navarre
Members-
Content count
591 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by navarre
-
-
London(Corrected, I generalized England when really I only experienced London's attitude to Scottish pound) won't even accept Scottish money. So much for that lol.That's why it seems rather pointless as to why you Scots produce your own notes in the first place.
But yea lack of national identity as British you mean? I consider myself Scottish, and a majority in Scotland do. We have very much our own national identity, heritage and culture.We are considered our own country you know, even if it doesn't feel like it.
So? How does that justify independence? 'We've got our own identity and heritage'? Good for you, but how is that an argument against the union? Does being in the United Kingdom suddenly render that culture and heritage redundant? If so, it's a pretty weak culture you have there.
Btw I don't want this to be interpreted as a hate England thing ignorance on either side is just as bad. My cuz's are English I could never hate them :PAnd that's exactly why being independent would be impratical. With around half of Scotlands population having relatives in England, does it really make sense to create a political border to make travel between the two countries harder?
-
True, it isn't, it's just that Cornwall is a place that's heavilly traditionalised(sp) and that's maybe why some think it is a country in itself but it really isn't.
Are you native Cornish (ie were you born there?)? It's always interesting to recieve others opinions.
No one needs independance, no one is under oppresion, everything is better as is. End of, close thread thankbai.Exactly. I think it was a while back that an advocate for the Falklands Islands independence (or secession to Argentina), on this very forum, was comparing the situation to Tibet. They failed to see why people here complained about Tibet's invasion when we had control over a group of islands that Argentina wanted. They also failed to see that the Falkland Islands were a British overseas territory populated by Brits that enjoy a range of freedoms from religion to democracy whereas Tibet was an unlawful invasion of a province where the population were Tibetans, and are suppressed on issues like religion and democracy. If no one's being suppressed or oppressed, then independence is mostly redundant, especially in the case of Scotland, where most supporters for indepedence are just nationalists with too much pride.
-
I have this joke with my Cornish friend at uni that Devon and Cornwall are basically analagous to the confederate states in the US. They even have their own fucking flag. It's only a matter of time.Every county in England has its own flag.
The Cornish independence movement has too little support. Most Cornish folk don't even see Cornwall as a country.
-
The purpose of this thread is to find out whether or not you believe that Scotland, Wales or even Cornwall should attain independence from the United Kingdom.
It is my personal belief that they shouldn't- I love the security of living in a big country, and each individual country has benefitted from the union.
Discuss.
-
Its a hypocritical society, a woman who is christian may not be allowed to wear a cross, yet a muslim can practise their religion very freely. I see no fairness in it all.
Absoloute trash. Christian women aren't prevented from wearing crucifixes at all. You're taking the propaganda bait from the nationalists, who love the story about people being offended by the English flag, subsequently complaining to the council about it, and the owners having to take it down. It's absoloute bollocks.
wearing a Crucifix isn't a definite part of Christianity, by the wayWell actually, it's only really compatible with Catholicism- other denominations choose to just use crosses to represent their faith in a symbol. But that's true- the fish was far more commonly used amongst the early persecuted Christians, and the cross/crucifix only adopted universally in the 3rd/4th centuries.
-
Fraid so. 1/8 Sioux myself. Guess my lineage was all about free love
Well, love should hold no boundaries, least of all something as petty as race.
But in my case, I just find black women more attractive in general anyway, so I'm far more likely to love a black woman.
-
Where the hell are you getting this information? People have been going in and out of Islam for years. I've seen plenty of people here in Egypt who've converted to Christianity as well as Athiesm (which is considered worse). The only thing close to what you're saying was a story I read in the paper about a man in Saudi Arabia who openly announced his conversion to Christianity. The worst that had happened to him was that he was exiled.It's strange how people seem to forget that if it weren't for the golden age of Islam the 21st century would be terribly different.
That's because Egypt is surprisingly liberal for a Middle Eastern country, and because of its 15-20% Christian minority, it kinda has to be. But the Egyptian government, despite being an example to Egypt's far more conservative neighbours, still has its problems. The government is all too happy to accept Christian converts to Islam, but makes the lives of people trying to convert from Islam to Christianity very difficult.
