The Relationships Foundation has set out clearly the benefits of marriage, first to couples and second to society and to the public purse, through nurturing and launching children. The trends, however, are obvious – fewer marriages, later marriages, in 2008 45% of births were outside marriage, and we see rising marriage and family breakdown.
In 1999 the annual cost of the latter was put at £5 billion, plus a much higher suicide rate among the divorced and separated. In 2010 Relate put the total direct costs of breakdown at £42billion, and pointed to the impact on schools. Emotionally damaged children lose the ability to learn. The n there are the enormous costs of taking children into care.
I suggest that we are living on the accumulated capital of past long-term stable marriages and families, in which parents cared for children and later those children cared for their ageing parents. In the 1970s the Finer Committee reported on one-parent families. Housing Associations, in which I was involved, made some limited provision for them. Now the number and proportion of one-parent families has jumped up, sometimes casting a blight on whole neighbourhoods. I suggest we face a crisis and need to invest in marriage and in long-term committed relationships, of partners to each other, and to their children.
I welcome the Coalition’s statement on this, and the Prime Minister’s offer of £7.5 million per year. I question whether this is sufficient in view of the costs of family breakdown. Government should provide help for serious marriage preparation. I had personal experience of this in the 1960s. They should encourage faith and secular groups to provide preparation, using trained volunteers.
Existing spouses and couples often need quite specialised counselling. Government should cover the core costs of organisations providing this. Today there are many informal cohabitations. I tentatively suggest, without being intrusive, government and society should encourage these to enter into Civil Partnerships. Partnerships would define the duties and rights of cohabitors. Civil partnerships should not be reserved just for same-sex couples. Hetero-sexual partnerships would avoid the couple penalty in the benefits system.
My suggestions can fit in with current notions of the Big Society. They could be fleshed out at local level, by local support groups for marriage and by family circles for parents, small children and teenagers. These could help each other, for example, with baby sitting, young people’s discipline, and other practical problems. Couples should stand alongside single parents. Social clubs, credit unions, holiday schemes, youth organizations, all have supporting roles to play.
Partnerships between government at all levels and local and voluntary groups are what we need, but far more detailed thought will be required to sustain and improve committed long-term family relationships.
It has been said that marriages are made in heaven I suggest they need divine grace to survive. There is, however, an amount we all can and should do in support of divine grace.
And offset against this are the following.
1. The legal aid bill for divorce.
2. Married people in many cases cannot claim benefits.
3. In some cases, the state has to pay out benefits that haven’t been paid for at the expense of others.
Isn’t if far simpler if the state got out of the entire marriage business?
As far as I am concerned, the marriage between two people is for male and female. It is an agreement between two people who want to promise to act responsibly through life for the comfort of themselves and for the protection of their offspring.
It is known to be the best place for all concerned. The life of the adults and the needs and health of the children.
To downgrade it goes against a sense of decency and pragmatism. Civil partnerships are for people who have no religious belief or want to sit on the fence and not genuinely commit. Some people have a huge problem with commitment and this is an easy option to the lover who wants something to hold on to. In the belief that this will be an insurance policy for ongoing ‘love.’ It never is. However, a vow taken with the sense of it being ‘right’ gives strength to those who believe it and therefore makes commitment to what was vowed a much deeper concern. Breaking that vow then, is not easy and neither should it be.
Marriage is for people who can reproduce and want to be sure the welfare of those who come from them will be safe. Presently, civil partnerships are for those who cannot naturally reproduce, it is an announcement that they are together. Insignificant to society as a whole as it has no serious meaning. Registry office marriage already accommodates those who have no serious religious belief.
If you are Roman Catholic a registry office wedding is not considered marriage in the eyes of God. And marriage cannot take place between two same sex partners as it is against the religious teaching of the Bible. As well as the Quoran, the Torah, and most other faiths.
To ask Churches to perform same sex partnerships is an insult to the religion. How can they be forced to give blessings to something that is considered as an abomination to their doctrine. Why would any sane person want to receive a blessing in a place where those who worship find their practices unacceptable to their sense of what is Holy. You cannot force acceptance of community by imposing on them something that cannot be part of them. And why would anyone want to remove that right of sanctity in their eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_life
What the law is asking from this totally oppressive act, is that those who have a deep spiritual belief, should accept something they feel is ungodly and goes against that belief. And no one is willing to tell them why they should do this. Or, indeed, can tell them why they should be doing this? You cannot give rights to one set of people by taking aways the rights of others. And as a side bar, the rights of a minority are not more important than the rights of the majority. Equality doesn’t lie in the idea that all have rights that impinge on others freedoms. Only the insane could cling to such a theory.
However, as the thread is asking what they feel on this matter, I think it should also tell the entire story.
Is it physically and mentally healthy for mankind to be in heterosexual relationships? If so, why? What has been proven to support this theory?
Is it healthy for children to be raised in stable heterosexual relationships that have taken the vow to commit to this practice? What benefits have been shown to those children who are raised in this environment? What is the downside?
Is it healthy for mankind to indulge in same sex relationships? If so, why? What has been proven to support the theory?
Then you may want to discuss the serious health issues on both kinds of relationships.
Is it mentally and physically healthy for children to be raised in same sex relationships? If so, why? What has been proven to support these theories? What is the downside?
Civil partnerships are simply a way for the state to reduce the importance of holy matrimony. And to try to remove any religious context to the process.
As they should have learned from Russia and others who tried this, it doesn’t work and there will be a backlash if they push it. Which is already starting.
and £7.5 million pounds to set aside for anything that is for the welfare of the family and its children is derisory.
“Is it mentally and physically healthy for children to be raised in same sex relationships?”
Yes
“If so, why?”
Because it’s healthy for children to be raised by parents who love each other.
Is it healthy and happy for children to be raised by parents who are unhappy because their dad wants to be with another man and mum doesn’t really like the idea of marriage anyway? If so, why?
@ mcduff: You assume far too much of ‘Love.’
Of course, I’m so silly. We should just assign relationships by economic and racial status, sell women off to the highest bidder and re-outlaw miscegenation.
That would be far better for everyone, right?
Outstanding final sentence, Blagger, even by your own standards.
Now the number and proportion of one-parent families has jumped up, sometimes casting a blight on whole neighbourhoods.
Might I suggest the noble Lord make the effort to get out a bit more around the housing estates of Great Britain. The remark above is obnoxious, seemingly blaming single parents for all that ails this country. There are as many young hoodlum hoodies that are out there causing trouble. Be it one parent or two, it is the parenting that counts.
Marriage in my opinion is certainly a more committed institution than others but it is not the way of the future judging by our young. The reasons are many fold as will be the consequences but we do not deal in ideals.
We need desperately to look at the relationship between schools and parents this holds the key. At present the relationship is in turmoil and is desperate to be fixed. Schools have become authorative, dictating to parents rather than working with them, including them in the scheme of things.
Relationships will be what they are we cannot harp back to a bygone age with rose tinted spectacles when the reality was often abuse and violence. Today the abused will no longer stay to endure and that is far better than being imprisoned in that institution.
Emotionally damaged children lose the ability to learn.
Poppycock ! And I’m here to prove it as I know lots of others are.
Regards housing, have you any idea how much housing is and the concept that getting pregnant at a young age may give you (or would have done until now)housing for life and an income ?
Stop blaming relationship breakdowns for all ills. Society,namely left wing do gooders are as much to blame. I can name two young men constantly in trouble with police that have been given free housing, a substantial amount each week on top of JSA and more benefits through Social Services because they are so much trouble ( Or that’s the impression which in this case is not true) at home that parents won’t have them in the house.
Marriages do not need divine grace to survive, they need hard work, communication, trust and loyalty. They are a long way however from Nirvana.
@Carl.H.:
Whether or not the way forward is marriage or not is not the question. It’s become very clear that it’s not acceptable for people who have children and abandon them at birth. And that is what happens. Which is far more prevalent with unmarried parents than it is with those that have taken a commitment to each other with marriage.
What you are not taking into account is that women, married or otherwise, are pushed into a life that does not include the family or children or making a home. Government policy has taken the line that women and men are equal in masculinity and that as a result one cannot take the role of provider and protector and the other as nurturer and home maker. this was done because it was considered that it reduced womens rights in the workplace and left them house servants.
By the way, this practice was introduced because it was found that women, in third world countries, faired better when money was given directly to them, rather than to the, so called, head of the household there. As the women cared more convincingly for the children with their funds than men did. (What a real revelation that was. My God a tiger does that) Anyway, the Western scientist in the great US of A decided that this meant if women worked, and had so called careers, they too would take better care of their children than the men they chose as fathers, who they felt, spent it on themselves leaving the family without.
The Study was carried out in the poorest districts of the US and did not include middle classes.
Bright governments then decided this was the answer for the future, a matriarchal society. Where gender played no part and all would mill around to make a home for the kids. What a crock that was.
What has this matriarchal society proved? Only that children are abandoned to carers, of one sort and another, who have no interests in the maternal nurturing of children not their own. Which means children don’t thrive. (your comment reminded me of the guy in the Jolly Boatman scene in Four Weddings and a Funeral, ‘he buggered me senseless, didn’t do me any harm did it?’)
This covers all social classes. And has been known for hundreds of years. Wet nurses gave their breast to the highest payer and as soon as they had the cash in hand they disappeared leaving the child to starve.
I’ve watched children closely from extremely well off backgrounds who were looked after from birth, whilst mummy followed her career and it is torture to both mother and child. A four year old whose Nanny leaves for a better job, after being with him for two or three years, is in dire and uncontrollable grief for many months. They are unable to connect to the new comer for fear of being abandoned again. They cling to their mother when she comes in, who tired, pushes them away, in some form, and the cycle of their misery begins.
The mother resents her separation from the children, blames the father and the war of the household separates them. That leads to both partners finding other lovers, as they are lonely. In general the other partner, no matter what they say or do, are barely able to bond with the children that are not theirs and the cycle begins again.
Lonely women desperate for male company, lonely children desperate to be shown affection, and a misplaced sense of self to all. Father feels betrayed and cannot understand the rejection, as he feels he did all he could to give her ‘what she wanted.’
Marriage may not be a nirvana, but it is far better than what we have in its place.
Have you seen the figures on abandoned children? Have you seen the figures on abused children?
What do you think was at the back of baby Peter…? A lonely mother and a stepfather who exploited her and proved his power over her by torturing her child. Whilst the state watched and funded them through the horror. Because ‘they’ wanted to prove the theory that single women are just as capable as those who marry. They are not. And can never be.
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/news/944616/women-dont-want-work-full-time/
It’s time men took up their role of protector and provider again and stopped looking for the one night stand. And its time women saw themselves as more worthy in life than being the one night stand.
Old fashioned it isn’t, survival it is.
And Lord Hylton is right, something’s gotta give!
“It’s become very clear that it’s not acceptable for people who have children and abandon them at birth.”
My father like a lot of others “abandoned” me whilst in the womb via divorce and flight to another Country. He paid zero. This was in the 50’s and as far as I’m aware was going on well before then. Definately GI’s in the war left many children behind.
I will agree a Mother should be at home for the children at LEAST until their teens.
“(your comment reminded me of the guy in the Jolly Boatman scene in Four Weddings and a Funeral, ‘he buggered me senseless, didn’t do me any harm did it?’”
Perhaps too close for comfort Maude, a different person may have been left very hurt by that remark.
