Sunak is coming out of this with his reputation enhanced – politicalbetting.com

williamglenn said:

Yokes said:

Ukraine. Just where ate the Challenger 2s, about half the Leopard 2s and the Marder and CV90 IFVS. In short the heaviest armoured kit currently believed to be in country.

Other than sightings of a number of Leopard 2s, the rest has yet to appear in one single picture.

Tbias Ellwood thinks he knows something is coming, does he?

Maybe the direction of travel could be East not South

Do you think they will take the route 'through the Ardennes' and go through Russia proper to go around their defences?

I think the hook into Russia then south is a great idea but would it be politcally acceptable? Probably not. There has been little said about Luhansk so far but the Russians are reporting a lot of machine noise East of Kharkiv.

Andy_JS said:

"David Baddiel: “I am not ashamed to be a heterosexual male”

https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2023/06/david-baddiel-interview-heterosexual-male-football-anti-semitism-jewish

Well, that's nice. Glad he got that off his chest. Next week: "why cheese on toast is better than beans" by Michael McIntyre. https://unherd.com/2023/07/cheese-toast-man-drawer

Doesn't sound great.

https://quillette.com/2023/06/10/the-threat-of-decivilisation/

"The Threat of Decivilisation
During a recent dinner at the Élysée Palace, the French president was confronted with the possibility that France is slipping into murderous anarchy.

John Lloyd
10 Jun 2023

On the evening of May 23rd, a dinner was held in the Élysée Palace, attended by President Emmanuel Macron and four of France’s most prominent sociologists. The president’s guests were invited to describe, frankly, the current state of France and suggest how the country’s many problems might be addressed. They were told that the meeting would remain confidential. It did not.

Four days later, Le Monde published an outline of the discussion, apparently gleaned from some of the participants and possibly a background briefing from the Élysée itself. The article occupied a full page of the newspaper and its account of the conversation did not flatter the president, who was reported to have said little. One of the guests was Jean Viard, research director at the state analytic centre, CNRS. The evening at the presidential palace, Viard said, “will change nothing fundamental: the people who govern us don’t understand the society.”"

Andy_JS said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

rcs1000 said:

Andy_JS said:

dixiedean said:

Not all religions are the same.
Nor even similar.

Lutheranism seems to have delivered the best outcomes.

Surely Mormonism?

Utah is very rich, with relatively little homelessness and few substance issues. All the empirical evidence is that LDS adherents are happier than average too.

If it wasn't for the ban on coffee and tea, and my lack of belief in God, I think I'd have probably given it a spin.

Think you may be going a wee bit overboard. For example, downtown Salt Lake City is not a total wonderland, though of course better than downtown Seattle . . . or even El Lay.

Speaking of Seattle, we have a fairly sizable Mormon population, they have a temple in Shoreline, northern burb. PLUS we also have a large contingent of Jack Mormons, ranging from merely lapsed to actively anti-LDS. Similar to "recovering Catholics".

A goodly segment of these, are refugees from Utah and southern Idaho which is largely an extension, demographically, of the Beehive State.

There's a Mormon church in most towns in the UK as far as I know, although whether that actually signifies they have a lot of members is another matter.

Same in USA. But in Utah and southern Idaho members of the Church once-called Mormon are the majority of the population.

Rishi Sunak would block Boris Johnson comeback as Tory MP, sources say
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jun/12/rishi-sunak-would-block-boris-johnson-comeback-as-tory-mp-sources-say


Makes the arguments about why Sunak didn't use his power as PM to overrule HOLAC to make Johnson's risible acolytes peers seem rather beside the point. Which they always were.

Andy_JS said:

Doesn't sound great.

https://quillette.com/2023/06/10/the-threat-of-decivilisation/

"The Threat of Decivilisation
During a recent dinner at the Élysée Palace, the French president was confronted with the possibility that France is slipping into murderous anarchy.

John Lloyd
10 Jun 2023

On the evening of May 23rd, a dinner was held in the Élysée Palace, attended by President Emmanuel Macron and four of France’s most prominent sociologists. The president’s guests were invited to describe, frankly, the current state of France and suggest how the country’s many problems might be addressed. They were told that the meeting would remain confidential. It did not.

Four days later, Le Monde published an outline of the discussion, apparently gleaned from some of the participants and possibly a background briefing from the Élysée itself. The article occupied a full page of the newspaper and its account of the conversation did not flatter the president, who was reported to have said little. One of the guests was Jean Viard, research director at the state analytic centre, CNRS. The evening at the presidential palace, Viard said, “will change nothing fundamental: the people who govern us don’t understand the society.”"

I'm sure the sociologists don't understand politics!

CarlottaVance said:

Thank goodness the patriarchy is dead….



Meanwhile in the BMJ “women” are now “cisgender peers” of “Transwomen”…..

Transgender women’s heart-lung capacity and strength exceed those of cisgender peers

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/transgender-womens-heart-lung-capacity-and-strength-exceed-those-of-cisgender-peers-even-after-years-of-hormone-therapy/

So it’s “man” or “non-man”? So much for womanhood.

