by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Right to Life Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .2,0812,0822,0832,0842,0852,0862,087. . .2,1042,105»

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:He did say specifically that stopping "large-scale" immigration of Muslims was patriotic, not stopping it altogether and, above that, emphasizes that those who are in need should be provided for but "opportunists" should be stopped. I think the message underneath what he is saying is essentially: genuine refugees should be welcomed, but leaders should take action to prevent their countries from being filled with people hostile to Christian/western values who have only come for economic gain.

I still don't see the necessity of pointing out Muslims in particular, why do we need to stop them out of all other religious groups who move to Europe. It seems unfair to point them out, and that type of signaling out can cause a huge amount of resentment in Muslim communities, as if they are somehow dangerous to us. Islam is not a threat to Western Christianity, secularism is by far the more dangerous enemy we now face because it's eating away at the faith, like a rot.

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:While it is almost impossible to verify because of the sheer numbers, geographic spread, and non-prominence of most council members I think the Conservative loses are overblown. Almost all of the losses in seats for the Conservatives were to independents, but who are they? Disaffected Tories mostly who are frustrated at May/Brexit or whatever and ran/were voted in as a protest and who, if the Conservatives get some guts and a good leader in the coming months, are likely to return to their voting ranks and who are likely more conservative than centrist and, therefore, won't vote for socialists or Greens most of the time, if ever.

The Tories have suffered their biggest loss since 1995, back when they lost more than 2000 seats, I think it's safe to say that this was pretty devastating, though Labour suffered as well, just not to such a severe extent. The Tories at this point are at a breaking point with perhaps having the most terrible leader they have had for the past 30 years. Even when they ditch May the new leader still has to reunite a party at war with itself over Brexit and if it's Boris Johnson who is going to be leader then you can be pretty sure that remainer MPs will go into open revolt. I myself hope that it tears the Tory Party asunder!

Slavic lechia

I say Immigration is fine as long as it is legal. According to polish law you need to prove to have either blood links here or that you feel polish to be a citizen. It is in our constitution. Once they prove it I consider them polish.

I'm with Eire here, for the record.

The Catholic State of Eire and Slavic lechia

The Catholic State of Eire wrote:I myself hope that it tears the Tory Party asunder!

Why such a hatred for Tories? At any rate it is usually not good for any major party to unravel anywhere as this means extreme instability and close to autocratic rule by the remaining major party, since it has no effective opposition.

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:Why such a hatred for Tories? At any rate it is usually not good for any major party to unravel anywhere as this means extreme instability and close to autocratic rule by the remaining major party, since it has no effective opposition.

Honestly, British politics isn't quite as split by party as American politics is. Largely the biggest split is Remain/Leave, with Remain-favouring Labour supporters and Remain-favouring Tories having more in common than Leave-favouring politicians.

The crazy thing is that before the referendum, MPs across all parties were almost unanimous in saying that Brexit was a bad idea. What you have now amongst MPs is an ideological divide between those who don't like Brexit but who believe in the referendum's democratic mandate, and those who don't like Brexit and want to see it stopped or mitigated as much as possible. Meanwhile the small number of MPs who actually believe in Brexit represent a vocal minority.

The mainstream parties are haemorrhaging support - it's like if everyone in the US declared that they don't like Republican OR Democrat.

TBH, after the next general election will probably be the best time ever for proportional representation to be pushed through, as we're almost certainly going to end up with a coalition government of 3 or more parties anyway.

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:Why such a hatred for Tories? At any rate it is usually not good for any major party to unravel anywhere as this means extreme instability and close to autocratic rule by the remaining major party, since it has no effective opposition.

Not necessarily a hatred but rather an extreme opposition to what they are. The one thing which I object about the Tories is what their previous leader, Thatcher, did here in the North of Ireland, propping up a sectarian state, something the Nationalist community has not forgiven. The most recent issue is their brutal austerity measures on public services, causing them to be brought to the cusp of breaking point due to cuts in funding. I don't actually think they will disintegrate, though I do think they will suffer in the next general election and Labour will get into power with a majority.

