I always feel like Guardian readers only read it because they feel like they should.
Welcome to UKHIppy
UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.
Maybe I'm just working in the odd one out because I don't see lack of rights here - all workers have a degree of legal protection anyway but we are well looked after...we have a forum for the shop floor workers to express their views and changes are made as a result, we have excellent terms and conditions, a good pension scheme and I could go on..why would we ned to be unionised when we have a modern management who looks after it's workforce...OK it's not Utopia but i have no complaints...I've been working here for 33 years now, as have many of my colleagues, so it can't be that bad.
Maybe your lucky. I know when I talk to my mates who work low pay retail jobs they don't have it good. My sister was doing an assistant mangers job and was still getting less than myself, I'm on £6.90 an hour and in a low position. Mind you my best mate is from Norway where they actually have a fair society and he thinks my position sucks. Even in the public sector we've had an agenda for change which took away some of our paid public holidays and basically meant doing more work for the same money or slightly less. It would have been worse if the unions hadn't argued our case. Although they don't have the clout to fight the bosses properly which did cost us money. Most people who are unionised would be in a worse position without them. Not all bosses or companies are bad but the unions aren't a threat to private business. The Tories and Labour have made sure that is the case to the detriment of workers. However your work sounds decent and thats cool. If all companies treated their workers fairly we wouldn't need unions. They don't though and when they don't they should be forced to, in my opinion.Harping back to Norway again, as usual, but there they don't have a minimum wage but the companies agree to pay fair wages.
My feelings are that unionisation and over regulation...even though there is plenty of it anyway...will kill the private sector to the detriment of the country....surely the question that should be asked is how the Paisley council allowed pretty well all the employment eggs to be in one basket - they should have been encouraging diversity of employment rather than encouraging the public sector to provide all the employment.
Our workforce is one the most unregulated in Europe and our Unions don't have a lot of power. Other countries do and it doesn't kill their private sector. The private sector should be able to cope with providing rights for their workers like other European countries. The council in Paisley can try to encourage the private sector but it's difficult and business will be more interested in moving production to one place to increase profit. If private sector is small then it's natural that there will be high employment in the public sector because what your left with is the council headquarters, the police head offices, the university, hospital and schools etc, all necessities. It wasn't the public sector that was responsible for the situation it was the recklessness of the private, unregulated banks. Somehow the Tories and the right wing press seemed to twisted the situation and blame the public sector for the deficit and demonise the workers. Instead of demonising the public sector the private sector should be forced to have the same standards for it's workers that the public sector does. It's only by making public sector workers appear to be greedy and taking advantage of the lack of decent workers rights in the private sector that the right has been able to divert the blame onto the public sector. It stinks. They don't have to cut the public sector as deeply as they are doing and there's evidence that this is the wrong approach regardless the fact is this what they want to do. Up until they took advantage of the current situation the Tories were promising to match Labour on spending. It's blatant opportunism and it's not decent.
That's one of the things that makes me scowl a bit mate...we get these spending cuts and the media starts rushing around with its gloom and doom because bad news sells and good doesn't but there's lots of good around....we support I don't know how many local jobs with our suppliers so as our business grows so does theirs....I just wish people would take a more positive view........:D
Where there is new jobs being created that is good. However the situation just now has given the Tories the best opportunity they've had destroy the public sector. Right next to where I live is a town called Paisley. 75% of employment in this town is in the public sector. Industry there has been in decline since the 70's. In the last 10 years the towns deterioration has been so visible. The bars and clubs have closed. The streets now lie full of empty shops and the place has dead feeling to it which is sad remembering how it was in the near past. What it's going to be like soon in this town and in Scotland as a whole is worrying because the majority of work is in the public sector. Since industry died in Scotland there are cities with many people in unemployment. I don't think we've recovered properly from the last Tory government and now it's starting all over again. In Glasgow 1 in 7 people are on disability, 13% compared to 7% of the population of the UK as a whole. With public sector cuts things are going to get even worse. I think there is probably a similar situation in the North of England too. The public sector is being demonised and they are want to see it like the private sector but that, too me, is the worse thing that could happen. At least if you work for the NHS, like myself, you are pretty much unionised and have more rights than in the private sector which isn't regulated enough. I think things are going to get grim.