In Islam, apostasy is called "ridda" ("turning back") and is considered to be a profound insult to God. A person born of Muslim parents that rejects Islam is called a "murtad fitri" (natural apostate), and a person that converted to Islam and later rejects the religion is called a "murtad milli" (apostate from the community).[citation needed]According to most scholars, if a Muslim consciously and without coercion declares their rejection of Islam and does not change their mind after the time given to him/her by a judge for research, then the penalty for male apostates is death, and for women, life imprisonment. However, this view has been rejected by a small minority of modern Muslim scholars (eg Hasan al-Turabi), who argues that the hadith in question should be taken to apply only to political betrayal of the Muslim community, rather than to apostasy in general.[10] These scholars regard apostasy as a serious crime, but argue for the freedom to convert to and from Islam without legal penalty, and consider the aforementioned Hadith quote as insufficient justification for capital punishment. Today apostasy is punishable by death in the countries of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Mauritania and the Comoros. In Qatar apostasy is a capital offense, but no executions have been reported for it.[11]
The hadith has been used both by supporters of the death penalty as well as critics of Islam. Some Islamic scholars[citation needed] point out it is important to understand the hadith in proper historical context. The order was at a time when the nascent Muslim community in Medina was fighting for its very life, and there were many schemes, by which the enemies of Islam would try to entice rebellion and discord within the community.[12] Clearly any defection would have serious consequences for the Muslims, and the hadith may well be about treason, rather than just apostasy. It must also be pointed out that under the terms of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, any Muslim who returned to Mecca was not to be returned, terms which the Prophet accepted. Despite this historical point, Islamic law as currently practiced does not allow the freedom to choose one's religion.
The Qur'an says:
Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Clearly the Right Path (i.e. Islam) is distinct from the crooked path.
—Qur'an, [Qur'an 2:256]
A section of the 'People of the Book' (Jews and Christians) says: "Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers (Muslims), but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back (from Islam).
—Qur'an, [Qur'an 3:72]
But those who reject faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of faith, never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.
—Qur'an, [Qur'an 3:90]
Those who blasphemed and back away from the ways of Allah and die as blasphemers, Allah shall not forgive them.
—Qur'an, [Qur'an 4:48]
Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them on the way.
—Qur'an, [Qur'an 4:137]
O ye who believe! If any from among you turn back from his faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He (Allah) will love as they will love Him lowly with the believers, Mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproachers of such as find fault. That is the Grace of Allah which He will bestow on whom He (Allah) pleases. And Allah encompasses all, and He knows all things.
—Qur'an, [Qur'an 5:54]
The Hadith (a collection of sayings attributed to Muhammad and his companions) includes statements taken as supporting the death penalty for apostasy, such as:
Kill whoever changes his religion. Sahih al-Bukhari 9:84:57
The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims. Sahih al-Bukhari 9:83:17
Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, a Pakistani Islamic scholar, writes that punishment for apostasy was part of Divine punishment for only those who denied the truth even after clarification in its ultimate form by Muhammad (he uses term Itmam al-hujjah), hence, he considers this command for a particular time and no longer punishable.[13]
In 2006, Abdul Rahman, the Afghan convert from Islam to Christianity has attracted worldwide attention about where Islam stood on religious freedom. Prosecutors asked for the death penalty for him. However, under heavy pressure from foreign governments, the Afghan government claimed he was mentally unfit to stand trial and released him.
Islam Online, a website,[citation needed] contains a fatwa dated 21 March 2004 and ascribed to 'IOL Shariah Researchers' says:
"If a sane person who has reached puberty voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be punished. In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."[14] No one besides the caliph or his representative may kill the apostate. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (for arrogating the caliph's prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy
That's where I'm getting this crap from. And, despite having its issues, Wikipedia is the closest thing to an unbiased, reliable online encyclopedia we have.
Even in the West, it was only a year ago on BBC radio 4 that they were interviewing a female convert from Islam who fears for her life.
The 21st century may look different if it were not for Islam, but it would also look different if it hadn't been for the Romans, or the Greeks, or even the British. Doesn't mean to say that if I travelled to Ancient Greece it would be modern.