Slavic lechia

United Massachusetts wrote:I'm with Eire here, for the record.

I am too. I don't see that as my personal problem and don't care muvh for politics so I don't see any problems.

The Eireann WA Delegation wrote:It's a complicated issue but I don't see how it can be addressed by denying entry of Muslims into Europe. The crisis in Europe is as you say has to do with Christians submitting to secularism which has caused a disintegration of cultures because they have fallen into the hands of individualism and neo-liberalism, which destroys community cohesion. If Christianity had held against secularism I don't think that the West would be in such a divided state, the whole Muslim angle just seems to me not the main problem Europe faces.

My main issue was really a high up member of the Catholic hierarchy has suggested something which could be seen as incredibly xenophobic, which is banning an entire religious group because of a fear of being taken over by them!

Yeah, obviously that is wrong, it's even against the constitution in most of the Western countries, I believe, as you have the freedom of religion. But at the same time, migration in itself, needs to be controlled to some extent. You can not have open borders, letting everyone who wants to, to stay. Which I don't believe is the case either, for countries like Norway. But immigration has still been too big over the last decades, which are now showing its problems. I think it becomes inevitable to not try to help them more, where they already are, instead of having it as a solution to take everyone who wants to, in to Europe. As of today there are 258 million migrants in the world, according to the UN, which is expected to increase to 316 million by 2050.

https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.katolsk.no%2Fnyheter%2F2019%2F01%2Fmatlary-om-migrasjon-2013-vi-plikter-a-bruke-fornuften - Matlary on Migration: - We are obliged to use reason

https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.katolsk.no%2Fnyheter%2F2019%2F03%2Fmigrasjonsdebatt-nasjonalstatens-grenser-og-nestekjaerligheten - Migration debate: The national state's borders and charity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janne_Haaland_Matl%C3%A1ry

Slavic lechia

Does The Bible say anything about transsexuals after the operation? Serious question. I didn't find anything... If someone becomes a believer after they transition then they seem to be fine as long as The Bible is concerned...

As long as they are either male or female they are fine and in The Bible man and women are defined by genitalia not by xx and xy...

I need am argument here! I am confused...

Lutheran Commonwealth wrote:Yeah, obviously that is wrong, it's even against the constitution in most of the Western countries, I believe, as you have the freedom of religion.

I don't think its against the constitution, at worst it would be against the principle of the constitution. The freedom of religion is only a guarantee for citizens, not per se for immigrants and, at least in these United States.

Note: this is very obviously not saying I support such measures, only that they are constitutional permissible.

I'm honestly not sure I want to even stoop over to answer your question Slavic Lechia...but I find no clear basis for your argument that male and female is defined exclusively by what organ is attached to the human body in the Bible or otherwise. For one thing only God can create ex nihilo and we are told "male and female he created them" (an act which is repeated when each new person is generated) meaning, consequently, that there is nobody or no action that can uncreate what God created. This speaks to a larger principle, taught by the church and understood as simply a matter of common sense, that people are male and female through their entire corporeality (to say nothing of the soul). Have you seen people? Its pretty obvious someone is male or female from their head, legs, arms, chest, you name it, young, old, and in-between, but especially obvious when taken altogether. St Paul would consider this part of the natural law, which is, of course, derivative of the divine law.

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:I don't think its against the constitution, at worst it would be against the principle of the constitution. The freedom of religion is only a guarantee for citizens, not per se for immigrants and, at least in these United States.

Note: this is very obviously not saying I support such measures, only that they are constitutional permissible.

Yeah, I think you might technically be right here. But still not a very nice thing to do, ethically speaking, as you pointed out.

