|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 20, 2023 12:17:56 GMT
People of ANY faith have the right to hold high office - agreed If however the law of the land clearly states that a Civil Partnership of a man and woman is equal to a same sex civil partnership - then that person in high office must either accept the law of equality OR relinquish the right to hold high office and resign. Same with the couple with so called "Christian views" who owned a guest house, and would not allow a gay couple to stay. Such people have no right to be in such a business, and cannot ever be exempt from our laws of equality. It would ne different to barring black people from a cafe, bar or restaurant because of your views Its 100% not acceptable and its time that the minority of Christians who hold such outdated views were PUT IN THEIR PLACE. Would it be wrong to try and change the law through the democratic process? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 20, 2023 12:20:24 GMT
20 years ago we had the deeply Christian Mr Blair in office. We all know what happened there. I think he faked it. The Iraq War was about lying and deceit. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 20, 2023 12:21:29 GMT
20 years ago we had the deeply Christian Mr Blair in office. We all know what happened there. There are so many insinuated lies and other insinuations about that period that it seems very few do actually know what happened there. Strong misguided opinions about that period are plentiful. lol, he couldn't even stick to one religion, he did a switch from protestant to catholic. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 20, 2023 12:22:20 GMT
Your position is that the authoritarian no free press of what is basically a Chinese dictatorship, is a reliable source of information. Try conducting a survey in China into the number of deaths there, and see how far you get. I think you would find yourself at the nearest international airport and out of the county in no time at all. So you imagine, but China is not at all like that and they welcome those who do research. The State TV is very accurate, and very much unlike the BBC. I was just watching it a moment ago. President Xi is visiting Russia and they were showing the welcoming signs along the road in Chinese.
Here's another state TV clip.
Full red carpet treatment.
I have seen foreigners in China being refused to answer questions or enquiries because of people being careful of what they say, and of police moving someone asking questions being moved on and of access to areas being denied. China is open and free to those who toe the line. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 20, 2023 12:22:40 GMT
Most Muslims or Jews rarely get asked as regards their faith yet Christians are quizzed in detail. In fact when Zac Goldsmith raised Sadiq Khan's faith he was accused of Islamophobia yet Khan said his faith was important to him just as Yousef does. I’ve noticed the opposite — I see that if people, who are standing for office, are questioned about their religious views, only Christians with strong/wacky/dangerous views are interrogated and commented on at length. On the other hand Jews and Muslims seeking or in public positions seem automatically to be assumed to have wacky and dangerous views that are harmful to the rest of the population — even before questioning… To my recollection Khan and Youseff have not been interrogated on their religious beliefs whereas the lady seeking SNP leadership is being quizzed at length and commentated on as being unfit for office because of those views. When Khan's religion was mentioned by others it was Islamophobic yet Khan used his religion in his campaigns just as Youssef keeps saying it is important to him. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 20, 2023 12:29:16 GMT
There are so many insinuated lies and other insinuations about that period that it seems very few do actually know what happened there. Strong misguided opinions about that period are plentiful. lol, he couldn't even stick to one religion, he did a switch from protestant to catholic. Sweet F A to do with politics. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 20, 2023 12:33:17 GMT
lol, he couldn't even stick to one religion, he did a switch from protestant to catholic. Sweet F A to do with politics. Well I don't think football has anything to do with it but the fact he changed religions just afer he resigned as PM. Look, face it see2, he was a second class charlatan. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Mar 20, 2023 13:17:12 GMT
Sweet F A to do with politics. Well I don't think football has anything to do with it but the fact he changed religions just afer he resigned as PM. Look, face it see2, he was a second class charlatan. Sweet Fanny Adams didn't ply football  He was free to do what he pleased after he left the government. Its referred to as Private Life. PS.I have just read of the horrific death of Fanny Adams at age of eight. I have decided never to use the Term again. |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Mar 20, 2023 13:28:22 GMT
If the UK were properly secular this issue would not happen. You keep your faith at home and become a civil citizen outside. In that way there is little room for discrimination and civil matters are not tainted with advice from god. Discrimination is a mental function used to make a judgment on something.
Finish it off. Marking a distinction becomes "to divide" and choose. We arent speaking Latin. We are speaking modern English. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Mar 20, 2023 13:37:08 GMT
I’ve noticed the opposite — I see that if people, who are standing for office, are questioned about their religious views, only Christians with strong/wacky/dangerous views are interrogated and commented on at length. On the other hand Jews and Muslims seeking or in public positions seem automatically to be assumed to have wacky and dangerous views that are harmful to the rest of the population — even before questioning… To my recollection Khan and Youseff have not been interrogated on their religious beliefs whereas the lady seeking SNP leadership is being quizzed at length and commentated on as being unfit for office because of those views. When Khan's religion was mentioned by others it was Islamophobic yet Khan used his religion in his campaigns just as Youssef keeps saying it is important to him. You may be correct — but the assumptions and comments on Kahn were broadcast, commented on and printed as soon as he reached public notice. Here's a few:
If you mean Humza Yousaf, I've no idea because Scottish politics only interest me where they are likely to impact the business community.
For the bulk of the UK population, public displays of ordinary Christianity seems mostly confined to occasional pictures of the monarch and accompanying royals going to church, and family marriages, christenings and funerals.
Any public commentary on Christian beliefs is likely to be more about Blair, Catholic support for IRA terrorism, Protestant support for "Loyalist" terrorism, wacky views like Glenn Hoddle's on the disabled, etc.