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Can I make a small point of order:

IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).

Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.

^ this.

If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.

I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.

OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different

Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.

It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do

I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.

As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship

Jesus was a socialist.

He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin

Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.

Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.

Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.

I'll have you know that Jesus never worked in the oil industry.

Well, the snake oil..

“Stopped Johnson going too far….”?

…Charlotte Owen, it would seem. Coming to the media, very soon.

IanB2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Can I make a small point of order:

IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).

Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.

Yea but you believe in Brexit which is a far far more ludicrous and illogical religion than any of HY's beliefs. I mean, you believed in Boris Johnson!! lol.

The reality is Barty, you remind me of people of undeveloped intellect who think it makes them look very big and witty to compare religion with Father Christmas and fairies (in fact I recall you making such a juvenile and uninformed suggestion), when in fact most of your political beliefs are so all over the place that I think you would believe anything that was told to you by someone that you like/hero worshipped , particularly if it aligned with your personal gripes and prejudices, or perhaps they painted it on the side of a bus. The Judeo-Christian tradition has given us most of our civilisation and ability to reason critically, but it has clearly left little mark on you. Your critique of religion is generally misinformed at best and basically moronic at worst. I'd stay off the subject if I were as misinformed as you. Stick to something you can relate to like planning policy. It requires less thought.

I would not ever compare religion to Father Christmas. The latter is real.

I am Father Christmas for my kids, as my parents were before me and for me. Millions of people spend every December creating the magic of Christmas and ensuring that Father Christmas is real for their children.

That's totally different to grown ups believing that sky fairies have decreed an absolute set of rules which should be enforced exactly as their prejudices happen to align or else you're a sinner.

Our civilisation owes far more to the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans than it does Judeo-Christianism which jumped on the bandwagon of pre-existing civilisation.

The ancient world, pre conversion to Christianity, is fascinating, but a place whose notions of right and wrong, and proper conduct, would be utterly alien and shocking to modern Western people. Much more alien than medieval Europe would be.

This might be surprising to you, but there's this concept I believe in called 'evolution'.

Our society has evolved from ancient times to today. Our society has evolved within my own lifetime. In my own lifetime we've evolved from gays being ostracised and unable to get married to completely accepted. We've evolved from ethnic minorities being no more than a "Token Black" on TV (as South Park literally named that character) if there was even a Token on the show, to interracial entertainment being completely normal.

In my parents or grandparents lifetime we've evolved further still.

So why should it be remotely shocking that we have evolved even further from Ancient times? Or Medieval times?

That's kind of the whole point. There's no single text, no one book, no one belief system that sums up who we are and how we got here. We are more than the sum of our parts. We are thousands of years of societal evolution which has been built upon concepts that existed from ancient times and have evolved since and adapted since.

That’s the world view I share, but the interesting point is the underlying assumption that ‘progress’ is linear, and assumption we have because on both big picture (the history we get taught at school) and through the experience of our lifetimes, that’s the way it’s been. Yet pick any metric and go digging through history and at different times and in different places there have clearly been spells of negative progress, sometimes quite significant. So continuing progress does need to be argued for and defended.

After Trump's election in 2016, there was a discussion on here about rights. Many claimed that, even with Trump's election, there would be no erosion of rights in the USA.

Well, it's taken time, but we are seeing erosion of rights. There is indeed negative progress in many US states.

And the same could easily happen here.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

In a dispute over truth between Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, I think I might just favour the latter.

SKS vs Boris a dead heat.

Both pathological liars

BartholomewRoberts said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Can I make a small point of order:

IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).

Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.

^ this.

If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.

I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.

OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different

Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.

It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do

I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.

As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship

Jesus was a socialist.

He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin

Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.

Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.

Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.

As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.

bigjohnowls said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

In a dispute over truth between Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, I think I might just favour the latter.

SKS vs Boris a dead heat.

Both pathological liars

Aaaaaaand he's off.

ydoethur said:

Scott_xP said:

Boris Johnson deliberately misled parliament over the Downing Street parties scandal, a committee of MPs will find on Wednesday after rejecting his central defence.

That's got to be one of the great 'no shit Sherlock' moments.

Surely the original typo, was the better pun?

Sandpit said:

ydoethur said:

Scott_xP said:

Boris Johnson deliberately misled parliament over the Downing Street parties scandal, a committee of MPs will find on Wednesday after rejecting his central defence.

That's got to be one of the great 'no shit Sherlock' moments.

Surely the original typo, was the better pun?

Possibly.

I hope I drive better than I'm typing. That was just the one I hadn't spotted. It was also a Greta moment and a git to be.

Scott_xP said:

Boris Johnson deliberately misled parliament over the Downing Street parties scandal, a committee of MPs will find on Wednesday after rejecting his central defence.

The former prime minister claimed that he was advised by senior officials that both Covid rules and guidance had been complied with at all times in No 10 during the pandemic.

