Aggressive agenda?

[savedbygrace05]

Is it my imagination or has the UK witnessed an aggressive increase in the last 5 years (or so) from the following areas;

1. Secularists.

2. New athiests/humanists.

3. Homosexual lobby.

If so, why?

 

[Bish bash bosh]

Is it my imagination or has the UK witnessed an aggressive increase in the last 5 years (or so) from the following areas;

1. Secularists.

2. New athiests/humanists.

3. Homosexual lobby.

If so, why?

Because more and more people are `seeing the light.` When we talk in Unison we are a hell of a lot louder. At the moment I would suggest it's approaching a shout in another few years it will be vociferation. But not, never aggressive.

Bish

 

[savedbygrace05]

But not, never aggressive.

Bish

Unfortunately you are only speaking for yourself, where I am viewing it from it is very aggressive, and increasingly so!!

 

[Bish bash bosh]

Unfortunately you are only speaking for yourself, where I am viewing it from it is very aggressive, and increasingly so!!

Why what are you witnessing which urges you to make this claim?

Bish

 

[savedbygrace05]

Why what are you witnessing which urges you to make this claim?

Bish

Love and tolerance = hate and violence » Christian Voice UK

 

[non-religious]

The Catholic Care adoption agency is an interesting story. The link on the website went to an article in The Telegraph and it claimed that eleven Catholic adoption agencies have had to either cease to exist or cut allegiance with the Church in order to continue to gain funding. Catholic Care has been operating since 1863 and tried to get around the legislation, so as not to allow a homosexual couple to adopt from their agency. They were subsequently ruled against. So they now have to either cease doing the incredible work they do or go against the Catholic teaching and still receive funding.

This is a prime example of a worthy cause operating under the ruling of a Church and setting up shop, for only a specific section of the community. In other words, discriminating based upon their religious convictions. I can see why many Christians see it as an attack on the church, in that, people already know that if you're dealing with a faith based initiative, there are going to be certain proviso in place. However, it is unacceptable that an organisation can still discriminate against a homosexual couple. It is unlawful.

Having said that, is this not an instance where common sense could prevail? As unpalatable as it is, should we not recognize the fact that the Catholic Church has adopted a strong position on this and considering the work they (Catholic Care) are doing, should we not make an exception to the rule? I do appreciate how that can be construed as openly tolerating discrimination. It's a tough one and a shame specifically because of the work these organisations are doing.

 

[Bish bash bosh]

Love and tolerance = hate and violence » Christian Voice UK

Aaa, the tolerant Christian Voice edited by the wife beating Stephen Green.

Now there's an example you really shoudn't use.

Green's article claims: `In the United Kingdom, we have had similar homosexual violence against Christians...`

Such as????

Stephen Green rails against immorality as the voice of Christian Britan but in private he is a wife beater, says his former partner | Mail Online

Interesting that the very rag which rallies to the fundamentalist call should print something as damning regarding one of their champions.

Bish

 

[Miser]

Generally Brits dont tend to make a fuss, but I have noticed a marked rise in Atheist lobby, especially in academic circles. Perhaps the publicity of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens has something to do with it?

 

[Bish bash bosh]

Generally Brits dont tend to make a fuss, but I have noticed a marked rise in Atheist lobby, especially in academic circles. Perhaps the publicity of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens has something to do with it?

Dawkins has his own agenda, there are many liberal minded individuals among us with intrinsic altruistic values, who require no guidance/leadership in order to make up their own minds.

Bish

 

[Nabobalis]

I'm not sure what examples you have of aggressive.

If we are talking about Dawkins, he can be very aggressive when he talks to people.

 

[Cromulent]

I have no problem with "aggressive" secularism, just as I'm sure most American commenters would have had no problem with the "aggressive" War of Independence. Secularism is about the right to freedom of, and from religion. It is also about stopping much of the harm done by religion, such as outlawing female genital cutting, and forced marriages.

When things move to actively legislating against religion when it is not causing harm, then I'll fight that, but that is not secularism, that is oppressive atheism.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I'm not sure what examples you have of aggressive.

If we are talking about Dawkins, he can be very aggressive when he talks to people.

Interesting point, but is that not the standard of reasoning demanded by Oxford, that a person can logically support the point they are making?

I would say 'thank you for challenging opinions I have which may be mistaken, unless I can provide coherent reasons I will dump the beliefs I have and replace them with something better'.


A lot of public money has gone into Oxford and other British Universities and people there do make an effort to help the rest of the country.

As the holder until 2008 of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, Prof. Dawkins was obliged to help the public reach an awareness of science.


