It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
So it's probably just deal-making.
Probably, though I don't see any good choices for the Tories. They'll be humiliated if/when they stand, but ceding the ground entirely is a big deal for one of the traditional big two, once they officially accept they have no shot and, implicitly or otherwise, their voters should back Reform to beat Labour, well, they're halfway to a pact/merger already.
Which might not be so bad for them, except that Reform expect to be the leader in any such scenario, notwithstanding the Tories have 10x the seats at the moment.
I think the Tories should hold their ground and their nerve.
They made some shit choices on leader over recent years, and badly fucked up on immigration, but I still think they have a distinctive offer that Reform and Labour don't and, weirdly, a place in the English (in particular) political psych rooted in history.
The problem for Kemi is many Tory MPs still in the party will want a clearer shift to the centre to mild centre right to distinguish them from Labour and Reform. When Jenrick was there they weren't willing to challenge her as he would have shifted the party even further right, now he is gone Tory moderates will see Cleverly as the likeliest replacement for Kemi and he is much more to their taste than she is.
If the Tories fall to 3rd in May a VONC in her is likely so she needs to ensure second for the party
*Not so fun fact. Matt Goodwin was my dissertation supervisor.
Only briefly mind. I swapped after he said that my idea - a study and survey on the politics of the homeless (less than 1% vote) - was of "no academic interest".
So whilst it would appear Goodwin was a poor tutor-mentor, remember he was an even worse pollster.
That said, I do respect when people throw their hat in the political ring, as there's a lot of people carping from the sidelines (none here of course) who might still insist they are principally a journalist/academic/take your pick, when really they are basically already a politician and might as well make a real go of it.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
It's almost as if we need an officially recognised definition of Islamophobia, just as we have one of Antisemitism, so we all know what we are talking about .
It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
So it's probably just deal-making.
Probably, though I don't see any good choices for the Tories. They'll be humiliated if/when they stand, but ceding the ground entirely is a big deal for one of the traditional big two, once they officially accept they have no shot and, implicitly or otherwise, their voters should back Reform to beat Labour, well, they're halfway to a pact/merger already.
Which might not be so bad for them, except that Reform expect to be the leader in any such scenario, notwithstanding the Tories have 10x the seats at the moment.
I think the Tories should hold their ground and their nerve.
They made some shit choices on leader over recent years, and badly fucked up on immigration, but I still think they have a distinctive offer that Reform and Labour don't and, weirdly, a place in the English (in particular) political psych rooted in history.
Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with you. There's a huge gap between the left and Reform that needs filling, and the Tories are the obvious candidates. But they need to distance themselves more from Reform - not just in policy terms, but in rhetoric also. Be the Pleasant Party is my advice.
It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
So it's probably just deal-making.
Probably, though I don't see any good choices for the Tories. They'll be humiliated if/when they stand, but ceding the ground entirely is a big deal for one of the traditional big two, once they officially accept they have no shot and, implicitly or otherwise, their voters should back Reform to beat Labour, well, they're halfway to a pact/merger already.
Which might not be so bad for them, except that Reform expect to be the leader in any such scenario, notwithstanding the Tories have 10x the seats at the moment.
I think the Tories should hold their ground and their nerve.
They made some shit choices on leader over recent years, and badly fucked up on immigration, but I still think they have a distinctive offer that Reform and Labour don't and, weirdly, a place in the English (in particular) political psych rooted in history.
The problem for Kemi is many Tory MPs still in the party will want a clearer shift to the centre to mild centre right to distinguish them from Labour and Reform. When Jenrick was there there weren't willing to challenge her as he would have shifted the party even further right, now he is gone Tory moderates now will see Cleverly as the likeliest replacement for Kemi and he is much more to their taste than she is.
If the Tories fall to 3rd in May a VONC in her is likely so she needs to ensure second for the party
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Ah, I see. Then no, opposing Islamism isn't Islamophobic, just as opposing Zionism isn't antisemitic.
Zionism wants a slightly larger, so a bit more secure, safe haven than they have now
Islamism wants the whole world
Well so does evangelical Christianity, however most of both want to do it via persuasion and peaceful conversion but there is a minority of militant jihadi Islam that wants to do it by violence
The Evangelicals aren’t even close to Crusaders. And I don’t know the word for the Jewish equivalent
White Evangelicals supporting Trump are close to crusaders in their values - they need a perceived religious war, and a "threat" to loathe, to justify their political programme.
The extreme right (eg Yaxley-Lennon and fellow travellers) aresomething different, who want a religious skin for their polityics, and find the fear and hate driven ideas of medieval Roman Catholic Crusaders transplanted to today to be the most convenient for them.
I hold no brief whatsoever for the crusades or crusaders. Context matters. Jerusalem has been conquered and occupied by: King David, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians (Zoroastrians), Persians (Islamic), classical Greeks, classical Romans, Byzantine Greeks, Egyptians, Turks, Europeans various including crusades and including efforts from GB, Zionists and, I am sure, a few I have missed. I have no wish to exculpate crusaders but I don't think we should pick them out of the throng as if unique.
It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
So it's probably just deal-making.
Probably, though I don't see any good choices for the Tories. They'll be humiliated if/when they stand, but ceding the ground entirely is a big deal for one of the traditional big two, once they officially accept they have no shot and, implicitly or otherwise, their voters should back Reform to beat Labour, well, they're halfway to a pact/merger already.
Which might not be so bad for them, except that Reform expect to be the leader in any such scenario, notwithstanding the Tories have 10x the seats at the moment.
I think the Tories should hold their ground and their nerve.
They made some shit choices on leader over recent years, and badly fucked up on immigration, but I still think they have a distinctive offer that Reform and Labour don't and, weirdly, a place in the English (in particular) political psych rooted in history.
The problem for Kemi is many Tory MPs still in the party will want a clearer shift to the centre to mild centre right to distinguish them from Labour and Reform. When Jenrick was there there weren't willing to challenge her as he would have shifted the party even further right, now he is gone Tory moderates now will see Cleverly as the likeliest replacement for Kemi and he is much more to their taste than she is.
If the Tories fall to 3rd in May a VONC in her is likely so she needs to ensure second for the party
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
That statement is not quite circumscribed enough.
Messianic Jews do believe such.
And Jewish Christians, such as Hugh Montefiore the former Bishop of Birmingham.
President Donald J. Trump spoke to reporters earlier outside the White House about this past weekend’s shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis by agents with U.S. Border Patrol.
Reporter: “Do you believe that Alex Pretti's death was justified?”
Trump: “Well, you know, we're doing a big investigation. I want to see the investigation. I'm gonna be watching over it. I want a very honorable and honest investigation. I have to see it myself.”
"No one in Number 10 told Andy Burnham not to apply to the NEC for permission to stand or gave any indication to him which sought to prejudge the NEC officers' deliberation or decision."
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
That statement is not quite circumscribed enough.
Messianic Jews do believe such.
And Jewish Christians, such as Hugh Montefiore the former Bishop of Birmingham.
Jewish Christians aren't Jews, they have converted to Christianity.
Orthodox Jews don't believe Messianic Jews are true Jews either and the Supreme Court of Israel ruled they were Christians not Jews in terms of the Law of Return
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
You don't say.
Of course, early Christians also famoulsy argued about the precise nature of Christ too, in their own way.
They still do. The modern literature and scholarship on this, historical, philosophical and theological, is immense and forms a continuing cascade including work of outstanding quality.