However, the privileges committee, a parliamentary standards body that has investigated Johnson, has concluded that officials did not advise him that social-distancing guidelines had been followed, despite him repeatedly making the claim in the Commons. One of his most senior officials in fact warned him against making such a claim on the basis it was “unrealistic”.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/boris-johnson-partygate-privileges-committee-findings-087pch8z3

So there’s the nub of the matter - the then PM relied in parliament on apparently reassuring official advice he claimed to have had, when the truth is that he had been told the very opposite.

Case closed…

Foxy said:

state_go_away said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Can I make a small point of order:

IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).

Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.

^ this.

If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.

I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.

OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different

Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.

It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do

I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.

As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship

Jesus was a socialist.

He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin

Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.

Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.

Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.

As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.

I should also point out that Jesus was not political, not Socialist nor Social Conservative. His Kingdom is not of this world.

I agree and its one of the reasons why i think religion should stay out of politics . I am never impressed when the Lord Bishops speak on political issues or indeed non religious issues - His Grace , the Archbishop of Canterbury occasionally does this but the most ridiculous example was the Bishop of St Albans talking about the pest of grey squirells in his capacity as a member of the Lords - The bishops and all church leaders should be a conduit to bring people to God and Jesus from whatever political stances they have or indeed what they think of grey squirells

bigjohnowls said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

In a dispute over truth between Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, I think I might just favour the latter.

SKS vs Boris a dead heat.

Both pathological liars

Johnson is after all the most accomplished liar in public life.
He has mastered the use of error, omission, exaggeration, diminution, equivocation and flat denial.
He has perfected casuistry, circumlocution, false equivalence and false analogy. He is equally adept at the ironic jest, the fib and the grand lie; the weasel word and the half-truth; the hyperbolic lie, the obvious lie, and the bullshit lie – which may inadvertently be true.
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/boris-johnson-tom-bower-book-review-rory-stewart/

Foxy said:

state_go_away said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Can I make a small point of order:

IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).

Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.

^ this.

If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.

I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.

OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different

Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.

It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do

I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.

As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship

Jesus was a socialist.

He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin

Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.

Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.

Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.

As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.

I should also point out that Jesus was not political, not Socialist nor Social Conservative. His Kingdom is not of this world.

According to Wikipedia, crucifixion was used by the Romans 'to punish slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state'. Don't think Jesus was a slave or a pirate.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

bigjohnowls said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

In a dispute over truth between Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, I think I might just favour the latter.

SKS vs Boris a dead heat.

Both pathological liars

Johnson is after all the most accomplished liar in public life.
He has mastered the use of error, omission, exaggeration, diminution, equivocation and flat denial.
He has perfected casuistry, circumlocution, false equivalence and false analogy. He is equally adept at the ironic jest, the fib and the grand lie; the weasel word and the half-truth; the hyperbolic lie, the obvious lie, and the bullshit lie – which may inadvertently be true.
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/boris-johnson-tom-bower-book-review-rory-stewart/

Morning, yes I don't think there's any comparison on this.

If Starmer had been anything like a liar as Johnson, he woudn't have been able to hold and perform reasonably well in the DPP job for so many years.

On a different topic, I see there's still been no official denial or comment, bizarrely, on the quote that the US Inspector-General of Intelligence found Grusch's claims of re-engineered UFO's "credible and urgent", or that he's interviewed several other people supporting this.

Curious indeed.

state_go_away said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Can I make a small point of order:

IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).

Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.

^ this.

If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.

I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.

OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different

Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.

It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do

I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.

As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship

Jesus was a socialist.

He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin

Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.

Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.

Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.

As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.

There's an overlap in their teachings, but also a large disconnect.
Paul is the favourite of social reactionaries for good reason.

Given what else has been going on seems to have slipped under the radar:

The Governments of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America endorsed a Joint Declaration Against Trade-Related Economic Coercion and Non-Market Policies and Practices at a Ministerial meeting in Paris on 8 June 2023.

https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/media-release/joint-declaration-against-trade-related-economic-coercion-and-non-market-policies-and-practices

Brent Crude below $72 overnight, that’s a new low since Nov ‘21, 18 months ago.

CarlottaVance said:

Given what else has been going on seems to have slipped under the radar:

The Governments of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America endorsed a Joint Declaration Against Trade-Related Economic Coercion and Non-Market Policies and Practices at a Ministerial meeting in Paris on 8 June 2023.

https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/media-release/joint-declaration-against-trade-related-economic-coercion-and-non-market-policies-and-practices

What is this getting at? The EU's propensity to use trade restrictions as a lever?

geoffw said:

CarlottaVance said:

Given what else has been going on seems to have slipped under the radar:

The Governments of Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America endorsed a Joint Declaration Against Trade-Related Economic Coercion and Non-Market Policies and Practices at a Ministerial meeting in Paris on 8 June 2023.

https://www.foreignminister.gov.au/minister/penny-wong/media-release/joint-declaration-against-trade-related-economic-coercion-and-non-market-policies-and-practices

What is this getting at? The EU's propensity to use trade restrictions as a lever?