It's called competition and helps keep prices down a bit...you can bet your life if they all get nationalised prices will shoot up because the consumer has no choice......and if prices go down then the poor old taxpayer will have to make up the difference anyway so it's a total lose situation.
In Scotland we don't even have to pay for water and it's not privatised so I don't think there's any need for competition. Since they've deregulated the busses prices are going up constantly. In the area's where one bus company has a monopoly on that route the prices are a bloody disgrace. Especially as the service happens to go through one of the most deprived parts of Glasgow. In France and Germany they have cheaper, better rail travel than us and it's nationalised. I don't think privatisation is much good for the ordinary person, it's just good for those who can make a profit off it.
This whole thing where people say that boys are 'less' damaged by being sexually abused by a woman is just more sexism.
I know what you mean about the sexism and yeah I think that the women should be prosecuted simply as an adult who has had sex with a minor. However the guys chose to take part and I'd a mate who, at 16, was shagging a neighbours wife who was in her 30's. Now he's nearly 30 and he just laughs about it. At the time he thought it was amazing. This situation isn't so far from the teacher and the 15 year old boys. I don't think my mate would say he felt any trauma whatsoever. I'm not a girl so I don't know what it'd feel like but from what I make out sex is a bigger deal to them and more emotional so maybe there's a greater risk of emotional damage to a girl than to a boy. When I was 17 I guy groped me in a real sleazy way (not just feeling your ass or whatever) by an older creep in a gay bar. I didn't have any feelings of trauma afterwards I just felt so angry that this bastard dared to think he could touch me like that. Listening to women I'm not sure they would feel the same. I think they would feel worse about it. End of the day the female teacher should be treated equally to a man and face the same punishment.
Biology, history and culture. A 15 year old boy, having sex with his older female teacher, is far more likely to be able to brush it off and have no lasting "trauma", as compared to a male teacher with either a female pupil or (even more so) a male one.
I don't understand why you think a guy would be more affected by going with a male teacher. Males are males and if it doesn't affect them to shag an older women then I can't see why it would be worse going with an older guy. I know for myself that at 15 I would have happily pulled a few of my male teachers and also at the age sex had nothing to do with emotion. I think a girl with an older could be harmful but I think boys, straight and gay just want to get laid at 15. The only fucked up thing is the older teacher going with young guys.
Some of us like our screaming brats you know :p
depends on the brat I guess. I've looked after ones which have been a pleasure and others that have been fucking wild. I don't know how mothers are expected to watch Trisha and Jeremy Kyle with kids running around!
I don't think I've ever disputed that? In fact, I'm pretty sure I explicitly stated as much.
Ergo, alcohol makes people aggressive. Not ergo, both genders are inherently equally aggressive.
If you find it disgusting maybe your being over sensitive in the extreme. Studies have shown that women are more likely to react violently than men in a domestic situation. Sure more cases of domestic violence against women are reported to the police but that it has taken years of campaigning and support for these women to enable them to do that. With men there has been nothing of the sort. On top of that men are unlikely to be as physically hurt and even if they are they are very unlikely to report. Also people would assume a man with a black had been fighting with another man. You can sit and be disgusted and choose not to see but I'm telling you the reality. Most men have been brought up to believe a man that hits a women is scum. I don't think we have that with hitting other men. If I hit a women I'd feel like I was a terrible person and disgusting because it's been hammered into us that men that hit women are beasts. With men hitting men and women hitting men or other women we've not had that same drive to teach us that it's wrong.
