Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Stupid old fart
Log In to post a reply

Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 13 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ]
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
dodge one
dodge one
1242 posts

Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 10, 2008, 21:19
IanB wrote:
One small thing - aren't both the English legal system and the moral distinctions that underpin it based on twin pillars of Judeo-Christian teaching and Enlightenment notions of individual liberty? We may consider ourselves to be living in a secular society (which suits me fine) but we should be very clear about the foundations of our social systems.

Overall I am not sure what appals me more Williams' naievetee, his grotesque treatment by the media or the uncloaking of some very unrighteous opinions amongst people who should know better.

If I hear one more London liberal opine darkly (and without a single statistical fact at their fingertips) on the threat posed by the allegedly Leporidae-like birthrate among Muslims I will puke.

Enlightment my ass!


If i recall from my history lessons, English Law is founded on The Magna Carta: Which grants rights to the King's subjects. This was taken into account when the American constitution was written. That laws are written for the people by the people.
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Edited Feb 10, 2008, 22:18
Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 10, 2008, 21:54
IanB wrote:


If I hear one more London liberal opine darkly (and without a single statistical fact at their fingertips) on the threat posed by the allegedly Leporidae-like birthrate among Muslims I will puke.

Enlightment my ass!


I don't think there has been anything too hysterical posted here at least on the topic of Williams, but having an opinion that does voice some uncomfortable concerns re his comments (and I haven't a scooby what the tabloids have been saying, but I'm sure it's depressing as hell) so long as we keep civilised about it, doesn't automatically merit 'Islamophobe'. That is just dishonest IMO.

This however, is an outrage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7237663.stm

Legally, first cousins can marry and have children in this country, because there is no danger of any genetic defect, and I know (and know of, locally) at least 4 families (white, British born) like this!
.

**Now that is the sort of inflammatory, lying bs we need to root out and expose for what it is.**

x
IanB
IanB
6761 posts

Edited Feb 10, 2008, 22:26
Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 10, 2008, 22:23
dodge one wrote:
IanB wrote:
One small thing - aren't both the English legal system and the moral distinctions that underpin it based on twin pillars of Judeo-Christian teaching and Enlightenment notions of individual liberty? We may consider ourselves to be living in a secular society (which suits me fine) but we should be very clear about the foundations of our social systems.

Overall I am not sure what appals me more Williams' naievetee, his grotesque treatment by the media or the uncloaking of some very unrighteous opinions amongst people who should know better.

If I hear one more London liberal opine darkly (and without a single statistical fact at their fingertips) on the threat posed by the allegedly Leporidae-like birthrate among Muslims I will puke.

Enlightment my ass!


If i recall from my history lessons, English Law is founded on The Magna Carta: Which grants rights to the King's subjects. This was taken into account when the American constitution was written. That laws are written for the people by the people.


What do you think informed the Magna Carta in the first place? They didn't pull that out of their ass. Any idea of natural rights is an illusion. The rights we are suppsed to enjoy derive from a constantly developing reading of the Bible. The idea that our laws are based any anything other than Christian doctine is an illusion.
IanB
IanB
6761 posts

Edited Feb 11, 2008, 15:12
Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 10, 2008, 22:34
shanshee_allures wrote:
IanB wrote:


If I hear one more London liberal opine darkly (and without a single statistical fact at their fingertips) on the threat posed by the allegedly Leporidae-like birthrate among Muslims I will puke.

Enlightment my ass!


I don't think there has been anything too hysterical posted here at least on the topic of Williams, but having an opinion that does voice some uncomfortable concerns re his comments (and I haven't a scooby what the tabloids have been saying, but I'm sure it's depressing as hell) so long as we keep civilised about it, doesn't automatically merit 'Islamophobe'. That is just dishonest IMO.

This however, is an outrage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7237663.stm

Legally, first cousins can marry and have children in this country, because there is no danger of any genetic defect, and I know (and know of, locally) at least 4 families (white, British born) like this!
.