It seems to me, by the way, that one has to be oddly unimaginative as a member of our culture to have no interest in what Jesus was like, what he did and said, his history and his social and religious context. Regardless of whether one is a critic of its aftermath.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Even if Jesus was real, he stopped his work about 2000 years ago. Everything decreed by the various Christian churches has been the work of (mostly) men, and it often shows. The medieval church/state complex was the ultimate in power and control.
It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
So it's probably just deal-making.
Probably, though I don't see any good choices for the Tories. They'll be humiliated if/when they stand, but ceding the ground entirely is a big deal for one of the traditional big two, once they officially accept they have no shot and, implicitly or otherwise, their voters should back Reform to beat Labour, well, they're halfway to a pact/merger already.
Which might not be so bad for them, except that Reform expect to be the leader in any such scenario, notwithstanding the Tories have 10x the seats at the moment.
I think the Tories should hold their ground and their nerve.
They made some shit choices on leader over recent years, and badly fucked up on immigration, but I still think they have a distinctive offer that Reform and Labour don't and, weirdly, a place in the English (in particular) political psych rooted in history.
The problem for Kemi is many Tory MPs still in the party will want a clearer shift to the centre to mild centre right to distinguish them from Labour and Reform. When Jenrick was there they weren't willing to challenge her as he would have shifted the party even further right, now he is gone Tory moderates will see Cleverly as the likeliest replacement for Kemi and he is much more to their taste than she is.
If the Tories fall to 3rd in May a VONC in her is likely so she needs to ensure second for the party
Oh, this centre v Right stuff is such bullshit and so clichéd.
The Tories should live in the real world and come up with an offer for a strong country, rooted in independence, solvency, sovereignty and a vision for a strong and prosperous future for all.
That's it.
This reduco ad absurdium to just be either blue Lib Dems or blue Reform totally misses the point, and is a flase choice and flawed analysis.
It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
So it's probably just deal-making.
Probably, though I don't see any good choices for the Tories. They'll be humiliated if/when they stand, but ceding the ground entirely is a big deal for one of the traditional big two, once they officially accept they have no shot and, implicitly or otherwise, their voters should back Reform to beat Labour, well, they're halfway to a pact/merger already.
Which might not be so bad for them, except that Reform expect to be the leader in any such scenario, notwithstanding the Tories have 10x the seats at the moment.
I think the Tories should hold their ground and their nerve.
They made some shit choices on leader over recent years, and badly fucked up on immigration, but I still think they have a distinctive offer that Reform and Labour don't and, weirdly, a place in the English (in particular) political psych rooted in history.
The problem for Kemi is many Tory MPs still in the party will want a clearer shift to the centre to mild centre right to distinguish them from Labour and Reform. When Jenrick was there they weren't willing to challenge her as he would have shifted the party even further right, now he is gone Tory moderates will see Cleverly as the likeliest replacement for Kemi and he is much more to their taste than she is.
If the Tories fall to 3rd in May a VONC in her is likely so she needs to ensure second for the party
Oh, this centre v Right stuff is such bullshit and so clichéd.
The Tories should live in the real world and come up with an offer for a strong country, rooted in independence, solvency, sovereignty and a vision for a strong and prosperous future for all.
That's it.
This reduco ad absurdium to just be either blue Lib Dems or blue Reform totally misses the point, and is a flase choice and flawed analysis.
Just be Tory.
Well that would be reform of ECHR not leave ECHR then for example ie between LD and Reform as Cleverly wanted not copying Reform as Kemi has on that issue.
Apart from keeping the 2 child benefit cap and opposing nationalising British Steel there is little Kemi is proposing Farage isn't as well
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
The same is true of being opposed to Israel as a Jewish state. It doesn't make you an anti semite though if you were to tweet such a thing you would never be eligable to stand as a Labour or Tory candidate. The evidence of the truth of that is overwhelming.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
You don't say.
Of course, early Christians also famoulsy argued about the precise nature of Christ too, in their own way.
They still do. The modern literature and scholarship on this, historical, philosophical and theological, is immense and forms a continuing cascade including work of outstanding quality.
It seems to me, by the way, that one has to be oddly unimaginative as a member of our culture to have no interest in what Jesus was like, what he did and said, his history and his social and religious context. Regardless of whether one is a critic of its aftermath.
Kyle Broflovski: Think about it. Haven't Luke Skywalker and Santa Claus affected your lives more than most real people in this room? I mean, whether Jesus is real or not, he... he's had a bigger impact on the world than any of us have. And the same could be said of Bugs Bunny and, a-and Superman and Harry Potter. They've changed my life, changed the way I act on the Earth. Doesn't that make them kind of "real."? They might be imaginary, but, but they're more important than most of us here. And they're all gonna be around long after we're dead. So in a way, those things are more realer than any of us.
(I get all my life lessons from TV shows and movies)
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Ah, I see. Then no, opposing Islamism isn't Islamophobic, just as opposing Zionism isn't antisemitic.
Zionism wants a slightly larger, so a bit more secure, safe haven than they have now
Islamism wants the whole world
Well so does evangelical Christianity, however most of both want to do it via persuasion and peaceful conversion but there is a minority of militant jihadi Islam that wants to do it by violence
The Evangelicals aren’t even close to Crusaders. And I don’t know the word for the Jewish equivalent
White Evangelicals supporting Trump are close to crusaders in their values - they need a perceived religious war, and a "threat" to loathe, to justify their political programme.
The extreme right (eg Yaxley-Lennon and fellow travellers) aresomething different, who want a religious skin for their polityics, and find the fear and hate driven ideas of medieval Roman Catholic Crusaders transplanted to today to be the most convenient for them.
I hold no brief whatsoever for the crusades or crusaders. Context matters. Jerusalem has been conquered and occupied by: King David, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians (Zoroastrians), Persians (Islamic), classical Greeks, classical Romans, Byzantine Greeks, Egyptians, Turks, Europeans various including crusades and including efforts from GB, Zionists and, I am sure, a few I have missed. I have no wish to exculpate crusaders but I don't think we should pick them out of the throng as if unique.
Whilst I very much agree on the wider comment, I think it is of particular relevance to our politics here at this time so needs to be addressed and kept in mind.
I'd draw a parallel with the poisoning of historic symbols (eg Swastika, sun wheel, fasces, various others) in the 20C.
We do not want eg the St George's flag to go the same way, which remains a particular risk.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
The same is true of being opposed to Israel as a Jewish state. It doesn't make you an anti semite though if you were to tweet such a thing you would never be eligable to stand as a Labour or Tory candidate. The evidence of the truth of that is overwhelming.
Is saying that there should be no home country for Islam problematic?
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
The same is true of being opposed to Israel as a Jewish state. It doesn't make you an anti semite though if you were to tweet such a thing you would never be eligable to stand as a Labour or Tory candidate. The evidence of the truth of that is overwhelming.
Many Jews would see denying them their only homeland and the only nation on earth they are the majority as antisemitic
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Some quite interesting people - Tom Holland is a very obvious example - are coming around to thinking that how Moon Rabbit describes things is actually in some part true, that the Christian foundations of western society go much deeper than people realise in day to day life, that there are dangers in not recognising the significance of the Christendom inheritance and so on. I share that broad understanding FWIW, but I am a Christian of very liberal views.
What is also the case is that 'state neutrality' is not an option. States decide things and states don't decide by lottery or at random. Neutrality doesn't exist. So the question of what Leviathan stands for and why is always in issue.
Coming round to thinking? Pierre Duhem was arguing that 150 years ago.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
The same is true of being opposed to Israel as a Jewish state. It doesn't make you an anti semite though if you were to tweet such a thing you would never be eligable to stand as a Labour or Tory candidate. The evidence of the truth of that is overwhelming.