4. We are also seriously concerned about the use of forced labour, including state-sponsored forced labour, in global supply chains. All forms of forced labour are gross abuses of human rights, as well as economic issues, and it is a moral imperative to end these practices. We are aware of countries using these practices to confer an unfair competitive advantage, and affirm that there must be no place for such practices in the global trading system.

Seems more like China is the target of that, though its odd the EU haven't signed it then.

ydoethur said:

FF43 said:

OK words from Sunak, but the disgraceful honours list is as much Sunak's as Johnson's. The prime minister actually makes the recommendations. Sunak could have said, No.

The worrying thing is, he did.

That is, he considered some things totally unacceptable yet somehow decided Fabric*nt and Mogg deserved knighthoods.

Which is bizarre.

I also suspect blocking Peerages for Sharma, Dorries and Atkins was primarily in avoidance of by elections (Sharma is after all a decent guy). That worked out well!

I can't level that about the non-knighthood for Sir Stan, but maybe a knighthood for "my dad" was too absurd by any metric.

kamski said:

Foxy said:

state_go_away said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Can I make a small point of order:

IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).

Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.

^ this.

If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.

I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.

OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different

Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.

It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do

I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.

As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship

Jesus was a socialist.

He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin

Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.

Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.

Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.

As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.

I should also point out that Jesus was not political, not Socialist nor Social Conservative. His Kingdom is not of this world.

According to Wikipedia, crucifixion was used by the Romans 'to punish slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state'. Don't think Jesus was a slave or a pirate.

He was alleged to be a rebel, challenging the authority of the emperor.

Nigelb said:

state_go_away said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Can I make a small point of order:

IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).

Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.

^ this.

If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.

I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.

OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different

Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.

It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do

I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.

As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship

Jesus was a socialist.

He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin

Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.

Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.

Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.

As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.

There's an overlap in their teachings, but also a large disconnect.
Paul is the favourite of social reactionaries for good reason.

Paul’s attitude towards Roman imperial authority is very different to that of the authors of the Gospels.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

kamski said:

Foxy said:

state_go_away said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Can I make a small point of order:

IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).

Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.

^ this.

If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.

I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.

OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different

Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.

It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do

I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.

As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship

Jesus was a socialist.

He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin

Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.

Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.

Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.

As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.

I should also point out that Jesus was not political, not Socialist nor Social Conservative. His Kingdom is not of this world.

According to Wikipedia, crucifixion was used by the Romans 'to punish slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state'. Don't think Jesus was a slave or a pirate.

He was alleged to be a rebel, challenging the authority of the emperor.

Which is very much political.

His argument that His kingdom was not of this world is a nuance that would have flown over the heads of those who saw just another Jewish troublemaker.

Nigelb said:

state_go_away said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Can I make a small point of order:

IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).

Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.

^ this.

If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.

I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.

OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different

Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.

It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do

I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.

As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship

Jesus was a socialist.

He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin

Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.

Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.

Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.

As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.

There's an overlap in their teachings, but also a large disconnect.
Paul is the favourite of social reactionaries for good reason.

Precisely.

Jesus was far more concerned with saying things like "Judge not lest ye be judged" or "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" than he was with whether a man lay with another man, or a woman terminated a pregnancy.

Social conservative "Christians" who judge others for being sinners neither follow, nor care about, the teachings of Christ.

Nadine Dorries is unhinged. Not suitable for elevation to the House of Lords, and her hissy fit in being rejected has been entertaining.

But - Charlotte Owen. So Dorries has a point.

This whole tawdry process demonstrates quite clearly several things:
That the issuance of rewards from disgraced ex-PMs should be banned*
That the "honours" system is pitifully anachronistic
That the House of Lords is an absurd spectacle**

*David TC Davies on Any Questions at the weekend foaming on and on about how many peers Gordon Brown had appointed and with Boris it was "only 7". It isn't the number, its that he appointed DJ Party and his [superinjunction] and wanted to appoint crazy people like Nadine

**They are being kept up well into the early hours o repeated days trying to plough through the illegal Illegal Migration bill to make it legal and moral. This will be hurled out by the corruption cult, but the HofL is doing an important job.
Its just that some of the people doing said important job are bishops, flunkies, donors etc. And there are 800 of them. Time to replace it with something modern.

RochdalePioneers said:

Nadine Dorries is unhinged. Not suitable for elevation to the House of Lords, and her hissy fit in being rejected has been entertaining.

But - Charlotte Owen. So Dorries has a point.

This whole tawdry process demonstrates quite clearly several things:
That the issuance of rewards from disgraced ex-PMs should be banned*
That the "honours" system is pitifully anachronistic
That the House of Lords is an absurd spectacle**

*David TC Davies on Any Questions at the weekend foaming on and on about how many peers Gordon Brown had appointed and with Boris it was "only 7". It isn't the number, its that he appointed DJ Party and his [superinjunction] and wanted to appoint crazy people like Nadine

**They are being kept up well into the early hours o repeated days trying to plough through the illegal Illegal Migration bill to make it legal and moral. This will be hurled out by the corruption cult, but the HofL is doing an important job.
Its just that some of the people doing said important job are bishops, flunkies, donors etc. And there are 800 of them. Time to replace it with something modern.