**Now that is the sort of inflammatory, lying bs we need to root out and expose for what it is.**

x



No nothing hysterical posted here but there's plenty of hysteria out there and in the strangest places.

I don't trust gangs of people whatever flag or faith symbol they march under but I refuse to pretend that we're all living in some uniquely secular submarine when it just isn't the case. What we believe to be our rights and our moral certainties comes straight from the church. Whether we like it or not. And believe me I do not.

There are sleeping dogs out there that Williams seems very willing to wake up and when card carrying libs tell me with a straight face that "we" are going to be a minority (in whatever number of years they decide adds some drama to their point) and "they" will be in a majority then I hear those dogs barking loud and clear.

We're being slowly steered towards something grotesque. It's time to do our own steering and look at these "spontaneous" outbursts by bearded old men, these manipulations, for what they are.

Williams' outburst is all about defeating your enemy by singing his song.

Lets not sleepwalk into being the pawns of those who want to spark some kind of final showdown between irrelevant death cults. Find me a flag with the whole fucking planet on it. I'll march under that. Maybe.
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Edited Feb 10, 2008, 23:01
Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 10, 2008, 22:35
IanB wrote:
What do you think informed the Magna Carta in the first place? They didn't pull that out of their ass. Any idea of natural rights is an illusion. The rights we are suppsed to enjoy derive from a constantly developing reading of the Bible. The idea that our laws are based any anything other than Christian doctine is an illusion.

Indeed. I was quite confused by dodge one's reference to the Magna Carta. Although it certainly does establish certain rights for the King's subjects (habeus corpus being the one everyone knows), it is as much about establishing the Church's central role as it is about "the people". In fact, it was only drawn up as part of a process to placate the Pope (the process continued with King John declaring that England was a Papal territory).

It's also worth examining the phrase "King's subjects". At the time, the King was assumed to rule by Divine Providence, and by legally codifying the people of England as "subjects of a Divine representative" (something that was actually done earlier, but reiterated in the Magna Carta), if anything it reinforced the central role of Christianity in politics and society.

EDIT: Holy crap. I've just gone and read the Magna Carta (probably for the first time since High School!) and it's one of the most religious, christian documents you'll ever read. I can't see how anyone can think it's a secular document when the first paragraph announces that the whole reason it's being written is "out of reverence for God and for the salvation of our soul and those of all our ancestors and heirs, for the honor of God and the exaltation of holy church..." And it goes on and on like that. I'd forgotten just how religious it was.
PMM
PMM
3155 posts

Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 10, 2008, 22:43
IanB wrote:
We're being slowly steered towards something grotesque. It's time to do our own steering and look at these "spontaneous" outbursts, these manipulations, for what they are.


Thank you. "It's time we did our own steering."

Sentence of the week.
IanB
IanB
6761 posts

Edited Feb 11, 2008, 18:20
Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 11, 2008, 07:40
grufty jim wrote:
Holy crap. I've just gone and read the Magna Carta (probably for the first time since High School!) and it's one of the most religious, christian documents you'll ever read. I can't see how anyone can think it's a secular document when the first paragraph announces that the whole reason it's being written is "out of reverence for God and for the salvation of our soul and those of all our ancestors and heirs, for the honor of God and the exaltation of holy church..." And it goes on and on like that. I'd forgotten just how religious it was.


Moses and Jesus. Two very enduring myths.

Just because we think we don't believe in them any more doesn't mean they aren't still doing their work in "secular" society and in mysterious ways. We think we determine our own moral systems as free-thinkers but really we don't. I wish we did.

For example lets look at food.

If our culture and societal structures were informed by say Hindu, Jannist or Sikh thought we might consider meat eating anathema. We take it for granted that meat eating is ok unless you actively opt-out. Not because it is "natural" in some Darwinist sense but because Christian and Muslim thought by and large says it is perfectly ok to kill animals. Seventh Day Adventists aside. Correct me if I am wrong but at root what is Halal about if not a form of ritual sacrifice in echo of Abraham?

