Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread

[Orwell]

Why not just do this. Without proof, everything is just conspiracy theory. No need to kill people and draw attention. There are so many weird and wonderful allegations - no doubt some are true, but surely not all of them - made against governments, why not just go as I said? If I was a petty tyrant or something, that's how I'd play it.

[Gandalf's Beard]

Just watched Tony Blair being interviewed on BBC breakfast news. At the end of the conversation the subject of the death of Dr Kelly was brought up (he was the whislteblower about the dodgyness of the Iraq documents claiming there were weapons of mass destruction there, he turned up dead from an apparent suicide. There was an enquiry which decided it was suicide, but there is a lot of questions about it including why the report sealed the coroners results and other details for 50 years. Blair's reply was that there had already been an inquiry, he saw no reason for there to be another. Soon the decision will be made if there is enough questions to warrant another investigation or not. Pressed on whether or not he thought the first one answered all the questions he replied "Yes, as far as I know. Unless he (the Judge deciding if it needs reopened) knows something I don't. Which he might." Odd answer. What could there be that as PM he would not have known? Or can our secret service act without the PM's consent? Is that what he is hinting at?

That "suicide" was actually a fairly obvious homicide. The question you should pose is "can the PM act without the secret service's consent?"

[Pettytyrant101]

Of all the conspiracy stuff surrounding Iraq his suicide is by far the most obviously dodgy one. This particluar fight to get to the bottom of it has not been led by conspiratory theorists but by MP's, medical experts and legal people who have all found severe faults with the orginal investigation.

On a different note the Archbishop of Cantebury has been having a pop at the colation government;

Talking specifically about the government's key health and education policies, he said they were being introduced at a "remarkable speed".
"At the very least, there is an understandable anxiety about what democracy means in such a context," he said.
In a wide-ranging attack, he accused the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition of creating "anxiety and anger" in the country by introducing reforms without sufficient debate.
Dr Williams was critical of Prime Minister David Cameron's flagship Big Society initiative, which aims to shrink the state and hand more control of services to volunteer groups, describing it as a "stale" slogan, viewed as an "opportunistic" cover for spending cuts.
The archbishop's article also said there was concern that the government would abandon its responsibility for tackling child poverty, illiteracy and poor access to the best schools.
"Government badly needs to hear just how much plain fear there is around questions such as these at present," he said.
He also criticised the government's welfare reforms, complaining of a "quiet resurgence of the seductive language of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor" and the steady pressure to increase "what look like punitive responses to alleged abuses of the system".


Much as i don't approve of religous leaders making political statements I think his last point in particular about a "quiet resurgence of the seductive language of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor" is an important one.

edit add- also good to see that Camerons claim for the period of austerity- that we are "All in it together" is proving so well founded (not);

Peers claimed more than £6m of expenses between October and December 2010, according to new figures.
Among those paid were Lord Taylor of Warwick and Lord Hanningfield - both of whom have since been convicted of expenses fraud.

Obviously tightning their belts, only roughly £24m a year in expenses they will cost us before wages, I'm sure they are worth it!

[Gandalf's Beard]

Of all the conspiracy stuff surrounding Iraq his suicide is by far the most obviously dodgy one. This particluar fight to get to the bottom of it has not been led by conspiratory theorists but by MP's, medical experts and legal people who have all found severe faults with the orginal investigation.

On a different note the Archbishop of Cantebury has been having a pop at the colation government;

Talking specifically about the government's key health and education policies, he said they were being introduced at a "remarkable speed".
"At the very least, there is an understandable anxiety about what democracy means in such a context," he said.
In a wide-ranging attack, he accused the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition of creating "anxiety and anger" in the country by introducing reforms without sufficient debate.
Dr Williams was critical of Prime Minister David Cameron's flagship Big Society initiative, which aims to shrink the state and hand more control of services to volunteer groups, describing it as a "stale" slogan, viewed as an "opportunistic" cover for spending cuts.
The archbishop's article also said there was concern that the government would abandon its responsibility for tackling child poverty, illiteracy and poor access to the best schools.
"Government badly needs to hear just how much plain fear there is around questions such as these at present," he said.
He also criticised the government's welfare reforms, complaining of a "quiet resurgence of the seductive language of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor" and the steady pressure to increase "what look like punitive responses to alleged abuses of the system".