Sorry, but how on Earth does Dorries have a point because of Charlotte Owen?

From the reporting it seems that Dorries was told she would have to resign from the Commons to be made a Lord, to which she said she was not going to resign thinking she'd still get her Lordship anyway at a time that suited her better rather than the process. That's entirely her choice if so.

Did Charlotte Owen refuse to resign from the Commons?

The two situations are not remotely the same.

Sean_F said:

Nigelb said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

kamski said:

Foxy said:

state_go_away said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Can I make a small point of order:

IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).

Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.

^ this.

If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.

I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.

OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different

Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.

It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do

I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.

As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship

Jesus was a socialist.

He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin

Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.

Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.

Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.

As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.

I should also point out that Jesus was not political, not Socialist nor Social Conservative. His Kingdom is not of this world.

According to Wikipedia, crucifixion was used by the Romans 'to punish slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state'. Don't think Jesus was a slave or a pirate.

He was alleged to be a rebel, challenging the authority of the emperor.

Which is very much political.

His argument that His kingdom was not of this world is a nuance that would have flown over the heads of those who saw just another Jewish troublemaker.

Though a century or two later, the empire recognised what a useful political tool that was, and adopted it for themselves.

Here, I would disagree. And as usual, I blame Gibbon, to whom, the aristocracy saw all religions as equally useful, the philosophers equally false, and the masses equally true. Most pagans of all classes were quite sincere in their beliefs.

People of all classes are quite adept at very sincerely twisting beliefs into meaning whatever is useful for them. So the two are not contradictory.

To merge different but related conversations we see that today where avowed Christians manage to twist Christianity into being a judgemental set of beliefs that view other people as being sinners because they're doing things the speaker doesn't like (such as abortion, homosexuality etc) when Christ himself didn't say anything on those subjects and did speak about how you should not be judging others.

I don't think those doing so are being insincere. They simply while being sincere Christians don't care about what Christ actually said and care about their beliefs as they hold them and how they suit their own agenda.

Which the aristocracy or others in positions of power throughout time have been extremely capable of doing, adapting religion (however sincerely held) to further their own agenda.

RochdalePioneers said:

Nadine Dorries is unhinged. Not suitable for elevation to the House of Lords, and her hissy fit in being rejected has been entertaining.

Do supporters of an elected House of Lords want candidates to be filtered out by a committee before voters get a say?

Good morning all!

Has Nadine Dorries actually resigned her seat yet? I know she said what’s going to but has she put anything in writing? As far as I know Adams and Johnson, have been appointed to the Chiltern hundreds, but she hasn’t been appointed to anything.
Where am I missing something?

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nadine Dorries is unhinged. Not suitable for elevation to the House of Lords, and her hissy fit in being rejected has been entertaining.

But - Charlotte Owen. So Dorries has a point.

This whole tawdry process demonstrates quite clearly several things:
That the issuance of rewards from disgraced ex-PMs should be banned*
That the "honours" system is pitifully anachronistic
That the House of Lords is an absurd spectacle**

*David TC Davies on Any Questions at the weekend foaming on and on about how many peers Gordon Brown had appointed and with Boris it was "only 7". It isn't the number, its that he appointed DJ Party and his [superinjunction] and wanted to appoint crazy people like Nadine

**They are being kept up well into the early hours o repeated days trying to plough through the illegal Illegal Migration bill to make it legal and moral. This will be hurled out by the corruption cult, but the HofL is doing an important job.
Its just that some of the people doing said important job are bishops, flunkies, donors etc. And there are 800 of them. Time to replace it with something modern.

Sorry, but how on Earth does Dorries have a point because of Charlotte Owen?

From the reporting it seems that Dorries was told she would have to resign from the Commons to be made a Lord, to which she said she was not going to resign thinking she'd still get her Lordship anyway at a time that suited her better rather than the process. That's entirely her choice if so.

Did Charlotte Owen refuse to resign from the Commons?

The two situations are not remotely the same.

Dorries has a point because of Lord Lebedev and anyone else who shouldn't be in the Lords. The institution is already so disgraced that excluding any of the Boris picks is absurd when you look at the other people he has put in.

But if she declined the elevation by refusing to resign then she wasn't excluded. It was her choice.

If you get offered something, you say "not at the minute, thanks anyway", then there's no obligation on anyone to offer it to you again later.

NerysHughes said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nadine Dorries is unhinged. Not suitable for elevation to the House of Lords, and her hissy fit in being rejected has been entertaining.

But - Charlotte Owen. So Dorries has a point.

