Heartland

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/fro ... 75203.html

presented without further comment...

Worst of all is that those 'catholics' that signed her death sentence will probably see it as the will of god and lessons might not been learned... extremely sad this whole thing.

Why the 'scare-quotes' around 'catholics'? It's precisely because of Roman Catholic teaching that Savita Halappanavar is dead.

Not every catholic would have done the same. It's not a b/w world.

True enough. A few people have been excommunicated for going against the church's teachings on this,

Example

Still, a choice between saving a woman's life (and being excommunicated) and doing nothing seems to me to be a no-brainer.

radiojamaica wrote:Worst of all is that those 'catholics' that signed her death sentence will probably see it as the will of god

Flesh-and-blood is weak and frail,
Susceptible to nervous shock;
While the True Church can never fail
For it is based upon a rock.

(http://www.poetry-archive.com/e/the_hippopotamus.html)

The PCC elections cost the UK taxpayer £100 million. They created 41 jobs, paying £65-100K per annum each.

I don'#t know about you, but I think I could have created a lot more jobs given £100 million to invest.

radiojamaica wrote:Not every catholic would have done the same. It's not a b/w world.

Entirely agree.
But those who did it, fill me with utter disgust ...
and one thing is for sure - these people do live in a b/w world,
and they take the liberty to force it upon everyone within their reach
without thinking, without mercy, without the least bit of respect ... ...

R.I.P., Savita Halappanavar (31) ... ... my thoughts are with you and your family ... ...

lazarus corporation wrote:
I don'#t know about you, but I think I could have created a lot more jobs given £100 million to invest.

Yep.
& still have some left over for a "team building" weekend.

lazarus corporation wrote:The PCC elections cost the UK taxpayer £100 million. They created 41 jobs, paying £65-100K per annum each.

I don'#t know about you, but I think I could have created a lot more jobs given £100 million to invest.

Totally agreed. However I still voted. There were rumours (I think unfounded) that the independent candidate in West Yorkshire was a BNP front.

Absurdly, the government is claiming that despite the ~12% turnout nationally, that the PCCs will have "a mandate" from the people.

markfiend wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:The PCC elections cost the UK taxpayer £100 million. They created 41 jobs, paying £65-100K per annum each.

I don'#t know about you, but I think I could have created a lot more jobs given £100 million to invest.

Totally agreed. However I still voted. There were rumours (I think unfounded) that the independent candidate in West Yorkshire was a BNP front.

Absurdly, the government is claiming that despite the ~12% turnout nationally, that the PCCs will have "a mandate" from the people.

Yeah, I still voted (for similar reasons - there was a UKIP candidate standing in Sussex and I wanted to vote against him), but it was the first ever occasion where I've seriously thought about not voting.

In Sussex the winning candidate got 31% of a 13% turnout, which means that 4% of the people of Sussex voted for them. Only in the mind of a politician is support from 4% of the people a mandate.

lazarus corporation wrote:The PCC elections cost the UK taxpayer £100 million. They created 41 jobs, paying £65-100K per annum each.

I don'#t know about you, but I think I could have created a lot more jobs given £100 million to invest.

Chicken feed, if you think about it. £350 million will go in aid to India which they aren't even that keen on having. £5 billion goes to keeping the pointless organisation that is the UN solvent. I believe our EU contributions are going up very soon as well, standing at a gross of about £18 billion.
The Regional Assemblies that Prescott introduced cost £20 million yearly. They were suppossed to be elected, but when the North-East voted "No" to having one at all they installed them anyway. The Scottish Parliament building cost £431 million and is the most fecking ugly building outside Australia.

DeWinter wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:The PCC elections cost the UK taxpayer £100 million. They created 41 jobs, paying £65-100K per annum each.

I don'#t know about you, but I think I could have created a lot more jobs given £100 million to invest.

Chicken feed, if you think about it. £350 million will go in aid to India which they aren't even that keen on having. £5 billion goes to keeping the pointless organisation that is the UN solvent. I believe our EU contributions are going up very soon as well, standing at a gross of about £18 billion.
The Regional Assemblies that Prescott introduced cost £20 million yearly. They were suppossed to be elected, but when the North-East voted "No" to having one at all they installed them anyway. The Scottish Parliament building cost £431 million and is the most fecking ugly building outside Australia.

