Posts by anndra_w

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

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.

    I'm sure burning the Koran brings a smile to the faces of those charming Christian folks in Florida and I'm sure they see themselves as patriotic too..

    As far as i remember HATE is HATE whatever flag,religion or Patriotism you hide it in...

    Not really because I'm British and the Union Jack is my flag. The reason I don't mind seeing it burn is because I find it offensive. To me it represents, in the present, inequality because that is what I believe defines the British nation and way of life. In history I see the Union Jack as representing Empire and oppression. A Christian going out and burning a Koran which has nothing to do with them is not the same as a person who is ashamed of their country, such as it is, being burned. It's not about hate. I wouldn't smile to see a StGeorge's Flag burn nor the Scottish flag but the Union flag certainly.

    I get very upset with people burning my flag - but not to the extent that I'd throw a hissy fit and go and do the same to theirs because it just escalates the situation - I'd rather sit down with them and talk about their reasons........strangely I wouldn't feel insulted if they burnt the bible......waits for the flash of lightning......:whistle:

    A burning Union Jack would put a smile on my face. But at the same time a burning Scottish flag wouldn't actually make me angry and I think I'm quite patriotic in some ways.

    The big comparison is with flags because people do identify as strongly with national identity as they do with religion, often more so in more secular states. :shrug:

    I don't think so. With religions like Islam and Christianity they are raised up above everything else as being untouchable. They are absolute truths and followers are answerable only to God in their eyes. This is the danger. Nowadays when we are more and more they are demanding respect and preferential treatment. You won't see the papers making the same digs about Muslims or Christians or Jews so much nowadays however it's completely acceptable to slag off the French, Germans, Scots or Irish etc. Most folk are patriotic but can take criticism of their countries and will usually criticise it themself but with religion any kind criticism is now bigotry unacceptable. We must respect the religion and the followers beliefs. We must respect the prejudice of religion without complaint. Burning an American flag is unlikely to have repercussions but burning the Koran could easily bring trouble from some fundamentalist, fascist nut job. I don't really give a shit whether it offends some liberal religious person but accept it's disrespectful. If it causes trouble on more innocent people then don't do it. They are doing to cause trouble and that's stupid.

    I'd imagine more people have had negative experiences of Christianity and will have see various figures in the church speaking out against gay rights etc in the news so that will have an influence. As for the New Age stuff how many folk have a lot experience of it? It's not a big massive organisation in the same way Christianity is and it doesn't have the same impact on everyday life. It's hard to compare the two. We are kind of required to respect Christian beliefs, which personally I disagree with but I don't think there's the same thing with the New Age. Most folk kind of laugh at it. Personally I think there's good and bad in both but I don't feel like I need to be protected from the New Age as a gay person. Being brought up in the Church and seeing all the hassle over things like section 28 makes me very wary of the church. Our churches have tried to prevent equality for gay people so thats why I criticise the church more. Other beliefs can be daft or hateful but Christianity has power and that's what I'm wary of. Apart from the gay thing and the mental block over believing the bible is literal fact most christians do more good than most folk. Although I've never come across a Christian who thinks it's ok to be gay and if I did I would wonder why because the bible is pretty clear it's against it.

    I read the Guardian sometimes but a lot of the writers in it do my box in. Main one I read is The Herald which is a Scottish paper. I read this to keep up with whats happening in Scotland while the Guardian keeps me up with London really. The Herald can be quite good and it's not right wing at all but it does have a really bad Unionist and particularly Scottish Labour bias. The quality of journalism can really dip because of this. You can actually read articles reporting about what a Labour MSP says about an issue and regardless of the fact what they are saying is untrue this it is stated as fact. That's not good but the Scottish media is just utterly Unionist and it can be so infuriating when they don't report the facts and backup unionist misconceptions or lies. Also like a read of the Morning Star sometimes. It reports stuff the other papers don't bother with.