Is saying that there should be no home country for Islam problematic?
Perhaps but there are numerous Islamic majority nations, including most of North Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia
Question is will it be the referendum that Goodwin wants it to be, on Starmer - or a referendum on Reform and these sort of views.
Point is you can vote against both with the Greens.
This by-election could be quite incendiary and I think the higher the stakes, the more likely we are to see a Caerphilly-type result, with the Greens the winners aided by a huge tactical vote.
The Greens, in their own way, are just a bad (if not worse) than Reform.
Their policy platform of wealth tax now, free Gaza, transvestives are women, open borders, just nuts and nothing at all on the environment.
That's plainly not true; for a start, there's lots about the environment in their last manifesto, which is on their website. You may not agree with their environmental policies, but they certainly have them. Of course, they also have policies on other areas. If they didn't, they'd rightly be accused of being a single-issue party.
And no, they are not worse than Reform. Their policies are pretty unrealistic, but are at least grounded in reality, while Reform are complete fantasists as well as utter shits.
It is most certainly true. They are just as dangerous and economic lunatics.
They have a new leader since the last election and last manifesto. They speak little about the environment now.
Yes, wealth tax now, open borders, free Palestine, cross dressing men are women are all policies ‘grounded in reality’ 🙄
They are just fantasists too.
But at least they are not treasonous fantasists. And they aren't climate change deniers.
I find it so amusing to see people embracing patriotism simply as a stick to beat Reform with, many of these people, and the parties they support, would simply sell the nation and its sovereignty out to embrace the likes of the European Union.
It’s like their ‘patriotism’ is skin deep and convenient.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
That statement is not quite circumscribed enough.
Messianic Jews do believe such.
And Jewish Christians, such as Hugh Montefiore the former Bishop of Birmingham.
Jewish Christians aren't Jews, they have converted to Christianity.
Orthodox Jews don't believe Messianic Jews are true Jews either and the Supreme Court of Israel ruled they were Christians not Jews in terms of the Law of Return
I don't think that is a defensible argument, on the basis that Jewishness is an ethnic, as well as religious, identity.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
But what is Islamism in people’s minds?
What if in their minds people think Islamism is against modern liberal, secularized societies, on basis they risk moral decay attempting to exist without a spiritual foundation, so Islamism insists on a structured society guided by Islamism principles, comprising a Islamic state. * A Rejection of Neutrality: Islamism against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Islamism values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Islamism principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Islamist. * The Community of Islamism: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Islamism acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
If in your mind all this was Islamism, would you not say you are opposed to that?
It is ironic, in light of that, to reflect that the Pilgrim Fathers insisted on a full separation of church and state on the grounds that secular power corrupted everything and they did not want it to damage their religious observances.
It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
So it's probably just deal-making.
Probably, though I don't see any good choices for the Tories. They'll be humiliated if/when they stand, but ceding the ground entirely is a big deal for one of the traditional big two, once they officially accept they have no shot and, implicitly or otherwise, their voters should back Reform to beat Labour, well, they're halfway to a pact/merger already.
Which might not be so bad for them, except that Reform expect to be the leader in any such scenario, notwithstanding the Tories have 10x the seats at the moment.
I think the Tories should hold their ground and their nerve.
They made some shit choices on leader over recent years, and badly fucked up on immigration, but I still think they have a distinctive offer that Reform and Labour don't and, weirdly, a place in the English (in particular) political psych rooted in history.
Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with you. There's a huge gap between the left and Reform that needs filling, and the Tories are the obvious candidates. But they need to distance themselves more from Reform - not just in policy terms, but in rhetoric also. Be the Pleasant Party is my advice.
Badenoch has a unique opportunity to be tough on immigration and woke culture, without being seen as racist or sexist, and even if people do think it, she won't be as bad as Reform. She can also position herself as the only leader prepared to be tough on welfare by refusing to scrap the two child cap and potentially breaking the triple lock. She definitely has the highest ceiling of the current leaders in so far as being transformative. Anything Farage did, or tried to do, as PM would be akin to Theresa may trying to get a Brexit deal agreed. Whenever I imagine PM Farage my mind goes back to the purgatory of 2017-19, and the endless binary arguments between Leave and Remain
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
That statement is not quite circumscribed enough.
Messianic Jews do believe such.
And Jewish Christians, such as Hugh Montefiore the former Bishop of Birmingham.
Jewish Christians aren't Jews, they have converted to Christianity.
Orthodox Jews don't believe Messianic Jews are true Jews either and the Supreme Court of Israel ruled they were Christians not Jews in terms of the Law of Return
I don't think that is a defensible argument, on the basis that Jewishness is an ethnic, as well as religious, identity.
Certainly it didn't save them from Auschwitz, as it might be worth noting on Holocaust Memorial Day. There was a Catholic church in the Warsaw Ghetto for those Jewish Catholics incarcerated there.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
The same is true of being opposed to Israel as a Jewish state. It doesn't make you an anti semite though if you were to tweet such a thing you would never be eligable to stand as a Labour or Tory candidate. The evidence of the truth of that is overwhelming.
Is saying that there should be no home country for Islam problematic?
Perhaps but there are numerous Islamic majority nations, including most of North Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia
And none of them have the number of Jews in them that Israel has Muslims. But one majority Jew state is opposed by huge numbers everywhere
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Some quite interesting people - Tom Holland is a very obvious example - are coming around to thinking that how Moon Rabbit describes things is actually in some part true, that the Christian foundations of western society go much deeper than people realise in day to day life, that there are dangers in not recognising the significance of the Christendom inheritance and so on. I share that broad understanding FWIW, but I am a Christian of very liberal views.
What is also the case is that 'state neutrality' is not an option. States decide things and states don't decide by lottery or at random. Neutrality doesn't exist. So the question of what Leviathan stands for and why is always in issue.
I think it is probably true that the Christian foundations go deeper than people realise, they underestimate the impact of such a long period of intense Christian culture and assume certain things are universal when they are not or, to the extent that certain ideas and norms do crop up all over the world and other cultures, they may not be in quite the same forms.
That being said when reading Holland's Dominion I did feel he was overegging the point a bit much all the same, it was a bit weakly argued in places, and even accepting the foundations doesn't require the kind of overt push that some who raise the point would prefer.
Question is will it be the referendum that Goodwin wants it to be, on Starmer - or a referendum on Reform and these sort of views.
Point is you can vote against both with the Greens.
This by-election could be quite incendiary and I think the higher the stakes, the more likely we are to see a Caerphilly-type result, with the Greens the winners aided by a huge tactical vote.
The Greens, in their own way, are just a bad (if not worse) than Reform.
Their policy platform of wealth tax now, free Gaza, transvestives are women, open borders, just nuts and nothing at all on the environment.
That's plainly not true; for a start, there's lots about the environment in their last manifesto, which is on their website. You may not agree with their environmental policies, but they certainly have them. Of course, they also have policies on other areas. If they didn't, they'd rightly be accused of being a single-issue party.
And no, they are not worse than Reform. Their policies are pretty unrealistic, but are at least grounded in reality, while Reform are complete fantasists as well as utter shits.
It is most certainly true. They are just as dangerous and economic lunatics.
They have a new leader since the last election and last manifesto. They speak little about the environment now.
Yes, wealth tax now, open borders, free Palestine, cross dressing men are women are all policies ‘grounded in reality’ 🙄
They are just fantasists too.
But at least they are not treasonous fantasists. And they aren't climate change deniers.
I find it so amusing to see people embracing patriotism simply as a stick to beat Reform with, many of these people, and the parties they support, would simply sell the nation and its sovereignty out to embrace the likes of the European Union.
