss.
Even Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Confucianism and Shintoism?
And before anyone attacks Hunky Duncy, he voted to leave in 1975 and is planning to do the same next year.
"If you have the intellectual capacity of a 4-year old, your nearest primary school is over there. Now piss off and come back when you're a grown up."
"Clear historical context" my arse! Is that the fancy new phrase for "We have a library. With books in it. Go and look things up in them. About Rhodes. And other people as well. It's what you're here for. You twits."
If you really object to a statue of this individual and are not a massive hyprocrite, please do not enter any building owned by the University of [insert any great university of the world]. In order to complete your education, we are aware that The University of Edge Hill are taking applications...
They can rejoin the grown up world when they've, well, grown up.
And a bit of Buddhism for when you need time out.
'Do I look like a total slut in this dress?'
I don't reply with 'Well not totally'
I think a lot of people are drawn to Buddhism because it seems quite a la carte. But my understanding is that when you delve deep, it's about total elimination of self. I don't think a lot of its more casual adherents would like that.