Much as i don't approve of religous leaders making political statements I think his last point in particular about a "quiet resurgence of the seductive language of 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor" is an important one.

Theists aren't all raving reactionary nutters. Catholics and Anglicans tend to take the Social Gospels more seriously than Revelation (which Protestants tend towards taking more seriously), which leads to very Progressive thinking. Catholic Clergy in Latin America promoted Liberation Theology, which got them targeted by US Sponsored Right Wing Death Squads. Off the top of my head, I can't remember her name, but there was US Catholic woman in the late 1800s that founded an Anarchist Workers Coop and a publication which I believe is still published to this day.

Many African American Ministers, Reverends, and Pastors openly promote Liberation Theology (but they are too high profile to take out en masse). Sticking up for the poor, and people's rights in general have always been supported by Liberal and Left Clergy. Some of the most influential abolitionists were Christian.

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

More on Dr Kelly from the BBc news pages;

Dr Kelly's body was found in 2003 near his Oxfordshire home after he was exposed as the source of a BBC story on the grounds for going to war in Iraq.
Instead of a coroner's inquest, then Prime Minister Tony Blair asked Lord Hutton to conduct an investigation, which found Dr Kelly committed suicide.
Lord Hutton's inquiry found the 59-year-old died from blood loss after slashing his wrist with a blunt gardening knife.
Dr Michael Powers QC, a former coroner, is unconvinced Dr Kelly committed suicide
The letter's signatories include a former coroner, Michael Powers, a former deputy coroner, Margaret Bloom, and Julian Bion, a professor of intensive care medicine.
They say Lord Hutton's conclusion is unsafe. They argue that a severed ulnar artery, the wound found to Dr Kelly's wrist, was unlikely to be life-threatening unless an individual had a blood-clotting deficiency.
"Insufficient blood would have been lost to threaten life," they write.
"Absent a quantitative assessment of the blood lost and of the blood remaining in the great vessels, the conclusion that death occurred as a consequence of haemorrhage is unsafe."


GB if a child sticks there hand in a fire and it burns they learn not to do it again. History and the present day as given countless examples of what happens when religions get political reigns- I'd rather err on the side of caution on this one myself, they can stick to peddling myths.

[Gandalf's Beard]

GB if a child sticks there hand in a fire and it burns they learn not to do it again. History and the present day as given countless examples of what happens when religions get political reigns- I'd rather err on the side of caution on this one myself, they can stick to peddling myths.

I think you are missing my point a bit. Reactionary religious groups should never be let near politics, they are Theocrats the lot. But i am perfectly happy with the Progressive clergy that promote democracy, civil rights, and socialism. Which is why the Conservative leadership of the Catholic Church is always trying to excommunicate them. Anglicans in the UK also tend towards Progressivism. Those types of theists are not theocrats.

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

I don't think I'm missing th epoint. I just don't trust it! It never seems to take long once they get political power for Progressive Clergy to become Theocratic clergy. It just to much condensed authority. Its one thing to claim a mandate form the pople, thats contestable, but if you claim your mandate from a God, and further only a God you the ruling group can interpret for the masses then society is right up s**t creek without a paddle.
I wouldn't trust your Progressive lot once in power in the slightest. The chances of them not succumbing to using the power of religion to get their way is very slim I feel.

[Gandalf's Beard]

I don't think I'm missing th epoint. I just don't trust it! It never seems to take long once they get political power for Progressive Clergy to become Theocratic clergy. It just to much condensed authority. Its one thing to claim a mandate form the pople, thats contestable, but if you claim your mandate from a God, and further only a God you the ruling group can interpret for the masses then society is right up s**t creek without a paddle.
I wouldn't trust your Progressive lot once in power in the slightest. The chances of them not succumbing to using the power of religion to get their way is very slim I feel.