It’s like their ‘patriotism’ is skin deep and convenient.
Last refuge of the scoundrel, innit.
That's misrepresented, though - it's that appealing to that as a get out for the crapness of all other arguments that makes it the last resort of a scoundrel.
I.e. you're not patriotic if you don't agree with me on what I've done or not done on this bit.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Even if Jesus was real, he stopped his work about 2000 years ago. Everything decreed by the various Christian churches has been the work of (mostly) men, and it often shows. The medieval church/state complex was the ultimate in power and control.
A one line summary of 2000 years of church history doesn't quite do it justice. Anyway, it's not Jesus's fault that he lived a long time ago. So did Abraham, Homer, Aeschylus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Moses Maimonides, Ibn Sina, Buddha and Shakespeare. It doesn't prevent them being highly significant characters on today's scene.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
The same is true of being opposed to Israel as a Jewish state. It doesn't make you an anti semite though if you were to tweet such a thing you would never be eligable to stand as a Labour or Tory candidate. The evidence of the truth of that is overwhelming.
Is saying that there should be no home country for Islam problematic?
Perhaps but there are numerous Islamic majority nations, including most of North Africa and the Middle East and much of South Asia
And none of them have the number of Jews in them that Israel has Muslims. But one majority Jew state is opposed by huge numbers everywhere
And those same people are silent about Iran
Well, not any more.
There used to be very large Jewish communities in Egypt, Iraq and Syria.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Some quite interesting people - Tom Holland is a very obvious example - are coming around to thinking that how Moon Rabbit describes things is actually in some part true, that the Christian foundations of western society go much deeper than people realise in day to day life, that there are dangers in not recognising the significance of the Christendom inheritance and so on. I share that broad understanding FWIW, but I am a Christian of very liberal views.
What is also the case is that 'state neutrality' is not an option. States decide things and states don't decide by lottery or at random. Neutrality doesn't exist. So the question of what Leviathan stands for and why is always in issue.
Coming round to thinking? Pierre Duhem was arguing that 150 years ago.
150 years ago it was obvious that it was true. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
It's almost as if we need an officially recognised definition of Islamophobia, just as we have one of Antisemitism, so we all know what we are talking about .
There's a lot of bullshit around this imo. Antisemitism is prejudice against Jews. Islamophobia is prejudice against Muslims. You know both when you see it.
It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
So it's probably just deal-making.
Probably, though I don't see any good choices for the Tories. They'll be humiliated if/when they stand, but ceding the ground entirely is a big deal for one of the traditional big two, once they officially accept they have no shot and, implicitly or otherwise, their voters should back Reform to beat Labour, well, they're halfway to a pact/merger already.
Which might not be so bad for them, except that Reform expect to be the leader in any such scenario, notwithstanding the Tories have 10x the seats at the moment.
I think the Tories should hold their ground and their nerve.
They made some shit choices on leader over recent years, and badly fucked up on immigration, but I still think they have a distinctive offer that Reform and Labour don't and, weirdly, a place in the English (in particular) political psych rooted in history.
So did the Liberals and they were usurped by Johnny come lately Labour.
The problem both Labour and the Tories have is in their current forms neither demonstrate even the vaguest hint of ideology.
The New Labour Government of Blair showed a hint of Fabian social justice. If this lot have shown any social justice leg it has passed me by.
Cameron and Osborne gave us their version of Thatcherite small state Conservatism, but austerity over fifteen years seems to have done more harm than good, although fans could argue it was diluted by Johnsonian big state spending/ spaffing and centralised government corruption during COVID. Stride was on with Marr this evening. And you all think Reeves is confused?
So what does Starmerism stand for? What is his ideology? Answers please because I don't know and neither does he.
So what of the Conservatives? What is their USP? They can claim economic growth to fund tax cuts is their aim but we didn't see much of that since 2010 and even less since Brexit. Their offering, hardly an ideology, is diluted racist cruelty. If that's what you want why not go like Jenrick and Braverman for the full fat version.
So there it is. If you want undiluted Marxism with a hint of ecology vote Green, and if you want performative cruelty against immigrants and (unconscionable to Labour and Tories) wholesale demolition of welfare safety nets and affordable/ free at the point of delivery universal healthcare* you have a home in Reform.
* Most Reform voters who have bought Reform's performative cruelty to immigrants offer just haven't noticed that they will be refused entry to hospital for pre existing conditions by Nigel's healthcare insurance providers. It has already come as a shock to a lot of trailer dwelling MAGAlanders.
Breaking Aviation News & Videos @aviationbrk British Airways A350-1000 loses one of its main gear wheels on departure from Las Vegas Harry Reid International Airport.
The incident captured on a Flightradar24 automated live stream occurred last night on the BA274, as reported by @flightradar24 .
The flight continued for a safe landing in London.
I think that it’s quite obvious why so many are not inclined to oppose the evil Islamist regime in Iran: they’re Israel’s greatest enemy. So they can’t be all bad
Is true the Mullahs still want Salman Rushdie dead?
The Iranian chaos? Yes they do.
The enlightened, nice ones* are prepared to not actually encourage murdering Mr Rushdie, but can’t say that they are against Khomeni’s fatwah.
That’s what they say anyway. In private.
*they will have you stoned to death with nice stones.
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Some quite interesting people - Tom Holland is a very obvious example - are coming around to thinking that how Moon Rabbit describes things is actually in some part true, that the Christian foundations of western society go much deeper than people realise in day to day life, that there are dangers in not recognising the significance of the Christendom inheritance and so on. I share that broad understanding FWIW, but I am a Christian of very liberal views.
What is also the case is that 'state neutrality' is not an option. States decide things and states don't decide by lottery or at random. Neutrality doesn't exist. So the question of what Leviathan stands for and why is always in issue.
Coming round to thinking? Pierre Duhem was arguing that 150 years ago.
150 years ago it was obvious that it was true. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
Duhem was writing partly as a reaction to the aggressively anti-Christian writings of his time, blaming the Middle Ages as a time of stagnation and ignorance. Most notably this was put forward by Draper and White, and was popular in France. (It still is popular on the GCSE Medicine through Time course, which is basically wrong on every key fact down to around 1660. This means I do not teach it because I will keep pointing out where it is wrong and confusing the hell out of the markers.)
Duhem himself was extremely surprised by the results of his research and hesitated over publishing them because he knew it would be controversial. Indeed, after he died publication of the complete System du Monde was held up for many years because of the implacable opposition of the French scientific establishment to its conclusions.
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Some quite interesting people - Tom Holland is a very obvious example - are coming around to thinking that how Moon Rabbit describes things is actually in some part true, that the Christian foundations of western society go much deeper than people realise in day to day life, that there are dangers in not recognising the significance of the Christendom inheritance and so on. I share that broad understanding FWIW, but I am a Christian of very liberal views.
What is also the case is that 'state neutrality' is not an option. States decide things and states don't decide by lottery or at random. Neutrality doesn't exist. So the question of what Leviathan stands for and why is always in issue.
I think it is probably true that the Christian foundations go deeper than people realise, they underestimate the impact of such a long period of intense Christian culture and assume certain things are universal when they are not or, to the extent that certain ideas and norms do crop up all over the world and other cultures, they may not be in quite the same forms.
That being said when reading Holland's Dominion I did feel he was overegging the point a bit much all the same, it was a bit weakly argued in places, and even accepting the foundations doesn't require the kind of overt push that some who raise the point would prefer.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
It's almost as if we need an officially recognised definition of Islamophobia, just as we have one of Antisemitism, so we all know what we are talking about .