Jewish food laws appear more complicated. Someone who knows would have to tell me the nuances but from the outside it looks like Kashrut leans heavily towards vegetarianism but those leanings are supressed in order for its adherents to be assimilated into "secular" / Christian society.

Anyway you follow my point. There is a religious concensus that killing animals is absolutely ok so those who chose not to are considered unusual. Not morally superior. More kooky outsiders. You can extrapolate the same kind of track-back to almost any aspect of society. We think we make this stuff up that we have "free will" and a unique personal intelligence but we inherit these allegedly freely considered ideas from myth and superstition.

It's a lot harder to kill these old Gods than we think and yet we've been at it for 250 years or so.

When we feel pressured into taking sides in a death match of faiths (which is what Williams is all about - a classic case of "to defeat your enemy sing his song") you can be pretty sure that there a lot of people just like us in all the other faith camps feelign coerced. The old grey men of both camps are interested in obedience first and foremost.

Just watch as these two religions go to war with secular society (each using the fear of the "other" as the bait) and then with each other.
Eduardo
Eduardo
375 posts

Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 11, 2008, 09:25
Strongly agree.

Remember Dr Williams doesn't speak on behalf of the muslim faith, in no way does he represent them.
What he can do is make remarks to polarise people & strengthen their convictions in both directions. This sort of thing doesn't build any bridges or aid cohesion.
shanshee_allures
2563 posts

Edited Feb 11, 2008, 10:05
Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 11, 2008, 09:56
machineryelf wrote:

** Colonel Edward Armitstead, a Synod member from the diocese of Bath and Wells, said: "I don't think he is the man for the job. One wants to be charitable, but I sense that he would be far happier in a university where he can kick around these sorts of ideas."**

Damn good idea, god forbid that anyone with anything intelligent to say should be released into the realms of the general public to try and inject some sort of sense into the tabloid media

The reporting on this has been absolutely abominable, the Bishop made some sensible and informed comments and has been pilloried from post to post by the Sun et al as some sort of ''fuzzy wuzzy loving surrender monkey selling white women into slavery to the heathen, and destroying 1000's of years of upstanding english laws''




See, I don't feed either positively or negatively from Tabliod logic, I just ignore them. I don't see the point in giving any creedence or raising any argument at all from their bile. Thet best serve the Lotto and Danielle Llyod or WAGS or some such guff.

As for intellectual debate...bring it on sure, where it exists.
But I reitterate, what exactly has he said save a few phrases? A few phrases loaded with suggestion without any real content.
Unless he's went out and asked some of the Muslim population what they think, his words might have carried some real weight, but has he?
Most theories, ideas (the ones that matter) are borne out of some thing other than 'notions'. Perhaps those sort of 'Fabian-Society' armchair politics were once subserviently tolerated but I say out of touch, mate.
And were his words even said positively? Perhaps he's horrified at the thought of such an 'inevitabitlity'.

There is to be an assembly today where he and his cronies to try to clear up the whole damned mess. He's had plenty of time to backslide (I've read plenty of oh 'I didn't mean' but zip re what he did mean), but as I heard on R4 today, there will be no need for him to go into the 'details of his comments too much'.


So tbh, I don't know why he's been anything other than, a stupid old fart.



x
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 11, 2008, 14:15
shanshee_allures wrote:
As for intellectual debate...bring it on sure, where it exists. But I reitterate, what exactly has he said save a few phrases? A few phrases loaded with suggestion without any real content.

What do you mean? This whole thing didn't start with Williams uttering "a few phrases". It's based upon a lengthy speech he delivered to the Law Society entitled "Civil and Religious Law in England".

PDF file:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_02_08_islam.pdf

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your statement (above) but are you saying you've been debating this issue without (a) reading the speech, or (b) even knowing it existed?
Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 13 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] Add a reply to this topic

U-Know! Forum Index