Lutheran Commonwealth wrote:Yeah, obviously that is wrong, it's even against the constitution in most of the Western countries, I believe, as you have the freedom of religion. But at the same time, migration in itself, needs to be controlled to some extent. You can not have open borders, letting everyone who wants to, to stay. Which I don't believe is the case either, for countries like Norway. But immigration has still been too big over the last decades, which are now showing its problems. I think it becomes inevitable to not try to help them more, where they already are, instead of having it as a solution to take everyone who wants to, in to Europe. As of today there are 258 million migrants in the world, according to the UN, which is expected to increase to 316 million by 2050.

https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.katolsk.no%2Fnyheter%2F2019%2F01%2Fmatlary-om-migrasjon-2013-vi-plikter-a-bruke-fornuften - Matlary on Migration: - We are obliged to use reason

https://translate.google.no/translate?sl=no&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.katolsk.no%2Fnyheter%2F2019%2F03%2Fmigrasjonsdebatt-nasjonalstatens-grenser-og-nestekjaerligheten - Migration debate: The national state's borders and charity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janne_Haaland_Matl%C3%A1ry

Yeah I mean to discriminate on the basis of religion is a big no-no for EU nations. I agree that immigration is something we need to manage and regulate, that's an acceptable position, but only when you do it on the basis that the rules apply to everyone equally and not discriminating against certain faith groups, or any other groups for that manner. This is why I find it incredibly disturbing when I read Cardinal Burke was suggesting to target out Muslims specifically, and also saying that it's somehow patriotic to do so.

The Catholic State of Eire wrote:Yeah I mean to discriminate on the basis of religion is a big no-no for EU nations. I agree that immigration is something we need to manage and regulate, that's an acceptable position, but only when you do it on the basis that the rules apply to everyone equally and not discriminating against certain faith groups, or any other groups for that manner. This is why I find it incredibly disturbing when I read Cardinal Burke was suggesting to target out Muslims specifically, and also saying that it's somehow patriotic to do so.

Again, I agree, when it comes to your view about Cardinal Burke. But let me ask you a question: You were talking about discrimination. What do you think about handshakes? There have come some examples to attention in the media about incidents, where a Muslim do not want to handshake with fellow colleagues at work of the opposite sex, because of their religion, which is an ordinary and expected thing to do in our Western society. Isn't that kind of a discrimination as well, from a secular point of view? Ordinary custom is to shake hands with both men and women at work, you don't treat sexes differently, when it comes to gender equality, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_gender_segregation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_equality

I just see more and more conflicts like this arise, between our two cultures, which is threatening the coexistence of those two. Both of them can't win, one of the cultures has to sacrifice itself towards the other. Which means that our culture as we are used to in the West is threatened, and I'm not just talking about handshakes here.

Look also at how homosexuals are treated in certain Muslim countries. This they bring with them here into our Western culture, which of course will bring future conflicts between the LGBT community and Muslims here in Europe, and in the West, if they should become more powerful and influential in the Western society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam

Where also this too has happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Muslim_patrols%22_in_London_(2013-2014)
_____________________________

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_religious_police

Lutheran Commonwealth wrote:Again, I agree, when it comes to your view about Cardinal Burke. But let me ask you a question: You were talking about discrimination. What do you think about handshakes? There have come some examples to attention in the media about incidents, where a Muslim do not want to handshake with fellow colleagues at work of the opposite sex, because of their religion, which is an ordinary and expected thing to do in our Western society. Isn't that kind of a discrimination as well, from a secular point of view? Ordinary custom is to shake hands with both men and women at work, you don't treat sexes differently, when it comes to gender equality, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_gender_segregation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_equality

I just see more and more conflicts like this arise, between our two cultures, which is threatening the coexistence of those two. Both of them can't win, one of the cultures has to sacrifice itself towards the other. Which means that our culture as we are used to in the West is threatened, and I'm not just talking about handshakes here.