There's a lot of bullshit around this imo. Antisemitism is prejudice against Jews. Islamophobia is prejudice against Muslims. You know both when you see it.
I'd like to think so, but I don't think people do agree on both when they see it.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
I’m personally opposed to the whole “you must forgive people who’ve shown no contrition” thing.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
Not even in a roundabout way ?
Did they have roundabouts in the holy land?
They did when we drove from Jerusalem to Jericho !!!!
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
Not even in a roundabout way ?
Did they have roundabouts in the holy land?
They did when we drove from Jerusalem to Jericho !!!!
If they’d stopped at the stop line, instead of driving round the roundabout 7 times…
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
It's almost as if we need an officially recognised definition of Islamophobia, just as we have one of Antisemitism, so we all know what we are talking about .
There's a lot of bullshit around this imo. Antisemitism is prejudice against Jews. Islamophobia is prejudice against Muslims. You know both when you see it.
I'd like to think so, but I don't think people do agree on both when they see it.
Sadly antisemitism has been weaponised recently which has made it difficult to nail down.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
The same is true of being opposed to Israel as a Jewish state. It doesn't make you an anti semite though if you were to tweet such a thing you would never be eligable to stand as a Labour or Tory candidate. The evidence of the truth of that is overwhelming.
Many Jews would see denying them their only homeland and the only nation on earth they are the majority as antisemitic
Even *if* you believe the creation of Israel was morally dubious and has done terrible things... then Germany by the same logic should be abolished as a state (brought into being by Prussian wars of aggression and obviously went onto do terrible things). If you think people in Germany have a right to self determination, but not those living in Israel, then something really does seem off.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
You don't say.
Of course, early Christians also famoulsy argued about the precise nature of Christ too, in their own way.
They still do. The modern literature and scholarship on this, historical, philosophical and theological, is immense and forms a continuing cascade including work of outstanding quality.
It seems to me, by the way, that one has to be oddly unimaginative as a member of our culture to have no interest in what Jesus was like, what he did and said, his history and his social and religious context. Regardless of whether one is a critic of its aftermath.
Kyle Broflovski: Think about it. Haven't Luke Skywalker and Santa Claus affected your lives more than most real people in this room? I mean, whether Jesus is real or not, he... he's had a bigger impact on the world than any of us have. And the same could be said of Bugs Bunny and, a-and Superman and Harry Potter. They've changed my life, changed the way I act on the Earth. Doesn't that make them kind of "real."? They might be imaginary, but, but they're more important than most of us here. And they're all gonna be around long after we're dead. So in a way, those things are more realer than any of us.
(I get all my life lessons from TV shows and movies)
Interesting, and a fair point. I would perhaps be some sort of quasi Christian even if I didn't think Jesus had existed, or if I stopped so thinking (unlikely - the evidence as it happens is overwhelming, much stronger, for example than the evidence for the existence of Virgil or Horace.)
The great catholic theologian Rahner is the guy with a thing for the 'Christianity' of people who have never thought about it. The longer I live the more I like him.
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Some quite interesting people - Tom Holland is a very obvious example - are coming around to thinking that how Moon Rabbit describes things is actually in some part true, that the Christian foundations of western society go much deeper than people realise in day to day life, that there are dangers in not recognising the significance of the Christendom inheritance and so on. I share that broad understanding FWIW, but I am a Christian of very liberal views.
What is also the case is that 'state neutrality' is not an option. States decide things and states don't decide by lottery or at random. Neutrality doesn't exist. So the question of what Leviathan stands for and why is always in issue.
I think it is probably true that the Christian foundations go deeper than people realise, they underestimate the impact of such a long period of intense Christian culture and assume certain things are universal when they are not or, to the extent that certain ideas and norms do crop up all over the world and other cultures, they may not be in quite the same forms.
That being said when reading Holland's Dominion I did feel he was overegging the point a bit much all the same, it was a bit weakly argued in places, and even accepting the foundations doesn't require the kind of overt push that some who raise the point would prefer.
Ahem, surely Judeo-Christian?
Indeed.
It’s moderately amusing to see (for example) a hard core SWPee getting upset by someone refusing to forgive. And actually using the words “that’s not very Christian of you”.
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Some quite interesting people - Tom Holland is a very obvious example - are coming around to thinking that how Moon Rabbit describes things is actually in some part true, that the Christian foundations of western society go much deeper than people realise in day to day life, that there are dangers in not recognising the significance of the Christendom inheritance and so on. I share that broad understanding FWIW, but I am a Christian of very liberal views.
What is also the case is that 'state neutrality' is not an option. States decide things and states don't decide by lottery or at random. Neutrality doesn't exist. So the question of what Leviathan stands for and why is always in issue.
Coming round to thinking? Pierre Duhem was arguing that 150 years ago.
150 years ago it was obvious that it was true. The owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk.
Duhem was writing partly as a reaction to the aggressively anti-Christian writings of his time, blaming the Middle Ages as a time of stagnation and ignorance. Most notably this was put forward by Draper and White, and was popular in France. (It still is popular on the GCSE Medicine through Time course, which is basically wrong on every key fact down to around 1660. This means I do not teach it because I will keep pointing out where it is wrong and confusing the hell out of the markers.)
Duhem himself was extremely surprised by the results of his research and hesitated over publishing them because he knew it would be controversial. Indeed, after he died publication of the complete System du Monde was held up for many years because of the implacable opposition of the French scientific establishment to its conclusions.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
The same is true of being opposed to Israel as a Jewish state. It doesn't make you an anti semite though if you were to tweet such a thing you would never be eligable to stand as a Labour or Tory candidate. The evidence of the truth of that is overwhelming.
Many Jews would see denying them their only homeland and the only nation on earth they are the majority as antisemitic
Even *if* you believe the creation of Israel was morally dubious and has done terrible things... then Germany by the same logic should be abolished as a state (brought into being by Prussian wars of aggression and obviously went onto do terrible things). If you think people in Germany have a right to self determination, but not those living in Israel, then something really does seem off.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
I’m personally opposed to the whole “you must forgive people who’ve shown no contrition” thing.
It's horrible, difficult, and creates all sorts of problems when you try and run an organisation or country that way ("trespassers will be forgiven", as the Franciscan farm sign says)...
... but it's also the only thing that works, both internally and as a way to stop the eternal back-and-forth of resentment. It's the way that Northern Ireland and South Africa eventually got lucky and Israel/Palestine haven't yet.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
Not even in a roundabout way ?
Did they have roundabouts in the holy land?
They did when we drove from Jerusalem to Jericho !!!!
If they’d stopped at the stop line, instead of driving round the roundabout 7 times…
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
The same is true of being opposed to Israel as a Jewish state. It doesn't make you an anti semite though if you were to tweet such a thing you would never be eligable to stand as a Labour or Tory candidate. The evidence of the truth of that is overwhelming.
Many Jews would see denying them their only homeland and the only nation on earth they are the majority as antisemitic
Even *if* you believe the creation of Israel was morally dubious and has done terrible things... then Germany by the same logic should be abolished as a state (brought into being by Prussian wars of aggression and obviously went onto do terrible things). If you think people in Germany have a right to self determination, but not those living in Israel, then something really does seem off.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
The same is true of being opposed to Israel as a Jewish state. It doesn't make you an anti semite though if you were to tweet such a thing you would never be eligable to stand as a Labour or Tory candidate. The evidence of the truth of that is overwhelming.
