Opinions?

[David Humphries]

Another one for you all to ponder...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ

 

Yous a naughtie boy TWM, that ones so provocative that I wouldn't even begin to formulate a public opinion upon it.

Particularly the pro Israeli rhetoric toward the end.

 

I'm intrigued to see who responds.

[Lee Winger]

Yous a naughtie boy TWM, that ones so provocative that I wouldn't even begin to formulate a public opinion upon it.

Particularly the pro Israeli rhetoric toward the end.

 

I'm intrigued to see who responds.

 

 

I say they can fight each other until they're all dead if they want! all I ask is they keep me and my country out of there problems, i'd like to see our government keep its medelling nose out too!

[scotspine1]

I think that would be a major advancement of the Human race.

 

So did Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

[Jason James Gairn]

I say they can fight each other until they're all dead if they want! all I ask is they keep me and my country out of there problems, i'd like to see our government keep its medelling nose out too!

 

Unfortunately it is the civilian casualties that you have over looked. We are part of their problems, so we can't keep out. World politics are complex, most countries have some deal with some other country, many are economic, some are military ties, usually to the advantage of one of them. I like to take the good Samaritan route through life and rather than let two sides cause suffering, I'd like to get between them and help them to come to a peaceful conclusion. On the macro on the micro. It is easy to walk away from trouble, it doesn't tax the mind. But it is a cowards way. I so hope your not the guy walking past when I'm having the kicked out of me on the street or when my wife is screaming in the bushes.

[Jason James Gairn]

What caused you to be 'born again'?

 

I'd like to know as well.

[Jason James Gairn]

Do you want a secular world?

 

Do you?

[Dagmar]

So did Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

 

Communism and National Socialism both tried to replace the slavish devotion to religion by a similar devotion to their respective creeds. In order to achieve their ends both had to subvert the rule of law that was based on religious precepts. These systems fail because they are totalitarian.

 

This is not secularism!

 

 

The National Secular Society campaigns for.......... “a society in which all are free to practise their faith, change it or not have one, according to their conscience. Our belief or lack of it should neither advantage nor disadvantage. Religion should be a matter of private conscience, for the home and place of worship; it must not have privileged input into the political arena where history shows it to bring conflict and injustice.”

 

There is a good wiki article that explains that:

 

 

Secularism is generally the assertion that certain practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious belief. Alternatively, it is a principle of promoting secular ideas or values in either public or private settings over religious ways of thought.

 

In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. (See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to a belief that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact rather than religious influence.(See also public reason.)

 

The purposes and arguments in support of secularism vary widely. In European laicism, it has been argued that secularism is a movement toward modernization, and away from traditional religious values. This type of secularism, on a social or philosophical level, has often occurred while maintaining an official state church or other state support of religion. In the United States, some argue that state secularism has served to a greater extent to protect religion from governmental interference, while secularism on a social level is less prevalent. Within countries as well, differing political movements support secularism for varying reasons.

 

 

 

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

( This is a well referenced article)

[Dagmar]

I like to take the good Samaritan route through life and rather than let two sides cause suffering, I'd like to get between them and help them to come to a peaceful conclusion.

 

I agree with that sentiment, although sometimes you need to wave a big stick to get some attention!

[Dagmar]

Another one for you all to ponder...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ

 

I'm with her! We need more people like this.

[scotspine1]

Communism and National Socialism both tried to replace the slavish devotion to religion by a similar devotion to their respective creeds. In order to achieve their ends both had to subvert the rule of law that was based on religious precepts. These systems fail because they are totalitarian.

 

This is not secularism!

 

 

The regimes of Stalin, Mao and Hitler demonstrate what happens when atheism becomes a political project. They show that there is a link between the attempt to eradicate religion and the loss of freedom. Their atheist beliefs influenced their policies and created the worst crimes against humanity in the history of the world.

 

The National Secular Society campaigns for.......... “a society in which all are free to practise their faith, change it or not have one, according to their conscience. Our belief or lack of it should neither advantage nor disadvantage. Religion should be a matter of private conscience, for the home and place of worship; it must not have privileged input into the political arena where history shows it to bring conflict and injustice.”

 

There is a good wiki article that explains that:

 

 

Secularism is generally the assertion that certain practices or institutions should exist separately from religion or religious belief. Alternatively, it is a principle of promoting secular ideas or values in either public or private settings over religious ways of thought.

 

In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. (See also Separation of church and state and Laïcité.) In another sense, it refers to a belief that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact rather than religious influence.(See also public reason.)

 

The purposes and arguments in support of secularism vary widely. In European laicism, it has been argued that secularism is a movement toward modernization, and away from traditional religious values. This type of secularism, on a social or philosophical level, has often occurred while maintaining an official state church or other state support of religion. In the United States, some argue that state secularism has served to a greater extent to protect religion from governmental interference, while secularism on a social level is less prevalent. Within countries as well, differing political movements support secularism for varying reasons.

 

 

 

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

( This is a well referenced article)

 

Believing that secularism will make the world a better place is a matter of faith. So its not really that different from Christianity or Islam.