My personal belief is that if a country lets you in you should have adhere to their rules, and laws.Im not saying they have to be christian, or shouldnt have their palces of worship..but they should follow our laws.
One thing that annoys me is the fact thtat muslim wome can wear that 'thing' when they are in the airport and were refusing to remove it for the passport officer to see.
Theres probobly countless other ones too.
When we go to another country, we have to follow their rules.. England has become a push over to other countries.
Personally, I find the 'veil' intimidating, and very few Western Muslim women choose to wear it, for obvious reasons. But each to their own, you've got to respect religions and all that.
Yet adhere to many of their religious beliefs.I know that if I ended up in another country and by some strange turn of events had to permantly settle there, I'd want to keep my (lack of) religious beliefs.
-
The only Muslim countries I can think of who enforce those rules are Saudi Arabia and Iran. As far as I know and from the countries I've been in, these are the only two that have these laws in effect. And I agree, Western Muslims do frown upon these sort of women, but then again that's all they can do. In Islam, we have a rule that says "let there be no hatred in enforcing religion". The only person who decides whether or not to it is right to wear a hijab is the person who's going to wear it.
Oh, I see that rule clearly isn't relevant when people convert from Islam (apostacy) and are awarded the death penalty for such an act?
Islam is one of those religions that needs to be brought into the 21st century.
-
Sounds like a nice guy, just the sort of person we need representing us in Europe. It only begs the question as to why he wasn't elected sooner.
Voting the BNP would mean hell for my Pakistani, Black and Native American cousins. They don't even want mixed raced relationships so my Asian girlfriend is out the window! The sad thing is my English cousins are proud to be supporting BNP. Just like Germans were proud to support the Nazi party in the beginning...You have Pakistani, black and Native American relatives? But the inter racial relationships point is true. They believe that it somehow destroys the whole blood lineage of generations. But we were all black to start with, so I don't see what the big deal is.
-
Not really, Islam doesn't exactly force women to wear it, they choose to. Taking it off is nobody's business, which is why I think they were concerned more of whether or not she's a transvestite man who pretends he's a woman than a Muslim woman who took off her hijab.Actually, in many Muslim countries, it's illegal for women to be seen without one. In Islamic communities in the West, women without the hijab are frowned upon. It's meant to reflect the modesty of women.
And LOL at religious schools... just LOL. Most kids that go to religious schools don't believe half the crap they're taught, it's pointless putting something like religion at the top of the agenda.
-
White supremacist gunman James W. von Brunn had links to BNPhttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6481475.ece
I hope he's suffering now. These are the sorts of people we need to eradicate from society, most probably down to better education and harsher prison sentences.
-
I can't find anything recent where Gordon proposed it but here's something from last week on what the SNP think... lol.[url=]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7433479.stm[/url]
Thank you. I definetly think this should go ahead.
-
...How have they done it? Don't just say it. Explain how they've done it... Even when only a few months ago Gordan Brown drafted plans to intorduce a 'British Day'
Please could you provide a link to this? I'd love that- a chance to show the world, that *awesome quote* 'out of many, we are one'.
-
There are already Islamist political groups which are banned in the UK, including Al-Ghurabaa and the "Saved Sect". If the BNP were in power, I've little doubt that list would be extended, almost certainly to Hizb ut Tahrir who have been on the brink of being outlawed for the past few years. So if you're not allowed to want to ban the BNP, are the BNP not allowed to want to ban other groups and parties? If so, how come the BNP can push to ban things, but people against the BNP can't push to ban them? If not, are you not just as guilty of fighting against "free speech" and "democracy" by suggesting the BNP should not be allowed to campaign on whichever policies they please?Those aren't parties; they're groups.
-
On watching the Russell Brand thing, and seeing some of the BNP people's opinions, they were saying the white race is becoming extinct. I am curious how this is happening, are white people going to be forbidden to have sex?I think they mean by interracial sex, but the only real difference between white and black people is melanin. Eventually, even if white people were to become extinct, black people would probably turn white again- that's how the white race came about, anyways. I'm in an interracial relationship and do hope to have mixed race kids. The BNP sees this as the destruction of an entire timeline in the family tree- it's prehistoric views like that which will ensure they never get my vote.