This whole tawdry process demonstrates quite clearly several things:
That the issuance of rewards from disgraced ex-PMs should be banned*
That the "honours" system is pitifully anachronistic
That the House of Lords is an absurd spectacle**

*David TC Davies on Any Questions at the weekend foaming on and on about how many peers Gordon Brown had appointed and with Boris it was "only 7". It isn't the number, its that he appointed DJ Party and his [superinjunction] and wanted to appoint crazy people like Nadine

**They are being kept up well into the early hours o repeated days trying to plough through the illegal Illegal Migration bill to make it legal and moral. This will be hurled out by the corruption cult, but the HofL is doing an important job.
Its just that some of the people doing said important job are bishops, flunkies, donors etc. And there are 800 of them. Time to replace it with something modern.

Sorry, but how on Earth does Dorries have a point because of Charlotte Owen?

From the reporting it seems that Dorries was told she would have to resign from the Commons to be made a Lord, to which she said she was not going to resign thinking she'd still get her Lordship anyway at a time that suited her better rather than the process. That's entirely her choice if so.

Did Charlotte Owen refuse to resign from the Commons?

The two situations are not remotely the same.

Dorries has a point because of Lord Lebedev and anyone else who shouldn't be in the Lords. The institution is already so disgraced that excluding any of the Boris picks is absurd when you look at the other people he has put in.

A large number of MPs are pretty unhinged, look at how many have been suspended. What should we do about the standard of candidate for MP?

Introduce a voting system that doesn't have safe seats?

IanB2 said:

NerysHughes said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nadine Dorries is unhinged. Not suitable for elevation to the House of Lords, and her hissy fit in being rejected has been entertaining.

But - Charlotte Owen. So Dorries has a point.

This whole tawdry process demonstrates quite clearly several things:
That the issuance of rewards from disgraced ex-PMs should be banned*
That the "honours" system is pitifully anachronistic
That the House of Lords is an absurd spectacle**

*David TC Davies on Any Questions at the weekend foaming on and on about how many peers Gordon Brown had appointed and with Boris it was "only 7". It isn't the number, its that he appointed DJ Party and his [superinjunction] and wanted to appoint crazy people like Nadine

**They are being kept up well into the early hours o repeated days trying to plough through the illegal Illegal Migration bill to make it legal and moral. This will be hurled out by the corruption cult, but the HofL is doing an important job.
Its just that some of the people doing said important job are bishops, flunkies, donors etc. And there are 800 of them. Time to replace it with something modern.

Sorry, but how on Earth does Dorries have a point because of Charlotte Owen?

From the reporting it seems that Dorries was told she would have to resign from the Commons to be made a Lord, to which she said she was not going to resign thinking she'd still get her Lordship anyway at a time that suited her better rather than the process. That's entirely her choice if so.

Did Charlotte Owen refuse to resign from the Commons?

The two situations are not remotely the same.

Dorries has a point because of Lord Lebedev and anyone else who shouldn't be in the Lords. The institution is already so disgraced that excluding any of the Boris picks is absurd when you look at the other people he has put in.

A large number of MPs are pretty unhinged, look at how many have been suspended. What should we do about the standard of candidate for MP?

Introduce a voting system that doesn't have safe seats?

So definitely not PR then which makes anyone at the top of their list pretty safe in their seat even if there's a swing against them and their party drops down to second or lower then?

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nadine Dorries is unhinged. Not suitable for elevation to the House of Lords, and her hissy fit in being rejected has been entertaining.

But - Charlotte Owen. So Dorries has a point.

This whole tawdry process demonstrates quite clearly several things:
That the issuance of rewards from disgraced ex-PMs should be banned*
That the "honours" system is pitifully anachronistic
That the House of Lords is an absurd spectacle**

*David TC Davies on Any Questions at the weekend foaming on and on about how many peers Gordon Brown had appointed and with Boris it was "only 7". It isn't the number, its that he appointed DJ Party and his [superinjunction] and wanted to appoint crazy people like Nadine

**They are being kept up well into the early hours o repeated days trying to plough through the illegal Illegal Migration bill to make it legal and moral. This will be hurled out by the corruption cult, but the HofL is doing an important job.
Its just that some of the people doing said important job are bishops, flunkies, donors etc. And there are 800 of them. Time to replace it with something modern.

Sorry, but how on Earth does Dorries have a point because of Charlotte Owen?

From the reporting it seems that Dorries was told she would have to resign from the Commons to be made a Lord, to which she said she was not going to resign thinking she'd still get her Lordship anyway at a time that suited her better rather than the process. That's entirely her choice if so.

Did Charlotte Owen refuse to resign from the Commons?

The two situations are not remotely the same.

Can you give us any conceivable reason why Charlotte One deserves a peerage?

