America = the most backwards western country?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by clh_hilary
I'm not committing to anything. You just lack the ability to read my comments in full.
Liberalism does not follow a set of rules set in the olden days, but supposedly leave future possibilities opened.
Liberalism does not follow a set of rules set in the olden days, but supposedly leave future possibilities opened.
You have a very backwards view of religion... you should go read about what it is you're talking about.
Original post by clh_hilary
What manner? Did you once again show your lack of ability to read my comment in full?
Political problems aren't solved... you subscribe to a doctrine of progress that has been refuted for decades.
Original post by clh_hilary
It's one national under god.
The 'under god' part of the allegiance was only added thanks to a pressure group in 1948 (most people didn't give enough ****s to waste their time opposing it - they were kind of tied up with the WW2 aftermath).
In the years since, nobody has bothered to tackle it because:
1. It will make the religious electorate sad and lose votes
2. Everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together is aware of and understands the idea that the United States is a country founded almost entirely on secular principles.
Original post by clh_hilary
The UK is backward in some ways but that's beyond the point.
The UK is pretty much a secular country so religion does not make it backward, even though it still has many problems left from the past remained unsolved.
The UK is pretty much a secular country so religion does not make it backward, even though it still has many problems left from the past remained unsolved.
'Pretty much' a secular country. And the US isn't? I wouldn't say the US is perfect and I have many criticisms about the interplay of religion in US politics but the government itself is technically secular.
You also stated somewhere above the "one nation under god" as if that has any actual legal relevance to anything in the US....which is very confusing because it doesnt...
Original post by rayofkryptonite
well they should vote for it then, instead of just keeping it to themselves.
Many do? But in many states it doesn't go up for a vote. Many believe that it shouldn't be voted on by the public (I agree). So whether or not the populace supports it doesn't change the law as what matters is the lawmakers who are put into office.
Original post by rayofkryptonite
the UK doesn't let religion rule over human rights, thank you.
Neither does the US?
But it is brought into the public debate just as it was here in the UK. Really what do you actually know about the US. This is odd to me because I'm not particularly a big fan of them but you seem very misinformed.Original post by Kierkegaard
Political problems aren't solved... you subscribe to a doctrine of progress that has been refuted for decades.
I think I know what your problem is. You read and you throw in your imagination and believe that I mean what you think I must mean.
Original post by Drewski
If you're going to moan about a country, can you at least do some basic research?
i did, gay marriage is legal in less than half of America.
Religion in a country only makes it backwards if that religion prevents or limits the country from doing something.
why else have the other states not accepted it then?
That is not the case in the US.
have you seen their news??
Original post by clh_hilary
I think I know what your problem is. You read and you throw in your imagination and believe that I mean what you think I must mean.
Maybe you should read a book on prose as either i'm grossly misinterpreting your posts (apparently i'm not the only one having trouble interpreting your posts though) or you simply can't communicate very well.
Original post by Kierkegaard
You have a very backwards view of religion... you should go read about what it is you're talking about.
Name one religion that doesn't have that nature.
Based on our exchanges, I'm pretty sure I read more than you do in general. But thanks for your comment.
Original post by clh_hilary
Name one religion that doesn't have that nature.
Based on our exchanges, I'm pretty sure I read more than you do in general. But thanks for your comment.
Based on our exchanges, I'm pretty sure I read more than you do in general. But thanks for your comment.
Every religion.
You can believe what you want... I have no desire to prove you wrong (since we've already established this isn't on the agenda, you have no desire to be proved wrong)
Original post by Kierkegaard
Maybe you should read a book on prose as either i'm grossly misinterpreting your posts (apparently i'm not the only one having trouble interpreting your posts though) or you simply can't communicate very well.
Based on the language you have been producing I'm not surprised that you found it difficult to read.
Original post by clh_hilary
That just kind of shows that you understood nothing.
The nature of religion is to follow a set of doctrines set out in the past. Name one that isn't.
The nature of religion is to follow a set of doctrines set out in the past. Name one that isn't.
Yeah just like the nature of law is to follow a set of doctrines set out in the past. Name one that isn't.
