Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since this is the position you have dishonestly been saying is that of the NSS, this post oy yours is just writing 'I am a lying liar who lies'

How do youaccount for the NSS position on religious programming? I think that is about as far as I went.
Certainly there is evidence that the NSS wants religion out of the public sphere. Walter certainly does.

Since you seem to have put yourself in the position of savaging me rather than Walter and Walter is making veiled threat while portraying himself as a deranged Rottweiler, I'm afraid I'm at that point where I don't want to put up with his shit or this.

[Nearly Sane]

How do youaccount for the NSS position on religious programming? I think that is about as far as I went.
Certainly there is evidence that the NSS wants religion out of the public sphere. Walter certainly does.

Since you seem to have put yourself in the position of savaging me rather than Walter and Walter is making veiled threat while portraying himself as a deranged Rottweiler, I'm afraid I'm at that point where I don't want to put up with his shit or this.

Ah a use of the tu quoque fallacy to try and evade you lying.

[Walter]

How do youaccount for the NSS position on religious programming? I think that is about as far as I went.
Certainly there is evidence that the NSS wants religion out of the public sphere. Walter certainly does.

Since you seem to have put yourself in the position of savaging me rather than Walter and Walter is making veiled threat while portraying himself as a deranged Rottweiler, I'm afraid I'm at that point where I don't want to put up with his shit or this.

I make my position clear , no veil required . Sadly I am just one individual and the law is on your side (for now)

[Nearly Sane]

being religious should preclude anyone from being in any public office .

and off to fstdt with your quote

[Maeght]

It is in the house of Lords where secular is referred to as temporal.

I'm all for fulltime atheists, rabbis, imams, Gurus, etc being in the HOL.

It is just a term for those who are not Lords Spiritual.

Secular is not the opposite of religious in any way in any environment.

[Maeght]

Here is the official title of the HOL from Wikipedia.

Officially, the full name of the house is the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled

And?

[Walter]

and off to fstdt with your quote

don't understand that ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

don't understand that ?

I think it's "Fundies Say The Darndest Things".

[Walter]

Walter,

I think it's "Fundies Say The Darndest Things".

Aww thanks Blue , I thought I was up for an award or something .

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

Aww thanks Blue , I thought I was up for an award or something .

Well in a way...

[ProfessorDavey]

Here is the official title of the HOL from Wikipedia.

Officially, the full name of the house is the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled

http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/lords-spiritual-and-temporal/

How strange - no mention of secular at all.

And your argument is completely punctured by the fact that, until recently, there was a 3rd category of Lords, namely the Law Lords.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/lords-spiritual-and-temporal/

How strange - no mention of secular at all.

And your argument is completely punctured by the fact that, until recently, there was a 3rd category of Lords, namely the Law Lords.

Look up the word temporal Davey.
Do you agree with Walter that religious people should not hold public office?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Walter,

Well in a way...

Do you agree with Walter that religious people should not hold public office?

[Maeght]

being religious should preclude anyone from being in any public office .

Can't agree with that. Why do you think that?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,
 

What’s curious about your efforts here is that on the one hand you seem to be able to construct a coherent sentence, yet on the other you can post such spectacular drivel that I actually feel quite embarrassed for you. Actually I do advise businesses (though not on advertising strategies) and successfully so.

Here’s how the conversation would actually go: “So you’re concerned that sales are declining or not growing as fast as you’d like and want to try advertising to change that? Fine – here’s how you’ll know either it’s working or not: comparables. We can compare before and after, we can compare advertised vs non-advertised markets, we can compare other variables. And when those comparisons show that consumer behaviour has changed, then you can be pretty sure that the advertising has worked - ie, done the job is was intended to do. That “the job” may turn out just to be extending the date on which your business ultimately goes bust has of course bugger all to do with that”.

Not sure why I have to keep explaining this to you, but there it is anyway.

Oh, and your entire thesis has been that people will make up their own minds. Now you seem to have stopped doctoring what I actually said in response why not just look it up for yourself? There’s plenty of it after all.

Feeling embarrassed must be something you are used to by now considering your inane posts on here. You spend more time grandstanding than posting any actual evidence about the CofE to back up your claims.

This isn't the first time you've made some ludicrous claim about the effects of religion in the UK but not been able to substantiate it. It's curious how you can spare the time to preach about your beliefs but can't spare the time to back them up with evidence.     

Let me help you. You made some claims in relation to the idea that "people make up their own minds" that you attributed to me. It should be fairly simple for you to point out for a start all the posts that you think I said that in and in what context I said it.

What's even more curious than your beliefs is that my posting history has been pretty consistently saying that I think people are influenced by many factors - their families, their upbringing, their culture, their level of education, TV, social media, their friends, goals, personality traits, the geo-political situation in their particular area etc.   

[Walter]

Can't agree with that. Why do you think that?

' I hold evidence in my hands but in my heart I have beliefs'

would you trust them ?  I wouldn't .