That's the link - both are totally unsuitable, if for slightly different reasons.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

Nigelb said:

Sean_F said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Sean_F said:

kamski said:

Foxy said:

state_go_away said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TimS said:

HYUFD said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Leon said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Leon said:

Farooq said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheKitchenCabinet said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

Can I make a small point of order:

IMHO piling in on HYUFD for his political opinions is fine, but piling in on him because of his religious faith demeans those that do it. Just sayin'

That is spot on. HYFUD's religious beliefs should be respected. I also suspect that those piling on would be slightly more reticent if HYFUD proclaimed himself Muslim (and, yes, that means you think because HYFUD is a Christian it is fair game to attack his faith whereas you would be concerned about being called Islamophobic etc if you attacked the faith of those with different religions).

Oh what sanctimonious rubbish.

I'm happy to take anyone on who tries to shove their stuff down other people's throats, and yes that includes Muslims too. If someone is preaching Islam then its not Islamophobic to reject or rebut it, any more than its antisemitic to do so for someone preaching Judaism.

Discriminating against someone because they're x, y or z is wrong, but debating ideas if someone is putting theirs forwards and you view things differently is never wrong. Its civilised and enlightened and can be a pleasant conversation for both parties. He likes it as much as we do.

^ this.

If someone turns up telling people that they should live in this or that way because some book says so, that person gets to be told they're wrong if the target of their proselytising disagrees.

It doesn't matter if that book is Mein Kampf, the Bible, the Communist Manifesto, the Qur'an, On Liberty, The Torah, or Harry fucking Potter and the Prisoner of fucking Azkaban,

If your book says you should forgo sex before marriage, seize the means of production, observe Saturday as the Sabbath, wipe out those tho observe Saturday as the Sabbath, or use time travel to save Buckbeak the fucking Hippogriff, it may well be deep and profound to you, and you're welcome to try your hand at persuading others. But if someone tells you no, you're wrong and frankly you're an idiot for thinking that, then there's no "boo hoo but religion" card to be played. It's just a belief system, and someone testing it through either reasoned argument or dismissive contempt is your problem, not the problem of the person who refuses to listen to your enthused babble.

I agree entirely, but you kinda miss the point that we now have a de facto blasphemy law. If you stand up and criticise or ridicule Islam - as should be your right, this is why we had The Enlightenment - you are likely to get into big trouble, if not get yourself beheaded. So people don’t do it. They stay silent. Think of that poor teacher in Batley. He is STILL in hiding with his family

We have allowed a grotesque medieval creed to destroy our precious Free Speech, thanks to misguided policies of migration and multiculturalism. Policies which, I suspect, you approve of

A couple of years ago we had someone come here who was proselytising Islam on this site.

I and others on here debated with him and were quite happy to reject his beliefs as much as anyone who espouses their views on this site can be rejected.

He tried calling those who disagreed with him Islamophobic and it was bullshit then, and its bullshit now from you, and didn't silence anyone. And last I checked, we all still have our heads.

Islam is a religion with some ridiculous beliefs just like Christianity is. Not remotely Islamophobic or fatal to say that.

OK go and draw a satirical cartoon of the Prophet and put it on social media in your name. Or burn a copy of the Koran in Basingstoke Aldi. Or rant about the evil of Islam on Youtube. You won’t do this, will you? Because you are scared of what would happen to you. For good reason. Yet you would do all these things vis a vis Christianity or Buddhism. So we have a de facto blasphemy law that protects Islam and pretty much only Islam

PB is an anonymous forum, it is entirely different

Not for all of us. And I am still happy to say that Islam is a belief in Middle Eastern Sky Fairies - just like Christianity.

It doesn't believe in the Trinity though, Islam sees Jesus as a prophet (albeit a less important one than Muhammad) but it doesn't see him as God and Holy Spirit too as Christians do

I believe anyone should be allowed to indulge themselves in their own faith, whatever that may be.

Where you and I differ is my view that such divinity is best served in solitude. Organized religion on the other hand is the root of much of the World's woes. It is not your Gods or your prophets who are to blame, it is avarice of men who build their churches, idols and finery with money they demand with menaces from the poor. From the Church of Rome to the Church of Scientology, Charlatans become wealthy and then politically connected to enhance that wealth.

So when you pray in solitude, ask your God if he is angered that the CoE owns so much real estate here in the UK, and why don't the C of E liquidate these assets to clothe, feed and educate the needy?

Substitute C of E for just about any faith based organised church throughout the World if you like.

As the C of E is not a socialist organisation but a Christian organisation focused on worship of the living Christ. Yes it also provides foodbanks, schools and homeless shelters too but its ultimate purpose is to provide places of worship for fellow Anglicans to partake of Holy Communion, read the Bible and worship

Jesus was a socialist.

He wasn't, read the parable of the talents. He was also a social conservative, albeit with compassion for the sinner provided they recognised their sin

Jesus was an orange book Lib Dem.

Depending upon the passage he was somewhere between a socialist and an orange book Lib Dem.

Sort of like the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The tragedy of Christianity is that "Christians" are far more interested in the teachings of Paul than of Christ.

As a Christian myself , I dont think Christianity is 'tragic' and the teaching of Paul and Jesus are not one or the other.

I should also point out that Jesus was not political, not Socialist nor Social Conservative. His Kingdom is not of this world.