    Just how the fact Richard Dawkins presented so many of the *beliefs* people on here have to be completely un-plausable, ridiculous and almost insane? x x

    I've not watched it yet but yeah I do find some new age beliefs, like some Christian teaching to be ridiculous. I think though Dawkins just attacks the stupid things about religion which is so easy to attack because it's nonsense. However he's still not convinced me God isn't real and I don't think he really can because whatever it is that "God" is can't just be explained away in a book. You can easily discredit the bible or new age beliefs but I think with some New Age stuff and belief in God maybe science doesn't have the capability to explain it. I can't stand blind faith because I don't think it's acceptable in the face of reason but a belief in God or whatever can't really be reasoned away. I'm more inclined to believe than not and while I agree with a lot of what Dawkins says about the silly side of peoples beliefs, and the damaging side, something in me still says there is something more and so atheism isn't really my cup of tea. I'd rather a world everything can't always be rationalised and made dull.

    I think it is important because Blair is fucking up things for Labour just now. He's clearly a Tory cunt so why can't he just align himself with the Con-Dems as seems to be more in line with this politcial outlook and leave the Labour Party to sort out the shallow mess of a party it became because of his beliefs. Maintaining New Labour as it became only enforces lack of choice for voters. Labour was elected in 97 and it wasn't as right wing as it became in the later years and yet it still had a massive landslide. Most likely something like this wont occur again but I don't believe being Tories-Lite is the only way a Labour party can ever be elected. Blair doesn't give a shit about Labour he only cares about his legacy. He's fuckin nuts!

    I guess it could lead to more folk just going straight to their GP or A+E when it might not be necessary. So it'll end up putting more pressure on the doctors and nurses etc. However if the 111 line works out and is cheaper then it shouldn't be too bad. Need to wait and see.

    my cousins put their kids into Gaelic schools and there you only start to learn English about age 7. Funny thing is that the kids in the Gaelic schools do better in every other subject including English and the only one where they aren't more advanced is in Sciences where they are pretty much the same. I think it's good for the kids intelligence regardless of whether they use the language for jobs in the future. It always comes in handy. I did Gaelic up to Higher (A level) and now it turns out it's opens up doors to a lot more work if I want to work in Scotland because it a specialist sector. I wish I had learned more German and was able to remember it because I'd love to work in Germany as well. Sadly I learned too little too late and by the time I'd actually calmed down enough to be interested in making an effort I'd already wasted 4 years worth of learning.

    I think we really need to focus on teaching kids languages from a young age. I was twelve before I started doing German at school and by 16 I had left whereas my mate who had been learning English since aged 7 has at least as good English as me.


    That wouldn't have helped, but the main reason it wouldn't have worked is because the parliamentary majority of a "rainbow coalition" would have been unworkably small.

    Sadly that's true.


    But from the point of view of what's best for the country, what would you prefer? A Tory government tempered by Liberalism, or an unbridled Tory government with a solid working majority? Personally, I actually (and I say this as someone who shares your view of the Tories) think that we got the best possible outcome from this situation.

    I don't know. I suppose going by the opinion polls if there were to be another election after a few months then the Tories would probably win. However I think people like Ming Campbell and Charles Kennedy need to put pressure on Clegg to stay true the party. I think the Tories are using the situation we're in as opportunity to force through all the cuts they've always wanted but now they can make out it's for our own good. I think Clegg has to get vocal in pointing out it wasn't us that caused the problem and the crisis is not the fault of the public sector. I guess any liberal influence is better than none but off late they don't seem to be all that influential. Worrying times!


    [QUOTE=Atomik;9920It was a pipe dream. Apart from anything else, the glue holding that coalition together would have been legislation introducing PR. They wouldn't have had the votes to carry it. Too much opposition amongst Labour MPs who knew PR would prevent them from ever forming a majority government again. No PR, no coalition.

    Plus, given the wafer-thin majority of a 'rainbow coalition', there would have been fuck-all chance of carrying [I]any [/I]serious legislation through the house. Cue general election II in a few months down the road.41]

    The main reason it wouldn't work is because Labour are incapable of working with the SNP.

