Go to first unread
Back
to top
Headscarves in schools - recent update
WatchThis discussion is closed.
Report
#141
(Original post by claire1985)
I was saying the idea of evil came from religion, hence the inverted commas. If you define evil by the laws we have in place, these laws come from the basis of the 10 commandments ( in Muslim states they come from Muhammed's teachings), therefore anything that is 'evil' from the basis of these laws, is evil by definition from religion, thus-religion is the root of all 'evil'-it coined the phrase, so to speak.
I was saying the idea of evil came from religion, hence the inverted commas. If you define evil by the laws we have in place, these laws come from the basis of the 10 commandments ( in Muslim states they come from Muhammed's teachings), therefore anything that is 'evil' from the basis of these laws, is evil by definition from religion, thus-religion is the root of all 'evil'-it coined the phrase, so to speak.
0
Report
#142
(Original post by DoctorNO)
Like I said something that is a "part" is not necessarily a requirement. The hijab is optional. And some people do make an outward show to distract other people. And as you can see in this thread that some people are already distracted by the very idea of religious symbols in schools.
Like I said something that is a "part" is not necessarily a requirement. The hijab is optional. And some people do make an outward show to distract other people. And as you can see in this thread that some people are already distracted by the very idea of religious symbols in schools.
0
Report
#143
(Original post by kildare)
Yes, democracy does mean that the majority choose the governement, it does not mean however that the minority forfeit their rights.
I didn't say it did.
As regards the vagaries of national/international law (although I thought you had already argued that the law did contravene European law, I may be wrong though but yes anyway...) I must profess ignorance and as such will only try to argue that the law infringes on basic rights and on the principles that the Republic was founded on.
Yes, democracy does mean that the majority choose the governement, it does not mean however that the minority forfeit their rights.
I didn't say it did.
As regards the vagaries of national/international law (although I thought you had already argued that the law did contravene European law, I may be wrong though but yes anyway...) I must profess ignorance and as such will only try to argue that the law infringes on basic rights and on the principles that the Republic was founded on.
a) the French Constitution
b) The European Convention on Human Rights 1950 as ratified at or about that time and as incorportated into French law by whatever the hell is their equivalent to the HRA 1998.
Capiche?
0
Report
#144
(Original post by claire1985)
This is pure subjectivity, where is your evidence? What about this country, the BNP are still allowed to run in a democracy-even though their policies sometimes contravene even the basic human rights
This is pure subjectivity, where is your evidence? What about this country, the BNP are still allowed to run in a democracy-even though their policies sometimes contravene even the basic human rights
0
Report
#145
(Original post by kildare)
Evil exists independant of religon. Eradicating religon certainly wouldn't eradicate evil/'evil people'.
Evil exists independant of religon. Eradicating religon certainly wouldn't eradicate evil/'evil people'.
0
Report
#146
(Original post by claire1985)
This is pure subjectivity, where is your evidence? What about this country, the BNP are still allowed to run in a democracy-even though their policies sometimes contravene even the basic human rights
This is pure subjectivity, where is your evidence? What about this country, the BNP are still allowed to run in a democracy-even though their policies sometimes contravene even the basic human rights
If this was in practice, the world would be much different.
0
Report
#147
(Original post by Howard)
Look it contravenes (in my view)
a) the French Constitution
b) The European Convention on Human Rights 1950 as ratified at or about that time and as incorportated into French law by whatever the hell is their equivalent to the HRA 1998.
Capiche?
Look it contravenes (in my view)
a) the French Constitution
b) The European Convention on Human Rights 1950 as ratified at or about that time and as incorportated into French law by whatever the hell is their equivalent to the HRA 1998.
Capiche?
0
Report
#148
(Original post by kildare)
If the BNP ever came to power *shudders* they would not be allowed to pass any laws which contravened British law, regardless of public opinion.
If the BNP ever came to power *shudders* they would not be allowed to pass any laws which contravened British law, regardless of public opinion.
0
Report
#149
(Original post by claire1985)
But what is evil? who decides what is evil? Country law, which is derived from religion. So, evil is not independent of religion. I am not so stupid to argue that eradication of religion now would mean no more evil, i'm just saying-religion is interlinked with evil.