“Have you seen the figures on abandoned children? Have you seen the figures on abused children?”
No and yes. Percentage population wise can you prove it any different at other times ? I was abandoned and abused or buggered senseless if you prefer, a long time ago in a different age. Things have changed how ?
We have to deal with the here and now in what we have and what we have is world where women no longer NEED men. It’s not ideal I agree but it’s how things are and carrying on about the good old days is not about to change it. Girls do have that old fashioned dream of weddings and love, then whilst still quite young they meet a man who messes it up. The old days a blind eye was turned, not now.
“It’s time men took up their role of protector and provider again and stopped looking for the one night stand. And its time women saw themselves as more worthy in life than being the one night stand.”
Just how pray tell are you going to legislate for that ? By the way women as much as men enjoy the one night stand nowadays, sex is no longer a dirty word, we do it for enjoyment.
@Carl H.: Point taken.
It would take far too long to explain or to suggest how you change a society from one of low self esteem to one of esteem worthy.
Your suggestion that sex ‘today’ is fun. I’m not sure what you mean by that? Was it ever thus?
However, the level of maturity in respect of sex and the relationships between male and female and the responsibilities that arise from the pleasure is something no one appears to want to discuss. Could that be from fear of loss of duty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_ethics
There is much more to relationship than sex. In fact sex is a very small part of it. The animal attraction is fleeting. Solid relationships are not based on how sexy the other person is. Although it may appear that way.
Men and women are deeply affected psychologically by how they are perceive their worth as human beings through the interaction with the opposite sex. To know you are sexy is indeed flattering. But far more important is the feeling of being worthy of extended respect, caring and consideration.
http://www.positive-way.com/self-esteem%20what%20is%20it.htm
Very few women enjoy one night stands. They always believe at the onset, this act will, I am sure, this time, lead to an ongoing relationship. In fact they have marriage in mind. No matter what they perceive marriage to be.
A man is a little different. However, even the most priapic in our society are not happy with the idea they are only good for sex.
All you have to do is look at those who remarry the same face over and over again. ‘This time, surely, it will last and I will therefore prove my worthiness.’
Very few women enjoy one night stands. They always believe at the onset, this act will, I am sure, this time, lead to an ongoing relationship. In fact they have marriage in mind.
Nice to know the results of your no-doubt extensive survey into the female psyche that is not-at-all a repetition of stereotypical gender norms.
What do you do if you ever find a woman who likes sex for its own sake and cannot abide the idea of marriage? Ignore her? Imagine she is behaving in a “masculine” manner? I’m genuinely curious.
Hear Hear, Carl!
I agree, my Lord Hylton, that all the greatness of our Society today, its Wealth, Stability, and Strength, comes from its Past. I think the problems we see in today’s world are ultimately the product of our collective beliefs as a Society. I would argue that a new prevailing dominant Religion is the cause, but this causes distress and I’m told I insult people by calling them Religious if they are Atheists. Still, those Non-Religious people with nothing to push on us and who want us to think for ourselves have often gone to great lengths to impose on us their beliefs and standards, and I should think that over time the principle Humanism that is today seen as the norm for society occupies the general perception many have even if they are Christian or Jew or some other Faith.
Below is the Third Humanist Manifesto-
http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III
Many of its tenets are what have taken over in our world.
It is like Democracy, another concept I am critical of that is prevailing, and in fact linked to it. The Catholic Church calls the hole of it “Modernism”, but whatever you call it, it is a general way in which we look at the world, and from which we derive our morality, and determine how we should live and what is right or wrong. This is why I call it a Religion even though it explicitly states it’s not and doesn’t believe in a god of any sort. It fills the same rile in that it informs us how we ought to live and how we should understand our existence.
I believe that this is also the root of our Problems, though. For, as Scripture says, as a man thinketh, so is he. (Proverbs 23:7)
We were told, from the days of the Enlightenment, through the 19th Century Freethought movement, to the Culmination of the Humanist Ideals in the 1920’s, that the old order had been Oppressive, and had smothered us, and prevented us form reaching our True Potential, that it had lead to Hypocrisy, cruelty, and intolerance. We were also told we never grew under it so much, and were shackled.
We were slaves, leading Miserable Lives, lacking in Freedom, dominated by Arbitrary Moral Riles base don old Superstitions and myths, that prevented us from enjoying the True heights of living. This blocked, Science, Reason and Progress, and held us back in the Dark Dungeons of Disperse.
We were told then that these new ideas would make us Freer, would enable us to enjoy our lives much more fully, and let us live as we Truly are, not in the confines of an impossible Ideal that runs against Nature. By it, Science would grow leaps and bounds, our own happiness would flourish, prosperity would entire, all our needs would be met, and we’d be able to reach our True Full Potential.
We were shown also a sort of chart in mind, that showed Humanity growing form Primitive Hunter-Gatherer tribes, to Villages, and form there to Kingdoms with Absolute Monarchies. But over time, as Humanity progressed, the Monarchies withered away and gave rise to representation, till finally they were overthrown and Democracy produced, and form there, we can get rid of the evil binding force on the Human Mind, Religion, and find the Liberty of Reason.
I submit to you that this has Failed. The Narrative was wrong, and the ideals that were promoted by the Philosophers of the 18th, 19th, and early 20th Century were base don a Fundamental Misunderstanding of the world, Humanity, and the Morality they disparaged.
The two main weaknesses in the Law and Modelling within Marriage sits are
(1) Its lack of both individual-human-development structure, education & qualification-testing, and household & familial training; and
(2) Its brittle ‘handcuffing’ imprisonment, gloves-off competitive, within punitive and monetary contractual law, to the literal exclusion of Covenance and friendly Method III needs& how s recognition & win-win-win cooperative problem solving methodology.
———-
That the above are also major weaknesses throughout overarching and underpinning English civilisation does not help.
2311M01Mar11.JSDM.
What are the statistics for those who never marry but have a good healthy family any way, paid for by the state in many cases as a single parent family.
The Noble Lord’s theories are peppered with so many antiquated holes that it is not worth counting them. They are middle class theories any way, designed by an elitist.
For a moment I thought it said the “Pig Society”, ad then I realized.
Change the world, or the world will change you! I prefer a little of the former and some of the latter.
Since mortality rates changed, divorce rates have changed also, and irrevocably.
To base one’s opinions on official statistics without attempting to pull them to pieces first is Cloud cuckoo land.
The benefit system promotes very good single parent benefits for hundreds of thousands of single mothers. Who’s the pretty boy then?
Some even get divorced for the purpose.
It always bothers me that nobody ever wonders whether the downsides to being unmarried are caused at least in part by the mechanisms of state and society being so dead set against accepting that unmarried life is worthwhile. One of the first things you should learn when looking at evidence is that correlation does not show causation, and even if it suggests it the causation might well go the opposite way than you think.
Might I suggest that if the government is going to stick its nose in that it ceases to assume it can socially engineer us all back to the Much More Moral 1950s and instead looks at the way people choose to live in the early 21st century. The “problem” is that people no longer feel the economic necessity to get married, but to my view that’s not really a problem at all, and one that we should not seek to rectify by either impoverishment or bribery.
We can all sympathise with Lord Blagger’s ‘get the State out of the marriage business’ if it weren’t the case that children of cohabiting couples or single people are far more likely to depend on taxpayer support. We could ‘get out of marriage’ by withdrawing support for the children of single parenthood but that might not be a good thing in the long term?
And McDuff, where is the evidence that people no longer feel an economic necessity to marry and are not marrying by choice? It seems that when men are in stable long term employment they do tend to marry; it’s becoming a lifestyle choice for the wealthy. We do the cause of supporting diversity in life choices no favours by assuming that the lifestyles of the diasadvantaged are what they really want. I’d like some hard data on the real aspirations of young people. Read the teen magazines? Girls still dream of a stable long term love and even boys start to consider the notion in their thirties!
By all means let’s enable people to seek change where their marriage or partnership is irrevocably broken down but why encourage something that costs the taxpayer a great deal of money? I see every reason for the State to encourage parents to stay together until their children have flown the nest at least.
“It’s becoming a lifestyle choice for the wealthy.”
If one looks up average wedding cost there are various answers. Ranging from £11k to £30k.
Girls still dream of marrying Prince Charming but unless your name is Kate Middleton, well…..
Boys still dream of marrying a supermodel, nymphomaniac, brewery owner nothing new there then.
“I see every reason for the State to encourage parents to stay together until their children have flown the nest at least.”
How ? How can you make a marriage happy, monogamous, amicable at all times ? The state is at present attempting to measure happiness because it is thought important. If it is, how will the state demand people stay unhappy ?
We can say that marriage is the ideal but it is the choice of the individual and of circumstances. We could of course, thinking only of the children, be like China and enforce restrictions on child bearing.
I’m rather amused by Parliament getting involved. A place where affairs appear common, where sleaze has appeared to dominate and a House of Lords with a long history of arrangements with prostitutes.
And the difference: Their wives/husbands stood by them….and every housewife in the country uttered the word “mug”!
Will Lord Prescott be taking part in the debate ? Or perhaps David Blunkett may put forward a bill ? What about John Major ?
@Carl.H>: And even better, Miliband minor. Who, though being a parent twice, feels the mother of his children is less than worthy of his commitment. Now there is a good example of why the people of this nation are confused on what duty really means.
“where is the evidence that people no longer feel an economic necessity to marry and are not marrying by choice? It seems that when men are in stable long term employment they do tend to marry; it’s becoming a lifestyle choice for the wealthy.”
But this is quite plainly the point. Women used to have little option but to get married if they wanted financial stability. Now it’s not a necessity. As a result people are moving it later and later or putting it off entirely, it’s seen as something you hold off until you can afford to do. It’s a lifestyle choice, not something you do to avoid shame and penury.
The average age of first marriage has moved up about 6 years over the last 50 years. This can be clearly linked to increasing financial independence for women.
“Read the teen magazines?”
Teen magazines are not written by teenagers, they’re written by adults who want to instil their values in the next generation. Apparently “girls” all fancy whatshisface Bieber and want ponies too. I suspect that treating the popular literature as an accurate insight into what “girls” — apparently a homogenous demographic of all females under thirty — want and aspire to is a surefire way to getting overbroad and fundamentally inaccurate ideas.
In any event, just because “girls” may want a romantic fairytale wedding, if you happen to be female and not want that we shouldn’t get the gender police out and force you into a lifestyle you find distasteful just because you’re a minority.
“By all means let’s enable people to seek change where their marriage or partnership is irrevocably broken down but why encourage something that costs the taxpayer a great deal of money?”
There’s a difference between “encouraging” and “stopping penalising”. Divorce is not something regarded as a fun time for the whole family, it’s not a decision entered into lightly. Let’s give people *some* credit, shall we? If the removal of economic disadvantages results in an uptick, this just means that the economics were keeping a lot more people trapped in unhappy relationships for longer. That’s not a win, it just means there’s a problem we didn’t know about and were encouraging with our policies.
The solution is simple. My above post was too long, only half was posted, and needs to be deleted.
That said, the answer is simple.
Abandon the New Religious Doctrines founded in Humanism that has engulfed our society, and go back to Tradition. Traditional Families didn’t break down nearly as often and its not just because of more strident laws preventing Divorce. Even in America where such Laws didn’t exist Divorce was Rare till 30 or 40 years ago.