Look also at how homosexuals are treated in certain Muslim countries. This they bring with them here into our Western culture, which of course will bring future conflicts between the LGBT community and Muslims here in Europe, and in the West, if they should become more powerful and influential in the Western society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam

Where also this too has happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Muslim_patrols%22_in_London_(2013-2014)
_____________________________

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_religious_police

It is clear that Islamic cultural views have caused tension here in the West and that should be looked at. The best possible way we can address this is through integration, to make them feel apart of the wider community and not allow formation of ghettos to happen with foreign communities. It's important they feel as they are apart of the fabric of the society.

In the case of gender equality, that needs to be enforced because this comes into the terms of peoples rights, so we can't have one group being above the law, just as much as having no one being excluded from the protection of the law. In short, there has to be a blind-difference approach in applying of rights despite cultural views.

In terms of Islam and its clash with issues such as the Wests embracing of homosexual relationships, we need to go back to what you said about secularism and the enlightenment. Western/Christian culture in mainstream society has been dominated by the sexual revolution so Western society has a lot more liberal views when coming to sexuality, despite Christian opposition to such liberal views. This is due to Christian submission to secularism, something which has not happened to Islamic culture, so the difference is that while Christians, in most cases has, if begrudgingly, accepted this liberal, secular and individualistic outlook. Islam, so far, has not. The whole point of it is, and I said this previously, if Christianity had not submitted to this outlook then there would not be this clash of values, in this case at least and society would have been a lot better off.

The Gallant Old Republic wrote:I don't think its against the constitution, at worst it would be against the principle of the constitution. The freedom of religion is only a guarantee for citizens, not per se for immigrants and, at least in these United States.

Note: this is very obviously not saying I support such measures, only that they are constitutional permissible.

This is false. The freedoms in the Bill of Rights extend to all people in the United States, regardless of citizenship status. This is a well-established constitutional principle.

That handshake thing would make a fine Issue for the game. Mind if I draft something, Lutheran Commonwealth?

First And Only Archive wrote:That handshake thing would make a fine Issue for the game. Mind if I draft something, Lutheran Commonwealth?

Not at all, be my guest.

The Catholic State of Eire wrote:In terms of Islam and its clash with issues such as the Wests embracing of homosexual relationships, we need to go back to what you said about secularism and the enlightenment. Western/Christian culture in mainstream society has been dominated by the sexual revolution so Western society has a lot more liberal views when coming to sexuality, despite Christian opposition to such liberal views. This is due to Christian submission to secularism, something which has not happened to Islamic culture, so the difference is that while Christians, in most cases has, if begrudgingly, accepted this liberal, secular and individualistic outlook. Islam, so far, has not. The whole point of it is, and I said this previously, if Christianity had not submitted to this outlook then there would not be this clash of values, in this case at least and society would have been a lot better off.

Yes, but how could Christianity really have avoided this development of the society? Remember that some homosexuals were treated by electroshock therapy earlier on, in the 20th century, do you want to go back to that? Should we imprison homosexuals, who are living out their sexuality? I don't think that is the right way to go. It cannot be forced upon them, they have to choose it themselves. We can only inform them, but nothing more, from the Christian point of view, and what the Bible says about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

Lutheran Commonwealth wrote:Yes, but how could Christianity really have avoided this development of the society? Remember that some homosexuals were treated by electroshock therapy earlier on, in the 20th century, do you want to go back to that? Should we imprison homosexuals, who are living out their sexuality? I don't think that is the right way to go. It cannot be forced upon them, they have to choose it themselves. We can only inform them, but nothing more, from the Christian point of view, and what the Bible says about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy

Obviously I am not calling for any return to the past when it comes to the legality of gay relationships, people should be given the right to be in a gay relationship if they wish. No one should be persecuted for who or what they are. Christian cultural principles, while I think should be advocated as a guide for society, should not be always enforced in legislation. I mean I don't want to outlaw adultery just because it's morally wrong.