Many Jews would see denying them their only homeland and the only nation on earth they are the majority as antisemitic
Even *if* you believe the creation of Israel was morally dubious and has done terrible things... then Germany by the same logic should be abolished as a state (brought into being by Prussian wars of aggression and obviously went onto do terrible things). If you think people in Germany have a right to self determination, but not those living in Israel, then something really does seem off.
It was, for 40 years.
I'd argue that makes things even worse for someone arguing for a one-state-solution whether Israel wants it or not. Much easier to argue that a state should remain in existence than brought back.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
Not even in a roundabout way ?
Did they have roundabouts in the holy land?
They did when we drove from Jerusalem to Jericho !!!!
If they’d stopped at the stop line, instead of driving round the roundabout 7 times…
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
Not even in a roundabout way ?
Did they have roundabouts in the holy land?
They did when we drove from Jerusalem to Jericho !!!!
If they’d stopped at the stop line, instead of driving round the roundabout 7 times…
Don't go there please
Defintely don't drive round a roundabout 7 times.
You'll get dizzy.
First time I ever got pulled over for suspected drink driving was when I drove round a roundabout three times.
I wasn’t sure what exit to take…
How did ever drive in unknown places before SatNav.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
The same is true of being opposed to Israel as a Jewish state. It doesn't make you an anti semite though if you were to tweet such a thing you would never be eligable to stand as a Labour or Tory candidate. The evidence of the truth of that is overwhelming.
Many Jews would see denying them their only homeland and the only nation on earth they are the majority as antisemitic
Even *if* you believe the creation of Israel was morally dubious and has done terrible things... then Germany by the same logic should be abolished as a state (brought into being by Prussian wars of aggression and obviously went onto do terrible things). If you think people in Germany have a right to self determination, but not those living in Israel, then something really does seem off.
And after millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust in said Germany and Poland, Jews will never give up their homeland state ever again
My view is that Britain has become an exceptionally non-religious society than strongly supports the ability of members of society to be members of any religion.
If there are cases where a subset of a religion is overstepping the mark from facilitating willing prayer to enforcing rules on members of society outside of their place or worship, then the government should penalise said organisation.
If people want religious government, even on a local level, they need to pass laws at national level to facilitate that. Or move to a country where that is the case.
In any case, my experience of Muslims in that UK would have TSE as a broadly representative sample, and not the imagined Islamist threat that the Reform right imagine. Where there are issues they should be dealt with calmly and not with marginalising rhetoric.
Ideally, yes... but you'd have to take land away from existing sovereign states to create to it (as opposed to us giving up the Mandate of Palestine)... including Turkey. So, good luck with that.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
It's almost as if we need an officially recognised definition of Islamophobia, just as we have one of Antisemitism, so we all know what we are talking about .
There's a lot of bullshit around this imo. Antisemitism is prejudice against Jews. Islamophobia is prejudice against Muslims. You know both when you see it.
I'd like to think so, but I don't think people do agree on both when they see it.
Sadly antisemitism has been weaponised recently which has made it difficult to nail down.
Well put.
One can baulk at the the likes of Corbyn misinterpreting Netanyahu cruelty and, for use of a more appropriate term, genocide, as the responsibility of wider Judaism. However some on the opposing side have been equally disingenuous having suggested that criticism of Netanyahu genocide is of itself anti-Semitism.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
The same is true of being opposed to Israel as a Jewish state. It doesn't make you an anti semite though if you were to tweet such a thing you would never be eligable to stand as a Labour or Tory candidate. The evidence of the truth of that is overwhelming.
Many Jews would see denying them their only homeland and the only nation on earth they are the majority as antisemitic
Even *if* you believe the creation of Israel was morally dubious and has done terrible things... then Germany by the same logic should be abolished as a state (brought into being by Prussian wars of aggression and obviously went onto do terrible things). If you think people in Germany have a right to self determination, but not those living in Israel, then something really does seem off.
And after millions of Jews were murdered in the Holocaust in said Germany and Poland, Jews will never give up their homeland state ever again
A question to Blanche, and everyone else - switching word Islam to Christian - would you like to live in a society guided by Christian principles, comprising a Christian state? * A Rejection of Neutrality: Christianity against the "neutral" state, believing that a society not built on Christian values would inevitably fall into chaos. * Structure: * The State: Its laws and, to some extent, its public institutions should be guided by Christianity principles, even if not every citizen is a devout believer. * The Community: A society where the rhythm of life (holidays, work) and morality are implicitly Christian. * The Community of Christianity: An intellectual and spiritual elite (the "conscious" part of the society) that maintains the theological and moral integrity of the culture. A supreme leader above all politicians. * Christianity acts as a moral compass to the State, rather than being controlled by state.
Why not Old Testament values? No adultery No stealing no killing no blasphemy no coveting your neighbours ass an eye for an eye all easy to follow if you're not an American
Matthew Goodwin was once a really interesting academic.
Anyway, he’s a good debater however he’s said some pretty bad things like black British people aren’t English.
He doesn't think a white person with one foreign grandparent can be British, so Prince William isn't British to him, let alone the King.
I am no fan of Prof Goodwin in his recent incarnation, but that assertion rather demands a reference and a footnote as he would have called it, or as we call it, a link.
A kind of odd and creepy supremacist thinking is certainly swilling around in the USA (obvs) and the outer fringes of UK fascism. But I would need to be sure Goodwin really shares that sort of thinking. So I do wonder if he really knows exactly what sort of company he may be keeping.
Later Edit: I see the Guardian is taking an interest in this issue
Goodwin has made these predictions about how few people will be White British by a certain time in certain areas, e.g. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/03/white-british-minority-in-40-years-report-claims/ Those calculations only work if every child and grandchild of someone identifying as White Other is not counted as White British. In practice, someone like, say, Michael Howard, with two immigrant parents, is seen as White British by most people and identifies as White British. The implication of Goodwin's maths is that foreign blood leaves the descendants forever foreign.
*Not so fun fact. Matt Goodwin was my dissertation supervisor.
Only briefly mind. I swapped after he said that my idea - a study and survey on the politics of the homeless (less than 1% vote) - was of "no academic interest".
Ideally, yes... but you'd have to take land away from existing sovereign states to create to it (as opposed to us giving up the Mandate of Palestine)... including Turkey. So, good luck with that.
Anti-Zionism means doing the same to Israel. Good luck with that
*Not so fun fact. Matt Goodwin was my dissertation supervisor.
Only briefly mind. I swapped after he said that my idea - a study and survey on the politics of the homeless (less than 1% vote) - was of "no academic interest".
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
Not even in a roundabout way ?
Did they have roundabouts in the holy land?
They did when we drove from Jerusalem to Jericho !!!!
If they’d stopped at the stop line, instead of driving round the roundabout 7 times…
Don't go there please
Defintely don't drive round a roundabout 7 times.
You'll get dizzy.
First time I ever got pulled over for suspected drink driving was when I drove round a roundabout three times.
I wasn’t sure what exit to take…
How did ever drive in unknown places before SatNav.
The first Satnav I ever had took me off the wrong exit of a roundabout.
Which meant I had to do a full circuit of the ring road to get to where I needed to go.
@montie There really is something sulphurous about Matt Goodwin. Incendiary views. Suspect opinion polls. Massive self-obsession. British public life would be so much better without him. https://x.com/montie/status/1820201530256990453?s=20
It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
So it's probably just deal-making.
Probably, though I don't see any good choices for the Tories. They'll be humiliated if/when they stand, but ceding the ground entirely is a big deal for one of the traditional big two, once they officially accept they have no shot and, implicitly or otherwise, their voters should back Reform to beat Labour, well, they're halfway to a pact/merger already.