    [quote]I disagree. I think he'd have loved to enter government with a Labour party that wasn't in turmoil and hated by the country. He took the only realistic option on the table.[/quote]

    I dunno. No matter how hateful Labour are there are not quite as bad as the Tories. By going with the Tories he's got himself embroiled in all the shit that's about to hit the fan once the Tories make a bad situation worse.

    There had been talk of a coalition between Labour, Lib Dems, and the Scottish Welsh nationalist parties. I would have preferred to have seen that as both Plaid and SNP are to the left of Labour but it would never happen. Also I think Nick Clegg would instinctively prefer a partnership with the Tories.


    That is a little unfair, as the cost of the healthservice goes up when we demand it does more to treat us. Meanwhile, the life expectancy has rocketed compared to when pensions began, leaving a much larger burden on the tax income.

    The thing is though that nowadays the country has a lot of wealth but it's all tied up at one end. If it was more evenly distributed then the welfare state could be stronger. Although I guess in the futures the idea of a state pension will be seen as "old fashioned", ie leftwing, same as people have swallowed the same outlook on workers rights. We don't do ourselves any favours.


    We have a's just not as ancient as many are led/conned/wish to believe...and I think every self proclaimed pagan should read Triumph Of The Moon or be beaten severely about the head with it at the very least:whistle:

    I read Triumph of the Moon. I like Ronald Hutton. You can tell he's passionate about paganism and witchcraft etc but he's not prepared to delude himself either. Like you say there is a history, no it's not ancient but I don't think that makes it any less valid. AS religions go Paganism and Wicca are problem the only ones that I have felt drawn to but the thing that puts me off is I've found it attracts a lot of odd balls and egotists who want to not only insist on a past that never was but they also want to make themselves into some super hereditary witch who apparently burned at the stake in their past live which as far as I was aware didn't even happen here cause you got hanged before being burned. In it self though I have a lot of time for Wicca but I think I'm just too cynical for it at the moment.


    It depends greatly on what you mean by "exploited". :shrug:

    I consider working with limited workers rights on minimum wage to be exploitation. I also consider bottom earners getting hammered with tax exploitation as well. But personally what is making me feel exploited at the moment is a new boss coming in and telling our boss we can't have overtimers in to fill empty vacancies which means we are now working with less than half the original workforce we had two months ago. We're being put on the back of machines by ourselves which is actually illegal and we told by the new boss if we don't like it we can leave and try to find another boss. I've been to the union and the bosses claim none of this is going on as it would be illegal. So not only are they liars, the've cut the overtime down to one shift which means those of who were reliant on it have no proper income to live off of. So while not properly manning the shift and forcing us to go on the machines by ourselves which doubles our workload and makes it more dodgy and easier to get our hand dragged they are putting our health and safety at risk to save money. If you complain they say you'll be sent home unpaid. This doesn't need to go on but the workforce are so docile and just get on with it and don't see we could fix this if we stood together. This is all because of a new boss who is just a complete odious little cunt who's actually never stepped foot in the kitchen and has no idea why we need it responsibly staffed. There's also the hygiene issue in that it's no longer possible to maintain the old standard of cleanliness we once had and it's the patients who will suffer. Thank fuck I'm going abroad in a couple of weeks cos I getting to the point where I keep loosing it in work and last night I even dreamed I shot the cunt. Woke up feeling a bit better after that.


    Our current system may be in more than a bit of a mess, but working is better than parasitic behaviour simply because you can have work that is a vocational (being about what you give rather than what you get) but being parasitic never is.

    If you can get work that is vocational sure. At the same time it's not good a for person to exploited and that's what I'm dealing with just now in my job and it's driving me fucking mental. Worst thing is that everyone moans but no one will do anything about it and when you try to do something they all stand back and say nothing.


    Equality and responsibility are not the same thing; in fact the demand for "equality" can be understood to increase the notion of "entitlement" which tends to produce greater irresponsibility and more selfish behaviour.