I looked up this article which was about a study on men, women and domestic violence. You'll probably just dismiss this offhand but in my gods honest experience there is no doubt that it's women who resort to violence more often. Last time I got hooked in the street was because I wouldn't give this lassie a fag. I walked on and her response was to come up and crack me over the back of the head.
Biology again. There's more to the world than biology. I don't know if living in an angry society leads to more anger but I'm telling there is plenty of aggression from women. I know girls and guys that when they get wound up will punch the wall or door to take out their aggression. I'm not seeing any massive divide between the sexes and when it comes to flying off the handle with a partner the girls are without doubt worse. It may disgust but thats the reality.
Don't bullshit me. It's just rude. Your too blinkered to even consider the fact that there is a reality that you seem totally unaware of.
[QUOTE]Dude, you are confusing two points and mixing them up into a reality-denying mixture of wishful-thinking. Yes, women are capable of aggression. Yes, society and other influences can increase the likelihood of women to be aggressive. Yes, it's perfectly possible to end up with situations where men and women are equally aggressive. None of this is under disputed. But when it comes down to which gender is biologically predisposed towards aggression... which was the original point... it's men. Men are designed to be aggressive. They are designed to fight and compete for domination of the pack.
I think men are sexually more physically aggressive without a doubt. Which is kind of frightening and threatening. When it comes to flying off the handle with each other I would say men are probably more inclined to fight each other in a competitive male way yeah. When it comes to men hitting women and vice versa. My experience is that women loose it more by far.
I don't want to make assumptions about Ness' position, because she hasn't explained it in detail.
However, I don't think many men really want classically submissive women. I suppose when housework was a full-time job, they might have, but now, when with all the labour-saving gadgets, it only takes an hour or so a day, most men would prefer a woman who pulls her weight.
A few years ago, there was stuff in the news about this movement in the USA about "the surrendered woman", who did whatever she was told. However, a lot more women than men seemed keen on this idea, and when you looked at it closely, it seemed to involve a lot of lazy women sitting at home watching daytime TV, eating chocolates, and doing a bit of exercise.
My problems with women in relationships have not usually related to their being strong, assertive, or whatever, but simply to their laziness and general uselessness. An hour or two of housework is a big deal. Earning your own living requires fulsome praise, not "er, but that's what you're supposed to do". Any vaguely useful ability has to be regarded as almost superhuman. Personally, I would run a mile from any woman who started talking about being "submissive" or "surrendered", because I would know that it meant that I would be expected to support her 100%, and she still wouldn't have done the bloody cleaning when I got home, and would expect me to lift anything weighing more than about 10 lb, and change the tyres and plugs.
Going to work instead of being stuck in the houses with a screaming brat is actually a relief for some women.
. or any one of a million other animal species on the face of the planet. You think we're unique then, eh? Despite the evidence of history?
I think our circumstances have an effect on us as well as biology. Women fighting is not an out of the ordinary occurrence anymore.Quote
You're not illustrating a lack of natural aggression in men - you're illustrating the ability of society to influence our behaviour and act as an extra conditioning factor. That's not being disputed here.
Men do have agression in them. You need to learn to control it or find an outlet for it. However I see a lot of aggression in girls as well.
Don't see why your rolling eyes. Seems to me most arguments which lead to violence stem from alcohol.Quote
Now go find me some figures for men suffering domestic violence, and we'll compare them to my figures for women in the same situation.
The difference between domestic violence from a man to a woman and a woman to a man is that a man is more capable of seriously harming a woman. Also domestic violence against men is not as widely reported. It'd be really embarrassing for a man to admit to being the victim of a woman because in our society men are meant to be tough. However one thing I'm certain in is that I've known a lot of women to hit men when they're angry or drunk. I've known men to beat up women but there is a stigma with that. I don't know many men who would joke about the time they were standing behind the door as there wife came in drunk from the pub ready to punch. However my mum and mu aunts joke about the time my mum was waiting for my dad when she heard him coming in drunk when he was needed at home and she belted him one.Quote
You're hanging out in some very weird social circles, because it is women who predominantly suffer in abusive, violent and sexually exploitative relationships. There's volumes of evidence to support this, but if you want to argue that black is white, I really can't be arsed to go out and look it up for you. You'll have to do your own research on that one.