Religion doesn't mean bad, regardless of how much of a bigot you are.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
'Pretty much' a secular country. And the US isn't? I wouldn't say the US is perfect and I have many criticisms about the interplay of religion in US politics but the government itself is technically secular.
US is a lot more religious than the UK is.
Original post by Kierkegaard
Every religion.
You can believe what you want... I have no desire to prove you wrong (since we've already established this isn't on the agenda, you have no desire to be proved wrong)
You can believe what you want... I have no desire to prove you wrong (since we've already established this isn't on the agenda, you have no desire to be proved wrong)
Ha. And I thought you would actually be broadening my mind by telling me about a new religion or way of religion.
Every time a priest teaches that you should do something because The Bible says so...
Original post by clh_hilary
Based on the language you have been producing I'm not surprised that you found it difficult to read.
So i'm glad we've established you have nothing to offer this discussion, and you've resulted to little more than (unjustified) ad hominems (what's wrong with my language?). At least you'll leave this thread relatively happy since you live in such a self-centred world-view.
Original post by clh_hilary
Ha. And I thought you would actually be broadening my mind by telling me about a new religion or way of religion.
Every time a priest teaches that you should do something because The Bible says so...
Every time a priest teaches that you should do something because The Bible says so...
Well done proving my point? Have you even bothered to look at my username? Of course you don't know anything about 19th century philosophy do you.
Nope.
Original post by rayofkryptonite
i did, gay marriage is legal in less than half of America.
Less than half the states is not the same as half of the country. Look at the major population centres. And that was not my point about getting facts right. You asserted that the US has 51 states. Anyone with half a brain, and 3 seconds on google, can tell you that's not true.
why else have the other states not accepted it then?
Not yet accepted them is not the same as 'are never going to'.
have you seen their news??
Oh, so because they have some media that is fixated by religion it means their entire country is? What about the news outlets that couldn't care less? The non-crazy, mainstream news? You do know that Fox Newsisn't the only news channel over there, yes? How would you like it if the UK was judged solely by the Daily Mail and Jeremy Kyle? Bit of an unfair bias, don't you think?
When you're talking of a country with ~300 million inhabitants, of course you're going to get a mix of backgrounds and opinions. Look at how many differences we get in this country... and we only have ~60 million.
You are taking an outrageously hyperbolic line with this and extrapolating a whole heap of bs from it. And you forget that their Constitution explicitly states that religion is separate from politics. Whereas this country has a state-sponsored religion....
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by clh_hilary
US is a lot more religious than the UK is.
....and? The actual government is not. The populace might be more religious (which I'm not entirely sure is true) but that doesn't change my point that the UK is similarly backwards and really by that standard every country is backwards if its people are religious in any way.
Russia is the only country protecting its traditions, I have faith that it will be seen as far more progressive than the filthy hedonism and unhappiness in the West when it collapses.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
....and? The actual government is not. The populace might be more religious (which I'm not entirely sure is true) but that doesn't change my point that the UK is similarly backwards and really by that standard every country is backwards if its people are religious in any way.
I did not say religiousity suggests the level of backwardness. I said religions by nature built on backwardness, and thus any view gathered from it would be backward. I even stressed that it doesn't mean if it's good or bad.
The actual government is religious. Look at the demography of the two houses.
But that's beyond the point because just because politicians are personally religious does not mean anything, even though many did act on it by throwing out backward policies based on their backward views (from christianity).
I see US as a very polarising country, with half of it being progressive, and half of it not. But there indeed are very indicators of its backwardness. Same-sex marriage is only one of them.
Also, nobody knows what actually is 'progressive' and what actually is 'good', so arguing over that would be pointless. Hence, the standard is based on the changes observed in more developed countries. Therefore, having same-sex marriage would make a country seems less backward. Whilst having capital punishment would make a country seems backward.
Original post by Drewski
You do know that Fox Newsisn't the only news channel over there, yes?
why is it a news channel at all?
How would you like it if the UK was judged solely by the Daily Mail and Jeremy Kyle? Bit of an unfair bias, don't you think?
No one knows about the Daily Mail or Jeremy Kyle (worldwide), a lot of non Americans know about fox news, big difference.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
