Off Topic Political Debate

If you say that you could break the law because of Christian beliefs, you might have trouble with Mark, who reported, "“Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s." He didn't say provide an option to agree or disagree with Caesar.

 

And render to God the things which are his - which left very little for Caeser as this included all land (ie. everything which did not have the head of Caeser on it). All religions have their ecquivalents of the 10 commandments and some have many more and where a person is torn between those of his land and those of his religion then the latter has priority - the Quakers were breaking the existing laws when they had expeditions into the Southern States to free slaves. They were also breaking the 'laws' when they refused to take oaths - the fact that the legal category 'conscientious objector' exists now in law is because of them.

 

That is why the UK rule of law should be above all religion. We cannot have minorities deciding which laws to obey, i.e. sharia law should have no legal basis whatsoever in the UK.

 

There is no such thing as a complete separation of religion and the state, or at least this is only possible in a country where the majority of people are non believers. The role of the state in a country where the majority are religious (or are multi religious) is to create laws which do not force those who are religious into a potential conflict situation. The Sharia laws are not contained within the Khoran but rather are interpretations based upon the Haditha written over 200 years later - there is nothing in the Khoran about covering the heads of women (or a great many other things) and the laws there regarding interest are no different to those from the Bible.

 

The majority of people in the UK could be classed as non believers.

 

Not on this forum though - we all believe in Iggy and Troy....

 

Isn't that rather twisted. Surely the role of the state is to draft laws that allow people of all faiths to practice their chosen religion as long as it does not break the laws of that state. It does not matter about majorities or the type of religion, that should be the baseline. Otherwise, we risk what goes on in other countries, where other religions are banned purely because they are other religions. Problem with framing "laws" based on religion and fairy tales from 1,000's of years ago is people interrupt them as they choose - on a phone in on 5-Live a few weeks ago a women was insistent that wearing a full head cover was proscribed in the Khoran, so she was just obeying this.

 

w_y. I am not advocating a religious state here - I simply answered the question of exactly when I could imagine breaking the law myself. If I did I would be punished for it - but I would not consider myself as 'guilty' in that sense. Many of the people who joined campaigns against slavery in the past, or for votes for women, ethnic minorities etc. did so for religious reasons and were prepared to break existing laws and be punished for it. If it was possible then it is also possible now because our society has not moved on so far that there is no longer room for improvement.

 

Fair comment.

In relation to law , law is changeable and can in no sense be said to be an ulitmate reference point

I am involved to some degree with Tibetan refugees in India... and I can say that how China operates its laws in Tibet is awful. A Tibetan can be imprisoned for years ... which involves beatings, torture and hard labour, man or woman, for having a Tibetan flag or a photo of the Dalai Lama.

China has stooges who operate its laws in Tibet and then use the full force of the army against people who protest in any way... accusing them of treason or 'splittism'

There are many examples, too, of non-violent law breaking .. Gandhi for example against the British rule.

The law is the law.. .that does not mean it is right or true or god-given. People have a right to protest or act at against inhumane laws in my view.. They may choose to do so particularly where the Government whatever form it takes does not act in their interests.


That is not to condone violent behaviour which is a different debate.

 

As we are used to hearing the church criticised for 'meddling in politics`- occasionally on these boards - what about the Army ? Can we tolerate a tinpot General (meaning Nicholas Houghton) expressing political opinions over the media just like in the finest military junta - are we perhaps in Chile or Argentina ? What so many people appear to ignore is that pinning security upon a nuclear deterrent encourages others to do the same. Makes us a potential target in a 'first strike' scenario. Increases the possibility of an accident of unprecedented proportions. In addition diverts attention (and money) away from other more urgent security problems (including those of climate change). And finally is useless against any terrorist activities. Why is Corbyn being constantly attacked for saying that he would not press the button - when, in fact, there is no button in the direct sense - and to do so he would be going against all of his previous beliefs. Even Thatcher said that she would have hesitated before taking this step.

 

An expensive nuclear deterrent is rendered useless if a misguided pacifist has any authority whatsoever. Putin will be encouraged to send over more funds to finance more spotty faced activists. Fortunately the overwhelming number of sensible traditional Labour voters will out this fool before he can do too much damage.

The general has every right to warn of potential threats to the UK's security.

 

I must say it would be a 'fool' to press a nuclear button. A sorry state humanity has got to if we class pacifists as fools.

Can we not discuss the issues freely here?

The nuclear threat is a very expensive red herring sadly. Humanity as a whole has to deal with it.

What does this massive investment actually achieve? How does it benefit our country?

 

Amazing that I live here in a country which does not have nuclear weapons, just like over 95% of the countries in our World yet do not wake up shivering with fear every day at the consequences ! In fact my greater fear is that some nuclear plant will have an accident in either the UK or France and we will get the fallout from it. Generals expressing political opinions is something which happens under military juntas but has no place in a democracy. Also, you are being very non PC. about spotty people here.

 

I must admit I fail to see the point in maintaining such an expensive "deterrent". If we get attacked I suspect it would be by a complete nutter who isn't going to worry too much about whether or not we fire one back. On that basis I hionestly think we'd be as safe without it as we are with it.

 

You well know that Germany is protected by Nato with countries like the USA and Britain taking the financial strain. Germany may well have been overrun by the soviets after WW2 if foreign troops had not defended it.

A recent survey in Germany showed the majority would be against their country using military means to defend a Nato ally against Russian aggression. The German public assumes the USA would step in to defend a Nato partner under such circumstances.

Is it no surprise the Germans are the most disliked in Europe.

 

Could you please supply details of this so called 'survey', because I am aware of no such thing. The only party in Germany wanting to leave NATO is 'Die Linke', who command about 10% of the popular vote here. Germany takes an active part in all NATO actions. With regard to your last point about being disliked (where you also, conveniently, provide no evidence) - it may have been so once but for quite other reasons, and may now have more to do with the insistence upon 'austerity' measures in Southern Europe than anything else. Also - your apparent paranoia about Putin and Russia. Now I do not think that Putin is a saint, but you could also ask whether Russia's politics may not be a direct reaction against NATO's eastward expansions - in which case, who is the aggressor ?

 

Was there a survey on this? I'm a bit hacked off not to be asked to participate

 

By whom?