I agree with you that, especially in sexual and to a large extent in violently abusive relationship the women is always going to suffer more and be more damaged. That is because men are physically more powerful than women. What I'm saying is that when it comes to resorting to violence women are just as prone to it as men. It's not about weird social circles. Go to an housing scheme in Glasgow or West of Scotland and you'll see. I'm not trying to argue black is white. You cannot argue black is white on this issue because it just isn't. Statistics are all very well but you need to consider the other factors as well. The amount of times I've seen fights or tried to break them up is too many to count because it goes on all the time. Very rarely do the police become involved and certainly never are the police called when any of the girls have hooked their boyfriends or split their heads open or whatever.
If you genuinely believe that, you're not living in the real world. It's certainly more common, but it's hardly approaching the same scale as aggression in men. As I have already said, obviously women can be aggressive, but men are biologically predisposed in that direction. Just watch the behaviour of any animal species if you find the concept hard to grasp. It is the males that fight over the females. Jesus... have you never seen a duck being gang-raped by drakes as they try and rip each other's feathers off? I can't believe people are arguing over basic biology here.
It's form living in the real world that makes me think we that both sexes are aggressive. I'm talking about behaviour of humans not ducks. It's not basic biology. That's the point. Men are meant to be good fighters because it wins them respect but it seems now that it's the same with women. They're harder and they get respect for being violent as well now. I guess this is could be a class poverty thing I don't know but it's a reality.Quote
That is the most bizarre line of reasoning I've ever encountered. I don't even know what point you're trying to make.
I'm talking about the fact my female friends loose their tempers with their boyfriends and end up punching them or hitting them and when they wake up hungover the next morning it's all forgotten. But the tendency to turn to violence and lack of self control is there. One of my mates girlfriend used to loose it all the time and he ended up hitting her back, one of the neighbours seen him and attacked him. When the police came they took him away then they seen the marks and bruises on his body and it turned out the police actually had a record of the girl before. I guess I hang about with a lot of females but equally I hang about with guys but usually it's the girls that end up getting violent. Maybe that's alcohol, or Glasgow, I dunno but I've never felt women have any less tendency to turn to violence.
It's a problem of masculinity exacerbated by human nature. Sure, women can be as brutal and aggressive as men, but that's the exception rather than the rule. Violence and aggression are traits that are stronger and more prevalent in men. These traits can be mitigated by the kind of society that we choose to build.
I don't women being aggressive is all that exceptional anymore. I'd much rather fight a guy than a women. At least you can hit a guy back and women can be so fuckin vicious but it's never really seen as unacceptable for a girl to hit a guy. Maybe men drive them to violence but come on a women is far more likely to hit a man and nothing is said while it would completely unacceptable for a man to do that to a women.
The way that neopagans say things like "before the Greco-Romano Culture and Judeo-Christian religions" is as silly as the way that some Christians maintain that everyone practised cannibalism, etc., before Christianity.
A bit of a sweeping generalisation that one in it self.
Quite what does 'the workers' mean....I'm a worker and I didn't vote for him neither did anyone I work with...or by 'workers' do you mean the unions and, if that's the case, why should just union members be referred to as the workers and not anyone else?
I don't in this context workers just means employees. The Labour movement came from the workers and in Scotland if you say "up the workers!!" your talking about the labour and union movement. It appears a lot of workers in the labour movement have voted for him so i think it's fine to refer the workers. It has it's own meaning.
I'm not really understanding all the fuss about him being elected by union members. It's not like the union leaders sent off bulk votes and didn't give the members a choice. The leader of the labour party should win the votes from union members and ideally we should all try to be in the unions where possible. I'm not getting my hopes up about Milliband because the right of the party might try to destroy him and I'm sure the press will as well.