The problems are mainly Cultural. We mainly have a “Secular” society which some here boast of as grand. That Secularism is nothing more than an alternative Religion, with its own morality and its own view on the Human Condition, and its mainly the tenets of this Faith that have driven us on the Promise of Greater Happiness and Freedom, and living up to our True Potential. But all its yielded is endless Civil Upheaval, and never ending misery in life.
All of the focus is on oneself, and every little whim or fancy becomes an inalienable Human Right the State must provide for.
Selfishness, a regard only for getting for oneself happiness and fulfilment, and conflating that with Physical comfort or excitement, and no regard for how ones actions will turn out, with the expectation that society as a whole should make sure you never face the consequences of your actions, causes what we see now.
People cheat, abandon past lovers, and get divorced to run off with others simply because there entire focus is on themselves, and like Children they have no grasp of anything but mediate satisfaction and instant gratification. If the man or woman attracts you, go ahead and have sex, tis fun, who cares if your married? That’s gotten boring now.
People need to learn to focus on duty and honour, and start valuing other peel more than themselves. They need to learn to focus on providing aid and comfort to others, and asking what they can do to help.
Instead, we have become, as St. Paul said in 2 Timothy.
1. This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3. Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4. Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5. Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
I really don’t’ care if some here want to say “That’s Religion! Reason should prevail!” what they call Reason is really just the shallow Humanist Drivel that actually promotes making us lovers of ourselves and that generates the selfishness that causes us to seek only pleasure and comfort and personal gain.
As I said before, the “I have no Religion” crowd is really Religious, thy just don’t admit it. And its there Religious Dogmas and Doctrines that already prevail, and its their religious Dogmas and Doctrines which have failed us as a Society.
Its not Rational to promote a belief system in which, as Philip Pullman expounded in his hateful books “His Dark Materials”, rest son “Giving pleasure so you can get pleasure back”. One can easily go from that to “Seeking Pleasure at the expense of others”.
Which is what we’ve done.
Calling today’s Modernism reason doesn’t make it reason. Calling something else Religion and dismissing it as Gobbledygook doesn’t make it wrong, either.
At the heart of our problems rest the immorality that is generated by following modern Humanist presumptions to their logical conclusion, and ceasing to truly care for others, but seeking only “Personal fulfilment” through hedonistic pursuits or self interest.
Get rid of that and start teaching people that its better to serve others and to honour others and to put others first, and to teach them Civil Duty and private responsibility is a much better solution.
Zarove so you are proposing to legislate that the Bible and Religion are tobe followed to the letter or what consequence ?
Stoning perhaps ?
Carl, this is why I say you aren’t really a thinker but just hateful.
I never suggested Stoning anyone and that argument is like when you said I was like the BNP or wanted to oppress people of other Religions: Completely useless and in fact slanderous.
What I’m saying is that the Religion of the Humanists, like you or Murphy, has not produced anything that it promised and has utterly failed to produce a better life for Humanity. I then say that if we follow the Principles outlined by Traditional Culture, which includes what is recorded in the Bible, but is not Limited to it (See the other Thread) and focus on serving others or sticking together rather than placing all our emphasis on personal desires and what feels good at the moment we’d have a far better world.
I am also not a Steatite. The hateful arguments you use in regards to what Christians believe or the Bible says or what Christians believe about the Bible come from sources that simply don’t speak for the majority of Christians, and personally I understand the Bible less as a Rule Book and more as a compilation of divergent texts which must be read with an actual Understanding. The Moral Principles it teaches are Universal for all Humanity, but the various books were still written in a Cultural Context far removed from our own, and must be adapted to today. We learn from it organically, not Rigidly.
Incidentally, I don’t recall anywhere in the New testament in which Stoning was endorsed. Jesus prevented the Stoning of an Adulteress in John Chapter 8, however.
Now put aside the irrational prejudices you carry and the stock arguments based on distortion. They too are a large part of the problem.
Zarove, this is a forum debating legislation in a democratic country. What you appear to desire is to totally ignore the democracy and in that the majority of people and implement a system that is against the wishes of those people.
What you promote is YOUR ideal and your ideal negates the peoples wishes which makes it some kind of theocracy like Iran. It is quite clear people do not wish this type of Government or lifestyle in this country.
Every reasoned debate that you enter ends up in Religion, it’s not welcome as far as I’m concerned. I will listen to Zarove’s reasoned argument but not quotes from the Bible ALL THE TIME.
What you do is not promote religion but create anti-religious feeling. I’m probably not the only one here that see’s the word “Zarove” and thinks oh here we go again.
I’m so anti-religious Zarove that every Wednesday two Middle Eastern Jehovah’s Witnesses spend an hour or so in my house in discussion. They know I will not become a Witness, I have my own beliefs. I listen and debate with all religions that want to talk, there’s no hate BUT THERE IS A TIME AND PLACE.
Politics in this Country no longer revolves around religion, at this time the chances of it changing to a theocracy are zero, get over it.
I have a lot of witchcraft books in my home, would you like I start quoting from them every time I spoke or perhaps try to government to implement some of the spells and incantations ?
I could ignore you, label you – religious nutter- as I feel some others do but I don’t because Zarove the person has something to offer. I’m not interested in Zarove the Christian, Muslim, Jew infact his religion is neither here nor there because I do not differentiate.
Carl-
Zarove, this is a forum debating legislation in a democratic country. What you appear to desire is to totally ignore the democracy and in that the majority of people and implement a system that is against the wishes of those people.
You know, the whole “Democracy” thing is tossed about by you a lot, but I somehow doubt you mean It. I’d wager If the Majority of people agreed with me ( or for your sake, your woefully inaccurate caricature of who I am, undoubtedly a BNP member who hates Immigrants and despises people of other Religions and wants to oppress others) you’d scream bloody murder, and insist society Change.
The illusion that somehow I’m a sad, pathetic creature wailing against the democratic wishes of the majority and how you stand for Democracy is a joke at this point, though, because we all know you only use that as a club to beat people with.
You don’t really want Democracy, you want a Democracy only If the people agree with you, or if society goes your way.
The entire point of a discourse like this s that people of differing beliefs can voice their concerns in an attempt to change minds. You railing on me for doing precisely this as if somehow its an affront to Democracy and as if I’m some sort of tyrannical oppressor is really just a pointless attempt at defaming me to try to silence me.
But I do get tired of you trying to make be a Villain for simply voicing what I believe in and trying to sue this as a mean to make sure I’m either cowed into submission or unheeded.
So I’ll ask you to refrain form this sort of cheap personal attack in the Future. It does no good and ultimately its just you smearing me.
What you promote is YOUR ideal and your ideal negates the peoples wishes which makes it some kind of theocracy like Iran.
No, what I promote is traditional Values and proper respect for Property Rights, real free association including in ones business affairs, actual free speech with no Hate Speech codes, and a culture that supports Traditional Morality without imposition.
The whole “Theocracy like Iran” lie won’t really serve you.
Stop lying Carl.
It is quite clear people do not wish this type of Government or lifestyle in this country.
But do I? Or are you just projecting on me a bigoted stereotype? I’m a Christian so I hate people of other religions and want to take their rights, hate gay people and want them shot in the street, and hate people who disagree. Gosh Carl I’m a real Monster.
It’s not like I’m a general Libertarian or anything…
Every reasoned debate that you enter ends up in Religion,
Your lying again Carl. I’ve not mentioned it in several posts, including the last one about term limits.
it’s not welcome as far as I’m concerned.
And of course your beliefs are also the will of the people, right?
I don’t really care what you welcome or don’t.
I’m not trying to be Rude here but, people like you simply bully people into silence if they don’t agree with your personal perspective then claim that somehow the people you harass are the ones oppressing others, and I’m tired of it.
I’ve said nothing that would cause anyone any harm and what I advocate is not really anywhere near as oppressive as you pretend, nor do you represent the democratic majority of the people.
So pip down and let others have their fair say and stop trying to make everyone into a tyrant just because they don’t fit your personal preference for how things should be.
I will listen to Zarove’s reasoned argument but not quotes from the Bible ALL THE TIME.
I don’t Quote the Bible all the time, and its odd that the Bible should; somehow cause offence when others an freely quote people like Bertrand Russell. What’s the difference? That you personally hate the Bible and Christians?
Carl, what I said was not some mindless “The Bible says it and do it or I will burn you at the Stake” fundamentalist soapbox, I actually think what Paul said reflects the reality o the world we live in and the problems he faced are our own. Its no different from quoting something else one thinks speaks to a specific problem, except there is this irrational hatred of the Bible from bigoted, small minded “I have no religion’ screed holders like you.
What you do is not promote religion but create anti-religious feeling.
By merely quoting the Bible I instantly cause people to hate Religion. Right. it’s not like you’ve said anything bad about Christians before I showed up in in threads I didn’t engage in. Oh wait, you did. You often start off with such ridicule.
All I did was say that our principle problem was moral. I hold this as True. That should not cause any antipathy towards anything.
I’m probably not the only one here that see’s the word “Zarove” and thinks oh here we go again.
Once upon a Time people said the same of Winston Churchill. For that matter they said the same of many others.
Bur given how you lie about hat I actually believe in and project onto me a caricature based around the cartoon cheater fundamentalist on a soapbox, in how I hate everyone who differs from me, when I’m actually a Libertarian, who has just recently, before you posted this, defended those not the same as me, your own words here are baseless.
You just hate me because I am different form you,. Carl, and actually speak up on matters that you disagree with. You also hate me for a perceived stand I take on various issues, even though I never said I took those views, because you assume I must. It fits your stereotype.
You just want everyone to bow down and be silent if they disagree and let people who you prefer stand up and be the only voices heard.
Some Democracy that would be, ey Carl?
I’m so anti-religious Zarove that every Wednesday two Middle Eastern Jehovah’s Witnesses spend an hour or so in my house in discussion. They know I will not become a Witness, I have my own beliefs. I listen and debate with all religions that want to talk, there’s no hate BUT THERE IS A TIME AND PLACE.
So what your saying is that we should be a thourghly secular society run base don only Humanism which is “Not a religion” because its Atheistic, and Bible quotes never should be sued. Also, anything that disagrees with Humanism shouldn’t be considered.
Yeah that’s Freedom to participate.
Politics in this Country no longer revolves around religion, at this time the chances of it changing to a theocracy are zero, get over it.
Carl, this is idiocy. Of course Politics revolves around Religion. Its just that the Religion has changed. As I’ve aid, saying that you don’t belie in God is not the same thing as saying you have no Religion, and adhering to the Tenets of the Humanist Manifesto and basing all of the laws upon it is not the same as creating a society that is free from Religion. Its just overriding everyone else’s religion and Favouring Humanism. Its ramming a religion down everyone else’s throats.
Also, the whole ‘Theocracy” but is stupid.
Not only am I not actually advocating s Theocracy, you aren’t even using the term properly. Iran is not, for instance, a Theocracy. It is an Ecclesiocracy, which means “Rule by Clerics”, and properly it is an Islamic Republic with an Ecclesiastical Final Chamber.
Theocracy is not necessarily the same as Dictatorship, either.
So not only are you just using bully words, like “Theocracy” to scare people, you are also lying about what I want.
I have a lot of witchcraft books in my home, would you like I start quoting from them every time I spoke or perhaps try to government to implement some of the spells and incantations ?
Let me repeat my actual positions.
1: I do not Quote the Bible in every post. You are a liar when you say I do. But lying is common to you.
2: Humanism is a Religion. Religion is not Theism.