[SusanDoris]

gabriella

Your apparent, to me anyway, assumption that your posts are superior to bluehillside's and that yours should be, or are assumed by you to be, admired by the rest of us has an air of arrogance, especially as you have included a derisory comment or two.

If you had the confidence of your convictions and ideas   you would be able to express them in a way that would be assertive enough in themselves.

ETA And having now read your latest post, I will add to my last sentence: ... and you would not have to add the derisive, verging on sneering, comments.'

[Nearly Sane]

' I hold evidence in my hands but in my heart I have beliefs'

would you trust them ?  I wouldn't .

any oughts are simply beliefs

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Can't agree with that. Why do you think that?

It’s not a straightforward question though. It’s helpful sometimes to take an extreme example to test the proposition (that religious people should be allowed to hold public office). Most I think would agree for example that an evangelical “end of times” merchant probably shouldn’t be given the launch codes to nuclear weapons and the means to use them. After all, why not just accelerate what’s coming anyway?

OK, so there’s an example of when a religious person shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office precisely because of his religious beliefs. Anyone disagree? OK, let’s move on.

How about Theresa May who (from memory) when asked about a major decision like going to war told us that she’d pray for guidance. Good idea does anyone think?

And so it goes. Somewhere along the line – perhaps when the decisions made don’t matter much – no-one will care much about whether the official has an imaginary friend. In some case though it will matter – a lot – so what then should we think about those cases?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

gabriella

Your apparent, to me anyway, assumption that your posts are superior to bluehillside's and that yours should be, or are assumed by you to be, admired by the rest of us has an air of arrogance, especially as you have included a derisory comment or two.

If you had the confidence of your convictions and ideas   you would be able to express them in a way that would be assertive enough in themselves.

Do you agree with Walter that religious people should not hold public office?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Feeling embarrassed must be something you are used to by now considering your inane posts on here. You spend more time grandstanding than posting any actual evidence about the CofE to back up your claims.

This isn't the first time you've made some ludicrous claim about the effects of religion in the UK but not been able to substantiate it. It's curious how you can spare the time to preach about your beliefs but can't spare the time to back them up with evidence.     

Let me help you. You made some claims in relation to the idea that "people make up their own minds" that you attributed to me. It should be fairly simple for you to point out for a start all the posts that you think I said that in and in what context I said it.

What's even more curious than your beliefs is that my posting history has been pretty consistently saying that I think people are influenced by many factors - their families, their upbringing, their culture, their level of education, TV, social media, their friends, goals, personality traits, the geo-political situation in their particular area etc.

Savlon half price at Boots this week. Just thought you'd like to know.

[Maeght]

Maeght,

It’s not a straightforward question though. It’s helpful sometimes to take an extreme example to test the proposition (that religious people should be allowed to hold public office). Most I think would agree for example that an evangelical “end of times” merchant probably shouldn’t be given the launch codes to nuclear weapons and the means to use them. After all, why not just accelerate what’s coming anyway?

OK, so there’s an example of when a religious person shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office precisely because of his religious beliefs. Anyone disagree? OK, let’s move on.

How about Theresa May who (from memory) when asked about a major decision like going to war told us that she’d pray for guidance. Good idea does anyone think?

And so it goes. Somewhere along the line – perhaps when the decisions made don’t matter much – no-one will care much about whether the official has an imaginary friend. In some case though it will matter – a lot – so what then should we think about those cases?

Yes, you judge individuals on their suitability for office, rsther than ruling out anyone who is religious.

[ippy]

gabriella

Your apparent, to me anyway, assumption that your posts are superior to bluehillside's and that yours should be, or are assumed by you to be, admired by the rest of us has an air of arrogance, especially as you have included a derisory comment or two.

If you had the confidence of your convictions and ideas   you would be able to express them in a way that would be assertive enough in themselves.

ETA And having now read your latest post, I will add to my last sentence: ... and you would not have to add the derisive, verging on sneering, comments.'

And somewhat aggressive.

Regards ippy

[SusanDoris]

Do you agree with Walter that religious people should not hold public office?

I have no idea why you are asking this question!

N.B. By the wayif anyone's interested, , I have edited my previous post.

[Nearly Sane]

Maeght,

It’s not a straightforward question though. It’s helpful sometimes to take an extreme example to test the proposition (that religious people should be allowed to hold public office). Most I think would agree for example that an evangelical “end of times” merchant probably shouldn’t be given the launch codes to nuclear weapons and the means to use them. After all, why not just accelerate what’s coming anyway?

OK, so there’s an example of when a religious person shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office precisely because of his religious beliefs. Anyone disagree? OK, let’s move on.

How about Theresa May who (from memory) when asked about a major decision like going to war told us that she’d pray for guidance. Good idea does anyone think?

And so it goes. Somewhere along the line – perhaps when the decisions made don’t matter much – no-one will care much about whether the official has an imaginary friend. In some case though it will matter – a lot – so what then should we think about those cases?

Yes it is a straightforward question because it was ab absolute. Any belief in an ought can be taken to an extreme so the 'logic' of your post is no one should.