weird I posted the above last night but when I turned on this morning and sent a few other posts and then opened this thread it was still there in draft..... but not posted... weird....
Really? It must be one of my favourite books at school. It's probably the translation that ruins it...
I had to read it as part of an Open University course called 'The Enlightenment' many years ago - I enjoyed it a lot. Like BB I don't think the quote comes from him - although it's probably what he would have thought. However Voltaire lived in a time in which any criticism from below could have ended in an indefinite period in the Bastille - and quite probably worse. Some of his material was originally written in German in order to avoid censorship in France, not sure about Candide. The quote itself should however not be taken as an excuse for an absolute free for all in terms of printed material. 'Rights' are always connected to responsibilities - and my feelings are that the media often forgets this. Charlie Hebdo have become part of the French establishment yet spend most of their time punching below ie. ridiculing, insulting and stereotyping groups which are already very marginalized in French society (I do not think Voltaire would have defended them !) - when printed material becomes incendiary,libelous or does not protect the feelings of individuals (eg. with close up pictures of disaster areas without any thought for the families of victims) then the government has not only the right, but also the duty, to intervene - which, however, they often lack the legal means to do. An example of this being material released on the internet of the policeman being shot - the French government had no means whereby they could stop this. There have to be some controls - and the question in my mind is `have Charlie Hebdo gone beyond the limits`. If they have then I cannot take up the call `freedom of speech`on their behalf.
I am sure that you know what I think about this http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...hs-primary-schools-10040375.html?icn=ticker-2
I'm actually with you on this - but probably for different reasons. I've never understood the British fascination for a hot meal in the middle of the day - as far as I'm concerned, schools shouldn't have to provide them, and they should be phased out altogether. The Australian system is much better IMO - parents are expected to supply a packed lunch or buy what is available from a parent-run school tuckshop, and hot meals don't feature on the price list - mainly healthy snacks. That way there'd be no arguments from parents about what their little darlings can or cannot eat for silly reasons.
Catching up with this conversation after some weeks of leaving it alone, and I'm led to several conclusions: 1) I was previously uncertain, but now I know for sure- you lot, or your descendants, will probably still be debating this when all the stars go out and collapse into a non dimensional black dot, and a wifely voice is heard to say "Did you remember to pull the plug out?" and a deep, rumbling voice is heard to reply, rather testily, "Yes dear, I'm omniscient, how could I forget?" 2) Now I know why religion is not a topic for debate in pubs. Or doorsteps. 3) Curses, Yorkie, you've given away my password, I'll have to change it now! PS I do have serious opinions, but I don't think expressing them on here is going to change a thing or benefit anyone. I do agree with Leo that it is a fine thing that we can have the debate without name calling or worse, but I personally will return to my lurking duties, and may your God go with you, as someone used to say.
Good idea - if there were such a thing as God, after all that has happened in the world it may be better if he/she simply lurked instead of interfered.... please log in to view this image
I like the notion of a disinterested God....thou either shall or shall not kill, commit adultery etc....though I'm hard put to see what the point of such a God would be.
A theist believes in an omnipotent god or god that probably has scripture written by men about it, requires rituals and praying and ceremonies etc. The scripture leads to all sorts of problems of course.... A deist believes in a 'creator' or higher being of some such - a 'god' without the religion as it were. That is my understanding of the different meanings For example, Thomas Jefferson and many of those that signed the American Declaration of Independence were deists, not Christians which is why the First Amendment was written the way it was and why the religious right wing numbnuts in America are totally wrong about the founding fathers.
A friend on another site said, "It comes to something when you're glad that only one person died!" Says it all!
An odd kind of creator who would be disinterested ...why make something about which you do not care how it turns out?
You've obviously never tried to teach primary school kids how to cook or craft activities or read or write or.....