3: I am a Libertarian. You are free to bring up Witchcraft and try to convince others of its tenets if you like.
I could ignore you, label you – religious nutter- as I feel some others do but I don’t because Zarove the person has something to offer. I’m not interested in Zarove the Christian, Muslim, Jew infact his religion is neither here nor there because I do not differentiate.
You’re lying again Carl. Zarove the Christian is Zarove the person, and its this point you seem oblivious to make. Ones religion is not some Ornamental aspect that some people have and others don’t, that acts like a bauble. Its what people actually believe in. Religious people aren’t different form Nonreligious ones, which is why I say that everyone is religious. The “NonReligous” are really just Religious in their own way.
One who is a Christian is not a Christian because of rituals and stories they like to read, they are Christian because they have accepted what Christianity teaches as actually True. That means it cant be just left in the Home or the Church, it is going to effect literally everything they do, and is a significant part of who they are.
Expecting me to actually behave as if I am a Humanist or to embrace Humanist Values and beliefs whilst discussing legislation is therefore asking me to sacrifice what I believe in as True, and what I earnestly am.
Just as asking me to live in a society that bases all of its laws on Humanism really isn’t being Rational and neutral to Religious matters, but imposing only one view onto all others.
But you argue with Scare words, not with meaning. You use the word “Theocracy” to describe what I want and say it’d be like Iran if I had my way. You have no evidence for this other than I am Religious and want a Theocracy, and we all know Theocracy is bad.
But all this says to me is, anyone who doesn’t agree to play by Carls Rules wants a Theocracy just like Iran.
I’ll still wonder why the Bible can’t be cited in Governmental Discussions but Bertrand Russell or Richard Dawkins can, though. Really it seems quiet Arbitrary to me, as if only one side has a Voice and one source of wisdom is shut off.
And in the end it changes nothing. WHat I said I still hold as True, and if Im right, this means we ought to encourage better Moral Character, which will help us avoid the problems we see in today’s society.
Morals, I must add, that cannot be derived form the shallow Humanism that prompts men like you to blindly insult others with words like Theocracy whose real meaning you don’t know, only to compare them to Iran because of it.
I googled Zarove just out of interest because I had a feeling. It proved right.
This isn’t the only place you use that agressive manner where everyone is a liar but you, is it Zarove ?
I even note you have your own wikipage. I shall leave well alone in future.
What I’m saying is that the Religion of the Humanists, like you or Murphy, has not produced anything that it promised and has utterly failed to produce a better life for Humanity.
No, we’ve just got modern medicine, democracy, the internet and electricity on our side. And, of course, the real improvements are felt by people who are black, female, gay, transgendered, or who belong to a religion other than the dominant one in society. And who cares about making *those* types of people’s lives better, eh? I can understand why a white male like yourself wouldn’t think that life had got any better in the last hundred years, since all these people you demean seem to be getting all these rights and the glorious empire keeps getting badmouthed by people who have some inexplicable problem with genocide. Must be torture for you.
Mcduff, Modern Medicine, the Internet, and Electricity were not the products of Humanism. They were the Product of learning, which one can readily do whilst not being a Humanist. Many Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, and various other sorts practice medicine and contribute to Medical Research, for example, as do many Church affiliated Hospitals. There is nothing inherent in the Internet or Electricity that would prevent them from emerging from a context that had never heard of the principles on which Humanism rests, and one can imagine people with the beliefs of the Ancient pagan Romans being able to whip up all the same had they lived on longer as a society.
The whole idea of thinking Humanism and Science go hand in hand and “religion” which invariably excludes it somehow hinders Scientific advances is an absurdity.
Democracy existed in Ancient Greece where they worshipped Zeus and never adhered to the Humanist Principles either.
Incidentally you and Carl seem to think that if one is a Christian as I am one must hate those of other Religions, which is daft nonsense given what I’ve actually said. Secularists operating on Humanist Principles, meanwhile, have been more than happy to imprison those who hold a different worldview, as they still do in China or did in Stalinist Russia. How does Humanism provide, in and of itself, a guarantee that the Humanist culture won’t just up and arrest those who refuse to be Humanists? Really it doesn’t.
Incidentally I’ve not badmouthed anyone, somehow you think I have. That’s really an unjustifiable slander, which rest son nothing. If yoru words represent Humanism, then I can say this, Humanism is a boastful religion which takes credit where others do all the hard work then insults others but claims to be the victim.
“Traditional Families didn’t break down nearly as often and its not just because of more strident laws preventing Divorce. Even in America where such Laws didn’t exist Divorce was Rare till 30 or 40 years ago.”
No, it was because of cultural shame and penury. i.e., people were just as unhappy, but because they could end up on the breadline (and it was mostly women who would be trapped in financial dependence like this) they would stay in relationships which were miserable, and often abusive.
If you think that using traditional morals to shame people into staying in unhappy or abusive relationships is the way forward, then bully for you, but wanting people to be able to find a way out of such situations is not, as you may seek to characterise it, equivalent to abandoning all morality and embarking on an orgy of hedonism. Having respect for the self-determination of the individual isn’t a sin in my book. If it is in yours, well, as I say, culture has voted on this one, I’m afraid. If you want a fearful, crouching society that constantly tries to enforce “traditional” morality on its population, you could always try South Dakota, or if that’s still too liberal for you I hear Kenya’s good for that these days.
Of course, you might have to deal with Amnesty International coming round to deal with the inevitable fallout of the system, since it’s pretty evident from the grand march of history that people don’t *want* your sort of tradition and once they get the freedom to reject it they will. Often, amazingly, *without* becoming unchecked libertines in the process.
But, no, I suspect that you actually want to stay where you are, to reap the benefits of living in a society which, for all its faults, at least pays lip service to the idea of human decency and treating people with respect and dignity, even if all you do is complain about it. I think you’d find it much harder to live in a country where people really were strictly enforcing “tradition” all over your white ass, and I think you know that too.
Check out with Caroline Myss’s “Anatomy of the Spirit”, wherein the need of the individual prospective-spouse to first become successfully ‘married’ to him-/her- self, will sacramentally be followed by right-communication, right-self-ordination, and right-self-unctioning (my sketch-words);
in other words, first be wholly-fit for marriage to another person: which will include being competently-prepared to do friendly needs & affordable-hows recognition and (Method III ‘win-win’ and ‘win-win-win’) cooperative problem-solving;
and being already familiar if not yet competently-practised in Facing (both oneselfl and external-others) and in Spacing or ‘unction-ing’ oneself and external-others.
———-
Surely the strongest and healthiest ground and enablement for a marriage, and especially for a family thereafter, is Covenance or ‘covenant-ing’ ?
rather than a brittle and easily breakable or buy-oneself-out-of Contract ?
2217Th030311.JSDM.
Steatite should be Stereotype.
The state is at present attempting to measure happiness because it is thought important. If it is, how will the state demand people stay unhappy ?
Where does the best measure of happiness lie?
Should everybody be statistically very happy, or should perfect happiness be achieved by those in the middle class, or should the best happiness be obtained by the wealthiest and most elite amongst us?
The supermodel,nymphomaniac brewer in our family migrated to America in about 1950, and lives near Chicago. The West Wales Brewery
“Felin foel”. Still brewed after 120 years.
There are those marriage merchants who have large families and wish to extol the virtues of it, blow their own trumpets. They are realists and marriage merchants; might just as well be a clergyman on the street corner.
There are also those who represent Matrimony as an ideal; who are themselves unwed, but conforming to the norm, do not wish to upset, what they see, as the apple cart, by condemning an outdated institution.
It’s a contract! No more no less!
If you happened to have a pal (preferably female, if you are male and vice versa) and you got along so well that you have spent life together, then bully for you!
Why push it down other people’s throats!!???
You signed the marriage contract ok.
Contracts are made and broken in the financial centres of the world every day, every microsecond of every day! Big deal!
So what?!
Keep it to yourself!!
Capitalism itself causes the breakdown of most of those contractual marriages so much discussed; arguing about what they “own”, the dosh!
If you live in a Housing Asscn house you are not going to do that are you????? But what did Thatcher try to do with the council houses?????
Contracts to be made and broken every day!
Opt out of the contractual arrangement and where are you? Un-concerned with the statistics, the knowledge of which sweep like the virus described by Carl(?) above through owner democracy housing estates such that it seems like a social disease!
IT IS ONE!
In France 30% of all people who co-habit with offspring, are unmarried by contract.
There was a revolution. they don’t need it!
@ TwmO’:It is the spread of the Matriarchal society, pushed by governments, and the idea that women should adopt the masculine principle.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/fce/doctra/0710.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoTrARDa8BU
The Masuo tribe have not moved on or evolved as a society in any sense of the word. The men are emasculated and reduced in status to children.
Blaming Capitalism for the breakdown of Modern Marriages is like Blaming Golf for Tiger Wood’s infidelities.
Capitalism is just seen as some sort of universal Evil, its like Religion, its just bad in itself and somehow makes people do bad things.
Its all just silly.
Marriages existed in Capitalist societies that were extremely successful, and the modern Trends of breakup actually started in the Communist Nations such as Russia, later the Soviet Union.
Obviously Capitalism is not the cause of the Russian and later Soviet breakdown of families.
The problem is the inherent selfishness of today’s Culture, and the desire for instant gratification over a long view or what is fo the best.
We don’t have Honour, Commitment, and Loyalty, we have only hedonistic desires the Drive us.
That is the cause, not economic policies like Capitalism.
Incidentally, those who say Marriage is an outdated institution seem to not understand that not everything we do is just cultural convention changeable if “the will of the people” say so. Marriage is a recognition of relationships that occur between men and Women (exclusively men and women) that is part of our inherent Biology. It is an institution rooted din Natural Law, and Nature will be served.
We cannot change Natural law by Democratic Vote, nor is it moved by eloquent Philosophy or ardent desire or starry eyed Idealism.
Those who peddle New Moralities for New Times and act as if the Old Morality has become outdated like an old computer replaced by a newer one doesn’t understand anything at all about Morality. Its not Technology and can never become Outdated.
The problem is the inherent selfishness of today’s Culture, and the desire for instant gratification over a long view or what is fo the best.
The best according to whom?
Old, white, authoritarian men often blame “hedonism” for all manner of things they disagree with. Often this is because women express a desire to not do things according to “tradition”, i.e. they want to not be trapped in horrifying, abusive relationships that do nothing for them but which maintain the stratified nature of society that keeps priests in hogfat. Luckily for us, we’ve moved past that.
It’s understandable that the old priesthood, finding itself short of its accustomed level of hogfat, would kick up a stink and throw its bottle out of the pram, but I don’t see why their infantile tantrum should be interpreted as anything other than a cry for help. “Return to tradition” isn’t even a policy recommendation, unless the priesthood in question can get off its ass and specify *which* tradition.
I think you’ll find that if you come out of your generic moralising and start giving specific instructions, you’ll find yourself on entirely the wrong side of history. Of course, you should be used to that by now. We’ll reject you, but the masochist in you will enjoy it. I don’t think you’d be happy if you didn’t have a secular society to rage against.
@Zarove: Capitalism was not the way of Christ. Capitalism is of Judaism. Christ, and therefore, Peter, would not have thought this economy anything other than evil.
I am not against capitalism. However, I am against ‘rampant capitalism’ and the greed that surrounds it. From my point of view, a balanced economy is a better answer. What we have presently is not balanced. The poor and the infirm have far less of the economic pie than they did some years ago, when this country and yours, embraced the idea that a more financial equalibrium would better serve us.