...and you've not even mentioned the cost of the war in Afghanistan

DeWinter wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:The PCC elections cost the UK taxpayer £100 million. They created 41 jobs, paying £65-100K per annum each.

I don'#t know about you, but I think I could have created a lot more jobs given £100 million to invest.

Chicken feed, if you think about it. £350 million will go in aid to India which they aren't even that keen on having. £5 billion goes to keeping the pointless organisation that is the UN solvent. I believe our EU contributions are going up very soon as well, standing at a gross of about £18 billion.
The Regional Assemblies that Prescott introduced cost £20 million yearly. They were suppossed to be elected, but when the North-East voted "No" to having one at all they installed them anyway. The Scottish Parliament building cost £431 million and is the most fecking ugly building outside Australia.

It may be chicken feed in the grand scheme of things, but it could have created/saved many thousands of jobs if properly spent.

Alternatively the government could always transfer this "chicken feed" into my bank account, if it's so inconsequential.

So, women bishops:

I'm an atheist, so I don't particularly care how sexist/homophobic/just plain stupid any particular cult/religion is, so long as they don't bother anyone else with their insanity. So why should I give a damn if the Church of England decides that sexism is divine?

Simply because women are banned from 26 positions in one of the UK's Houses of Parliament, governing the secular life of the people of the UK - the 26 seats in the House of Lords reserved for Bishops from the CoE.

As an atheist I also realise I have no say in how particular religions or cults organise themselves - whether they are sexist or not. But I can legitimately protest that the UK's supreme legislative body has 26 male-only roles, since the legislative body of the UK is part of the secular state.

So I'd like the state to remove the 26 seats in the House of Lords that are given to the male-only Bishops. No sexist organisation has any role in the UK's supreme legislative body.

That Awkward Moment When a Creationist Gets Outwitted by a Sixth Grader

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... th-grader/

I always find atheists hard to like as a group, despite being one. Too much of their debate seems to be finding the most imbecilic or out of their depth creationists and just sneering. I would have quite liked to see Stephen Fry take on Peter Hitchens rather than poor Anne Widdecombe. I suspect Fry would have got slaughtered.

DeWinter wrote:I always find atheists hard to like as a group, despite being one. Too much of their debate seems to be finding the most imbecilic or out of their depth creationists and just sneering. I would have quite liked to see Stephen Fry take on Peter Hitchens rather than poor Anne Widdecombe. I suspect Fry would have got slaughtered.

Ditto. The so-called New Atheists are just as dogmatic as any fundamentalist you care to name. How is pointing at people and sneering "anti-science!" any different from point at people and sneering "sinner!"?

I liked and respected Hitchens, but I think that he--like most of these contemporary atheists--is very out of his philosophical depth on these issues. The same, by the way, goes for most of the people who they are debating. Neither the atheists nor the theists are putting the varsity team on the field. Hitchens vs. D'Souza? I'd prefer Spinoza vs. Aquinas.

I miss Hitchens, though...

What do you think of Dawkins?

DeWinter wrote:I always find atheists hard to like as a group, despite being one.

They're impossible to like as a group because they're not a "group".

Apart from not believing in any gods/goddesses/etc, they have no shared value system, no shared personal characteristics, etc.

So it's pretty much impossible to either like or dislike a completely disparate miscellany of individuals with no shared characteristics.

The same applies to, for example, Christians (despite supposedly sharing a value system) - I think it's impossible to either like or dislike them as a group because they're all different, sharing some completely different - sometimes contradictory - interpretations of a value system.

Did you perhaps mean "I always find the 4 or 5 rent-a-quote atheists who appear in the press regularly promoting atheism (or themselves) hard to like, regardless of being an atheist myself."?

DeWinter wrote:Too much of their debate seems to be finding the most imbecilic or out of their depth creationists and just sneering.

I don't think they go out of their way to find them, anymore than why the "imbecilic or out of their depth creationists" always go out of their way to pick public fights with the likes of Hitchens/Dawkins.etc.