Women are most likely to buy the cleaning products? Well, in functioning relationships people take it in turns to do the shopping and both help around the house.
Firstly there are plenty of functioning relationships where men and women take different roles. I know in my home my mum and my step dad share the work but it's my mum that does the household shopping. Either me or my stepdad take her to get it but she knows what she's going to use in the house. What doesn't function about that type of relationship. Secondly, as I said before, the advertising agency's only interest is in selling their products and they focus on their target markets. If adverts for cleaning products are aimed at woman it is only because of market research not about being anti-female.Quote
If people aren't taught or helped to learn how to look after themselves.... but yet still have the innate biological urge to reproduce... does not indefinitely make them moronic...
Listen no one should be slagging off a woman for being a single mother and I've lost my temper before with idiots that do it. Single mums took a lot of flack in the media and more recently asylum seekers and immigrants have been the victims. However there are teenage girls who get pregnant and have a baby because they think it's cool and smart and they're stupid. I'm talking about girls I grew up around. it's the same as my mates that left school and planned to sign on and thought they were big men. It goes on and it's not good, it should be criticised and the criticism is not because they are female. There's no female empowerment about being stuck in a council flat at 16 with a baby. One thing there certainly isn't is any type of innate primal urge. Young people want to loose their virginity to be cool, the girls want to get pregnant to be cool and you sign on to be cool. I see it happening all the time. Regardless though, their behaviour should not be used as justification for slagging off single mothers in general. When single mothers are slagged of however it's because of the whole receiving benefits thing not because they are are female. It sadly seems to be completely acceptable to slag off people on benefits over here. I know loads of folk on benefits some are genuine others cheat but they get slagged for being seen as irresponsible scroungers and single mums are just another easy target. Stupid lassies getting pregnant without thought and expecting other people to pay for them do not help the situation.Quote
There are issues with the way men are 'expected' to be too yes, a 'kept man' is more likely to be looked down on than a 'kept woman' - but can't you see it's all part of the same issue?
As for women getting custody.. yes there are many cases where a man has to fight very hard to see his child and it can take years, thus ruining any relationship he had with the child.. and this is a problem, there are bitter women out there who are hurt and use the child against its father.. which is of course wrong. There are arguements for split custody as default..
But let's not forget history.... that only recently has this been the case. That it was not until 1839 that mothers got custody of children under seven in the case of divorce (and only if they were of 'good character') - before this, all children, even newborn infants, were the father's property, zero rights for woman in the case of divorce - even if she was divorcing because of his adultery, violence, misdemeanors etc.
And would these changes have occured without "feminism"? This thing which all consider bad?
Let's look up what feminism means - equal rights for women (with men).
Who is against this? People will say they're for that, but not for feminism. If we are happy to reclaim the swastika and for black people to use the word nigger, why can't women use this word without people backing away?
And of course 'egalatarianism' is all encompassing and therefore a great aim. But can you change everything in one fell swoop? No, you must do it little bits, in smaller chunks.
Inequalities are so diverse and difficult to tackle that although egalatarianism is a great aim and an ideal, how do you gain it without making smaller gains within it...
Of course it's all part of the same issue all I'm saying is that issue is not discrimination of women because they are women by men. You say look at history and of course you should but don't you see it's been all different groups that have been discriminated against not only women by men. 80 years ago it was illegal for women to vote but 27 years ago it was illegal for me to have sex with a man, here in Scotland. Do I agree with equality for people like myself? Yes of course but I will not blame all straight people as being against me because I'm gay. I believe in gay rights but I don't only focus on that. If some people want to thats up to them. However the reality is that it's not all that bad for women or gay people anymore and we should be aware of that. Gay activists and people who believe in women's equality have done well. Is that what feminism is still about though as women are almost as equal as men. The fight now is for equality because rather than being a sexist society our society is, at it's core, unequal and unjust. It's about who's got money and power nowadays not gender or sexuality.Quote
I thought you said you'd not read much feminist literature? Maybe you should before making such a sweeping statement.
