Re: Dilemma for Mintball et al : Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:35 pm  

Standee wrote:

It was "sold" to us as an industry as an encouragement to make people move out of houses that are bigger than they need (we have elderly people in 3 bedroom houses who can only afford to live downstairs and heat two rooms, who would be better in other accomodation, if we had it) we now have properties with 2 bedrooms where separated couples can't take them, because both parents lose benefit because their child only spends 3 days a month with them. I don't disagree that we need to shift people around Social Housing so we're making best use, but UC/Benefit Cap/Welfare Reform is not achieving the outcomes it was supposed to, or the outcomes we where told it was meant to achieve. I had quite a public argument a fair few months ago with (Not Very Honourable) Shapps and then again (Even less Honourable and a rabbit in the headlights) Hopkins about their total lack of understanding and consultation with actual practitioners.

The Sin Bin know my base politics, but when I see what I see day to day I can say that it simply isn't working, and it's ruining lives (and destroying families)

The power of the PR Spin Doctor - at the start of this regime it was said that Ministers were sent away and told to come back with plans, any plans however extreme, to reduce their budgets, clearly the under-occupancy charge was one of these and its principal aim to cut the housing budget - you can't sell that to a public or to the printed media though but luckily in this case there was a much more compassionate-sounding side effect, "We'll release lots of larger houses because families can't get into them with pensioners blocking them", job done.

His problem with the clergy attacking poverty in the UK is that he cannot attack church leaders, or call them liars and misinformants, nor accuse them of dabbling unfairly in politics, not unless he wants to upset his own core supporters for the church of all denominations still have a firm grip on society and on government - have you ever known a PM not play along with the clergy, not attend religious functions, not bow their head to pray when a clergy tells them to - he can't attack these people and so he gives them an obtuse response "We're giving them hope" would be laughed out of The House at PMQ's.

Re: Dilemma for Mintball et al : Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:37 pm  

West Leeds Rhino wrote:

Religion has no place in politics.

How are you defining "politics" for the purpose of that statement?

Re: Dilemma for Mintball et al : Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:00 pm  

West Leeds Rhino wrote:

Religion has no place in politics. While I agree with them that the rich are getting richer and there are people who are struggling to survive, this doesn't mean that the government should give some free money away. There will always be people who prioritise smoking, drinking, gambling, etc over eating properly, no matter how much you give them to live on. Just because society seems to put a high value on the opinions of the clergy, doesn't mean they actually know what they are talking about.

On a related note, you can tell Cameron's not going hungry in that picture!

So are you suggesting that people who hold religious beliefs should be barred from public office and disenfrachised? Religion is a way of looking at the world and the relationship between people, the world and other people. If somebody holds religious beliefs it would be very difficult if not impossible for those beliefs not to influence their political views. Therefore there is possible way to divorce religion from politics without banning people who hold religious views from participating in our democratic system.

If you believe that this should be the case, then I would like to know why the opinions of a non-religious person are inherently superior to those of a religious person? Should a person really be disenfranchised just because they oppose the killing of children or military action abroad for example. There is no evidence that the political views of the non-religious are any better than those of the religious. Monotheistic religious beliefs have led to the Inquisition, Crusades and Jihand for sure. But then atheist beliefs have led to the Holocaust, World War 2, the Great Terror, the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution.

Re: Dilemma for Mintball et al : Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:18 pm  

David Titan wrote:

So are you suggesting that people who hold religious beliefs should be barred from public office and disenfrachised? Religion is a way of looking at the world and the relationship between people, the world and other people. If somebody holds religious beliefs it would be very difficult if not impossible for those beliefs not to influence their political views. Therefore there is possible way to divorce religion from politics without banning people who hold religious views from participating in our democratic system.

If you believe that this should be the case, then I would like to know why the opinions of a non-religious person are inherently superior to those of a religious person? Should a person really be disenfranchised just because they oppose the killing of children or military action abroad for example. There is no evidence that the political views of the non-religious are any better than those of the religious. Monotheistic religious beliefs have led to the Inquisition, Crusades and Jihand for sure. But then atheist beliefs have led to the Holocaust, World War 2, the Great Terror, the Gulag, the Cultural Revolution.

The Nazis were not atheist – including Hitler. And anti-semitism has long had a basis in ideas of Jews as 'Christ killers' – including in pre-war Germany.

Re: Dilemma for Mintball et al : Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:22 pm  

Christ the Jew, killed by Jews, surprised the Jewish are not anti semitic

Re: Dilemma for Mintball et al : Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:24 pm  

Surely politics concerns citizens (ie people)? Religion is also about people and Christianity, inter alia, arguably about decency and treating fellow citizens as one would to be treated as one would like to be treated oneself? I therefore believe that the Christian clergy should "interfere in politics" indeed I would suggest they would not be acting responsibly and in a Christian way if they didn't stand up for the poor and dispossesed. They should do so more vociferously in my opinion.

Re: Dilemma for Mintball et al : Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:25 pm  

Wire Yed wrote:

Christ the Jew, killed by Jews, surprised the Jewish are not anti semitic

One could argue that, given that the Semitic peoples are not just those descended from the Hebrew tribes, but also include those we know as the Palestinians, some are.

Re: Dilemma for Mintball et al : Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:43 pm  

Mintball wrote:

The Nazis were not atheist – including Hitler. And anti-semitism has long had a basis in ideas of Jews as 'Christ killers' – including in pre-war Germany.

Hitler did not hold religious views. He despised Christianity as a Jewish faith and was a believer in astrology and to some extent witchcraft - neither of which are religious beliefs.

German anti-semitism was not based on Jews as Christ killers. It was based on race, not faith, stemming from fashionable scientific theories of social darwinism, eugenics and racial classifications. The Jews were not sent to the gas chambers because they killed Christ, they were sent because they were believed to be racially inferior and therefore a burden on and a threat to the progress of the supposed aryan master race.

Re: Dilemma for Mintball et al : Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:54 pm  

David Titan wrote:

Yadda yadda yadda...... and to some extent witchcraft - neither of which are religious beliefs.

.

I think you'll find that witchcraft has long been referred to as 'The Old Religion'.

As accurate as ever Titan?

Time you changed that to 'Nonentity'.

Re: Dilemma for Mintball et al : Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:03 pm  

Son of Les wrote:

I think you'll find that witchcraft has long been referred to as 'The Old Religion'.

As accurate as ever Titan?

Time you changed that to 'Nonentity'.

Witchcraft does not demonstrate a coherent belief structure, encompassing socio-political matters for the individual and society, centered around a supernatural entity. It is just mumbo jumbo nonsense for the deranged and stupid.