People also fail to grasp the role that playing music can play in helping people to have a moral code.
I understand Cameron just fine. He isn’t a very deep thinker, after all. It’s just that the “It can be good for you” argument is frequently a prelude to things which are not good for anyone except people like Cameron. Think Mary Whitehouse.
[QUOTE=Derleth]
I understand Cameron just fine. He isn’t a very deep thinker, after all. It’s just that the “It can be good for you” argument is frequently a prelude to things which are not good for anyone except people like Cameron. Think Mary Whitehouse.
[/QUOTE]
I read that as “Amy Whitehouse” at first. I was a bit confused.
Apparently she was quite popular, she got a nice little serenade from Mr. Waters
Hey you, Whitehouse,
Ha ha charade you are.
You house proud town mouse,
Ha ha charade you are
You’re trying to keep our feelings off the street.
You’re nearly a real treat,
All tight lips and cold feet
And do you feel abused?
You got to stem the evil tide,
And keep it all on the inside.
Mary you’re nearly a treat,
Mary you’re nearly a treat
But you’re really a cry.
Mary Whitehouse was a Moral Majority-type campaigner against porn, bad language, etc., especially in the media. She died some years ago, and had ceased to be active for some years before that.
…And had ceased to be relevant a while before that.
The poster you are responding to is speaking about looking at people as they act, not as they believe spiritually, or non-spiritually if they so choose. He is willing to accept their beliefs despite disagreement because their actions do not cause harm. When their actions cause harm, i.e. westboro, he would likely oppose them (sorry if I am incorrect in my conclusion).
He finds no purpose or meaning in ridicule of another person for personal spiritual/non-spiritual beliefs and thinks people should be treated based upon their actions towards others. Just like an atheist should not be attacked or persecuted for their perspective unless they act in harm to others, he believes the same thing about religious individuals.
Think about your position a little bit more, because the rhetoric you espouse is similar to the parody Southpark did. Somehow I suspect people with your feelings might be fighting for the otters breaking clams on their tummies because someone did not accept their vision of how people should feel and believe in their hearts.
Oh, and for the record, non-deist here, but still some sense of spirituality about humanity and life in general.
Perhaps you should tell David Cameron that.
Unfortunate perhaps, depending on your point of view, but he doesn’t have to keep it in his church as the UK is officially a Christian nation and the C of E is established by law. Nativity scenes and signs saying Merry Christmas can be set up in Government buildings with impunity, for instance, and no court will order them removed as in the US.
Personally I couldn’t give a shit, being an atheist, but that’s the state of play here.
Ha ha ha, Jesus is a zombie…
No he isn’t, you ill-informed pisswits! He kept his sense of self and magical powers - that there is most likely a Lich.
Anyway…
Cameron’s just trying to get the religious to do his dirty work for him viz. caring for the poor. That’s the whole point of his Big Society idea - get charity to look after the country so he can siphon off all funding for public services into his cronies’ coffers.
Nope. He could eat human food and it was safe for people to touch him - that’s no lich that I wot of.
Lo, I have been out-nerded.
Necropolitan, maybe?
I have not really been following the UK situation, is he like Maggie but without the testicles?
I might not be the most nuanced of political commentators, but totes.
He sold off the Royal Mail in a manner which meant that the rich bastards who bought shares could make a massive short-term profit, and has been dicking about with the welfare state. All we need is a retreating battleship to fire on.
Like the ice cream?
eta: also, I vote Revenant with a Deva past life racial feature
Slightly tangential, but the greatest insult to equality in the UK is the fact that some…STATE FUNDED…schools are ALLOWED to discriminate admissions based on the faith of the child’s parents.
Yes, you heard that correctly. For some state schools you stand a better chance of getting in if your parents are of a certain denomination.
Imagine if any other state funded organisation were allowed to do that.
“yeah, we’d like to treat your daughters leukaemia but we’re a Catholic hospital and the 20% protestant treatments we allow have already been used up. I believe there’s a methodist hospital in the next county that may have some of their quota left”
It is an abomination and we should be ashamed of it. Does that rear it’s head in your school Mangetout?
I have heard they exercise blatant discrimination at Hogwarts.
As far as I know Hogwarts doesn’t take any state money, they have that whole goblin bank thing going on.
Indeed. “We don’t do God”.
And was also the source of the name of an at the time hilarious but on reflection hasn’t aged well comedy show. It was, however, probably responsible for the rise of popularity of stand-up comedy in the 1990s (two of its members played sold out shows at Wembley Arena, something that was pretty unheard of at the time), something that continues to this day.
Yes. It only applies to oversubscription criteria though - not normal intake. I think your analogy mischaracterises it a little.
Other discriminatory factors that apply in oversubscription include: whether the child is ‘looked after’, if the child or a family member has a serious medical condition, if they have a sibling already in the school, and if they are children of school staff.