My point was that the feminist literature I and the general public read is in the newspaper articles. The articles I've read have been misguided because the try to find a way to blame men, for being men, for the problems they face instead of seeing the bigger picture. The sexism is blaring out of them and this is not good for feminists who aren't sexist. Why should I read more feminist literature to make comment on what I have read? The statement was not sweeping it was about the writers whose work I had read. But as with those articles I had read the reality doesn't suit the argument so the facts are twisted and then they don't mean anything.Quote
well quite :p Women are just as capable as being misogynistic as men, but that's not an arguement for it.
And when did I justify it? I never would anyway because I'm not a sexist or Christian. I was replying to a comment that was talking about the need for feminism because men in churches didn't want to give women equality. I'm just saying that men and women in the Church will be against equality for women and other different groups because they are traditional Christians. It's not men against women it's a certain group of a religion against women.
You might not believe me but I'm not sexist. I took one of those political outlook tests online and my result was; socialist feminist, which I found surprising because I've usually disagreed with the feminist writers in the press. I just think there seems to be this sexism in some feminist that I think is unjustified. Most men would stick up for women's rights however I think you'll find most men and women aren't all that keen on feminists. Again Scarlett blamed that on the press being anti feminist but like I said before when you read the feminists articles in the guardian etc they're usually talking nonsense and this discredits feminism as well. Mind you the UK press it's pretty right wing so they'll criticise anyone.
When the day comes that washing up liquid,baby food,supermarkets and children's products aren't advertised as if it's only women that use them..
Advertisers will try to aim they're products at the people most likely to buy them. The fact is woman are most likely to buy them. That isn't an attack on woman and there plenty of women in the advertising industry.Quote
When young,single mothers aren't singled out for being feckless and irresponsible like they immaculately conceived..
It's not because they are women it's because they are easy targets. Just like asylum seekers, immigrants and benefit claimants. Woman aren't singled out for discrimination particularly, they are part of a wider group. Instead of making out woman are the victims because they are woman we're better all working together to make things better for everyone. Also it can be tough for single mothers who find themselves in a difficult situation. I know because my mum brought me up alone and she had it hard. When I hear arseholes slagging off single mums it pisses me off at the same time there are young lassies who just want a baby when they're too moronic to look after a kid or themselves. What do they do for the women's cause. They're idiots. It's tough for dads that cant get to see their kids because the girl takes a whim. It's ok to say you can go through the courts but it's a nightmare and no matter what the girl does the sytsem is still massively skewed in her favour regardless of the kids welfare.Quote
When women don't need to find jobs to fit in with childcare/school because the fathers automatically share the burden of bringing up their kids...
That's not a cause only for women because men have to miss out on their kids to go out and work which is expected of them. A man that's not out providing is looked down upon by men and women. If we could find a way to make parents share providing and caring that would be good but it's not an issue of women only having it tough. It's a wealth issue as well because if you earn enough you can get childcare no bother and choose to work but if your poor your stuffed woman and man.Quote
When there is NO pay gap between men and women..
Pay in this country sucks big time. There should be no pay gap between men and women and it's a disgrace that there is. Instead of women fighting to get paid equally shit wages lets fight for decent wages for everyone.Quote
.When women STOP apologising for being a feminist because the male led media portray them all as ball breaking harridans, when all we want is equality...
It's the feminists in the media that make themselves look like morons because they're arguments don't stand up to scrutiny. They spend so much time trying to blame men for everything and make it look everything that is difficult in life for them is because they victims of men. Don't blame men for giving the feminism a bad name, it's the men loathing feminists they give all feminists a bad name. They put most woman off feminism because they're nuts.Quote
and when we can lead the mainstream religions (and in a few cases PRAY alongside the men) without the male members sulking,calling us sinners or saying 'well it doesn't say you can in the bible' .....
