PC madness G-d is banned

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

"Common sense" to one person is clearly not "common sense" to another person! And how "common" is common sense? And if it is commonly occurring does it mean that it is good?

s.

"Common sense is not common." - Thomas Paine

[Impqueen]

The members of the KKK and the BNP have every right to believe whatever they believe. The problem comes when they commit illegal acts such as incitement to violence, or violence itself. I think it's unfortunate but a level of xenophobia is natural, and so legislating against thought crime and restricting freedom of speech is a dangerous path to go down. It's good that racism, homophobia etc are becoming/have become unacceptable, but I think we have to be careful of forcing the process too hard. We, as a society, are in danger of confusing 'I'm nervous because I've never met a Hindu before' type feelings with racism.

A quick aside...We don't have a word for prejudice against religious groups do we? Racism, sexism, homophobia, xenohpobia.... It's odd because there's alot of it about, but there isn't a word, at least, not a commonly used one.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Impqueen

The

A quick aside...We don't have a word for prejudice against religious groups do we? Racism, sexism, homophobia, xenohpobia.... It's odd because there's alot of it about, but there isn't a word, at least, not a commonly used one.

Sectarianism?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Impqueen

We don't have a word for prejudice against religious groups do we?

Atheism?

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by pattimax

"Common sense is not common." - Thomas Paine

Thanks, I knew someone had said it somewhere!

s.

[Muslimwoman]

You are right Impqueen, I have never heard of a word for 'religionism', yet it abounds and has done for centuries.

[pattimax]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

BBC NEWS | Politics | No exemption from gay rights law

s.

"Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, head of Catholics in England and Wales, said: "It is clear from the prime minister's statement that he has listened to some of the concerns of the Catholic Church in regard to its adoption agencies. "

Sniff, sniff... you may have to squint, but I detect a pendulum shift.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by pattimax

"Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, head of Catholics in England and Wales, said: "It is clear from the prime minister's statement that he has listened to some of the concerns of the Catholic Church in regard to its adoption agencies. "

Sniff, sniff... you may have to squint, but I detect a pendulum shift.

Well yes I think the agencies have got so many months grace to change (no pun intended). I still think it's more to do with political shenanigans than religion. Blair didn't want to upset the Catholic Church (it's rumoured he's thinking of jumping ship). And who knows what games the new prime minister will play?

s.

[pattimax]

I'll pray for you.

(oops, THIS IS the lounge, am I allowed to say that?)

[Muslimwoman]

What I don't understand is what the "compromise" was. They asked for an exemption due to beliefs and were told to bugger off, so how can that be a compromise?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

What I don't understand is what the "compromise" was. They asked for an exemption due to beliefs and were told to bugger off, so how can that be a compromise?

Oh you're so refreshingly straightforward!! Unfortunately in the murky world of modern politics words are mere tools to be manipulated. There is no simple truth for politicians; politicians have a "relationship to the truth" which varies from circumstance to circumstance, IMO!!!

I suppose (oh no I'm relating Bliar's words...) the compromise is that Catholic agencies wanted to be able to opt out of the legislation; they can't but they've been given 21 months to worm their way around the legislation.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by pattimax

I'll pray for you.

(oops, THIS IS the lounge, am I allowed to say that?)

Well if you mean it, thank you. (What would the prayer be? PM if you think it appropriate.) I think the lounge is just fine for this.

But why do you say that based on what I said in my post?

s.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Oh you're so refreshingly straightforward!! Unfortunately in the murky world of modern politics words are mere tools to be manipulated. There is no simple truth for politicians; politicians have a "relationship to the truth" which varies from circumstance to circumstance, IMO!!!

I suppose (oh no I'm relating Bliar's words...) the compromise is that Catholic agencies wanted to be able to opt out of the legislation; they can't but they've been given 21 months to worm their way around the legislation.

s.

Oh I thought there was a law against politicians telling the truth?! Oops sorry it isn't called lying in politics but spin - much more acceptable.

Not much of a compromise imho, "you have 21 months to fit your square peg idea into our triangular hole, whether you like it or not".

I would still like to hear opinions about where the rights of religious people fit into this modern, accept all attitude. Or is it that religion does not fit so will in time itself become illegal?

[Snoopy]

Everyone is a "minority" in something and every one naturally wants their "rights". As a gross generalisation it is often the case that the rights of one "group" transgress the "rights" of another e.g. (as if you need one) I'm a vegetarian and I demand the right to have choices in a restaurant. The more vegetarian choices on the menu, the less meat choices for meat-eaters wanting to exercise their right to choices of meat meals. (of course this is an easy one to sort out cos I'm right and they're wrong ).

In the good old days (not sure when that was) when the population was a more compliant, subservient, homogenous mass () such issues probably did not arise.

How's that for an opinion?

s.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Everyone is a "minority" in something and every one naturally wants their "rights". As a gross generalisation it is often the case that the rights of one "group" transgress the "rights" of another e.g. (as if you need one) I'm a vegetarian and I demand the right to have choices in a restaurant. The more vegetarian choices on the menu, the less meat choices for meat-eaters wanting to exercise their right to choices of meat meals. (of course this is an easy one to sort out cos I'm right and they're wrong ).

I am vegetarian too snoopy but do not demand my 'right' to go to a butcher and be sold carrots. I have the right and choice to go to a vegetarian restaurant or choose something vegetarian on a menu in a non-vegetarian place. I certainly don't insist that all restaurants provide for my minority choices. My choice makes me in the minority and I must accept that, not demand that my rights are upheld in order that I do not feel excluded. Surely it is the restaurant owners choice and right to sell what they want and allow people to choose if they want to eat there or not?

Originally Posted by Snoopy

How's that for an opinion?

Thank you, I do like a good 'opinion' every now and again.