    There's a book at the moment called The Spirit Level which is about how the more unequal the society the greater the social problems. The countries with the least problems are the Scandinavian countries in the centre are the mainland European ones and the worst are America and the UK which are also the most unequal. I've got mates from Scandinavia and they cannot believe how unfair things are over here. It's not countries with decent welfare states and fair wages that have the highest teenage pregnancy and high unemployment etc it's us.


    And yet the rest of the country have developed a sense of responsibility and go out to work regardless. Why? Because it's the right thing to do


    I'm not convinced it's the right thing to do. I do it to make money to live off of but I hate working as part of a system that systematically exploits people.

    It's an immature response to stop working and take from everyone else simply because you don't like the state the country is in. Furthermore, why you would drag a child into that mess is beyond me...[/QUOTE]

    Well your not working so don't worry about folk taking from you and as you were so keen to point out life of benefits is apparently quite good so your not really dragging kids into anything that bad I would assume. Isn't that right?

    I'm for responsibility but it goes both way. If we want people to take responsibility then our society needs to behave in a responsible way toward those people. Britain as a society is pretty much defined by how unequal it is. Change this then demand responsibility from people.

    The system is unfair and the people at the bottom are always the ones in the shit. There's so much more money lost by the super rich not paying taxes but the despicable press say nothing. As long people sit back and don't even complain about that and until we have acceptable wages as a minimum then I just couldn't care less about benefit fraudsters. The system in this country has to be played because it's appauling. Don't get me wrong, I work and pay tax but the problems in this country do not come from benefit fraudsters. If someone thinks they're going to be better off cheating the system then go for it because if your stuck in a shit job with shit money and no rights your having the piss taken right out of you by the system anyway.

    I've met quite a lot of pagans who polytheist. Most of them called themselves heathens and were into the Northern Gods.The thing with many pagans is that'll they'll say they know their God's exist because they have contact with them and relationship with them in a way thats different from conventional Christianity. That said my mum says exact same about Jesus. I think Paganism can be beautiful and romantic but it still raises the same niggling doubts any of the other religions do. I read an interesting article in Pagan Dawn which was talking about how before we personified the Gods we worshiped the Sun and the Moon and the idea of a God of the forest etc and the land but the point it made was it was us worshiping these things but they weren't conscious of it. That's really the type of paganism I'd most feel comfortable with but at the same time I don't think it's the best idea to just disregard it all as sometimes you can find yourself surprised. It's easy to think people kid themselves on but then again maybe they can pick up on things we don't. Who can say. I also think it's natural that people want a religion that reflects their beliefs and a lot of Christianity to me is deeply wrong by my values so I can understand people wanting to find a religion that is more tolerant. I don't think it's about just wanting to go off and shag and it all be fine with the Goddess or whatever.


    I was under the impression that it was the 1st duke....and so a new appointee rather than the recipient of a traditional position of responsibility. :S

    He was the Marquess of Stafford I think and he married the Countess of Sutherland who inherited her title from her father the Earl of Sutherland. The Countess who was a Scottish peeress was meant to have been quite cruel to the people as was the factor Patrick Sellars. The three of all pretty infamous in the Highlands. When your up in Sutherland you need to look at a bloody massive statue of the Duke. There was a campaign to have it brought down because of local feeling toward him. It's bloody massive up on the hills so you can't miss him and still most of the land lies empty.


    Strictly speaking it is the hereditary system of feudalism and manorialism that I prefer, but some hereditary peers do retain some loyalty to the old ways and of noblesse oblige, but yes it isnt as clear cut as it was :( As a general system I still prefer hereditary guardians of tradition to elected servants of the mob

    I do feel nostalgic for the old Clan system and I kind of like how lawless the Clans were. However it did cause a lot of problems as well because they didn't seem to have any sense of loyalty to anything other than furthering the cause of their own clans and position. Not always the best thing for a country as Mary Queen of Scots found. At least in England there was more of a loyalty to the monarch. In England the Monarch became Head of the Church but in Scotland the King was just God's silly vessel and it was the people who were sovereign.