That's what I mean about missing the point! They aren't seeking power, they speak out against power; even the power of their own religious authorities. They are largely Civil Libertarians who promote Secularism and democracy. Martin Luther King is the perfect example of what I'm on about. he was assassinated not for his stance on integration, but because of his increasingly "radical" message, which challenged the whole system of Corporate Authoritarianism.

GB

[Orwell]

I don't trust anyone. Not when they're in power. But I doubly distrust religious zealots of all stamps. I'm with Petty on this. (Ideologues of any stamp, actually - don't trust 'em. May have said this before somewhere).

[Gandalf's Beard]

I don't trust anyone. Not when they're in power. But I doubly distrust religious zealots of all stamps. I'm with Petty on this. (Ideologues of any stamp, actually - don't trust 'em. May have said this before somewhere).

Still missing the point!

GB

[Orwell]

Untrustworthy - sectarians - what other point do you make?

[Pettytyrant101]

"That's what I mean about missing the point! They aren't seeking power, they speak out against power; even the power of their own religious authorities. "- GB

Yes of course they speak out against power- they aren't in power. Nothing new there, groups contesting a ruling group often speak out against abuses of power. And it all sounds jolly nice, but if they actually do get in power it never seems long in any religous body for those with more theocratic tendencies to float to the top. As I say I don't trust them. State and religion should be seperate.
For example if the Archbishop were to find himself in powerin the UK I'd give it 5 years max before he was replaced by someone less liberal. And that person too would be replaced by someone even less liberal than him until eventually you have government run by God (through His choosen party of course)- and He has proved spectacularly rubbish at being in charge of countries!

[Pettytyrant101]

I see all of Sarah Palins e-mails from her time as Govenor in Alaska are to be released today- should make interesting reading!

[Gandalf's Beard]

I may have briefly mentioned Weinergate, the savaging of a Democratic Congressman whose sexting scandal barely deserves the histrionics surrounding it.

But a far more important issue has arisen, which I am dubbing Weinergate II. Originally I had written off this matter as fairly trivial in the larger scheme of things, but I changed my mind when I realized how serious the ramifications of this issue were. At stake is the Mutilation of a Non-Consenting Person's Genitals vs so-called "Religious Freedom." Spurious and unsupported claims of anti-Semitism has been leveled at those who believe Human Rights and Rule of Law trumps "Religious Freedom."

I am going to do something a bit new here, and instead of copying and pasting the arguments from other forums, i will directly link you to the thread.

It is only 3 pages of posts at the moment, and it isn't necessary to read any posts but mine, as I quote the posts I am responding to in their entirety. After you finish reading through the arguments, I welcome your own thoughts on the matter.

http://www.leakylounge.com/index.php?showtopic=74086&st=0

GB

[odo banks]

Aha! At least I know where you're spending most your time nowadays, GB! Trying to stop people cutting off bits of other people's anatomies - and without permission, hey! Yes, ban it I say. Pointless practice. Not sure how cruel though. I can't remember losing my bit. (Orwell's dead against. "No son of mine," he bawled years and years ago, almost sixteen years in fact. Has his own ideological side, you know. )

Btw is "Jew" a racial term or a religious term?

[Gandalf's Beard]

While you read through the thread I linked to, a new threat has emerged that sets a dangerous precedent that is certain to rebound on NATO countries.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/06/09/libya.gadhafi/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

[Gandalf's Beard]

Aha! At least I know where you're spending most your time nowadays, GB! Trying to stop people cutting off bits of other people's anatomies - and without permission, hey! Yes, ban it I say. Pointless practice. Not sure how cruel though. I can't remember losing my bit. (Orwell's dead against. "No son of mine," he bawled years and years ago, almost sixteen years in fact. Has his own ideological side, you know. )

Btw is "Jew" a racial term or a religious term?