Which might not be so bad for them, except that Reform expect to be the leader in any such scenario, notwithstanding the Tories have 10x the seats at the moment.
I think the Tories should hold their ground and their nerve.
They made some shit choices on leader over recent years, and badly fucked up on immigration, but I still think they have a distinctive offer that Reform and Labour don't and, weirdly, a place in the English (in particular) political psych rooted in history.
I am sure they'll survive.
In a way it's a shame that Jenrick had to get caught out this soon.
It's possible he's teetering, but I think the way he's wired and who he is that he's Conservative through and through - wears it like a skin - and has called for these deals before.
So it's probably just deal-making.
Probably, though I don't see any good choices for the Tories. They'll be humiliated if/when they stand, but ceding the ground entirely is a big deal for one of the traditional big two, once they officially accept they have no shot and, implicitly or otherwise, their voters should back Reform to beat Labour, well, they're halfway to a pact/merger already.
Which might not be so bad for them, except that Reform expect to be the leader in any such scenario, notwithstanding the Tories have 10x the seats at the moment.
I think the Tories should hold their ground and their nerve.
They made some shit choices on leader over recent years, and badly fucked up on immigration, but I still think they have a distinctive offer that Reform and Labour don't and, weirdly, a place in the English (in particular) political psych rooted in history.
The problem for Kemi is many Tory MPs still in the party will want a clearer shift to the centre to mild centre right to distinguish them from Labour and Reform. When Jenrick was there they weren't willing to challenge her as he would have shifted the party even further right, now he is gone Tory moderates will see Cleverly as the likeliest replacement for Kemi and he is much more to their taste than she is.
If the Tories fall to 3rd in May a VONC in her is likely so she needs to ensure second for the party
Oh, this centre v Right stuff is such bullshit and so clichéd.
The Tories should live in the real world and come up with an offer for a strong country, rooted in independence, solvency, sovereignty and a vision for a strong and prosperous future for all.
That's it.
This reduco ad absurdium to just be either blue Lib Dems or blue Reform totally misses the point, and is a flase choice and flawed analysis.
Just be Tory.
It's frustrating isn't it? Having people supposedly on your side obsessed with the minutiae of small ideological differences and missing the big picture they should all be able to unite around.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
Not even in a roundabout way ?
Did they have roundabouts in the holy land?
They did when we drove from Jerusalem to Jericho !!!!
If they’d stopped at the stop line, instead of driving round the roundabout 7 times…
Don't go there please
Defintely don't drive round a roundabout 7 times.
You'll get dizzy.
First time I ever got pulled over for suspected drink driving was when I drove round a roundabout three times.
I wasn’t sure what exit to take…
How did ever drive in unknown places before SatNav.
Breaking news: Composer Philip Glass withdrew his highly anticipated Symphony No. 15 from its scheduled Kennedy Center performance, saying “the values of the Kennedy Center today are in direct conflict with the message of the Symphony.”
Has there ever been a "Free This Country" movement that was anti-Islamist, until Free Iran?
Has there ever been a "Free This Country" movement less supported by the Left since the Soviet Union?
Square me this circle. Why do British borderline fascists demanding the removal of Muslims from the UK find the Emirates such an attractive lifestyle destination? I'd take Monaco or Porto Fino any day of the week.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
The same is true of being opposed to Israel as a Jewish state. It doesn't make you an anti semite though if you were to tweet such a thing you would never be eligable to stand as a Labour or Tory candidate. The evidence of the truth of that is overwhelming.
Many Jews would see denying them their only homeland and the only nation on earth they are the majority as antisemitic
Even *if* you believe the creation of Israel was morally dubious and has done terrible things... then Germany by the same logic should be abolished as a state (brought into being by Prussian wars of aggression and obviously went onto do terrible things). If you think people in Germany have a right to self determination, but not those living in Israel, then something really does seem off.
The timescales are very different in those two cases.
The Greens will bankrupt the country and Reform will turn it into a raging cesspit of hate and division .
And these are apparently the two front runners in the by-election . Jeez what a choice .
Mr Putin, were he a Denton and Gorton elector, would be hard-pressed to choose between Zack and Nige. A NATO withdrawer or a Kremlin apologist. As you say, what a choice.
Matthew Goodwin was once a really interesting academic.
Anyway, he’s a good debater however he’s said some pretty bad things like black British people aren’t English.
He doesn't think a white person with one foreign grandparent can be British, so Prince William isn't British to him, let alone the King.
I am no fan of Prof Goodwin in his recent incarnation, but that assertion rather demands a reference and a footnote as he would have called it, or as we call it, a link.
A kind of odd and creepy supremacist thinking is certainly swilling around in the USA (obvs) and the outer fringes of UK fascism. But I would need to be sure Goodwin really shares that sort of thinking. So I do wonder if he really knows exactly what sort of company he may be keeping.
Later Edit: I see the Guardian is taking an interest in this issue
Goodwin has made these predictions about how few people will be White British by a certain time in certain areas, e.g. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/06/03/white-british-minority-in-40-years-report-claims/ Those calculations only work if every child and grandchild of someone identifying as White Other is not counted as White British. In practice, someone like, say, Michael Howard, with two immigrant parents, is seen as White British by most people and identifies as White British. The implication of Goodwin's maths is that foreign blood leaves the descendants forever foreign.
Eric Kaufmann and Matthew Goodwin would have been in exactly the same place 6 years ago.
Goodwin dived off the deep end, wheres Kaufmann stayed anchored.
Is opposing Judaism antisemitic? I'd say yes to that, so I'd also say yes to your question.
Islamism is different from Islam. Look them up
Being opposed to Islam isn't islamophobic. It's a religion, and therefore a philosophy, a belief system, and may be opposed. Exactly as you may be opposed to a political philosophy.
Similarly, being opposed to Judaism, the religion, isn't antisemitic.
You oppose the 10 commandments?
Some of them. But in any case people can support elements of a religious philosophy whilst being opposed to some fundamental tenets of the faith itself.
Someone might find a lot they like about the teachings of Jesus but still oppose the religious institutions promoting it, or just not agree with (and so oppose) fundamental aspects of its beliefs (eg that Jesus was the son of God).
Well Jews don't believe Jesus was the son of God
You don't say.
Of course, early Christians also famoulsy argued about the precise nature of Christ too, in their own way.
They still do. The modern literature and scholarship on this, historical, philosophical and theological, is immense and forms a continuing cascade including work of outstanding quality.
It seems to me, by the way, that one has to be oddly unimaginative as a member of our culture to have no interest in what Jesus was like, what he did and said, his history and his social and religious context. Regardless of whether one is a critic of its aftermath.
Kyle Broflovski: Think about it. Haven't Luke Skywalker and Santa Claus affected your lives more than most real people in this room? I mean, whether Jesus is real or not, he... he's had a bigger impact on the world than any of us have. And the same could be said of Bugs Bunny and, a-and Superman and Harry Potter. They've changed my life, changed the way I act on the Earth. Doesn't that make them kind of "real."? They might be imaginary, but, but they're more important than most of us here. And they're all gonna be around long after we're dead. So in a way, those things are more realer than any of us.
(I get all my life lessons from TV shows and movies)
Perhaps I can introduce you to this thing called "Star Trek"...
Comments
If the Tories fall to 3rd in May a VONC in her is likely so she needs to ensure second for the party
The Green promote Gorten and Denton
Err - Gorton
I have no wish to exculpate crusaders but I don't think we should pick them out of the throng as if unique.
Messianic Jews do believe such.
And Jewish Christians, such as Hugh Montefiore the former Bishop of Birmingham.