According to Wikipedia, crucifixion was used by the Romans 'to punish slaves, pirates, and enemies of the state'. Don't think Jesus was a slave or a pirate.

He was alleged to be a rebel, challenging the authority of the emperor.

Which is very much political.

His argument that His kingdom was not of this world is a nuance that would have flown over the heads of those who saw just another Jewish troublemaker.

Though a century or two later, the empire recognised what a useful political tool that was, and adopted it for themselves.

Here, I would disagree. And as usual, I blame Gibbon, to whom, the aristocracy saw all religions as equally useful, the philosophers equally false, and the masses equally true. Most pagans of all classes were quite sincere in their beliefs.

People of all classes are quite adept at very sincerely twisting beliefs into meaning whatever is useful for them. So the two are not contradictory.

To merge different but related conversations we see that today where avowed Christians manage to twist Christianity into being a judgemental set of beliefs that view other people as being sinners because they're doing things the speaker doesn't like (such as abortion, homosexuality etc) when Christ himself didn't say anything on those subjects and did speak about how you should not be judging others.

I don't think those doing so are being insincere. They simply while being sincere Christians don't care about what Christ actually said and care about their beliefs as they hold them and how they suit their own agenda.

Which the aristocracy or others in positions of power throughout time have been extremely capable of doing, adapting religion (however sincerely held) to further their own agenda.

Which of course is why later Romans found Christianity to be a more attractive prospect that its multi-deity alternatives, since with the former you could promulgate supposed absolute truths enforced from the top by decree and ranks of priests, whereas with the latter the punters were free to choose the deity they needed from time to time according to circumstances and preference.

IanB2 said:

Nigelb said:

.

Morris_Dancer said:

Good morning, everyone.

In a dispute over truth between Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, I think I might just favour the latter.

It’s not a dispute over truth if you listen to what Boris actually says.
It’s a dispute over semantics.

Boris wanted Sunak to resubmit the peerages of those turned down. Sunak said no,
You can call that “overruling” the Lords appointment commission, or you can call it whatever piffle Johnson came out with. But that’s irrelevant.

Johnson was simply demanding that Sunak exercise Prime Ministerial powers on his behalf, in favour if his cronies. Sunak had no obligation to do that; any obligation (none, IMO) that he had to Johnson was fulfilled when he agreed to submit the rotten list in the first place was fulfilled.
Anything beyond that would have made him another Johnsonian puppet.

Quite correctly, he told him to do one.

And, it would seem, the reason for the Holac objection wasn’t that any of the three were unsuitable appointments (we’ll save that for the Owen story, and she got through), but that the MPs weren’t willing to resign within the required six months in order to take their Lords seats, but wanted their places announced but ‘kept on ice’ until the GE date is known.

Which makes them look ridiculous for going on to resign in protest at not getting a peerage, when they weren’t willing to resign in order to get one!

It's much much funnier though.

They clearly think they are sticking it to Rishi because their seats will probably be lost, some of them anyway, but they could have had what they wanted and now never will.

I should think if Boris ever did get back and renominated them they might be rejected on the grounds they disgraced their positions by quitting for not getting a reward.

Benpointer said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Nadine Dorries is unhinged. Not suitable for elevation to the House of Lords, and her hissy fit in being rejected has been entertaining.

But - Charlotte Owen. So Dorries has a point.

This whole tawdry process demonstrates quite clearly several things:
That the issuance of rewards from disgraced ex-PMs should be banned*
That the "honours" system is pitifully anachronistic
That the House of Lords is an absurd spectacle**

*David TC Davies on Any Questions at the weekend foaming on and on about how many peers Gordon Brown had appointed and with Boris it was "only 7". It isn't the number, its that he appointed DJ Party and his [superinjunction] and wanted to appoint crazy people like Nadine

**They are being kept up well into the early hours o repeated days trying to plough through the illegal Illegal Migration bill to make it legal and moral. This will be hurled out by the corruption cult, but the HofL is doing an important job.
Its just that some of the people doing said important job are bishops, flunkies, donors etc. And there are 800 of them. Time to replace it with something modern.

Sorry, but how on Earth does Dorries have a point because of Charlotte Owen?

From the reporting it seems that Dorries was told she would have to resign from the Commons to be made a Lord, to which she said she was not going to resign thinking she'd still get her Lordship anyway at a time that suited her better rather than the process. That's entirely her choice if so.

Did Charlotte Owen refuse to resign from the Commons?

The two situations are not remotely the same.

Can you give us any conceivable reason why Charlotte One deserves a peerage?

That's the link - both are totally unsuitable, if for slightly different reasons.

Yes, because she was nominated by a former Prime Minister.

Dorries wasn't rejected because she was deemed unsuitable, she was rejected as she refused to resign from the Commons which took her name off the list.

Her choice, her responsibility.

Something major is happening in Nottingham city centre.

I cannot fully explain why but nothing about the past 5-10 years in politics is making my blood boil quite so much as
Charlotte bloody Owen.