Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ShotgunGold

BBC article - Utter utter RUBBISH

274 posts in this topic

Ever heard of the dark ages twentyfirst century? Religion did is doing much to suppress technological, political and intellectual advances. It isn't in their interest to have their followers question the teachings of their holy leaders and they also can't have advances in the understanding of the universe that goes against their doctrine. It is no coincidence that the period Wolford mentioned as being one that saw a decrease in the standard of living coincides with the rise of Christianity Fundamental Islam.

Deja Vu.

:dry:

I agree, Christianity isn't alone in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Christianity isn't alone in this.

The difference being, of course, that Christianity has always been at the heart of the power structures of Britain, and it has been used to justify, and impose, all manner of things - not Hinduism, not Judaism, and not Islam. In fact, the introduction of believers of other faiths does kind of undermine the legitimacy of 'the one true faith' as the state religion (doing us all a favour). ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever heard of the dark ages?

Yes, they were when the Roman empire collapsed, nothing to do with religion.

Religion did much to suppress technological, political and intellectual advances. It isn't in their interest to have their followers question the teachings of their holy leaders and they also can't have advances in the understanding of the universe that goes against their doctrine. It is no coincidence that the period Wolford mentioned as being one that saw a decrease in the standard of living coincides with the rise of Christianity.

Wrong, the Romano-Britons were Christian, the early Anglo-Saxons were Pagan. The Dark ages began with the replacement of Christianity with Paganism.

You forget that science didn't challenge religion at this point. Scientists tended to be religious men as they were the educated class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True

  • photo-thumb-29742.jpg?_r=0
  • Coach
  • bullet_black.pngbullet_black.pngbullet_black.pngbullet_black.png
  • 6,401 posts


Posted 21 February 2013 - 07:45 AM

Best of luck in using this forum to be airing those views. Whenever I do, I get assailed and called borderline racist, generally by people who have comfortable middle class lifestyles and live in leafy suburbs. The nearest they get to multiculturalism is reading about it in the paper.

then why did you say this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By inference from their previous posts. I'm happy to be corrected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scientists tended to be religious men as they were the educated class.

The history of scientific discovery is littered with men who observed something groundbreaking and either didn't believe their observation or were surpressed for doing so because it contradicted the religious orthodoxy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The history of scientific discovery is littered with men who observed something groundbreaking and either didn't believe their observation or were surpressed for doing so because it contradicted the religious orthodoxy.

True but not in the dark ages. The break between religion and science didn't happen until Copernicus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what are those principles and values? I thought we had laws that we have to obey

We do but immigrants can simply choose to ignore them. We have laws against genital mutilation yet thousands of girls in this country are so treated and there has, to date, not been one single attempt at a prosecution.

Similarly known terrorists are not handed over to the police rather "dealt with in the community" whatever that means.

I have no problem with immigrants if they also agree to play a full part in our society. Some groups do and some very conspicuously do not.

I lived in Germany for a year. We made every effort to learn the language, cultivate German friends and obeyed the law even when it differed from what we were used to.

I don't think it unreasonable to expect this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do but immigrants can simply choose to ignore them. We have laws against genital mutilation yet thousands of girls in this country are so treated and there has, to date, not been one single attempt at a prosecution.

Similarly known terrorists are not handed over to the police rather "dealt with in the community" whatever that means.

I have no problem with immigrants if they also agree to play a full part in our society. Some groups do and some very conspicuously do not.

I lived in Germany for a year. We made every effort to learn the language, cultivate German friends and obeyed the law even when it differed from what we were used to.

I don't think it unreasonable to expect this.

People break the law: enforcing it is down to detection, proof and prosecution. If it isn't detected what are you going to do? This applies to all law breaking.Don't tell me let me guess. 'They' are treated leniently. As for terrorists: what? For a start many of the people involved in terrorists acts 7/7 for instance were British. If what you say is true how come so many of them if not all were caught?

Does the genital mutilation you mention also apply to jewish boys?

Lots of people choose to ignore he law you see it every day. It costs peoples' liveson a regular basis.

which immigrant groups do you approve of? Which ones don't you approve of?

You use the term 'immigrants' wthout qualification: does that man all groups of immigrants re the same?