President Donald J. Trump spoke to reporters earlier outside the White House about this past weekend’s shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis by agents with U.S. Border Patrol.
Reporter: “Do you believe that Alex Pretti's death was justified?”
Trump: “Well, you know, we're doing a big investigation. I want to see the investigation. I'm gonna be watching over it. I want a very honorable and honest investigation. I have to see it myself.”
As @10DowningStreet have now confirmed in a statement:
"No one in Number 10 told Andy Burnham not to apply to the NEC for permission to stand or gave any indication to him which sought to prejudge the NEC officers' deliberation or decision."
Orthodox Jews don't believe Messianic Jews are true Jews either and the Supreme Court of Israel ruled they were Christians not Jews in terms of the Law of Return
It seems to me, by the way, that one has to be oddly unimaginative as a member of our culture to have no interest in what Jesus was like, what he did and said, his history and his social and religious context. Regardless of whether one is a critic of its aftermath.
The Tories should live in the real world and come up with an offer for a strong country, rooted in independence, solvency, sovereignty and a vision for a strong and prosperous future for all.
That's it.
This reduco ad absurdium to just be either blue Lib Dems or blue Reform totally misses the point, and is a flase choice and flawed analysis.
Just be Tory.
I skim read the thread and thought that stuff about Matthew Goodwin standing to be the Reform candidate in the by-election was a joke!
Apart from keeping the 2 child benefit cap and opposing nationalising British Steel there is little Kemi is proposing Farage isn't as well
(I get all my life lessons from TV shows and movies)
I'd draw a parallel with the poisoning of historic symbols (eg Swastika, sun wheel, fasces, various others) in the 20C.
We do not want eg the St George's flag to go the same way, which remains a particular risk.
And those same people are silent about Iran
I.e. you're not patriotic if you don't agree with me on what I've done or not done on this bit.
And these are apparently the two front runners in the by-election . Jeez what a choice .
There used to be very large Jewish communities in Egypt, Iraq and Syria.
Until 1948...
And Iran until 1979.
(Play nicely; it's time for supper.)
The problem both Labour and the Tories have is in their current forms neither demonstrate even the vaguest hint of ideology.
The New Labour Government of Blair showed a hint of Fabian social justice. If this lot have shown any social justice leg it has passed me by.
Cameron and Osborne gave us their version of Thatcherite small state Conservatism, but austerity over fifteen years seems to have done more harm than good, although fans could argue it was diluted by Johnsonian big state spending/ spaffing and centralised government corruption during COVID. Stride was on with Marr this evening. And you all think Reeves is confused?
So what does Starmerism stand for? What is his ideology? Answers please because I don't know and neither does he.
So what of the Conservatives? What is their USP? They can claim economic growth to fund tax cuts is their aim but we didn't see much of that since 2010 and even less since Brexit. Their offering, hardly an ideology, is diluted racist cruelty. If that's what you want why not go like Jenrick and Braverman for the full fat version.
So there it is. If you want undiluted Marxism with a hint of ecology vote Green, and if you want performative cruelty against immigrants and (unconscionable to Labour and Tories) wholesale demolition of welfare safety nets and affordable/ free at the point of delivery universal healthcare* you have a home in Reform.
* Most Reform voters who have bought Reform's performative cruelty to immigrants offer just haven't noticed that they will be refused entry to hospital for pre existing conditions by Nigel's healthcare insurance providers. It has already come as a shock to a lot of trailer dwelling MAGAlanders.
Breaking Aviation News & Videos
@aviationbrk
British Airways A350-1000 loses one of its main gear wheels on departure from Las Vegas Harry Reid International Airport.
The incident captured on a Flightradar24 automated live stream occurred last night on the BA274, as reported by
@flightradar24
.
The flight continued for a safe landing in London.
https://x.com/oha_alex/status/2016231981093143027
Alex Oha
@oha_alex
What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. In this case, the wheel.
The enlightened, nice ones* are prepared to not actually encourage murdering Mr Rushdie, but can’t say that they are against Khomeni’s fatwah.
That’s what they say anyway. In private.
*they will have you stoned to death with nice stones.
Duhem himself was extremely surprised by the results of his research and hesitated over publishing them because he knew it would be controversial. Indeed, after he died publication of the complete System du Monde was held up for many years because of the implacable opposition of the French scientific establishment to its conclusions.
The great catholic theologian Rahner is the guy with a thing for the 'Christianity' of people who have never thought about it. The longer I live the more I like him.
It’s moderately amusing to see (for example) a hard core SWPee getting upset by someone refusing to forgive. And actually using the words “that’s not very Christian of you”.
... but it's also the only thing that works, both internally and as a way to stop the eternal back-and-forth of resentment. It's the way that Northern Ireland and South Africa eventually got lucky and Israel/Palestine haven't yet.
You'll get dizzy.
Most people in Britain would either cheerfully collaborate or acquiesce with an authoritarian leader or State, as Covid showed.
This is why right-wingers trying to return Higher Education to wealthy elites is so wrong.
https://x.com/lowles_nick/status/2016155408474186025
@hopenothate will be going ALL IN to stop Matthew Goodwin getting elected in #Gorton&Denton
I wasn’t sure what exit to take…
How did ever drive in unknown places before SatNav.
Has there ever been a "Free This Country" movement less supported by the Left since the Soviet Union?
If there are cases where a subset of a religion is overstepping the mark from facilitating willing prayer to enforcing rules on members of society outside of their place or worship, then the government should penalise said organisation.
If people want religious government, even on a local level, they need to pass laws at national level to facilitate that. Or move to a country where that is the case.
In any case, my experience of Muslims in that UK would have TSE as a broadly representative sample, and not the imagined Islamist threat that the Reform right imagine. Where there are issues they should be dealt with calmly and not with marginalising rhetoric.
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the House?
+11
Number of net gains (or losses -ve) for the Dems in the Senate?
+3
Number of MSPs won by the SNP at the Holyrood election?
60
Number of AMs won by Plaid Cymru at the Senedd election?
43
UK Party recording the largest poll lead during 2026 and by what percentage (British Polling Council registered pollsters only)?
Reform 12%
Labour’s Projected National Share of the vote based on the 2026 local elections according to the BBC?
19%
Number of Reform MPs on the 31st December 2026?
11
The name of the UK Prime Minister on 31st December 2026?
Starmer.
Will Andy Burnham will be an MP on 31st December 2026?
No
UK borrowing in the financial year to November 2026 (£132.3bn to November 2025)?
155.5bn
UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2026 (1.1% to October 2025)?
1.9%
Winners of the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup?
France
One can baulk at the the likes of Corbyn misinterpreting Netanyahu cruelty and, for use of a more appropriate term, genocide, as the responsibility of wider Judaism. However some on the opposing side have been equally disingenuous having suggested that criticism of Netanyahu genocide is of itself anti-Semitism.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/27/ministers-euston-hs2-tunnelling-begins-london
Hopenothate are such self-absorbed narcissistic irritating Lefty twats.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a8X8TCLY8qk
Which meant I had to do a full circuit of the ring road to get to where I needed to go.
At rush hour.
In Milton Keynes.
It put me off satnav for years.
There really is something sulphurous about Matt Goodwin.
Incendiary views.
Suspect opinion polls.
Massive self-obsession.
British public life would be so much better without him.
https://x.com/montie/status/1820201530256990453?s=20
In a way it's a shame that Jenrick had to get caught out this soon.
Welcome to politics left-wing style!
As you say, what a choice.
Goodwin dived off the deep end, wheres Kaufmann stayed anchored.