Again it won't be just the male members sulking when men can sit along side women. There'll be plenty of women in churches that aren't keen on female equality in religion. However women are not singled purely by religion for discrimination. There are plenty of other groups the churches don't like. Usually anyone that isn't just like them.Quote
ONLY then we will have no need for feminism.
There's always going to be a struggle for equality for all people of all races and genders and for woman to focus only on themselves misses an opportunity to help everyone.
I do not understand the need for a specific "feminism"? Is not "egalitarian" good enough?
Kind of the way I feel. I don't like purely focusing on women's rights or gay rights in a narrow, exclusive way. We're at our strongest working together.
I agree with equality for woman the in the same we I believe in equality in general. I've not read many feminist writings and I'm sure there are some I'd agree however most of the feminist articles I've read have been in the guardian and they all seem pretty stupid and narrow minded. Mind you thats the guardian for you.
I was commenting on your point concerning representation; the Bishops sit in the house of lords because that is english tradition.
Some traditions are good but others aren't of value and should be discarded.Quote
Church of England, the clue is in the name. It has been the carrier of ritual of the nation for a very long time. Prior to that it was the Roman Catholic Church, prior to that it was Celtic Christianity, and witches and atheists have had bugger all role or influence.
And prior to that we had Roman paganism and Celtic paganism and whatever the tradition is not the CoE or Catholicism it's some form of belief and spirituality. That's not changing. It suits people to make the false argument that all people who oppose the power of the Church are secular atheists but we all know that's not the case. Most people just don't have a strong faith or belief one way or another. However some of religions teachings aren't compatible with how we live today. Only because people have fought to highlight and expose the falseness of the teachings and stand up to the power of the Christian Church, only because of this can we actually have witches and atheists who are free from persecution. Atheist may not have had much influence in the past but the teachings of the Church were shown to be not only false but in many cases fairytale and now people who aren't Christian most certainly will have influence.Quote
The house of lords has been systematically sidelined since the Parliament Act was introduced.
Not nearly sidelined enough.Quote
The drive in society is to marginalise religion into the private realm; how often have we heard that religion belongs behind closed doors.
I haven't heard this before. Religion belongs in the heart of it's follow. It doesn't have any right to force it's beliefs on me or anyone else. If you call this marginalisation then thats up to you but we have to accept it's a very positive thing.Quote
That is a non-answer.
Secularism has no place for conscience; the only thing allowed input is empirical evidence. That is what secularism is about.
I don't think secularism is about anything very much at all. Most folk wouldn't even describe them self as secularists. They usually just don't know if there's a god or not. Strict atheism and science obsession like Dawkins isn't representative of the majority of people in the country who have rejected the teachings of the Church. There are certain beliefs that connect a society and some of the teachings of the church no longer with who we are and what our traditions have become.
[quote='Coyote','http://ukhippy.com/freakpower/forum/index.php?thread/&postID=1002475#post1002475']In many ways he is right.....
Religion is being marginalised in Britain, with the demand increasingly being that religion is a private activity that does not belong in the public sphere.
I think religion, Christianity in particular, needs to be marginalised in order to protect people from the disproportionate power it holds. They talk about aggressive atheists but really this is people who are standing up to religion and challenging it's power. Religion can often be a force for good and we don't admit that enough. It has it's bad points as well though and as long as religion isn't marginalised it has the power to force restrictions on the lives of those who aren't of the same beliefs. Stripping religion of the power to force down it's beliefs on people has been and is a wonderful thing. You say secularism weakens the bonds of society but come to Glasgow or visit Belfast and see how religion divides our city's. Some families here if you dare to marry a Catholic when your a Protestant or vice versa end up having heavy fallings out. How many secularists go out and stab someone when they're drunk because they have a different view from them. In Glasgow it's been going on for years. Where I've been brought there is nothing that could ever come as close to being divisive as religion. Also look at countries like Norway which are much less religious and far more secular. They look after each other and are liberal and tolerant with a decent society, lack of religion hasn't had a negative impact on them. Religion is as bad as everyone makes out but we have to be wary of it because it can be dangerous in the extreme.