When challenged by the anti science Christian Fundamentalists one point RD made was to speculate what would happen if the point the Fundamentalists wanted of equal time was actually accepted. It would mean that if the Bible story of creation was taught for 15 minutes then the rest of the biology lessons for the entire year would be occupied by giving equal time to all the other myths.


I won't claim RD's beliefs are right, I'm just making the point that this ad hominem attack is not a valid one.

And that the difference between aggressive and rigorous needs to be clearly understood.

 

[savedbygrace05]

Time to reverse the trend...

"TV chef Delia Smith and prominent arts presenter Melvyn Bragg have both launched stinging attacks on atheism and secularism for trying to marginalise religion.

Delia Smith warned that “militant neo-Atheists and devout secularists” are attacking people of faith.

And Melvyn Bragg strongly criticised leading atheist Prof Richard Dawkins."


Delia Smith and Melvyn Bragg launch assault on atheism | News | The Christian Institute

 

[Bish bash bosh]

Time to reverse the trend...

"TV chef Delia Smith and prominent arts presenter Melvyn Bragg have both launched stinging attacks on atheism and secularism for trying to marginalise religion.

Delia Smith warned that “militant neo-Atheists and devout secularists” are attacking people of faith.

And Melvyn Bragg strongly criticised leading atheist Prof Richard Dawkins."


Delia Smith and Melvyn Bragg launch assault on atheism | News | The Christian Institute

Delia's just trying to cook up a storm.

 

[Paradoxum]

Would it be a bad thing if it were true? The older I get the more intolerant I become towards the existence of traditions and rules simply for their own sake. Tradition is only good if it promotes goodness, not oppression, discrimination and suffering. Why should I accept traditions and rules that reduce liberty and harm people.

Love people, not rules.

 

[Cromulent]

Would it be a bad thing if it were true? The older I get the more intolerant I become towards the existence of traditions and rules simply for their own sake. Tradition is only good if it promotes goodness, not oppression, discrimination and suffering. Why should I accept traditions and rules that reduce liberty and harm people.

Love people, not rules.

Yep, there are very very few instances where the "oppression" of christians extend any further than discontinuing their special privileges, like getting to decide what marriage should mean for everyone, or what sorts of contraceptio it's okay to teach kids about.

On the few occasions when things go a little too far, like banning crosses from the workplace (and even many cases of this are blown out of proportion), I will support the christian.

 

[non-religious]

[Paradoxum]Would it be a bad thing if it were true? The older I get the more intolerant I become towards the existence of traditions and rules simply for their own sake. Tradition is only good if it promotes goodness, not oppression, discrimination and suffering. Why should I accept traditions and rules that reduce liberty and harm people.

Love people, not rules.

 

[Nabobalis]

Delia's just trying to cook up a storm.

 

[underheaven]

Is it my imagination or has the UK witnessed an aggressive increase in the last 5 years (or so) from the following areas;

1. Secularists.

2. New athiests/humanists.

3. Homosexual lobby.

If so, why?

Well here is what I think.
We are at the end of an astronical cycle of 26,000 years.
In revelation we are told to expect negative things at the end as those who have turned their
backs on God begin to decay.

There are ,have been within those years many other smaller cycles,and cultures have risen ,
and fallen. They always fall because of sin ,especially sexual depravity,which in turn brings
the rest down with it.
Jesus came in the last Age [Omega] to bring us to completion [of our evolution] of our
spiritual selves.
Those who accept His gift will go into an eternal cycle with Him,and the rest will be left
behind in a 'dying world'.
Gift of Jesus,through the Father and the Holy Spirit.
I agree with many who think that the aggressively religious,are usually counter
productive . However everyone is free to believe what they want nowadays ,and
the society of the future will depend on the choices made 'freely'
When you will suffer negative 'karma' there will be no church to blame,no
oppressive govenment,no lack of knowledge to blame,and you will be ENTIRELY
responsible for what happens to you.
The laws of karma [the laws of God] are inexorable,you cannot avoid them.

 

[underheaven]

Would it be a bad thing if it were true? The older I get the more intolerant I become towards the existence of traditions and rules simply for their own sake. Tradition is only good if it promotes goodness, not oppression, discrimination and suffering. Why should I accept traditions and rules that reduce liberty and harm people.

Love people, not rules.

In the end only the Creator can judge,as only He can SEE all things.
As I have said elsewhere.There are laws of human relationship,as strict
as any other laws, for the planets etc.
A lot of damage is done by 'rulers' who do not understand profoundly enough
themselves,who ask people just to acccept, not to question,not even to discuss.
A good teacher inspires,directs ,but does not dictate.
But then the EXAMS come.