It depends who is using the term Jew, and the context they use it in.

Actually, the thread I linked to is the only one on that forum I participate in. Nowadays, I have more important things to discuss than whether Jackson is going to screw up The Hobbit. Which is why this thread is now my default thread for this forum (with occasional stops at the Dr Who Thread and the Youtube Thread.

The other forum I am spending a lot of time at is the JREF forum, where mostly I club Christian Fanatics (and AA fanatics) over the head with there own Bibles.

GB

[Pettytyrant101]

I had a read GB. There is a degree of dancing on the head of a pin about a lot of it I felt but for what its worth heres my thoughts on the subject of circumcision. (And I can't say its something I've previously given any thought to).

As a general rule I am against any doctorination of children, including baptism so its no suprise I don't approve. God, the existence or non existence of one should be something decided as an adult. A child has neither the understanding nor the capacity to determine fact from fiction (witness Santa Claus who bares much in common with God in a broad sense, rewards the good, punishes the bad, watches you all year to see which you are being). To expect a child to make the decison that there is a God is ludicrous. To expect a child to mak a decsion which will affect their body for life seems even more absurd and to do it to a baby who has no means of comprehension seems immoral to me. By all means a child can be brought up within a religon and within its religous framework, of course, that's only human. But the choice to be a full member of that belief system should only be made once adulthood is reached (as defined by the laws of the land) and only at such a time should any indoctrination ceremonies take place, including those such as circumcion.
And for so long as the indoctrination ceremony carries no health issues or breaks any exisiting laws of a scoiety I couldn't care what they do. Paint themselves blue or even remove some part of their anatomy that is not in the strictest sense 'needed'. It wouldn't be me but I have no desire to stop anyone else so long as they are an adult making the choice. Chopping bits of a non consenting baby or child on the otherhand seems both ethically amiss to me and cruel (but that last is a personnal view I suppose).

[Pettytyrant101]

On the Gadaffi thing GB are you saying you think he should be left alone?

[Orwell]

I guess if babies are born evil they need circumcision to make them sinless before God. I suppose this purifies them until they start having their own thoughts, when sin obviously seeps in. Then they can choose God. It's those formative years before independant thoughts takes off that must, apparently, be God-protected! (What does God do with the "bits" by the way?) (Now I'm thinking how much it sounds a "magical" practice. Something a Shaman or Witch Doctor might do to children. Like cutting up Albino children for their "magical" bits. Do God/s always believe in magic? )

[Pettytyrant101]

If you take it from a complete outsider point, say an alien visiting it all seems completely insane.
"Hello human, what are doing today?"
"I'm going to cut the foreskin off this baby"
"Oh, why what's wrong with it."
"Nothing, God told me I have to do it."
"Why?"
"As as sign of our covenant with Him."
"What does he want the foreskin for?"
"Nothing. He doesn't use it for anything its just a sign."
"I'd like to talk this God chap is he about??"
"Oh yes he's everywhere. But he's invisible."
"Ookay! How do you know he's real at all then?"
"I have faith."
"Whats faith?"
"Its believing in someting without any evidence for it."
"Umm, would it not be better to believe in stuff for which there is evidence?"
"Oh no. Faith shows to God that despite everything I believe in him and when I die I will be rewarded for that."
"After your dead?"
"Yes."
"Right. So let me get this straight. You are cutting the foreskin of a child in order to prove to a God you can't prove exists that you think he does exist and in doing so once you are dead he will reward you for it?" "More or less, yes."
"I'll just be over there, in that space ship, flying away very fast."

This is why noone visits our planet you know!

[Orwell]

I didn't know you believed in aliens, Petty!

[Pettytyrant101]

Yes, ever since that time I saw one having a fight with Nessie. That was some night!

[Orwell]

At least you base your beliefs on the evidence of your own eyes! (It wasn't your inner eye you were using, were you? )

[Pettytyrant101]

Just my buckie eyes.