Thank you for the evidence that the line I quoted is a true statement.
Heck, when I saw the thread title, I thought it was going to be about Kirk Cameron.
I am tarring all Christians? Thudlow said that faith can have a role in finding a moral code. My point is that moral codes often tend to be a bit subjective. Obviously, most believers are not rude children, but their moral code does not seem to inhibit the ones who have childish tendencies, and in some cases, seems to stoke those tendencies.
So…some people, whether Christian or not, are assholes?
Disturbing stuff. Honestly, for all his faults I thought Cameron knew better than to bring this crap into British politics.
Now, now. No need to tar all retards just on account… oh, you know how it goes.
It’s always been my understanding that the rightiest of right-wingers in Europe* are STILL to the left of the Democratic Party in the USA.
Have I been misinformed?
*And yes, I do consider the British Isles to be part of Europe.
Not denouncing Jesus, per se, just people in the 21st Century who believe he died and came back to life and is some sort of deity.
The term is constituency, and however Christian or otherwise his is it’s only important that it’s bluest blue. Party leaders don’t generally lose their seats, as they represent extremely safe constituencies. Cameron’s seat, Witney, has existed since 1983 and has only ever elected Tories. At the last election Cameron got thirty three thousand votes, the LibDem in second got only eleven thousand.
Anyway, he will be subjected to a national vote. As the head of the government, and hence of both the legislative and executive branches as well as his party, the general election is largely about him. How it’ll go is anyone’s guess. He’s only in power now because of the support of those back-stabbing, treacherous little shits in the Liberal Democratic party, and that’s going to gut them come the next election.
Thank you, Nava.
UKIP tend to attract the loonies. That UKIP candidate who wanted to cut international aid to “Bongo Bongo Land”, for example.
Their core issue, though, was previously regarded as an extremely left-wing issue, that’s getting us out of the European Union. Decades ago there was a referendum on it, back when it meant something completely different to what it means now, and both major parties were fully in favour of the EC, as was, with only Tony Benn and his left-wing Labour supporters opposing.
Cameron will say anything he thinks will get him more votes. This statement means nothing. It’s lip service. It won’t result in policy. Why worry about it?
Depends on if you mean socially or economically. Economically, I’d say so, both from hearing about it (not living in Europe) and from visiting a far right English party’s web page (not sure which one.) They were all about green energy and economic equality while also being firmly anti-immigrant (to put in mildly.)
Socially, they seem to be at least as far right if not moreso than the conservative Americans in power with regards to immigration and “clashes of culture”. Other aspects of American social conservatism such as abortion, and gay and women’s rights, I’m not sure about, although one data point is the PFL in the Netherlands which is anti-immigrant and Islam but pro- women and gay rights.
So on the balance, the visible right wingers in Europe seem to me to be just as conservative as visible American right wingers socially but about different issues. ETA: they certainly aren’t to the left of the American Democrats socially, though.
While I can certainly see where this view is coming from, I think it’s a bit shortsighted on the actualities. Consider that even the most moral adults were at one time children in need moral guidance. Chances are all of us had moral failings, acts of selfiness or simple meanness or whatever for which our parents punished us or we were motivated by promised rewards. In time, we learn to not only observe those moral laws but to see greater connections between them and different motivations over time (see Kohlberg’s stages of moral development). Like with all forms of training, we learn by doing and we see the greater benefits of those actions in the long run. So, in my view, the value of a moral system isn’t in the rewards or punishments that may or may not have been used to instill those values.
Instead, I think a moral system should be judged based on the values themselves. Certainly, arguments can be made that many Christians have terrible values, groups like the Westboro Baptist Church being such an example, but the authoritative source isn’t such an example, but the words of Jesus himself. I think, in general, most people would argue that the thrust of his teachings on morality are solid. So, in short, I could get on board with a criticism that someone’s motivations are underdeveloped if they’re, say, helping the poor because they want to get into heaven rather than because they believe that generosity toward one’s fellow man is not a means to an end but an end in and of itself. But as far as the rules themselves goes, that helping the poor is good, I think it’s a pretty good rule.
That all said, though I do consider myself a Christian, I would agree that I tend to prefer religious discussion stay out of politics in either direction; in fact, I think even a majority of Christians would agree. However, though I do not celebrate Easter, I would say that posting phrases like “Zombie Hebrew” on Good Friday, presumably knowingly, isn’t the best way to get a positive response from Christians; hence the general hostility.
As I said, an asshat.
Can you elaborate on this statement?
You’ve posted it more than once here without any further comment.
I’m curious to hear what profound opinions you have, please, enlighten me.
If it takes the threat of hell to make you a moral person, then you are not at all moral, you are just a coward who responds well to threats.
ETA: I thought it was about Kirk Cameron too.
I daresay it would be moral (at least potentially) to do or not do something despite the threat of hell, like, y’know, not burning your gay neighbor’s house down even if one had been told since childhood that this is the sort of thing God wants believers to do.
Cameron isn’t a particularly religious man - it’s just a sop to some potential voters who may defect to the nutjob UKIP. For a former PR man, he is fantastically bad at it.
I’m an atheist who is sick and damn tired of the militant atheist brigade. There is no need for the sort of invective in the OP. Some people believe in various flavors of religion. Some people don’t. They should all shut the fuck up about it.
I don’t believe in voting, but all the older people around here, even the conservative ones, are of the opinion he’‘ll lose the next election — based mostly on the anti-welfare class warfare against the poorer classes they have been waging. Think Paul Ryan crossed with Henry Frick.
As capitalists they quite like immigration, not for the immigrants’ sake, but to keep the natives hungry; like Bush 2 they are generous in foreign aid; socially they are more liberal than their voters want, maybe due to libertarian social values allied to authoritarian legalism and a generally collusive press.
This is something they share with the New Labour alternative, apart from the non-hostile press.