I think it's more of a case that either:

(a) some media organisation picks the two debaters, choosing the most visible figures (read: out-spoken and extreme nutters) from either side, as this makes "more exciting television" (because that's how TV works), or

(b) it's simply a fact that the type of person who wants to shout very publicly on TV about religion (or any subject) is likely to be an arrogant, polarised, extreme nutter (cf. "the only people who become politicians are the power-hungry extroverts who shouldn't become politicians")

Simply put, the "average Christian" and the "average atheist" don't get put on TV to fight it out because they're not interested in doing so and if they did it wouldn't make very exciting TV in the minds of TV executives. Only the imbecilic creationists and the "fundamentalist atheists" (to coin a phrase) are interested in taking part in televised dick-waving contests.

SINsister wrote:I miss Hitchens, though...

What do you think of Dawkins?

I'm sure he's a very fine scientist.

sultan2075 wrote:How is pointing at people and sneering "anti-science!" any different from point at people and sneering "sinner!"?

Well... for one thing, while it might not be polite, it's probably true.

@ Lazcorp ('cos quoting the missive in its entirety, though apropos, would be downright obnoxious on my part):

lazarus corporation wrote: They're impossible to like as a group because they're not a "group".

Apart from not believing in any gods/goddesses/etc, they have no shared value system, no shared personal characteristics, etc.

So it's pretty much impossible to either like or dislike a completely disparate miscellany of individuals with no shared characteristics.

The same applies to, for example, Christians (despite supposedly sharing a value system) - I think it's impossible to either like or dislike them as a group because they're all different, sharing some completely different - sometimes contradictory - interpretations of a value system.

Did you perhaps mean "I always find the 4 or 5 rent-a-quote atheists who appear in the press regularly promoting atheism (or themselves) hard to like, regardless of being an atheist myself."?
I don't think they go out of their way to find them, anymore than why the "imbecilic or out of their depth creationists" always go out of their way to pick public fights with the likes of Hitchens/Dawkins.etc.

I think it's more of a case that either:

(a) some media organisation picks the two debaters, choosing the most visible figures (read: out-spoken and extreme nutters) from either side, as this makes "more exciting television" (because that's how TV works), or

(b) it's simply a fact that the type of person who wants to shout very publicly on TV about religion (or any subject) is likely to be an arrogant, polarised, extreme nutter (cf. "the only people who become politicians are the power-hungry extroverts who shouldn't become politicians")

Simply put, the "average Christian" and the "average atheist" don't get put on TV to fight it out because they're not interested in doing so and if they did it wouldn't make very exciting TV in the minds of TV executives. Only the imbecilic creationists and the "fundamentalist atheists" (to coin a phrase) are interested in taking part in televised dick-waving contests.

Despite currently having a boyfriend I loathe the gay community with great intensity because many share characteristics I don't like (an inability to keep their knickers on and the affected manners and behaviour of an air-headed teenage Valley Girl) . The atheists I've met seem to share arrogance, sneering and a belief that religous belief is a fair target regardless of social situation or the laws of common politeness. Both groups contain disparate individuals, and of course, the exception tests the rule, yet there are common traits. So no, I dont think I meant what you suggested in the slightest!
I'm not at all sure "exciting telly" has ever been made out of a debate between both groups in recorded history, although non-telly owning me possibly isn't a judge. Thankfully the internet lets me see people's opinions, and strangely it confirms what I experience in person.
So no, I stick by what I said before.
(Which isn't meant to be as passive-aggressive as it sounds, fwiw!)

But you're stereotyping. Not all gay people are like this; indeed most of the gay people I know are very different from your description.

FWIW I am starting to agree about some atheists. Religion isn't the only thing wrong with the world; hell it's not even the worst thing wrong. It's all very well to sit there, smug and smiling about non-belief in gods, but then what?

Dawkins is increasingly making a tit of himself along these lines. He's recently stated (and not for the first time) that he thinks that teaching a child about hell can be worse than sexual abuse. Quite frankly I can't think of a better characterisation of that argument than "batshıt insane".