    The clearances were almost certainly, at least in a large part, politically motivated by the incoming House of Orange. In taking the throne, Orange brought the beginnings of capitalist society with them, undoing the powerbase of the feudal Jacobites so that the latter could not mount a claim for the throne. So in truth, the clearances were the monied class actually striking the hereditary peerage of the clan system approach out of the picture....

    Its not a clear cut situation (this had been done to the english first in the enclosures) or a perfect system, but by and large I prefer the "feudal" approach (which the clans themselves were closer to) which relied on loyalty and obligations than the newer one which relied on money.

    What you say is true and I'm not a fan of the House of Orange but when it came down to it there were Chieftains who went to London and became caught up in that totally different way of life and were willing to turn their back on their responsibilities to their clan and their tenants. One of the most infamous characters in the clearances was the Duke of Sutherland and his wife the Countess. They were both hereditary peers but it didn't mean anything to them as they were so removed from their tenants. In the old clan system people weren't just tenants and the Chieftain wasn't only a landlord. My family were cleared and my gran's grandfather was jailed for fighting back against the clearances in the Battle of the Braes. The people felt totally betrayed even by the Church who went along with it all. Even today I don't think many people have forgiven it all. It's difficult because the clearances legacy continues. Anyway I guess my point of view is still that the old bond died out a long time ago but I certainly in our case there was political motivation to end the old Clan system after Culloden etc.

    Apart from it being integral to the heritage of this nation (the luncacy of 1911, 1958 and 1999 notwithstanding) a landed hereditary peerage has strong ties to a country (and thus what happens in that country in the long term) in way that the mobile-monied business class tends to lack. Further they are not bound by the whims and fashions of the mob whom the professional politician needs to seduce or bribe at a regular basis.

    That old link was severed a good 150 years ago surely? The peers were just as happen to get tradition and the ancient way of life to fuck in order to make money in the same way as the business class you talk about. Look at the Highland Clearances, sheep and money mattered not tradition or responsibility.


    In a choice between 2 values (such as the person who wants to pray for the group and the person who thinks people should not pray for the group) which is to be dominant (as one must be, unless we all go and lock ourselves in our houses and not interact with each other)? By the nature of society one value set must dominate (and thus be "imposed" on someone).

    No it's not. The person can always pray for the group. What they don't need to do is to put other people in the position where they are drawn into the prayer when they might not want to. At no point is there any suggestion the person cannot pray for the group. What should be important is the intent, which is to pray for the well being of the group. That can be achieved fully in silence without drawing, what is most likely to be the majority of the group, into a prayer they wouldn't normally choose to be involved with.


    It is, if there is any insistence on such happening.

    If we considered other peoples beliefs there wouldn't be calls for insistence and it's not something I support. Just consider and respect the fact that in a situation like we won't all have the same beliefs and then act appropriately as you see fit.


    And when did manners cease to be values? :S They are still imposed (and quite rightly so) until people come to take them on board.

    There seems to be a bit of a blindspot when it comes to values....that fails to recongise the inconsistency of statements like "we should all be allowed to believe as we choose"

    All I'm saying is it's not asking to much for religious people to show some respect for the beliefs of others when they demand respect for their own beliefs.

    But by requiring them to *not* to "offer up prayers to a secular/mixed audience" but rather "If you want to pray for them, do it privately" is itself "imposing beliefs". Imposing beliefs on people is unavoidable. :shrug:

    No it's not as big a deal as that. It's not imposing your belief on them all it is is wanting them to respect you might not have a belief. It's manners. Not wanting to be involved in a prayer is not the same as a religious person praying and involving you whether you want to or not. I don't mind folk praying for me because it's a nice caring thing but I definitely feel uncomfortable when I'm in a situation where I feel I'm expected to pray. In a church I will close my eyes and show respect because that is a place for prayer and worship. It's not being unreasonable to hope they might have respect for the beliefs of others as well in a place where it is certain beyond any doubt not everyone is going to have the same beliefs.