Which immigrants don't play a part in our society? I see little evidence of this. People of all backgrounds in the multicultural city that I live in seem to b going about tir daily lives th same as anybody else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the genital mutilation you mention also apply to jewish boys?

As I am sure you know, there is no comparison between Jewish circumcision of boys and "female circumcision". One is far, far more damaging than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I am sure you know, there is no comparison between Jewish circumcision of boys and "female circumcision". One is far, far more damaging than the other.

it isn't 'as bad', but that doesn't justify it, especially considering what the consequences can be. It's till genital mutiltion for no reason that is beneficial to the child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it isn't 'as bad', but that doesn't justify it, especially considering what the consequences can be. It's till genital mutiltion for no reason that is beneficial to the child.

Hardly in the same league mate. Ear piercing could be described as body mutilation but it isn't remotely the same. And arguing that boys having their bell end lopped off is the same as mutilating a girls genitalia - with the sole purpose of denying sexual pleasure- then with respect, you need to get a grip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly in the same league mate. Ear piercing could be described as body mutilation but it isn't remotely the same. And arguing that boys having their bell end lopped off is the same as mutilating a girls genitalia - with the sole purpose of denying sexual pleasure- then with respect, you need to get a grip.

I didn't say it was 'the same'

I said just because it wasn't 'as bad' it didn't make it ok

http://hpq.sagepub.com/content/7/3/329.short

You don't need me to etll you what my thoughts on female circumcision are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it isn't 'as bad', but that doesn't justify it, especially considering what the consequences can be. It's till genital mutiltion for no reason that is beneficial to the child.

I don't think it justifies it but the degree of "mutilation" ought to have an impact on whether it is a crime or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it justifies it but the degree of "mutilation" ought to have an impact on whether it is a crime or not.

so what degree is accpeptable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what degree is accpeptable?

The impact on the life of the child determines that. Not having a clitoris is a big deal not having a foreskin isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say it was 'the same'

I said just because it wasn't 'as bad' it didn't make it ok

http://hpq.sagepub.com/content/7/3/329.short

You don't need me to etll you what my thoughts on female circumcision are.

But you can't just lump things together like that. Mutilation of girls genitals is an unacceptable practice - end of story. It doesn't make it less so because someone else does a differing practice - which as NS points out, is hardly life changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The impact on the life of the child determines that. Not having a clitoris is a big deal not having a foreskin isn't.

http://hpq.sagepub.c...t/7/3/329.short

the traditional method of malinfant circumcision is the sharpened thumbnail of the rabbi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you can't just lump things together like that. Mutilation of girls genitals is an unacceptable practice - end of story. It doesn't make it less so because someone else does a differing practice - which as NS points out, is hardly life changing.

correct

so should the mutilation of baby boys. How do they benefit from it. And yo are way out of line if you conclude tat I think that female circumcision is ameliorated by the fact that bots are circumcided. It is an evil practice. You have missed my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correct

so should the mutilation of baby boys. How do they benefit from it. And yo are way out of line if you conclude tat I think that female circumcision is ameliorated by the fact that bots are circumcided. It is an evil practice. You have missed my point.

Circumcision is / was routine among non-Jews in the USA and Australia. It is supposed to be more hygienic / healthy for the child (plus any potential partners). It is not just a bit of barbarity like female genital mutilation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it isn't 'as bad', but that doesn't justify it, especially considering what the consequences can be. It's till genital mutiltion for no reason that is beneficial to the child.

I'm circumcised and don't really consider myself mutilated. I prefer to be circumcised than not and so does my fiancée. Of course I'm assuming the procedure was carried out in a hospital using sterile instruments.

Female genital mutilation is a whole different ball game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm circumcised and don't really consider myself mutilated. I prefer to be circumcised than not and so does my fiancée. Of course I'm assuming the procedure was carried out in a hospital using sterile instruments.

Female genital mutilation is a whole different ball game.

Was the circumcision performed for medical reasons (I'm assuming it was done when you were a young child as you don't seem certain of how/where it was carried out)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the circumcision performed for medical reasons (I'm assuming it was done when you were a young child as you don't seem certain of how/where it was carried out)?

I really don't know and its not something I've ever asked my father. I'm assuming it was done as a matter of course shortly after my birth. I didn't think it was that unusual until I was intimate with a young lady who had been around the block a few times who remarked that she hadn't seen a cut one before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017