hibs.net Messageboard

 

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 121 to 130 of 130
  1. #121
    Not any more it isn't


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #122
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    36
    Posts
    3,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Name a major party that is anti Christian? We still have press stories about politicians "COMING OUT" as atheists. I think that tells us everything we need to know about religion in politics.
    I dont know about anti- religion - we tend not to habe parties that are anti anything. They tend to be more pro-something.

    But id say labour and the lib dems hold many values that would be counter to traditional church values, as would the toriss on some things.

    I dont remember any stories about politicians in this country coming out as atheist?

    In fact the opposite is true of Blair, Tim Farron arguably lost his leadership due to the lampooning of his christian values, and new labour, probably the political party most in tune with the majority of Britain of any in my lifetime, famously 'didnt do god'.

    And i doubt corbyn and his fellow socialists have much time for the opium of the masses.

    Gay marriage, easing divorce laws, ending discrimination against gays, and many other things have all happened recently, against church wishes and lobbying.

  4. #123
    @hibs.net private member Just Alf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    The 'Mains
    Posts
    2,923
    I think the discussion has been narrowed down too much... I felt the discussion was wider and more about "society"

    I can't help but think I get the impression over recent years that in the UK at least, I've seen more "jokes" etc pointed towards Christianity than I've ever seen towards Muslims. It's gone all a bit "politically correct"

    A quick example that comes to mind, was the bakers that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding because they were Christian and its against their beliefs... Taken to court and lost, same with the B&B folks. We just don't see the same across all religions... At least as reported in the press.

    Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
    "The word "genius" isn't applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein."
    --Joe Theisman, NFL football quarterback & sports analyst.

  5. #124
    @hibs.net private member Mibbes Aye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    10,197
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthsideHarp_Bhoy View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I dont know about anti- religion - we tend not to habe parties that are anti anything. They tend to be more pro-something.

    But id say labour and the lib dems hold many values that would be counter to traditional church values, as would the toriss on some things.

    I dont remember any stories about politicians in this country coming out as atheist?

    In fact the opposite is true of Blair, Tim Farron arguably lost his leadership due to the lampooning of his christian values, and new labour, probably the political party most in tune with the majority of Britain of any in my lifetime, famously 'didnt do god'.

    And i doubt corbyn and his fellow socialists have much time for the opium of the masses.

    Gay marriage, easing divorce laws, ending discrimination against gays, and many other things have all happened recently, against church wishes and lobbying.
    I think that was a Campbell quote which ignored the fact that Gordon Brown, a son of the manse, had control over domestic policy throughout Blair's premiership. Brown's philosophies, whether one agrees with them or not, were firmly rooted in a concept of social justice that was informed by his upbringing and the New Testament.

    Religion is a funny thing and Christianity especially so. When it's been at its worst it has been employed by men as a means of exercising power, either to maintain and gain further power or to advance their own prejudices. At its best it can offer a philosophy for how one engages with the world in a compassionate and humane manner.

    The tradition of Christian Socialism is a rich one, in Britain particularly around in the decades around when the Labour Party was founded. That shouldn't be a surprise because the New Testament writings, especially the Sermon on the Mount fit very comfortably with the ideas and thinking that informed the Labour movement's development.

    For me, the real symmetry lies in liberation theology, a movement/philosophy that developed in the Catholic Church in South America, in the second half of the twentieth century. It aligned Christian teachings and values with a focus on the liberation of the poor and oppressed - that made a powerful cocktail. Unfortunately it also posed a challenge in terms of hierarchies and power relations and I think there were definitely elements within the Church who were resistant to the concept - Benedict XVI, who previously to becoming pope had been in charge of doctrinal matters was a staunch opponent.
    There's only one thing better than a Hibs calendar and that's two Hibs calendars

  6. #125
    Testimonial Due
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    36
    Posts
    3,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Mibbes Aye View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    I think that was a Campbell quote which ignored the fact that Gordon Brown, a son of the manse, had control over domestic policy throughout Blair's premiership. Brown's philosophies, whether one agrees with them or not, were firmly rooted in a concept of social justice that was informed by his upbringing and the New Testament.

