peaps said:
And your point is?
"The law has no right --
- Thread starter Space cat
- Start date
And your point is?
Sponsored Links
P
peaps
peaps said:
And your point is?
I think it's obvious. Some laws are based on christian values.
Well that point wasn't obvious to me !!
Are you then agreeing that the C of E is above the law, or is in someway able to dictate laws ?
This may well have been the case several 100 years ago, but times have changed and although this country may well have been built on christion values, I would hazard a guess that there are now several other religions that would disgree with your statement that this is a christian country
Any premises which apply for a licence to hold civil ceremonies have to show that they have no religious connections and that there are no religious artifacts in the room where the ceremony is to take place.
How does that sit with your one liner ??
Are you then agreeing that the C of E is above the law, or is in someway able to dictate laws ?
This may well have been the case several 100 years ago, but times have changed and although this country may well have been built on christion values, I would hazard a guess that there are now several other religions that would disgree with your statement that this is a christian country
Any premises which apply for a licence to hold civil ceremonies have to show that they have no religious connections and that there are no religious artifacts in the room where the ceremony is to take place.
How does that sit with your one liner ??
Sponsored Links
And?
Are you arguing that because a law was made on Christian values it cannot be changed.
Gonna ban shrimp and working on Sundays are you?
No, you can't just defend laws on the basis of "it's Christian" if you are quite happy to ignore other Christian values.
Nature didn't intend marriage, nature is quite happy for the man to impregnate as many women as he wants and toddle of to another tribe, or leave it to the women of the tribes to rear the children.
Nature is also quite happy for us to give birth in ditches and bushes, and have 1/4 of births (or whatever it used to be) lead in the mother or kid dying.
Scuse me if I don't care about what "nature" intended, as if nature is an actual entity that is wise and caring.
What are you, some kind of gaia worshipper, bloody hippies
P
peaps
No but changed within thoses values.
Well yes it should be...
What other values do I ignore?
P
peaps
Guidence is the world I would use, we are a christain nation who allows others to practise their own views etc
How does that sit with your one liner ??
Sit's fine.
Guidence is the world I would use, we are a christain nation who allows others to practise their own views etc
How does that sit with your one liner ??
Sit's fine.
Sorry, but it doesn't.
I've pointed out that civil ceremonies are nothing to do with any church.
You god botherers are all the same, you think that because you belive in a work of fiction you are correct.
Unfortunately you aren't.
A
Alarm
Why?
Says who?
You are just using circular logic.
"Laws where made with Christian values and so laws must be based upon Christian values".
When was the last time you argued the law should be changed so no-one works on Sundays?
Do you turn of all your electrical, TV, stop going out to pubs etc on a Sunday, all of which require people WORKING on a Sunday to provide.
Is sex outside marriage illegal?
This isn't and hasn't been a Christian country for over a long time, cept when someone wants to stop something they don't like, then all of a sudden it's against Christian values in this Christian country,
Christians don't have a monopoly on morals, you can no longer get away with "it's right/wrong because Christians say so"
Just take a minute to read exactly what you wrote there and then you will hopefully realise just how arrogant your comment is.
The thought that you Christians are allowing everyone else to practise their own views.
WOW how good and condescending of you.
This is a free country that allows all groups to have their own views and practise them, including the Christians. You haven't got a monopoly.
peaps said:
Fair enough. For a moment I thought you might have been one of those Christians who either didn't spot the significance of the second poll option or else were arrogant enough to think that theirs was the only faith that mattered.
We should not be surprized that some laws are - or at least appear to be - based on Christian values. You could just as well say that some laws are based on Hindu/Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist values and lets throw in Humanist values while we're at it.
Early Christians - and the others - were not entirely stupid. They devised rules that would give them half a chance of getting along in relative peace, and so we have "Thou shalt not kill." If this had read "Though shalt kill any man who looks at you in a funny way", I doubt that there would be many Jews alive today. The problem with religious values is that their proponents can't quite let them go, even when it's obvious that they're no longer fit for purpose. "Go forth and multiply" is one that urgently needs rethinking. Are you listening Pope Benedict?
Another problem is that they're too easily distorted to suit the whims of political crooks. It's all too easy to go through some holy text picking out the rules that suit your purpose - and, if you can't find what you're looking for, you can always make a few up. But Britain has not been a theocracy since the civil war. Prior to that, the monarch's religion could determine whether you would be allowed to go about your legitimate business or be burnt at the stake for heresy.
Now we have this, from the European Convention on Human Rights:There are plenty of places around the world where being a Christian could get you locked up or worse. Count yourself lucky that this isn't one of them.
Arthur2shedsJackson said:
Thanks for that. You learn something new every day.
AronSearle said:
Fair comment and a poor choice of words on my part.
and also said:
Possibly. I'll have to look that one up.
P
peaps
I don't go to church or am a practising christian..... I do have an opinion though.
So now the Catholic church, in the form of Cardinal Keith O'Brien, has joined in the war of words:
A right denied to homosexuals for far too long. But then there are some humans who you and your kind would prefer not to exist. And there's more:
If the rest of the world is thinking about us at all they might just be mildly amused. In any case, my suspicions have been confirmed: No church or other religious institution will be required to marry homosexual couples. So I ask again; what is your problem?
I'll tell you what your problem is. It's the same problem you faced when heterosexual civil partnerships were being considered. You're in danger of losing the only bit of political power you've got left and you're going to fight tooth and nail to hang on to it.
Edit: I've just found this:
Well if that isn't clutching at straws I don't know what is. I don't know whether anybody's told you this but the vast majority of babies the world over are, and always will be, conceived by heterosexuals. Adoption by homosexuals is a different issue altogether and there's no suggestion that being married would give them any additional rights in that department.
And where does slavery come into this?
A right denied to homosexuals for far too long. But then there are some humans who you and your kind would prefer not to exist.
And there's more:If the rest of the world is thinking about us at all they might just be mildly amused. In any case, my suspicions have been confirmed: No church or other religious institution will be required to marry homosexual couples. So I ask again; what is your problem?
I'll tell you what your problem is. It's the same problem you faced when heterosexual civil partnerships were being considered. You're in danger of losing the only bit of political power you've got left and you're going to fight tooth and nail to hang on to it.
Edit: I've just found this:
Well if that isn't clutching at straws I don't know what is.
I don't know whether anybody's told you this but the vast majority of babies the world over are, and always will be, conceived by heterosexuals. Adoption by homosexuals is a different issue altogether and there's no suggestion that being married would give them any additional rights in that department.And where does slavery come into this?
Sponsored Links