I was taught that Spiritualism was wrong and against God and any messages that came through from the dead were in fact the devil. In reality I know a few mediums and they're not very churchy people at all. They're pretty much secular liberals.
You never hear of anyone saying they were,in a previous life, a leper in Cairo,a syphilitic whore on Bristol Docks or a slug
My dad hypnotises folk and he did it one of my mums friends years ago and she went back to being some little girl who lived in a really poor family in a village in Perthshire.(didn't appear to be much of a progression between lives) They didn't recognise the name of the village but they checked it out and it existed. It had quite an effect on the woman who had been regressed. Don't know if it's all true or what but I know she believed it was genuine. She still talks about it 20 years later. Also I could quite easily imagine me having had a past life as a syphilitic whore on some dockside. Again not much progression from one life to the next!!;)
There is a certain irony that burning the quran could
1, lead to lives being threatened (a pretty unhinged response to burning a book which if Jones had any savvy he'd jump on as evidence for his whole case/point)
and 2, put the lives of soldiers in danger according to the US govt (yes, like bombing Iraq back into the stone age and putting people in guantanamo didnt do that )
....especially when you consider that the Jerry Springer Opera got some mild-mannered protesters outside and that was about it.... What he was suggesting doing was unnecessarily provocative but when contextualised is quite interesting.
I designed a play for a gay arts festival in Glasgow last year and we had loads of Christians protesting outside the venue. The play wasn't even a gay play it was a Scottish play that appealed to all audiences not just the gay community, even my devout mother enjoyed it, but still they protested. Now they were entitled to protest and when it came to it they were an object of ridicule to the people in the theatre and passers by on the street. However the festival wasn't put on in an attempt to try to get a reaction off these people. The less hassle we get off the religious the better because the council is scared shitless of them and we rely on the council for funding. However this guy was trying to get a reaction. Trying to coax the nut jobs into responding and that's whats kind of sick because he's meant to love his countrymen but wants to have something to hate about Islam even more. He and the extremists are one and the same.
Under EU control Scotland will be a region of the EU, and little more.
While just now it's an region within a region that keeps on getting Tory governments it doesn't vote for. Independence is the only way to keep out the Tories. It's as simple as that.
[quote='Coyote','http://ukhippy.com/freakpower/forum/index.php?thread/&postID=999455#post999455']I dont get why so many Scottish Nationalists dont want to be part of the UNITED Kingdom but are happy to be part of the European UNION But that is well into another thread (that may be quite interesting to start :D)
Doesn't need another thread it's an easy answer. Basically under the UK in th EU Scotland is nothing more than a region even although it has different needs to England when it comes to fisheries policy etc. When it comes to meetings the old government wanted the Holyrood ministers to sit out side when these things were being discussed etc. As an independent nation the Scots politician would able to argue for what Scotland needed and we'd have more of a voice than we do presently.
ahh,so your 'offence' is superior to that of a fundy Christian taking 'offence' to a book they see as representing something oppressive,hateful and read by people who they perceive to have murdered Patriotic Americans....
Yeah it's kind of like a white South African who finds apartheid offensive and is ashamed of their countries and people actions in the past. It's justified.
The British Empire is an odd thing..I take it no Scots went out,made money and subjugated other people then, they were 'just following orders' ?
Get real. Scots did quite fine out of the Empire, well the rich ones did anyway. Scots, English, Welsh and all done under the banner of and for the glory of Britain. You'll never find anyone more nationalistic or prejudiced than a Scots Unionist. I grew up watching them doing their Nazi salutes at football matches and singing God Save the Queen. Watching them march down the streets hating Catholics under their beloved Union Jack. No thank you.