As a result of the imbalance our societies are seeing a collapse in the caring of those not on the top rung. The schools are no longer able to cope with the young who have no boundaries or guidance offered by moral principle. And the acceptance of any and all doctrines is confusing and creates much discord. It is no longer one nation beating together as one heart as it once was.
Our country, as well as yours, used to have a code of practice accepted by all. That no longer exists. Government is afraid to embrace this doctrine through fear of offending. After they deliberately created the confusion of the nation.
So much of what you write is useful, but, you must stay closer to the facts. And if you are going to quote or draw from Christianity you must have the ethos of the religion correct.
An alien from space, reading of this Western practice over the period late 20th century, early 21st, course in earthlings, would see it as self anialation. As an inner hatred of the ego carried out through the slaughter of the clan or tribes ancient foundations.
‘Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.’
Euripides
I’m just gonna quote this out here and let it sit.
Capitalism was not the way of Christ. Capitalism is of Judaism. Christ, and therefore, Peter, would not have thought this economy anything other than evil.
What I absolutely love about you, Maude, is that you can’t seem to go one comment without throwing in some unnecessary race-essentialist bigotry. It’s goddamn hilarious, man.
It’s all the fault of the Jews! Totally irrelevant racism, but you just can’t help yourself, can you? Genius.
@Mcduff: You are an ignorant individual. What I wrote has nothing to do with racism toward Jews. It is you who is swimming in this muck, so you see it endlessly. What I wrote is to do with the teaching of Christ that Zarove wrote about on the economic values he put forward. And in case you forgot, Christ was a Jew. You cannot separate the two. I put this up because everything Christ taught was against Capitalim, not for it, as Zarove wrote. And I have a right to challenge him on that.
Judaism, in case you didn’t know, was into usary. And Christ taught it was evil. Usary is considered by Islam, in case you didn’t know that either, also to be evil. So you see, there is common values there. And in Muslim countries they do not allow Muslim banks to practice it. And if you have an account in an Islamic bank in the UK, they don’t practice usary here either.
You need to educate yourself somewhat before you accuse others of having the problem you clearly have yourself. You simply cannot follow a debate as you lack the knowledge and therefore see bogey men every way you go.
It’s because our country no longer has a proper form of education that you are bereft in the necessary knowledge to discuss an issue.
And frankly, I am sick of little Hitlers like you trying to make out I am some kind of racist because I write on what I am aware of. You may be stunned by the facts, so I would be more circumspect if I were you.
You cannot debate, and are bugged because you are out of your depth. All you can do here is attack. That is very sad.
Deary me. I love it when people say “you need to educate yourself” by giving out the wrong information and spelling it wrong.
Ezekiel 18
“So a man who is righteous and practices justice and righteousness, and does not eat [offerings of meals] on the mountains… gives his bread to the hungry, and clothes the naked with garments, Does not lend on interest, nor does he take any increase on a loan, keeps his hand back from… -he is a righteous man; he shall surely live, says the Lord God.”
Does it hurt being so misinformed? Where do you suppose Jesus got the prohibition against usury from? I guess if you’ve never read the Talmud you could be forgiven for not knowing this, but then you’d be a pretty poor Christian too.
Now, here’s where you may be getting confused. Deuteronomy 23
“You shall not give interest to your brother, [whether it be] interest on money, interest on food or interest on any [other] item for which interest is [normally] taken. You may [however,] give interest to a gentile, but to your brother you shall not give interest, in order that the Lord, your God, shall bless you in every one of your endeavors on the land to which you are coming to possess.”
Scriptures like this underpin the roots of the historical anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews as greedy usurers, since the culture of Jewish immigrants often meant there were few trades that the observant were allowed to ply in a Goyim society. Lending money was one of them. It is however to be noticed that the great Christian states have never had a general prohibition against lending to any anyone at interest, Jew, Gentile, Muslim or Pastafarian, and so claiming that the lending at interest which underpins capitalism is somehow more Jewish than Christian is completely factually inaccurate.
In practice, every culture discovers ways around their religious prohibitions to find new ways to make money through finance, but if you want to go back to scripture the Talmud has far more to say about it than Jesus did.
Of course, you might just have been mistaken, and old, wrong, anti-semitic tropes might just have been wheeled out in this thread because you’re misinformed. In which case, I’m happy to have done you this service here so you can avoid errors like that in the future.
Maude-
@Zarove: Capitalism was not the way of Christ. Capitalism is of Judaism. Christ, and therefore, Peter, would not have thought this economy anything other than evil.
Neither Christ nor the Jews of the First Century were Capitalists. Capitalism really couldn’t exist before the Industrial Revolution, and thus did not exist in the world till the 19th Century.
How on earth you can assume that Judaism was Capitalist in the ancient Roman Empire is beyond me.
That said, there were different sects in Judaism then, and there are now. Not all Jews agree, and Judaism itself is not overly economic as a rule. Tough they do have admonitions against usury, or charging interest, which is one of the key ways Capitalism works, by Charging Interest, so one could say that Judaism is actually somewhat Antithetic to it.
I am not against capitalism. However, I am against `rampant capitalism’ and the greed that surrounds it. From my point of view, a balanced economy is a better answer. What we have presently is not balanced. The poor and the infirm have far less of the economic pie than they did some years ago, when this country and yours, embraced the idea that a more financial equalibrium would better serve us.
My Country? I have two mind you. I’m from Sussex. I merely live in Tennessee at present.
That said, One can also argue against today’s “Mixed” economy.
Personally I think that we ought to simply end Usury Laws, but let people have ownership, and control over what they own, of their own means.
I miss the old days when one could say “Your money’s no good here” to someone thy did not wan tot do business with. But today the Government has ordered us to do business with anyone willing to pay. Of what concern is it of the Government if I own a bookstore but don’t want to sell to Jim because I don’t like him?
Businesses exist to make a Profit, that is why they are businesses. I do not think society should run off the principles of Greed, but that is more about individuals than businesses.
Individuals need to be Taught the Moral Value of self sacrifice, Honest Labour, and Honourable dealings, as well as that Money and possessions aren’t the most important things about.
But a Business can learn nothing. It exists as a tool and is run by people.
As a result of the imbalance our societies are seeing a collapse in the caring of those not on the top rung. The schools are no longer able to cope with the young who have no boundaries or guidance offered by moral principle. And the acceptance of any and all doctrines is confusing and creates much discord. It is no longer one nation beating together as one heart as it once was.
You said before we were once a Devoutly Christian Nation. Now we aren’t. I agree. While I have nothing against those of other Religious beliefs, even Humanist except their ridiculous claim to not be Religious to avoid criticism, and to generate a personal level of superiority, I do think that our beliefs will have consequences.
I have always maintained that we should have complete freedom of Volition in terms of what Beliefs we hold, and how to govern our own lives, but I also want this tempered by the Government and Culture to reinforce a proper Moral Code.
In Truth we do, its just that the Moral Code we hold to is base don Humanism, and I would contend that Humanism is a Failed Religion. Its beliefs are inaccurate and lead to confusion, self centeredness, and ruin.
I would maintain that the shared moral views of more Traditional Religious Faiths, such as Christianity, Judaism, and even Islam (Which I know you disagree) are more in accord than out, and we can all agree on those, Its only with the “New thought” of the 19th century that we got other ideas infused in us, and yet those ideas only prove C. S. Lewis right, that whoever comes along with New Morals is a Charlatan.
A Commitment to the morality as held in Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or Traditional Society in general, is vastly superior to the Socialism and the Humanist assumptions we presently use. For in Humanism, our focus is on ourselves and we become less charitable as we expect tax dollars t be dolled out to the poor, who are then made into nothing but names and numbers on pieces of paper.
But I still don’t blame Capitalism, as it is only an Economic model, not one for all areas of life.
Our country, as well as yours, used to have a code of practice accepted by all. That no longer exists. Government is afraid to embrace this doctrine through fear of offending. After they deliberately created the confusion of the nation.
Quiet the opposite. They have a code of practice they want accepted by all, its just not the same one as the past. The old one is “Religion” and we all know Religion is bad, its oppressive to force Religion onto others. The new one is “Reason”…
In today’s world the Government will force you to rent a bedroom to a Homosexual Couple on the moral code that dictates that Sexual orientation is just like Race and to discriminate on the basis of Sexual Orientation is the same as Racism. Therefore you sin against the moral code they give you if you disapprove of Homosexual conduct, and are likened to a Racist.
In today’s world it is morally wrong to teach Children one Religion is right, but perfectly acceptable to teach them the tenets of a Humanist morality, as a matter of course.
In Today’s world, it is wrong to depreciate women but OK to depreciate men, because that’s not Sexism…
Today’s world also says Religion should not be in politic and tries to bar such involvement as Clergy offering on issues of the day.
In Today’s world we venerate couples living together without marriage, take as a fundamental right abortion, and demand that all people accept these things. But if someone simply offers to pray for you, you may be fired for offending them; for in today’s world we are told Prayer is offensive for some reason.
I could go on but I think the point is made.
We do have a Unified moral Code, it just doesn’t work.
The Moral Code we have that’s forced onto us all is base don a fundamentally flawed understanding of Human Nature.
So much of what you write is useful, but, you must stay closer to the facts. And if you are going to quote or draw from Christianity you must have the ethos of the religion correct.
I do have the Ethos correct.
I believe that we ought to treat Christian thinking the same way we to all other Religious thought, and the same way as Humanism. I don’t think the Religion-that-is-not-a-Religion Humanism ought to be the sole basis of our laws and the only thing considered when we make them, and believe that we should draw from a range of Sources.
My Legal Opinion is that the Separation of Government from Religion is impossible because we will still end up making Laws base don some beliefs about how things ought be and we should consider everyone’s beliefs in such debates, and not give primacy to Humanism alone.
Unlike what Carl says I am, I really don’t want to oppress anyone, and have no animosity towards other Religions.
But I favour being Fair more than the modern “Equality” which depends on conformity to a singular view.
An alien from space, reading of this Western practice over the period late 20th century, early 21st, course in earthlings, would see it as self anialation. As an inner hatred of the ego carried out through the slaughter of the clan or tribes ancient foundations.
Or, will see it as the coordinated attempt to shift the Culture from its Ancient Roots to the New Philosophical basis, which is what it is. Marx thought we had to tear down the Old and build a new Society base don new thinking. That’s basically what we are trying as a society to do.
Its just that these new ideas don’t work out in reality, but we as a Culture are too enamoured by them and the Promises they make, we fail to criticize them and realise these Promises are Fake.
`Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first make mad.’
Euripides
There is Truth to this Statement.
Mcduff, your racism against White people is Troubling. By the way, I’m not a Priest. I actually go to a Church of Christ that doesn’t even have a priesthood. But nice Try at that useless dig, especial as the Clergy never entered into this in conversation.
And I did give a Policy recommendation. Currently the State has decided to be Secular, rather than Religious. As I’ve pointed out, being Secular has become adherence to a very specific Philosophy about the nature of our existence and how we should live, which is outlined in the Humanist Manifestos. In other words, being Secular is not simply not being Religious but is being s Humanist, at least functionally.
I have also stated that this type of Secularism is not really as nonreligious as it claims. Its still a set of beliefs about the fundamental nature of our existence and covers all the same ground and answers all the same questions a Religion would, and think it silly that we see it as anything other than a Rival religion simply because its atheistic.