I'm sure that racism, sexism, homophobia, religious intolerance and many other form of discrimination are banned somewhere in the British constitution (I know there isn't an actual constitution).Homophobic discrimination isn't, I'm afraid. The Liberal Democrats are pushing for it to be made illegal. They're also vouching for a written British constitution.
I would argue with that. If you asian and had qualifications either equal or slightly bellow a white /christian applicant the asian is far more likely to get the job.That is true, including in the Met Police. Postive discrimination is just as bad as any other form of discrimination. I'd like to think that employers see behind skin colour or sexuality or gender, whether that person be in a majority or a minority.
Oh noes, someone threw an egg at a politician. Why can't they play nice like the far right on their peaceful "March for England", where they attacked police and, smashed up asian-owned shops and kicked fuck out of anyone who looked slightly dusky?At least it was a white egg. It's got Nick Griffins approval.
-
Free speech doesn't mean people have to let you in their country if they don't want to, no. It doesn't mean you can start giving a political speech in the midde of a movie. It doesn't mean you can sing Day Light Come and I Wanna go Home in a library. It doesn't mean you must be allowed on the six o'clock news to give your opinion on Exitebots. The government of a country have the freedom speech to say "You're not welcome" and they have the right to say who can and cannot enter their country. If I knock on your door and say "Hi, you're a cunt and your mum's fat. Can I come in?" you're not infringing my right to free speech by telling me to fuck off. There's a huge portion of the world not allowed to enter Britain, is their free speech all being oppressed?EDIT: You see this happening on a smaller scale on messageboards. People start shouting "free speech" as if it means they have a god given right to join a message board, post porn and warez, flame users, make off-topic posts about how Jews control the world in the wi-fi section and the people who run the board don't have the right to exclude them from their community.
Oh yes, 'Zionist controlled media' is a popular term by anti-semites when describing the world's media. It's silly. Anti-Jewry is soooo 1940s.
Geert Wilders is a hateful figure. He blames Muslims for the problems in the world, and sees its expansion as dangerous. But no party should be based on the grounds on religion:- not a Christian party, an anti-Muslim party or even an atheist party. But the government were wrong in banning him- I'd expect any politician to be allowed access due to their views, whether it be Geert Wilders, or, in complete contrast, a deranged Egyptian iman who preaches hatred towards the West.
-
They were both brilliant contestants. I wanted Yasmina to win that little bit more because she's less attractive than Kate. Is that wrong?
-
I'm disgusted that a single vote was cast for the facists this very nation heroicly fought against 60 years ago- ironically, the BNP attracts elderly people who fought in or lived during WW2. What a bloody mess.
Thankfully, seeing as people did turn towards the minor parties, UKIP did far better than the BNP, and at least some of their policies make sense. Imagine the chaos if the two parties swapped votes...
-
Why do we have to refer to him for moral guidance? He didn't invent them all. And even if he did, they're all ingrained in society.No, that's true. But for the time, they were revolutionary. They're ingrained into society now because of Christendoms expansion ie we were once a Christian nation, therefore those morals became ingrained, so when we became secular those morals were a part of everybodies lives, even if religion wasn't.
Oh Great. The old "there's more evidence for Jesus than there is for Caesar" line. This is Christians trying to use the fact that people are too lazy to look it up for themselves. There are many, many contemporary accounts of Caesar, yet none of Jesus. Contemporary accounts are the best source for working out if someone existed or not. For Caesar, these range from letters and notes to official records at the time to sculptures done whilst he was alive - for Jesus, by comparison, there is not one iota of contemporary evidence.Correction: there are no known (or proven) contemporary accounts Some may argue that the canonical gospels were contemporary accounts, as tradition would have you believe. Even though I doubt they are, their material is strikingly similar, and they most probably did use contemporary sources, like the (hypothetical) Gospel Q.
Paul, although never meeting Jesus, did, on numerous occasions, meet contemporary apostles, such as Peter, upon whose teachings he based his epistles on.