But what is evil? who decides what is evil? Country law, which is derived from religion. So, evil is not independent of religion. I am not so stupid to argue that eradication of religion now would mean no more evil, i'm just saying-religion is interlinked with evil.
0
Report
#150
(Original post by kildare)
I'd love it if the law was changed, the Islamic hierocracy are firmly implanted in Iran however, due in no small part to the actions of the Shah and his western sponsors in the years prior to the revolution. Perhaps that's a discussion for another day though...
I'd love it if the law was changed, the Islamic hierocracy are firmly implanted in Iran however, due in no small part to the actions of the Shah and his western sponsors in the years prior to the revolution. Perhaps that's a discussion for another day though...
0
Report
#151
(Original post by claire1985)
If they came to power, they could pass what they damn well liked as they'd have a majority in parliament and the judges etc can do sweet f.a about it, or even if they could, they are so incompetent in the most part, they wouldn't bother.
If they came to power, they could pass what they damn well liked as they'd have a majority in parliament and the judges etc can do sweet f.a about it, or even if they could, they are so incompetent in the most part, they wouldn't bother.
0
Report
#152
(Original post by kildare)
Well yes I suppose we're left with the task of defining 'evil' in that case then... What I was trying to say is that I think in modern day society that 'evil' or what society views as 'evil' exists, in the most part, independant of religion.
Well yes I suppose we're left with the task of defining 'evil' in that case then... What I was trying to say is that I think in modern day society that 'evil' or what society views as 'evil' exists, in the most part, independant of religion.
0
Report
#153
(Original post by Bigcnee)
I'm simply saying that they should do.
If this was in practice, the world would be much different.
I'm simply saying that they should do.
If this was in practice, the world would be much different.
0
Report
#154
(Original post by kildare)
Yes it is optional in that religion is optional. However, many believe that it is an intergral part of their faith hence for them it is not 'optional'.
Yes it is optional in that religion is optional. However, many believe that it is an intergral part of their faith hence for them it is not 'optional'.
(besides, if these fundies are so shallow as to think that certain fashion trends are god's requirement then how much more are their god's requirements to indoctrinate everybody under their wings? ah mere theories.)
0
Report
#155
(Original post by kildare)
The judges (or at least the law lords) can block any law which is 'passed' by the Commons. Whether or not they are incompetent...... hmm well I suppose that's a side issue.
The judges (or at least the law lords) can block any law which is 'passed' by the Commons. Whether or not they are incompetent...... hmm well I suppose that's a side issue.
0
Report
#156
(Original post by Howard)
*******s. The Shah was dragging the country into the 20th century. He was overthrown and replaced by the Ayatollah who preferred to reside in the 14th century.
*******s. The Shah was dragging the country into the 20th century. He was overthrown and replaced by the Ayatollah who preferred to reside in the 14th century.
0
Report
#157
(Original post by kildare)
The judges (or at least the law lords) can block any law which is 'passed' by the Commons. Whether or not they are incompetent...... hmm well I suppose that's a side issue.
The judges (or at least the law lords) can block any law which is 'passed' by the Commons. Whether or not they are incompetent...... hmm well I suppose that's a side issue.
0
Report
#158
(Original post by DoctorNO)
Then teaching is not for these fundamentalists.
(besides, if these fundies are so shallow as to think that certain fashion trends are god's requirement then how much more are their god's requirements to indoctrinate everybody under their wings? ah mere theories.)
Then teaching is not for these fundamentalists.
(besides, if these fundies are so shallow as to think that certain fashion trends are god's requirement then how much more are their god's requirements to indoctrinate everybody under their wings? ah mere theories.)
0
Report
#159
(Original post by Howard)
No they bloody well can't. Ever heard of a little thing called the 1925 Parliament Act? The commons can in fact force legislation through the upper house if they want.
No they bloody well can't. Ever heard of a little thing called the 1925 Parliament Act? The commons can in fact force legislation through the upper house if they want.
*This is not a rethorical question by the way, I really am asking.
0
X
new posts