I have then suggested we drop the insistence on Secularism, by which we mean Humanism, as its become stifling an its Tenets do not work.
Lets actually broaden the plate and let other peoples ideas coem into play and stop acting as if challenging he Humanist ideal is somehow not permissible in a Free Society.
I then suggested we implement a proper educational and cultural trend that replaces the insistence on Humanism. Our colure gains by osmosis Humanist beliefs in part (no not solely) because he Government encourages this, teaches from this perspective in State Schools, and even imposes them onto Faith Schools in many instances. The Government sets up laws based upon Humanist beliefs and forces others not compliance, and instructs us to adopt these ways.
If they stopped doing this, then people could learn a moral code and way of life other than Humanism and gain a perspective of serving others and duty towards one another, rather than the selfishness that is created.
My policy is thus simple. The Government should encourage Moral Values that Emphasis prudence, Charity, Honour, and self sacrifice. They should also instruct us to learn delayed Gratification rather than instant Gratification and to take the long view. This should not be done by force as they do the Secularist Religion now, but by mere example.
If we could encourage the attitude that people should try to be Happy with what they have, rather than an endless pursuit of happiness by a never ending pursuit of mere things or experiences, and if we can teach hem to make wiser decisions in which they marry, and how to solve problems in relationships rather than look for the quick and easy out, then there would be fewer divorces.
Mcduff, your racism against White people is Troubling.
Yeah, because saying someone is “racist against white people,” especially if you’re accusing someone as celtic as me of it, isn’t a total shibboleth of privileged bigotry. People who accuse other white people of being racist against whites always have *such good points to make*.
Pointing out white privilege is not the same thing as being racist. It only looks like that to people with a pathological lack of empathy, because they just cannot understand that something not being a problem for them personally doesn’t mean it wasn’t a problem for millions of other people.
“Its no different form when you said Id oppress people who want an abortion, homosexuals, and people of other Religion”
You might not oppress them yourself, but you’d happily stand idly by while people dismantled hard-fought freedoms in order to try to rebuild some utterly mythical time of traditional morality. You seem to have this idea that the civil rights movement was all for fun, or something, like it didn’t really matter and it was just because people wanted to have more sex. That level of shallowness, typical of “Traditional Moralists”, is barely worth engaging with on any level except ridicule.
Carl-
I googled Zarove just out of interest because I had a feeling. It proved right.
This isn’t the only place you use that agressive manner where everyone is a liar but you, is it Zarove ?
I even note you have your own wikipage. I shall leave well alone in future.
You of course see what you want to see.
I don’t routinely call people liars. I call those who lie liars.
I even get on well with Atheists, presuming they don’t make it a point to attack others on the basis of their beliefs.
But you will filter everything through a need to see me as some sort of Monster. But the kick is, on the net I could easily have changed my name and you’d not have been able to Google me. All those bad things you learned about how horrible a person I am would never have been discovered. I don’t fear my past.
But others, like you, can twist and distort things from it to defame me and depict me as something I’m not.
And that’s why I called you a liar.
Its no different form when you said Id oppress people who want an abortion, homosexuals, and people of other Religions. For the first two you twist what I’ve said and hat I believe in, and for the last you simply made it up with nothing to support it.
Rather than focus on what I’ve said, you have to find dirt on me to discredit me. That’s honest to you?
Mcduff, your like Carl in a way. You utterly misrepresent me and what I’ve said, and don’t seem to really look at what I want but project on me a sort of stereotype.
I am a Libertarian.
I believe that people should have the rights over their own life and property, and these rights should extend to Businesses. They ought have the ability to turn people down if they like simply because they own it, and its none of the Governments affair.
I also believe that we should try to foster Traditional Moral sin a non-invasive way, by education in schools and via media outlets, and by Voluntary associations, but not to enforce them onto unwilling persons.
So how this translates to me standing Idly by whilst peoples freedoms are taken is not really explained by you.
I also think the White privilege thing is more True of the 1950’s than nowadays. Its only still present as its such a central part of the Mythology of the modern progressives.
A nice rally point as you say.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Bt3J
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:%5E%5EJames%5E%5E/evidence
I love this one where the guy is obviously troubled about his wife having an abortion and our libertarian Zarove helps him out thus:
It is an Emotional argument.
I do not know why your wife had an Abortion, but this doens’t automaticlaly make it right. Nor does your critisim of Pro-lifers make them wrong.
You mention pocketbooks and walets a lot, though, so I asusme the reason for her Abortion had to do with Financial stress.
And, Perhaps your SOuthern Baptist Churhc didn’t help, but isn’tthat the Fault of where you attended, and not actually the fault of the beleifs they held to as a Corporate body?
That said, Abortion is opposed because it is Murder. THis is how Pro-Life groups see Abortion. If you do not want ot admit this, fine, but the fact remains, the reaosn epoepl are pro-life is because they do not want ot see the death of a CHild.
Incedentlaly, your theology is wrong. The Catholic Churhc has not officially Droppe dLimbo. In addition to it not havign been a formal doctirne ot begin with, no official pronouncement has actually declared it nonexistant.
That also said, not all CHurhces teach that Aborted Babies go straigh tot Heaven, either.
And, worse of all, even if they do, your whole line of htinkign itsself is skewed. You think that Aboriton si OK because babies who are Aborted go straight to Heaven. You oerlook the sin of Murder on the part of the parents.
Now, rather or not you agree with any of this doens’t matter, but int he end, you wife had an Abortion, andyour angry at the CHurch, and money wa sinvovle dint he decision. Noen of this is really evidence of a Pro-Abortion stance being moral or logical, but all of it proves your thinkign with your emotions.
Again, I am sorry to come down on you for an issue thta is sensative, but you cannot use your expernces liek this to silence others, either.
You are supposed to study psychology ? And Religion ? And be a libertarian ?
Do you think that constantly deriding democracy whilst praising monarchy and other dictatorships is libertarian ?
As a student of psychology how do you see a person that thinks they know more about everything, that think they are different, perhaps somehow more regal or pious ?
“I also believe that we should try to foster Traditional Moral sin a non-invasive way, by education in schools and via media outlets, and by Voluntary associations, but not to enforce them onto unwilling persons.”
How do you plan to educate people out of homosexuality that to you is deeply wrong. And abortion ? Is it your plan as an American to restore the Englush monarchy with you at the head ? To overthrow democracy ?
I’m sure you know what a shibboleth is, and libertarianism is one of those things which is a shibboleth of certain kinds white, straight males. One of the reasons being, as I keep pointing out, that all these things that happened since the 60s, when a business could put a “no negroes” sign on the door and you could fire someone for being gay or having a child out of wedlock, only made your life better in the sense that people are generally empathetic and compassionate towards others. But if you’re not, you say “well the black folks can open their own bus company if they don’t like sitting at the back,” thus demonstrating entirely and fundamentally that you don’t understand why people went through the force-feeding and the firehouses and the assassinations to try and get society to treat them the way it has always treated white men.
And if you don’t get it, that’s not something I can explain to you. You know about MLK. You know about the Suffragettes. Nothing I can say will make you a better person. You have decided that because there are some people who make you feel icky that you’d rather the rights of businesses were privileged over the rights of individuals, even though we tried that in living memory and it sucked for all the kinds of people you aren’t.
I can’t explain to you how to have basic humanity, Zarove.
@Zarove: Usury, or, lending with interest began long before industrialisation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury
It was discussed in the old testament. If you scroll down you will get the gist.
However, Christ, on the other hand, got very angry with money lenders and their use of usury = interest. A common practice in Israel at the time. However, it was illegal to charge Jews interest, so it was those from outside who were stuck with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple
@McDuff: So you know how to cut and paste, clever boy!
And your spelling is perfect every time isn’t it?
So, in other words, you got called out on repeating anti-semitic stereotypes by someone who actually knows the Talmud better than you and you’re not trying to distract from that fact by being all snotty.
Good to know things are continuing apace!
Let’s see, we’ve had “women only think they enjoy sex because they’re thinking about marriage” and “the jews are responsible for the usurious capitalist system” so far in this thread. Come on, let’s go for broke! All you’ve got to do is blame black people for gang violence and homosexuals for child abuse and I’ll have a complete row on my bigotry bingo card.
Carl, are we going to now be treated to you bashing me base don what I said elsewhere, and finding the worst moments to depict me as a Monster? Because that sort of cheap personal attack really makes you look pathetic and doesn’t advance the discussions here at all.
I realise you hate me personally and hate Christians in general, even if you deny it or mention Jehovah’s Witnesses who speak to you, but do you really think quoting me from elsewhere when its not even on topic does anything but make it seem like you trig to rally people against me?
Keep it yup and I will complain to Hansard. My record here is what counts here, and we shall see who ends up with what.
Zarove you kept calling me out to a fight. I resisted for a while but there’s only so much I take from someone like you, a troll.
I don’t like people who hide thousands of miles away and are abusive to people, I find it cowardly. Your record on the internet shows it all true that you lie and abuse all others. What’s worse is you do it the name of Christianity, I have heard though that that is exactly what Satan is supposed to do.
Go ahead complain to Hansard “Face ? Bovvered ?”
You are a bigot who is full of hatred, that’s fine just direct it at me and leave others alone.
As Lady Tizzy said before me, this is me being nice.
Heard it all before ?
I mean relaly you actively use Google searhc engines to gind my last posts, and then post where I have posted just to harrass me, come off it.
As tot he cheap shot at a spellign error, you can shove it.
http://stupidevilbastard.com/2002/05/scotland_now_a_pagan_country/
Really Zarove all the World is wrong except you ?
So you’re a British Journalist from Tenessee, who has studied psychology and every religion ?
At least some people get a giggle from you:
“Also (and nearly worthy of it’s own aside), remembering about how Christianity teaches compassion and kindness (forgiveness etc), this comment by some one under the name ZAROVE made me giggle:
Dawkins wudl retend the exocrsism didnt eixst, ro at leats elements didnt. IE, the voices wher ejust the poduct of mental illness, and no objects levitated.
I have friends hwo rewerite Hisotry all the it me, so it fits into what they’d prefer to beleive.
By the way, for the Americans who don’t know any better, the Guardisn is liberal trash“
McDuff, I do not associate being a better person with being a A Socialist. How can I? You are a Socialist and are rather rude, coarse, and aggressive on these boards.
What I do say is that the Government should not intervene in Private affairs or Private Business. Whilst one can argue where the line ought be Drawn, when you bring up Gays you loose Sympathy, and that’s because there’s no evidence that Homosexuality is any different from Smoking. A Behaviour which, while addictive, is not innate and which one need not engage in. There is no evidence that its all encompassing to ones personality either, and I know several gay men who don’t “Act gay”.
Quiet bluntly, people should have the moral right to oppose Homosexuality, or to deny specific services to Homosexuals if it furthers a lifestyle they do not enjoy.
That’s what makes it different from Race. Everyone agrees that Race is inherent and unchangeable. A Black man is Black. But two men having sex is not the same as one man being black. Two women having sex is not the same as one woman being Asian.
Homosexuality is behavioural by nature and one need not engage in said behaviour to live. One can stop engaging in said behaviour. In fact, no one engages in any sort of sexual conduct at all times.
But a Black man is Always black and an Asian Woman is Always Asian. It is how they appear. it’s a Physical Trait.
So even if I agreed with you on the idea that the Government must enforce an end to Racism, its not going to work on the other direction. You can’t justify an end to Moral Opposition to Homosexuality on the same grounds as an end to Racism Honestly.
The two are not really anything alike.
The same is true of Unmarried Mothers, for that matter.
Provided that Said woman can find some way to keep herself up and live, why ought all others be made to endorse her conduct?
Though in this case one can also argue that the woman may reform, for after all, it was her behaviour that prompted her being a A Single Mother. But What if she hasn’t?
What if a woman and her Boyfriend want to share a room in a Bed and Breakfast, but the Owners find that living together without benefit of Marriage is Immoral. Why should the Government force the Bed and Breakfast to take the Couple in? All this does is override the moral concerns of the Business Owner, and force them to accommodate what they don’t believe in and which is not unavoidable.
Would it really make be a better person to tell someone how they must use their resources to support something they are personally morally opposed to? How?
The same applies to Homosexuality. Why should a Bed and Breakfast be forced to rent a room to a Gay Couple if this Violates the Conscience of the Owner? Why are there Morals treated as les important than the choices others make?
I advocate instead we let people make their own arrangements. The Government needs to intervene only when its an actual problem, not just when people hold to Moral Values the State doesn’t approve of.
Absolutely Zarove, my morals are keep religious trolls off of the internet. Why should I have to suffer you and your chosen behaviour ?
Why should we allow B&B’s to allow entry to people who practice bestiality, watersports, scat and any other deviant heterosexual practice I can think of but not gaypeople ? If two Mormons travelling the Country share a room that’s fine but if you BY INVADING their privacy find sexual activity between the two that’s a major crime. Go back to the dark ages Zarove, you are a bigot.
Homosexuality has existed for as long as man has. If you want a practice that isn’t normal let’s talk the ideology of religious people and sex. The restraint they TRY to practice isn’t normal which is why it goes wrong badly and all too often.
Why do you fear homosexuality ? How are they hurting YOU ? Two men who are friends is fine but if you find out they’re sexually active together you hate them ? Even though it’s in privacy and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with you ?
You are a hate filled person Zarove and if that’s what the Bible teaches you please keep it in the privacy of your own room because I find it deviant and unnacceptable to my beliefs.
There is only one quote from the Bible I like which is befitting what I want to say to you. ” Go forth and multiply”.
@Zarove: Rock Hudson didn’t act gay!
“Quiet bluntly, people should have the moral right to oppose Homosexuality, or to deny specific services to Homosexuals if it furthers a lifestyle they do not enjoy.”
No, they shouldn’t. If for no other reason, and as a so called libertarian I would think you’d be open to this line of reasoning, that what I do with my genitalia is absolutely none of your goddamned business.
“Provided that Said woman can find some way to keep herself up and live, why ought all others be made to endorse her conduct?”
Because we tried shaming people into being “more moral” and it didn’t work. It just made people poorer.
And because there is *zero* legal test, your ex recta assertions about the similarity of homosexuality and single parenthood to smoking completely notwithstanding on account of being false, which could separate the right to discriminate on the basis of sexuality from the right to discriminate on the basis of race. Why should your genital-obsessed bigotry be considered any differently from someone else’s Anti-Semitism? If someone genuinely believes that Teh Joos are going to leave the blood of Christian babies all over the sheets, why can’t they stick a “No Jews Here” sign on their BnB? Are their beliefs less valid, less sincerely held?
Also, because single mothers, being mothers, have children, and making children starve because we disapprove of their parents conduct is generally considered unsporting in most decent societies these days. Not that we have very many decent societies in the Anglosphere, but you can always ask the Germans what it’s like to live in a country where the majority of policy decisions aren’t based on the mortal terror that somebody, somewhere, might be getting something for free.
To quote John Emerson, “Starting around 1968 the majority of Americans, at least, moved from being grudgingly willing to make small sacrifices in order to improve the lives of others, to a more enthusiastic willingness to make small sacrifices in order to make sure that others get hurt.” The insane – and I use that word with all seriousness – libertarian idea that only property rights should matter to government and that corporations should count as equally in their measurements as schoolchildren essentially undermines the worth of having a government in the first place.
Further, since the inevitable result of your chosen regression to a more illiberal and reactionary age is that we would return to the kind of world which resulted in Alan Turing being hounded out of his profession, as a practical person I can’t really say I find any merit in it. Sensible people, upon seeing that their “common sense” chain of reasoning results in a more unpleasant world, reject it on the basis that it’s not all that sensible after all. The alternative is called cutting off one’s own nose to spite one’s face.
But, then, since your general theories of freedom and liberty are not based in any general principles apart from “I get to do exactly what I want and people I don’t like should hide their dirty selves away where I can’t see them”, I doubt that you’ve really thought through the broader legal implications. As I keep pointing out, most white, conservative males tend to suffer that kind of blindness, since they just don’t see what those pesky women and blacks are complaining about. So you’re not alone, but you are still very, very wrong.
Maude- the Old Testament condemns usury too.
Jesus’ anger was not actually aimed only at usury, but that they used the Temple a s Marketplace.
Carl-
Absolutely Zarove, my morals are keep religious trolls off of the internet. Why should I have to suffer you and your chosen behaviour ?
So much for tolerance and Diversity, or ‘You are free to enter this debate because we live in a Democracy”.
You want to silence all that is different. Your position must not be that strong if this is how you must behave.
Why should we allow B&B’s to allow entry to people who practice bestiality, watersports, scat and any other deviant heterosexual practice I can think of but not gaypeople ?
Again, I am a Libertarian. I would allow a Bed and Breakfast to serve gay couples if they wanted to. I just don’t think they should be compelled to by Law. There is a distinction.
Also, isn’t Bestiality actually illegal?
And how do you perform Watersports in a Hotel room?
If two Mormons travelling the Country share a room that’s fine but if you BY INVADING their privacy find sexual activity between the two that’s a major crime. Go back to the dark ages Zarove, you are a bigot.
1: You misrepresent my position, which is about Landholders and owners having the right to do business with whoever they like, and being able to turn down whoever they like. I never mentioned making Homosexuality a Crime.
2: This is still off topic.
3: You call me a Bigot but want “Religious Trolls” off the Internet. In other words, agree with Carl and his Secular Democracy and vision of how things work, or be silent forever.
And you call me a Bigot?
Homosexuality has existed for as long as man has.
So has Rape, Murder, and Theft. Before you take my argument out fo context, my only point is, something existing as long as man has is not an argument for its validity.
If you want a practice that isn’t normal let’s talk the ideology of religious people and sex. The restraint they TRY to practice isn’t normal which is why it goes wrong badly and all too often.
You call me a Bigot yet claim all Religious people are all exactly the same, then condemned them all. Brilliant Carl! (Naturally excusing you as you don’t use my pedantic definition, which is backed by the dictionary definition you personally listed)
And actually the Restrains they show are normal and modern Psycology says more Healthy than the libertine Sexual Values we pushed in the 1960’s. They don’t lead to problems either.
You just like to focus on a handful of cases and use those as if it proves you right. But if your way of life was so wonderful why do you become so upset when someone disagrees with you to the point of stalking them to find dirt so you can discredit them?
Why do you fear homosexuality ?
I don’t. I simply dislike people being told what they must accept on their own property. I made my position very clear and explained why.
Also, moral opposition to something does not equate to fear. Moral opposition to Smoking, for example, is not the same as fearing Cigarettes. Moral Opposition to Racism is not Fear of Racism. Why should we assume Moral Opposition to Homosexuality is the same as fear of Homosexuality? It does not logically follow.
How are they hurting YOU ? Two men who are friends is fine but if you find out they’re sexually active together you hate them ?Even though it’s in privacy and has NOTHING whatsoever to do with you ?
I never said I hated anyone, Carl.
And again, my problem is with the SORs and how they restrict the Liberty of Private parties.
You are a hate filled person Zarove and if that’s what the Bible teaches you please keep it in the privacy of your own room because I find it deviant and unnacceptable to my beliefs.
In other words, you lie about what my actual position is and misrepresent what I believe in and who I am in order to silence me, and create that wonderful Secular Liberal Democracy in which only The “Nonreligious” people like you can have a say in anything.
By the way, the Bed and Breakfast owners also lived in their Bed and Breakfast. Wasn’t that “The Privacy Of Their own Home”?
They didn’t have the right to their moral convictions. That’s what I found wrong. On the other hand, I’d also let an all gay B&B exist, which only caters to gay coulees, if the owners so chose to make such an establishment. Do not twist this into me creating segregation, I’d also let B&B’s exist that allow for both straight or gay couples in, again, if the Owners would want it.
The issue for me was never about Homosexuality but individual Liberty. If you can’t understand that then you aren’t really paying attention at this point, and not really discussing what I am or believe.
There is only one quote from the Bible I like which is befitting what I want to say to you. ” Go forth and multiply”.
So in other words sex is The only thing you really can think of and the whole Philosophy of life for you boils down to “I want to screw”?
@Zarove: Surely the issue here has to be health rather than moral sensitivities.
I believe a man or woman has the right to pursue sexual fulfilment whatever way they have found their preference is. But, I don’t want to have it pushed in my face. I don’t push my sexual preference at others and do not want them to do so with me. For example, so many people, especially in celebrity positions or government, telling us they are into one deviant sexual practice or another. How long before they tell us they want to marry or have a relationship with their horse and can they have the ceremony in the House chapel, because, to deny them is against their human rights? So in comes Neddie wearing a tiara.
However, I don’t believe adults should burden children with their sexual frustrations. Or, encourage children who are way too young to have any comprehension of such acts, to discuss and see pictures of these details way above their comfort zone. And this is what this sick society is doing now.
Same sex couples should not be acceptable individuals to adopt or foster children. Their beliefs and attitudes on such matters are not necessarily mentally healthy for young children. And pushing young children or even teenage children to discuss these matters is disturbing to them.
What I read and saw the other day as sexual teaching practices in school was terrifying. Being related to a person who was sexually molested as a child, these words and pictures relate ‘exactly’ to what child molesters do and say. So who came up with these images and details? And children become very distressed by such a move. They are fearful of such intervention into their childhood world. They instinctively know this is not comfortable for them and get extremely anxious.
For the state to take on such an intimate act with children is frankly detrimental to their mental health. It will not stop them from wanting to experiment. Quite the reverse, as people who work with molested children know.
Anyone who sends their child to state school in the UK these days needs to do an enormous amount of research into the health issues, both mental and physical, regarding what they are being taught as normal sexual practice. And if they are the least bit uncomfortable about it, remove them from that school and educate them at home. It isn’t worth the risk to do otherwise.
Do the schools also teach how unhealthy sex can be if steps are not taken to be be very safe in these matters? And does that also begin at five? Especially homosexual practices and the health issues surrounding that? And I do not refer to HIV. It is far more insidious than that.
The teaching of sex in school, the way it is being promoted today, is a charter for child molestation and appears to be written by paedophiles. And are we not seeing a huge rise in tutor/pupil sexual cases the more this goes on.
Why does the state flout the figures? Why do they want to be involved in matters that should be for the family to discuss when the child is ready? Not all children mature at the same age or rate.
Teenage pregnancy has increased and is now becoming child pregnancy. What is it they are really trying to promote? Babies having babies?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1364763/Teaching-year-olds-sex-make-want-try-it.html
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/233431/Sex-education-Five-year-olds-to-be-taught-about-oral-sex-
The debate has been getting a little heated on this thread. Please can keep all comments respectful and avoid personal remarks.
