Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Wymsey

Also in the News - Part 2

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

Normalise telling these daft ***** where to shove their religion.

 

Also please do 'normalise' telling overtly religious people in the UK to shove their religion up their arse and report back to us how it goes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, grobyfox1990 said:

I did not, but the main takeaway was if someone ever asks me 'can a trans woman compete in female sport' laughing and saying 'NO' will land me in cancel territory!!

That's a damn shame tbh because there's a fair bit more to it all than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bovril said:

Haven't seen her interview but sounds like she's made it clear it's her personal religious belief. Most of the things she's said are pretty much standard Christian morality and wouldn't have been seen as particularly controversial until quite recently. 

I might submit this is because until that "recently", the Church and the values it purports was the prime arbiter of morality in the UK (with that morality indeed being made law) and so it wasn't controversial because if someone made it controversial they were arrested or really socially "cancelled".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I might submit this is because until that "recently", the Church and the values it purports was the prime arbiter of morality in the UK (with that morality indeed being made law) and so it wasn't controversial because if someone made it controversial they were arrested or really socially "cancelled".

I mean I don't think it would have been that controversial for someone to hold those views until recently, not necessarily the views themselves that were probably outdated by the late 60s, at least the sex-before-marriage thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

I mean I don't think it would have been that controversial for someone to hold those views until recently, not necessarily the views themselves that were probably outdated by the late 60s, at least the sex-before-marriage thing. 

Agreed, and I think that's because such values when impressed onto a society for a while also take a while to shake even when they're no longer socially or legally enforceable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Agreed, and I think that's because such values when impressed onto a society for a while also take a while to shake even when they're no longer socially or legally enforceable.

I remember in the run up to the 2010 election the Tories saying something like "we'll look into it" when asked about gay marriage and Brown saying it was bound up with questions of religious freedoms. And yet Forbes's views are already seen as totally unacceptable. So that hasn't taken a while to shake off at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, marbles said:

Ah yes, inclusivity at its finest!

I wonder whether Christianity’s evangelical nature is working against it these days in countries like ours. If she doesn’t want children outside of marriage due to her faith, nobody should have a problem with that. The question is whether she would either impose it on others or sneer at others for it from a position of authority.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dunge said:

I wonder whether Christianity’s evangelical nature is working against it these days in countries like ours. If she doesn’t want children outside of marriage due to her faith, nobody should have a problem with that. The question is whether she would either impose it on others or sneer at others for it from a position of authority.

One’s beliefs should NEVER be imposed on others.

Feel free to believe whatever you want, but don’t try to force others to also believe it!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunge said:

I wonder whether Christianity’s evangelical nature is working against it these days in countries like ours. If she doesn’t want children outside of marriage due to her faith, nobody should have a problem with that. The question is whether she would either impose it on others or sneer at others for it from a position of authority.

Any Christian in politics is doomed. The bible, clearly prohibits things that are now perfectly normal in society. The children born out of wedlock is probably the main one that everyone can see is just outdated. Any Christian in politics can be made to look like a hypocrite when they have to state that their religion prohibits something but as a politician, especially a leader, they will not try to change that and will even vote the other way. Tim Farron had the same problem and that was a small part in his downfall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Any Christian in politics is doomed. The bible, clearly prohibits things that are now perfectly normal in society. The children born out of wedlock is probably the main one that everyone can see is just outdated. Any Christian in politics can be made to look like a hypocrite when they have to state that their religion prohibits something but as a politician, especially a leader, they will not try to change that and will even vote the other way. Tim Farron had the same problem and that was a small part in his downfall.

Ironic really because if you’re not enthusiastically Christian in America you stand no chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bovril said:

I remember in the run up to the 2010 election the Tories saying something like "we'll look into it" when asked about gay marriage and Brown saying it was bound up with questions of religious freedoms. And yet Forbes's views are already seen as totally unacceptable. So that hasn't taken a while to shake off at all. 

Fair to say.

 

I think this is getting a little too pol for the current rules but I'll finish by saying how pleased I am that the secular is the driving force in moral lawmaking in the UK these days. Just wish it were more prevalent elsewhere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dunge said:

Ironic really because if you’re not enthusiastically Christian in America you stand no chance.

I once read somewhere, studies showed that the USA would vote in a, black trans lesbian.... before they would vote in an athiest. lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Fair to say.

 

I think this is getting a little too pol for the current rules but I'll finish by saying how pleased I am that the secular is the driving force in moral lawmaking in the UK these days. Just wish it were more prevalent elsewhere.

It isn’t. Check out the sheer volume of freaky, extremist catholics serving as MPs and ministers - then check out the unelected magic sky pixie botherers in the House of Lords and the fruitloops they share the chamber with. Next to personal greed, religion remains the biggest stumbling block to common sense.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, ClaphamFox said:

Shamima Begum has lost her legal case and will remain in limbo in Syria. The wrong decision, in my view. Others will undoubtedly disagree.

 

Case rejected

We should be taking responsibility for her. Bring her back and put her in Prison/detention.

Fundamentally, she was 15 and this was a failure of safeguarding. She needs to be punished nonetheless.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, westernpark said:

We should be taking responsibility for her. Bring her back and put her in Prison/detention.

Fundamentally, she was 15 and this was a failure of safeguarding. She needs to be punished nonetheless.

I agree. I think she needs to come back, for two reasons. First, because she was a child when she went out there. Although she went of her own accord, it doesn't seem right to ignore the fact that she was a child in the eyes of the law. If she has committed crimes, let her answer for them here. Second, because she's British. She's our responsibility. We were only able to strip her citizenship in the first place because we claimed that she was eligible to apply for Bangladeshi citizenship (a claim that Bangladesh has flatly rejected). How would we feel if a foreign terrorist was foisted on us because they had a British grandma?

 

36 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Good riddance, personally.

No doubt this will be the view of most people. It's understandable, and I'm not criticising anybody who feels this way. I just disagree, for the reasons I mention above.

Edited by ClaphamFox
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...