What I was merely stating was that from going to a society of which didn't think this type of relationship was acceptable to open support and celebration has caused a conflict with more conservative cultures in the world, Islamic culture included. This has happened because Christian views about sexual relations has become a minority view in western culture. We, as Christians, have lost control of the culture and its changing into something not tempered with principles of the faith. The culture as a result is running away with itself with no breaks.

This of course is my own opinion on it and not necessarily true however.

The Catholic State of Eire wrote:Obviously I am not calling for any return to the past when it comes to the legality of gay relationships, people should be given the right to be in a gay relationship if they wish. No one should be persecuted for who or what they are. Christian cultural principles, while I think should be advocated as a guide for society, should not be always enforced in legislation. I mean I don't want to outlaw adultery just because it's morally wrong.

What I was merely stating was that from going to a society of which didn't think this type of relationship was acceptable to open support and celebration has caused a conflict with more conservative cultures in the world, Islamic culture included. This has happened because Christian views about sexual relations has become a minority view in western culture. We, as Christians, have lost control of the culture and its changing into something not tempered with principles of the faith. The culture as a result is running away with itself with no breaks.

This of course is my own opinion on it and not necessarily true however.

Yeah, the way I see it, is that because the majority of westerners are irreligious, and will probably not revert back to Christianity, in its traditional form, Muslims in the western world will probably be forced, to become more modern as well, to be accepted in the society, in the long term. I think they will have to accept it, or they will end up living in parallel societies instead, as the modern western world are not interested in adapting to their incompatible old fashioned mentality, just like the old fashioned Christian mentality, that looks down upon same-sex marriage, for instance.

"How dare they deny gay couples to marry? Right? That is so intolerant of them." "And is really fornication so bad? Isn't sex good for you? Healthy? Isn't lust a good thing?" Sorry, I just couldn't resist portraying the mindset of today's age :P

https://youtu.be/EC5rp7PJ8DQ - Frasier Crane Sex Show

Lutheran Commonwealth wrote:Yeah, the way I see it, is that because the majority of westerners are irreligious, and will probably not revert back to Christianity, in its traditional form, Muslims in the western world will probably be forced, to become more modern as well, to be accepted in the society, in the long term. I think they will have to accept it, or they will end up living in parallel societies instead, as the modern western world are not interested in adapting to their incompatible old fashioned mentality, just like the old fashioned Christian mentality, that looks down upon same-sex marriage, for instance.

"How dare they deny gay couples to marry? Right? That is so intolerant of them." "And is really fornication so bad? Isn't sex good for you? Healthy? Isn't lust a good thing?" Sorry, I just couldn't resist portraying the mindset of today's age :P

https://youtu.be/EC5rp7PJ8DQ - Frasier Crane Sex Show

It does appear that this secular culture will dominate for quite some time. I am however not sure if it will continue and it may just destroy itself. Its as I said before, neo-liberalism and individualism is destroying the cohesion of communities and it's bound to be only a matter of time before people will revert to more solid principles for the sake of community foundation.

The Catholic State of Eire wrote:It does appear that this secular culture will dominate for quite some time. I am however not sure if it will continue and it may just destroy itself. Its as I said before, neo-liberalism and individualism is destroying the cohesion of communities and it's bound to be only a matter of time before people will revert to more solid principles for the sake of community foundation.

I'm a bit more pessimistic, I'm afraid. But I hope you're right, of course. Nothing would be better than that.

Slavic lechia

The Catholic State of Eire wrote:It does appear that this secular culture will dominate for quite some time. I am however not sure if it will continue and it may just destroy itself. Its as I said before, neo-liberalism and individualism is destroying the cohesion of communities and it's bound to be only a matter of time before people will revert to more solid principles for the sake of community foundation.

Amd there come the "modern religions" to take place of the old ones. That are getting bigger every year significantly.

«12. . .2,0812,0822,0832,0842,0852,0862,087. . .2,1042,105»

Advertisement