I think religion has a huge influence on law making in ‘religious’ countries simply because it often governs the way that people think about situations. Indonesian people are very conservative in their outlook on life mainly because of Islam, which is the prediminant religion. This allows the state to continue to pass relatively conservative laws. Its changing as a more ‘wordly’ younger generation, informed by social media come through, but it will take time. However I think this applies to all religious countries - not just Islamic ones. Separating State and Religion is very important. However religion influences peoples thinking and the laws that get passed even by secular governments in these countries reflect that. I wouldn’t class the UK as a country where religion influences government now, mainly because the decline of religion in the UK, but historically that was the case and the religious content of the House of Lords just reflects that.
Not sure where you are going with Brunei because it is quite clear that the imposition of Sharia type laws in the penal code are based on the Sultan's interpretation of religion. The Sultan has even come out and called for stronger Islam at the same time as he announced the new laws, some of which will also apply to the non-Muslims living in the country. I hope that the other ASEAN countries will come out with strongly worded statements and actions against Brunei over this. I am also surprised how little press coverage has been given to the UK troops in there and how much pressure could be put on by threatening to remove these. As a supposedly all-inclusive employer it seems wrong that teh Britsh Army should be seen to be condoning these actions.
His beliefs are his business, he can believe what he wants. However, the ARU’s reputation is their business & he took to social media to post homophobic views. As with any employer / organisation, if in their opinion an employee / member has brought their organisation into disrepute with public pronouncements that are deemed unacceptable, then they are fully within their rights to remove them from their organisation. Does the punishment fit the crime is maybe he more salient point in this case, maybe an unreserved public apology as opposed to a weak attempt at justification might have saved his skin here.
There's a handful of bitter heathens on here...angry at the God they don't believe exists for the ****ty hand they feel they have been dealt They have far too much to prove to the rest of us it seems...must be insecure about their own beliefs.
What 'beliefs' have atheists got on that topic. You have faith in that book, others that have looked see it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The insecurity seems to be from those that need an imaginary friend and a book that takes away their personal obligation on how to behave.
Not really. It's more a question of the factual basis of a book some live their life by. If a God was involved in writing those books, it was to find who was free minded enough to plough their own path and spot the flaws in the books, and dispatch the book followers to hell.
My opinion has more factual basis than those that follow the books. If people want to demand the right to be offended and upset at criticism of their belief, it comes with my right to question it.
Atheists have a belief system too you boring old fart. Before you **** do you draw a smiley face on your hand? Just so that you can pretend you have a social life?