Thanks
Maude we do not disagree. The problem is our society is now obsessed with Sex and likes to pretend that is somehow like Race.
I am OK with the whole “What I do in the Privacy of my own Home with Consenting Adults is my Business” argument, but that’s not where it stops.
The biggest problem is Ideological; They want total dominance and want everyone to agree specifically with their specific practices and celebrate them.
But, unlike Race, their entire thing that makes them different is sexual. That’s it. its not a Lifestyle, even, its just what they do regarding sex.
The only thing that makes one Homosexual is who they have sex with.
So the only way to teach children’s about it is to show them sexually driven imagery.
They are obsessed with Sex.
Moreover, they want more than just acceptance of Homosexuality but a totally new Sexual Ethos, based again on the Humanism I mentioned earlier.
The reason they try to instill this in Children is because they hope that if they get them young they will be the way they view things for the rest of their lives.
its the same reason many now push for the closure of Faith Schools. Faith Schools teach them to be “Religious” rather than “Rational’ so must go.
Its mainly about making sure the new Religion is dominant in society and its teachings, way of life, and moral code is instilled in Children.
And a large part of this is Sexual permissiveness.
No matter how many Scientific Studies back up Traditional Morality or show that Sexual permissiveness sis unhealthy Physically and Mentally its still promoted as the Normal way to live and even encouraged, because our new, Rational Secular Society has embraced as Dogma the idea that Libertine Sexual attitudes are more liberating and Healthy and no amount of Evidence matters.
And they are so obsessed with Sex that they don’t think twice about showing Sexually explicit Pictures to Children.
All for the good cause, Ey?
“The reason they try to instill this in Children is because they hope that if they get them young they will be the way they view things for the rest of their lives.”
That is plain offensive. I had it instilled in me right upto the hilt for years as a child as guess what-I’m not gay, ok I’m a little happy at times but on the whole a miserable bad tempered HETEROSEXUAL.
Now if you want to get into the guilt side of how a molested child actually enjoys a lot of and misses it when it goes, you’re very welcome. Please remember though I have the experience.
Sexual Permissiveness was around as part of religion long before Christianity it is not a modern thing. Traditional morality gave us wife beaters, the empowerment of man over woman,incest, rape within marriage and lots more. Of course the Church never actually condones the crimes but neither have they burnt the offenders at the stake. A quick “Hail Mary full of Grace” (Isn’t that a lesbian line) and voila all forgiven.
Carl, your not reading what I really said, only what you pretend I said to fit your stereotype.
My point is, the sexual Ethics of the Secular Humanist Religion is what they want to instill, not specifically Homosexuality. Rather, acceptance of Homosexuality, as well as other things such as Promiscuity.
And tis less “You will do these things’ as “These things are the normal part of sexual life for most people”.
Its about instilling an ideal and set of Morals that is complicit with a specific outlook, which is in turn rooted in Humanist assumptions about the Human Animal.
Thus what you are offended at is your own imagination.
“what they want to instill”
No Zarove, the behaviour is normal and acceptable if done in private. In a more recent blog you quoted a report that stated humans MAY be born bi-sexual. That being the case, the choice to make a lifestyle with one of the same sex is perfectly normal and acceptable. Also if, and please remember this your evidence, babies are born this way surely it must give rise that your God must have designed in this fashion ?
What is offensive and unacceptable is you suggest schools are teaching children deviant behaviour and this simply isn’t the case. Schools also teach children and show pictures of World Wars they are instilling the behaviour that leads to war.
Now I don’t know if you have children, I have and they have not at anytime been shown anything deviant regards sex education. Deviancy has existed for millenia, some is quite sickening to certain people and definately against Religious teachings but if I’m not concerned about going to,what I see as a fairy tale, Heaven, why should I be made to follow YOUR rules ?
If heaven should exist I am quite sure homosexuals will be there too, there is absolutely no need for them not to be. Further, should your God forbid this and to all intents has allowed people to suffer what so many have, not only will I smack him/her on the nose but he is likely to see a rebellion as we see in the Middle East.
Homosexuality exists in most men,indeed specifically within religions. It does not require the act of sodomy and it seems this act is what the problem is. That said why is sodomy of women not only repressed by you but also proving one of the most popular acts in sex – and has been for a long time although seen as extreme is was kept quiet.
I ask in all seriousness for a list of sexual acts the Church or yourself want to list as outlawed ?
Three more things.
1: Not all Christins are Catholioc, so the “Quick Hail Mary” line is nonsense.
2: Catholisism doens’t really function that way either, eihth the “QUick Hail Mary and all is Forgiven” mode, but requires genuine repentance and acts of Penance, not a simple rote prayer.
3: Traditional Morals did not give us us wife beaters, the empowerment of man over woman,incest, rape within marriage and lots more. Those things have always existed.
Also, the Church burned few peopel at the Stake to begin with, by which you mean “Catholic” of coruse. But the Catholic Chruhc did say a womans life ws equal to a Mans and under that Law sentenced men to death who killed women, and treated mistreatment of women as the same as that of a man.
This the earlier Greeks and ROmans did not do.
One last.
How is “Hail Mary, fill of Grace” lesbian? I realise yoir Hatred of Catholisism and base thoughts merged there but, the componants dont’ seem all that Sexual.
If rephrased In Modern English one could say ” Hello, Mary, who is Full of Favour”.
Hail is a Greeting. It basically means Hello. Grace is Favour. In fact, most Protestant Bibles Translate it “Who is Highly Favoured”. This includes the Authorised version.
Not sure how you made that Lesbian. or even sexual.
As so much is written here about Catholicism and homosexuality it would be well to see exactly the opinion of the Holy See.
http://www.soulforce.org/article/635
Maude, you know full well carl dosn’t care abot what the Vatican actually beelives, he prefers the sterotypes he gets off Atheist websites…
Carl, your whole “Religion has a lot of perversion in it” is old. As Ive said, you really aren’t irreligious, you simply have a different Religion. Likewise, you really just mean Christians and especially the Catholic Church. Your hatred of Catholics is like your Hatred of me, and your inability to really think things though is a rather limiting factor on discourse. IE, if you think the “Born that way” argument is settled by a Hypothetical you are is taken.
You make a reference to another post where I said that people may be Bisexual at Birth. You ignore that I also said they may be all 100% born straight. The address was to Lord Norton who tried to link my Dyslexia to Homosexuality. Its really a false equivocation since he can’t demonstrate that Homosexuality is innate, but I can demonstrate how Dyslexia is treated as a Disease whether it is innate or not.
You do not know what causes Homosexuality. Nor do I. Nor does anyone else. But we have studies that indicate that its not, leading to the question; Why act as if its an immutable and unchangeable Characteristic when modern studies don’t actually support this conclusion?
Modern Schools do teach that ones Sexual Orientation is innate and fixed at Birth. They teach that if you are Homosexual, you were born this way and can never change and should accept it.
That is Ideology, not reality.
Furthermore, Maude has already told you of her own experiences. The Schools do, in fact, teach a Libertine Sexuality and teach the Children to expect to be Sexually active early and to be basically Promiscuous.
This too is Ideological in Nature.
And Sexuality is not The only area in which the Schools Indoctrinate Children. They teach them a basically Materialist viewpoint, and the Virtues of Social Democracy. (Socialism.) They are generally Pro European Union. They do not question Global Warming. The list goes on and on. Its simply done to make sure the Children are sufficiently Brainwashed into whatever the Establishment wants them to believe, and any real attempt at thinking independently is frowned upon. They certainly don’t show any alternative Views.
As to your own Question as to why you should live by My Rules, this is again your bigoted hatred against ”Religion” and me personally speaking. The Truth is, I haven’t demanded you live by my Rules. I’ve explicitly stated that you ought to be Free to live as you like. However, I don’t want to be forced to live by Your Rules.
Playing the Victim and pretending I am a Religious Fanatic trying to crush Freedom and make everyone do as I say and that you stand up for Freedom plays into the whole Fundamentalist Christian bashing and today’s modern narrative, but you can’t quote me on this blog (Or in context outside of it) as ever demanding anyone loose their Freedom.
However, Lord Falconer has given a speech saying that Christians should be denied the Right to Adopt or Foster Children because of their Views on Homosexuality. Baroness Murphy wants to close Faith Schools down on the basis that they destroy Social Cohesion and Religious Education is an Oxymoron, thus forcing Parents to send their Children to Secular Stat Schools. You, she, McDuff, and Lord Norton want to force people who run Private Bed and Breakfasts to take in Gay Couples against their own Moral Convictions.
In other words, you want to force us to play by Your Rules.
I don’t adhere to your Religion. I don’t hold to your Moral Values. Yet I should educate my Children in that fashion, and live in accordance to its dictates in who I associate with, what I say, and how I run my own Business. It doesn’t matter if you impose your beliefs on me, but somehow me protesting this makes me a Dictator trying to force you to live by My Moral Codes and Religion?
Just because you say I want to force everyone to do as I say doesn’t make it True, it instead makes you a Hypocrite when you demand we all comply to what you want us to.
Oh and on Theology, you won’t Smack God in the Nose. He’s quiet a bit more powerful than you are, and Rebellion has already come and gone. How do you think Hell came to be?
God is a Monarch, and doesn’t run a Democracy. If you want to Rebel against him, Satan is sure to welcome you s a Brother in Arms. But Rebels share only one thing in common, and that is Selfishness.
Your own Cruelty is evident in your posts. Perhaps this is where you wish to be then? And that is more a Tragedy.
Zarove how can I hate someone who makes me laugh so much ? lol
You are a embarrassment to your kind and now rather boring.
Questions: How many children do you have in English schools ? How many does Maude have ?
The answer for you of course is none so your quotations on what English children are taught are worthless as is most of the other fantastical things you write. Most of your posts I don’t bother to read now as they are such tosh. The blog is lacking a way in which to switch certain subscribers off so you do not have to view their posts.
I am wasting my breath talking to you so……………………..
Carl-
Zarove how can I hate someone who makes me laugh so much ? lol
You are a embarrassment to your kind and now rather boring.
My kind? Doesn’t hat sound rather discriminatory of you. And here I thought you stood for Tolerance.
By the way, this sort of Schoolyard bullying doesn’t work.
You do hate me, else why would you internet stalk me to find Dirt and why interrupt threads to make cheap personal attacks on me?
Questions: How many children do you have in English schools ? How many does Maude have ?
The answer for you of course is none so your quotations on what English children are taught are worthless as is most of the other fantastical things you write. Most of your posts I don’t bother to read now as they are such tosh. The blog is lacking a way in which to switch certain subscribers off so you do not have to view their posts.
Again, you accused me of being abusive, yet this is nothing but a cheap personal attack. Why do you feel the need to tell me that my posts are Tosh and I’m a bad person and tell everyone what a Homophobe I am and call me mentally ill?
If I’m really just a joke whose boring and who you ignore, you’d not react this way. Really you are simply angry that I am not cowed by your ratings, which by the way are far less Rational argument than you seem to realise. No one who speaks in Anger and resentment Truly can claim Rationality is on their side.
I am wasting my breath talking to you so________..
Yet you had to tell me you were wasting your Breath talking to me, to notify me of how worthless I am. Does it make you feel superior? I know that a large part of it is to turn others against me and to make me feel inferior, but really its Childish.