Muslim holders of any public office are routinely likely to be identified as such, and their beliefs commented on even if they are not questioned...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2023 13:41:23 GMT
Of course people of faith should have every right to run for and to hold office.
But at the same time it is not unreasonable for potential electors and political pundits to question them on how their faith will influence their stance on particular issues, notably those where adherents to their faith tend to take a particular view or feel strongly. Typical examples of such issues include access to abortion, gay marriage, and religious education in schools, to name but three. If any of these issues matter to us, we have a right to ask where a person of faith stands on them before deciding whether or not to vote for him or her. This is not unreasonable.
The same applies to anyone who is an adherent of any group that stands for something, not just a particular faith. For example if someone standing for election as a Labour MP were a member of CND, it would not be unreasonable to ask him or her what their stance on the nuclear deterrent would be if elected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Mar 20, 2023 13:48:14 GMT
Of course people of faith should have every right to run for and to hold office. But at the same time it is not unreasonable for potential electors and political pundits to question them on how their faith will influence their stance on particular issues, notably those where adherents to their faith tend to take a particular view or feel strongly. Typical examples of such issues include access to abortion, gay marriage, and religious education in schools, to name but three. If any of these issues matter to us, we have a right to ask where a person of faith stands on them before deciding whether or not to vote for him or her. This is not unreasonable. The same applies to anyone who is an adherent of any group that stands for something, not just a particular faith. For example if someone standing for election as a Labour MP were a member of CND, it would not be unreasonable to ask him or her what their stance on the nuclear deterrent would be if elected. That's the point the SNP candidate Kate Forbes is making.
What she is saying, she's being discriminated against because she is of Christian faith, yet Humza Yousaf is under no such scrutiny being of Muslim faith.
It would be racist if he was grilled about his Muslim faith like she is about her Christian faith, and that is not fair.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 20, 2023 13:50:32 GMT
So you imagine, but China is not at all like that and they welcome those who do research. The State TV is very accurate, and very much unlike the BBC. I was just watching it a moment ago. President Xi is visiting Russia and they were showing the welcoming signs along the road in Chinese.
Here's another state TV clip.
Full red carpet treatment.
I have seen foreigners in China being refused to answer questions or enquiries because of people being careful of what they say, and of police moving someone asking questions being moved on and of access to areas being denied. China is open and free to those who toe the line. In China you are expected to behave in a civil way. The kind of people you see who get hauled in by the authorities would be similar to the kind of people we get in Britain like Extinction Rebellion. The leader of such a group, if they did what they do in Britain in China they would get a prison sentence and a re-education.
The vast majority in China are not like this though, and in my estimation the only ones who are have been influenced by Western powers. Typically these powers manipulate some Chinese in foreign universities running in China and Hong Kong. But for the vast majority of the younger ones, they have all been given a first class education, they have found jobs easy to get, like Shanghai is one of the most expensive cities in the world to live in but rent will only be about 20% of your income, in London it is 70%. It's like they have it all and are happy, so of course anyone who rebels against all of that is seen as undesirable by the many. Look at the prison population in China and compare it to that in America and you will see China is no where near as bad. They rank somewhere in the middle of the world, higher than the UK but not by a great deal. There is no fear of the government in Chinese society. One thing that is a stark contrast to Britain is if you go to a very poor area. You see people don't have a lot of wealth, but you don't see any graffiti or vandalism. What you see is the poor all helping each other and a very sociable and happy environment. They make the best of what they have. It's an admirable quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Mar 20, 2023 13:56:32 GMT
Discrimination is a mental function used to make a judgment on something.
Finish it off. Marking a distinction becomes "to divide" and choose. We arent speaking Latin. We are speaking modern English. Latin is a language that says it how it is. It was inspired by Aristotelian logic in the Middle Ages.
For your information, the sense you use discrimination is from American English of the late 19th century. They had strong black issues in that country, so it is kind of imported thinking. Latin is European. Europe created America because Europe was advanced, because Europe spoke a logical language...They called a spade a spade - lol!
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Mar 20, 2023 14:06:58 GMT
To my recollection Khan and Youseff have not been interrogated on their religious beliefs whereas the lady seeking SNP leadership is being quizzed at length and commentated on as being unfit for office because of those views. When Khan's religion was mentioned by others it was Islamophobic yet Khan used his religion in his campaigns just as Youssef keeps saying it is important to him. You may be correct — but the assumptions and comments on Kahn were broadcast, commented on and printed as soon as he reached public notice. Here's a few:
If you mean Humza Yousaf, I've no idea because Scottish politics only interest me where they are likely to impact the business community.
For the bulk of the UK population, public displays of ordinary Christianity seems mostly confined to occasional pictures of the monarch and accompanying royals going to church, and family marriages, christenings and funerals.
Any public commentary on Christian beliefs is likely to be more about Blair, Catholic support for IRA terrorism, Protestant support for "Loyalist" terrorism, wacky views like Glenn Hoddle's on the disabled, etc.
Muslim holders of any public office are routinely likely to be identified as such, and their beliefs commented on even if they are not questioned...
However as your link shows he plays the Muslim card as a positive thing yet the interrogation of the negative aspects of Islam, and lets be honest it has negative aspects in abundance, are rarely put to Khan directly or Yousaf. |
|