Scientology is, in my opinion, a cult. Nevertheless, the point stands; why would people who supposedly knew Jesus or knew people who knew Jesus face the outstanding oppression and persecution in the Roman Empire for someone who never existed?
The historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians. Theologian James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory (ie the theory you assumedly believe) a 'thoroughly dead thesis.'
For the record, I'm not a Christian.
Just because it can be proved that Jesus existed doesn't prove he actually told those storiesIt doesn't matter a great deal, because that does not render those stories any less relevant or morally righteous.
-
Surely it doesnt matter if Jesus existed or not if the ideas are good. Somebody somewhere wrote it.Exactly. Jesus could be fictional or factual, it makes no difference to the underlying morals of his ministry.
-
The Conservatives have come out bst in the locals, unsurprisingly.
Lib Dems have done alright, and Labour has done poor.
-
Also, on the purely historical aspect of things, other historical sources than the Bible speaks of this Jesus fella calling himself the son of God. Whether he is that or not, I think it's fairly certain that he existed as a person.
The historical accounts of Jesus are overwhelming. To question his existence would be like questioning whether or not Julius Ceasar existed, because they've both got around the same amount of historical sources.
-
This is one of the few times "lol" has been an accurate representation of my reaction.In terms of morality, it frequently contradicts itself and the old testament is pretty damn repulsive - I believe that taking your son and preparing to kill him because an invisible indemonstrable "thing" told you to is a little immoral, and is the first recorded use of the Nuremberg defence - "I was just following orders".
As for history, a few things spring to mind off the top of my head - almost everything in the old testament, for a start, and for the new testament, the whole thing about the census is completely rubbish and unsupported anywhere else, and there is nothing I have found that isn't highly suspect and likely to be doctored by more recent Christian scholars that suggests the Jesus ever existed.
Hate to quote the Bible to you, but hey, any strong argument needs sources:
38"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
"A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead with no clothes. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, and he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, he too passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and looked after him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.' "Which of these three do you think was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."Then Peter came up and said to him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?"Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.
"Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants.
When he began the reckoning, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents;
and as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made.
So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.'
And out of pity for him the lord of that servant released him and forgave him the debt.
But that same servant, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat he said, 'Pay what you owe.'
So his fellow servant fell down and besought him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.'
He refused and went and put him in prison till he should pay the debt.
When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place.
Then his lord summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me;
and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?'
And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart
Those three stories led me to respect Jesus, not as the Son of God, but as the greatest moral teacher in history. In my opinion, if we were to consider those stories and to abide by their meaning, the world would be a better place. The Good Samaritan especially is an excellent story for combating racism. I seldom if ever read the Old testament- I understand some of the stories in it are pretty repulsive- and the homophobic tones of the epistles are unattractive. The Gospels, however, are unbeatable in terms of morality.
As for history, Luke was an historian ahead of his time- he accurately names tens of historical events, places and people. But the Old testament Books provide any historian a 'reliable' (to all those who did GCSE history) insight as to what life was like in Israel thousands of years ago and helps describe Judaisms early days.
I believe Jesus existed. I believe Mohammed existed. I believe the Buddha existed. Why? Because religions don't just start by themselves. To suggest otherwise would be ignorant.
I'll reply to the other responses later, can't be arsed right now.
-
The local election results are out today aren't they? Or is it tomorrow.Some are already out. I think the Lib Dems are in control of Birmingham. It could be the Conservatives, I've forgotten. But I know it's not Labour.
Scottish/Welsh/Cornish independence
in General Chit Chat
Posted
What a pathetic argument. Aside from the obvious geographical, political and historical boundaries that would make such a union impossible, you've clearly missed my point.
Actually, I refer to myself as 'human', but if not that, it would be British.
What? Because I think that all sterling notes should look the same, I somehow endorse the Euro? How does that work? And stop complaining about being controlled by London; it's merely a location. If I were ruled by Edinburgh with an English Prime Minister and English MPs to represent me, I wouldn't mind.
No one's insulting you. The only reason you're not getting a 'better response' is because people don't agree with you.