    Religion is a funny thing and Christianity especially so. When it's been at its worst it has been employed by men as a means of exercising power, either to maintain and gain further power or to advance their own prejudices. At its best it can offer a philosophy for how one engages with the world in a compassionate and humane manner.

    The tradition of Christian Socialism is a rich one, in Britain particularly around in the decades around when the Labour Party was founded. That shouldn't be a surprise because the New Testament writings, especially the Sermon on the Mount fit very comfortably with the ideas and thinking that informed the Labour movement's development.

    For me, the real symmetry lies in liberation theology, a movement/philosophy that developed in the Catholic Church in South America, in the second half of the twentieth century. It aligned Christian teachings and values with a focus on the liberation of the poor and oppressed - that made a powerful cocktail. Unfortunately it also posed a challenge in terms of hierarchies and power relations and I think there were definitely elements within the Church who were resistant to the concept - Benedict XVI, who previously to becoming pope had been in charge of doctrinal matters was a staunch opponent.
    Fair points about Brown.

    But the Campbell quite is inportant because it illustrates that religion is seen as an electoral liability in the UK, and that it should be kept away from politics.

    I do take your point about the influence of Christian 'values' though. Its one of the enduring strengths of religion, is that its 'values' are essentially pretty hard to argue with - basically we are for good things and against bad things. Exceptwhen it comes to sex, when they seem to take an unholy interest in what other people choose to get up to.

    But apologies, this is getting way off topic.

    In summary, offending christians is acceptable in the UK, offendig muslims less so. Rightly, or wrongly.

  7. #126
    First Team Breakthrough portyhibernian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    406
    Say you're talking to a room of 1000 people. You don't have the right to say anything that hurts the feelings of just one of those people. The problem is that no matter what you say, at least one person will take offence to something, even if that is a consequence of them misinterpreting you. To that end, is the absence of the 'right to offend' the absence of the right to speak at all?

  8. #127
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    33,215
    Quote Originally Posted by portyhibernian View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Say you're talking to a room of 1000 people. You don't have the right to say anything that hurts the feelings of just one of those people. The problem is that no matter what you say, at least one person will take offence to something, even if that is a consequence of them misinterpreting you. To that end, is the absence of the 'right to offend' the absence of the right to speak at all?
    Lots of people speak to large groups without offending anybody.

    In any case, the issue is about the right to deliberately offend, not inadvertently.
    Buy nothing online unless you check for free cashback here first. I've already earned £1,789.68!



  9. #128
    First Team Breakthrough portyhibernian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    406
    Quote Originally Posted by Hibbyradge View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Lots of people speak to large groups without offending anybody.

    In any case, the issue is about the right to deliberately offend, not inadvertently.
    Ok, then who decides whether it's deliberate or not, the offender or the offendee?

  10. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by portyhibernian View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ok, then who decides whether it's deliberate or not, the offender or the offendee?
    I think if someone is asking for the ‘right to offend’ the answer is obvious.

    Inadvertently causing offence is something most of us will encounter in our life. There’s a difference between that and people demanding the right to be intentionally provocative without challenge.
    PM Awards General Poster of The Year 2015, 2016, 2017. Probably robbed in other years

  11. #130
    @hibs.net private member Hibbyradge's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    1000's of people's Barcelona
    Posts
    33,215
    Quote Originally Posted by portyhibernian View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Ok, then who decides whether it's deliberate or not, the offender or the offendee?
    Do you think Katie Hopkins accidentally caused offence?

    Going back to your point about speaking to a large group of people, what makes you think that someone will always be offended by something said?

    Personally, I can't ever imagine saying anything offensive, even accidentally, whether it was to 1 person or a thousand.

    Sure, I can say things that people might not agree with, and my views may infuriate or anger, but I wouldn't be offensive.
    Last edited by Hibbyradge; 07-02-2018 at 09:10 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved