Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Since WW2 this country and much of the West has undergone massive social change. From culture, behaviour and demographics. We have seen Christianity plummet, family break ups in huge numbers and the idea planted that we are no longer a British Society but a Multicultural society.

    Our whole way of life is different to that of a hundred years ago, where we are going changes from each decade and few know where we are going or why this has even happened.

    Marxism

    Most have heard of Karl Marx and his communist manifesto in part leading the inspiration of the Soviet Union and for the workers of the world to unite. The hope of Marx and his fellows was that Capitalism would fall and a revolution of the people would take hold. However no such world revolution came in the 19th or 20th centuries. In WW1/WW2 the people rose up to protect their lands and their ways of life to fight with other men. There was no rising up on both sides against Capitalism so societies although having gone through an awful war, had not been broken, they kept calm and carried on.

    Cultural Marxism

    With people staying true to their ways of life this was a huge problem for Marxist's, how could a revolution of all people take hold if their cultures could keep them from coming together? The only solution is to get into the culture and change it, to break up the things that keep a culture together. Family, religion and traditions. A long march imposed upon those people would eventually lead to a desired outcome of a western world that would be of a people who were not bound together as they once were in the 20th century.

    Antonio Gramsci, one of Marx's followers was the one who decided that it was fundamental that the culture of a people be removed before the revolution can take place. It would take a long time for it to happen, but eventually the breaking up will happen.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghx3d1GiAc0

    The Soviet union may have collapsed but this school of thought had already got into western institutions, the Frankfurt School where a lot of the work took place in this ideology had already got sister institutions at the University of Birmingham and Columbia University. The economic model of socialism failed, but the cultural war had begun and is well under way.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centre_...ltural_Studies

    British society today


    Most know that today's Britain is different times past, but once you have looked past the foolish "enlightened" liberal viewpoints we are taught and bombarded with, you see that the cultural marxists dream has taken hold and we are living through it.

    I will look at some key points that have influenced today's society greatly. Seeing as most of us have been brought up in this cultural marxist heaven, there will be negative emotionally driven responses of what i say.

    All i ask is that instead of throwing a useless insult onto the forum, make your point on what you disagree with. But then tell me if you like where society on a whole is going.


    Family

    If you watched the above videos you will see that it is paramount that there is a break up of the family unit. So that we have generation's of sons and daughters who will feel disconnected, so it will be easier for them to detach from the culture they are in. It can be argued that a country is built upon good families, ensuring that the next generation of people are well rounded individuals that will go on to have families of their own. A country needs these families, it is now often mentioned that the middle class of America is shrinking massively and the effects of this is huge. Now this has in part to do with the economic state, but my point is that the family unit is of great importance to any country.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20863917

    The link above shows that the family breakdown in this country is extremely high. But in particular un married families. This epidemic is only down to how we as a culture are now at. Religion on the down is one of the main factors in this which I will mention later.

    If you look at incidents where people have committed acts that are beyond reasoning, you will often come across that a family break up has been involved in this persons past. As humans, we need that upbringing balance of the Mother and the Father.

    Religion

    Of course most know through this website and the latest census results that Atheism is now fully entrenched in our society. But as the colossal wave of anti christian thought sweeps through our society thanks to the likes of Richard Dawkins. We have left behind what was the basis for our morals, community and a pillar of support. It is a structure that had to be dealt with by Cultural marxists to remove.

    Although the Atheists like to think they are superior by slamming religion they have still left behind a solid foundation that used to be in most peoples minds. Now they will be quick to jump to it that they have philosophy and Science as their moral guide. As Richard Dawkins has so optimistically put it "deeper roots of moral behaviour is in humanity's evolutionary past". Well that is all very good isn't it? We can just sit around and pop here are some morals which come pre loaded for you.
    This is extremely ignorant of the fact that people do and will stray away from any morals we may already have. The whole issue of morals is very subjective to that individual and Richard Dawkins should know better.

    But Atheists will still slam religion for how ludicrous the whole situation still is of what a man says a few thousand years ago being put into a book and us being told that it is God's Law. But although I do not believe that these prophets were from God I still have a respect and try to follow certain morals and principles that are undoubtedly characteristics most people would like. Yes religion has had huge drawbacks in times, but the void atheists are opening up and are not filling with anything will have it's drawbacks. The majority of Atheists have probably had a christian up bringing and if not probably still have a diluted christian out look. As most people on here have some form of education they will still think they know the difference between right and wrong and education will be a tool Atheists will use to defend their position. But the still huge numbers of people will not look into the rights and wrongs of lessons past will be left with no structure to fill their lives and be allowed to have free reign of what they deem right and wrong. But in generations to come, when there is nothing to fill that void the cracks will be all to present as they are becoming now.

    Gay Marriage

    The attack on Marriage is another attack on culture. Although many won't see it as a big issue it is another chink in the armour that is our culture being washed away.

    I believe that the coming together of Man and Woman has such significance because of beauty of nature of opposites coming together. But also how it can give the greatest gift of them all, life. Now i believe that it is because of this beauty it is worth celebrating and it is in marriage we do that. While I do not have a problem with homosexuals, I think that to try and celebrate this also is taking away something from that exclusive celebration.

    Gay marriage was brought through without any foreword by the conservative party. Also at a time when other countries are bringing up the same issue, this shows that there is an ideology going through western governments that is not all apparent.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20840531

    There are those that are against these changes as above that are seeing that there is something else going on. But these people with conservative views are being made out to be bigoted and old fashioned.

    Immigration

    Immigration has touched every western country since WW2 but in a way that was not seen before. The flood gates were opened up to countries with vastly different cultures and values all to go to Europe and America in the millions, that would vastly change those countries forever. We are now brought up saying that we are a multicultural society, the inner cities are now places that are not British, but places of other cultures which on the whole remain loyal to their own cultures. The problem with mass immigration is that these new immigrants have been given no time to Integrate, the very word has been dropped in favour of a multi cultural Britain, so that our culture again is being attacked saying it is not a British country anymore.

    Now i will be called racist and all sorts, but i disagree. It is not racist to prefer your own culture, however that is the view point that the media has taken and most people in this argument. To even suggest that Britain should have British culture is not even mentioned. Anyone who does not have the same view as the marxists who brought this in, is hounded and forced to change their view point or they are named under the tag of racist.

    What of those in politics who speak up against it? Most laugh at the BNP but that is largely due to how Nick Griffin presents himself. Also the mass culture of today is of a liberal mindset put upon them.

    To look at a politician properly on this issue you need to see Enoch Powell. Just mention of the name gets the liberals upset and anyone would be called racist for mentioning such a name. But lets look at what happened when he gave his famous speech? Would there be the huge out cry we get now back then if someone is to say anything remotely like it? No. The people supported Powell. The government and the media did not.

    After that speech Enoch Powell was the most popular politician in the country, his views were accepted by the majority of a people who had not been brought up in a marxist mindset. So as we are a democratic nation surely this man would bring forth the will of the people into parliament and serve their interests as politicians are supposed to do. This did not happen. Powell was sacked the day after from the shadow cabinet. Democracy it seems has to fit another ideology in government.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJQMz-fZzC0

    Political correctness has ensured that any crime of thought against this new system shall be vindicated. So that our generation now grows up in it's system.

    The future

    So what is the fate of our country and of the west. The process will continue, David Cameron may say multiculturalism has failed once again, but that is only to save him a few rural seats in the house of commons. The small attacks on our culture to dismantle it will continue until the long march is complete.

    The importance of culture is to bind a people, for them to have all the quirks of their nation that sets them apart. For interest and variation in the world. If i am hounded as a racist I will say that i am pro race and pro culture. For I like the variation on the planet and want it to continue to have that variation. People of a different race are welcome, but to Integrate. To have their quirks also but to still have a British culture at the centre of those people.

    But it seems that the west has been infiltrated by a dangerous ideology, that cares not of it's past. The fact of the cultural marxism taking place in this country is clear, but it takes no name in the mass public opinion it is handed down by governments without asking it's people if it wants this new culture and they accept it through media and the forceful political correctness.

    Do you want this new society?








    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Doesn't seem to be clear why it's specifically marxist - tbh I think culture is being eroded by capitalist globalisation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    Doesn't seem to be clear why it's specifically marxist - tbh I think culture is being eroded by capitalist globalisation.
    I haven't got names of people linked to the schools mentioned, it was more a point of that their ideology has taken hold so blatantly. Peter Hitchens did quote Andrew Neather the other week from new Labour, so the people are out there.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    What is the basis of distinction between 'our culture' and 'other cultures'? What do you and I share?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    What is the basis of distinction between 'our culture' and 'other cultures'? What do you and I share?
    You and I are different ofcourse but we will have some shared characteristics if you are from the UK.

    It is difficult to put into words what a culture is.
    But take for example history, literature, music we will both probably have more of an overlap in knowledge of these areas compared to say you and someone from a remote village in Brazil. Sense of humour, sports and if it applies religion/traditions.

    My point was that culture is being swept aside in todays world and a global collective is more and more taking hold. So we won't have as much in common as say people from the UK 100 years ago. Some people want this, but I do not see it working as well as these people.

    It is hard to put across like I said, it sounds like im saying that we are all clones, but i am not. See it like this if you walked into a room of a whole range of people from very different backgrounds. Say they asked you to pick the one you felt most at home with and there was a group of Brits there. Who would you choose?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fides)
    You and I are different ofcourse but we will have some shared characteristics if you are from the UK.

    It is difficult to put into words what a culture is.
    But take for example history, literature, music we will both probably have more of an overlap in knowledge of these areas compared to say you and someone from a remote village in Brazil. Sense of humour, sports and if it applies religion/traditions.

    My point was that culture is being swept aside in todays world and a global collective is more and more taking hold. So we won't have as much in common as say people from the UK 100 years ago. Some people want this, but I do not see it working as well as these people.
    So you don't know what or where the apparent distinction between 'our' and 'other' is, but it serves as a central tenet of your discourse? Interesting—you include and exclude people from this cultural 'group' without even knowing what the boundaries of the 'group' are.

    If we take, for example, history, literature, music, sense of humour, sports, religions and traditions; and we also take your argument that everyone is different, do we not arrive at the conclusion that multiculturalism/cultural difference is everywhere at an individual level? Clearly, the difference in all of these things amongst every individual is a product of being exposed to a different cultural/social lineage.

    It is hard to put across like I said, it sounds like im saying that we are all clones, but i am not. See it like this if you walked into a room of a whole range of people from very different backgrounds. Say they asked you to pick the one you felt most at home with and there was a group of Brits there. Who would you choose?
    I would gravitate to whichever individuals—regardless of their national identity or any other incidental trait—shared that which I consider to be important in a person. For example, if I spent the majority of my time cooking I would prefer to associate with any other individual in the room who also has an avid interest in cooking.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    ah joy nicknick1 has returned
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    So you don't know what or where the apparent distinction between 'our' and 'other' is, but it serves as a central tenet of your discourse? Interesting—you include and exclude people from this cultural 'group' without even knowing what the boundaries of the 'group' are.

    If we take, for example, history, literature, music, sense of humour, sports, religions and traditions; and we also take your argument that everyone is different, do we not arrive at the conclusion that multiculturalism/cultural difference is everywhere at an individual level? Clearly, the difference in all of these things amongst every individual is a product of being exposed to a different cultural/social lineage.

    I would gravitate to whichever individuals—regardless of their national identity or any other incidental trait—shared that which I consider to be important in a person. For example, if I spent the majority of my time cooking I would prefer to associate with any other individual in the room who also has an avid interest in cooking.
    You are trying to make it sound like I put down the axe if enough certain traits are mentioned and put that person in a set category, but i used the differences also.

    You said that the difference in these people is by exposure to different cultural lineage, would you not say that a cultural lineage may have more similar tendencies in one set of people in a country than another? So we do not arrive at the conclusion that everyone is multicultural. The whole idea of that "lineage" is exactly what i am mentioning.
    It is not true that one lineage of the culture a person is completely un associated to another.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fides)
    You are trying to make it sound like I put down the axe if enough certain traits are mentioned and put that person in a set category, but i used the differences also.

    You said that the difference in these people is by exposure to different cultural lineage, would you not say that a cultural lineage may have more similar tendencies in one set of people in a country than another? So we do not arrive at the conclusion that everyone is multicultural. The whole idea of that "lineage" is exactly what i am mentioning.
    It is not true that one lineage of the culture a person is completely un associated to another.
    Not necessarily—it depends on the unique socialisation process that the individual has experienced. You acknowledge that everyone is different, but you do not acknowledge that everyone is multicultural. The variation amongst everyone is derived from their being exposed to a different sociocultural lineage (meaning the individuals and environments they have encountered): despite living in the same country, we may not like or possess the same foods, literature, clothes, sociopolitical values, religious values, hobbies, etc. You are culturally different in at least one dimension to me because you have been exposed to a different sociocultural lineage that has instilled different values into you. As we are not exposed to every individual and environmental location in this country, the lineage cannot be said to be national in its extent. No two individuals are exposed to the same social and environmental experiences, so no two people are culturally identical. Multiculturalism exists everywhere.

    If we plotted every cultural trait on a Euler diagram and represented every individual as a point on that Euler diagram, no two points will be in the same position. We may share some traits with other individuals, but we will not share some other traits with them. Why is not sharing a trait with somebody you do not identify as nationally British worse than not sharing a trait with somebody you do identify as nationally British? Being different to somebody you identify as British = apathy; being different to somebody you do not identify as British = the worst thing that has ever happened.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    Not necessarily—it depends on the unique socialisation process that the individual has experienced. You acknowledge that everyone is different, but you do not acknowledge that everyone is multicultural. The variation amongst everyone is derived from their being exposed to a different sociocultural lineage (meaning the individuals and environments they have encountered): despite living in the same country, we may not like or possess the same foods, literature, clothes, sociopolitical values, religious values, hobbies, etc. You are culturally different in at least one dimension to me because you have been exposed to a different sociocultural lineage that has instilled different values into you. As we are not exposed to every individual and environmental location in this country, the lineage cannot be said to be national in its extent. No two individuals are exposed to the same social and environmental experiences, so no two people are culturally identical. Multiculturalism exists everywhere.

    If we plotted every cultural trait on a Euler diagram and represented every individual as a point on that Euler diagram, no two points will be in the same position. We may share some traits with other individuals, but we will not share some other traits with them. Why is not sharing a trait with somebody you do not identify as nationally British worse than not sharing a trait with somebody you do identify as nationally British? Being different to somebody you identify as British = apathy; being different to somebody you do not identify as British = the worst thing that has ever happened.
    Because that diagram used to have closer connections before this Marxist ideology got imposed on us. Those traits that we used to share made a country unique. Made it special.

    You say the lineage cannot be National, but look at Christianity 100 years ago in this country, men across the land would have been more similar to each other then than today. No matter what class they were they all would have had that similarity which influenced their lives massively, but that is now being lost.

    Those differences though of not sharing traits being something to not like is echoed throughout the entire country. Whole communities are now seperated by it with the inner cities being so vastly different that they feel like different countries.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fides)
    Because that diagram used to have closer connections before this Marxist ideology got imposed on us. Those traits that we used to share made a country unique. Made it special.
    The veracity of the claim that there were 'closer connections' is contingent on the variable under consideration. As every person is unique and always will be, the space in which those individuals reside will also be unique. There can never be a state of cultural homogeneity, as learning is necessarily fallible.

    You say the lineage cannot be National, but look at Christianity 100 years ago in this country, men across the land would have been more similar to each other then than today. No matter what class they were they all would have had that similarity which influenced their lives massively, but that is now being lost.
    It remains true that no single individual has contact with everyone in this country; hence, their social lineage is not derived from the entirety of the British population, but a small subset of it (alongside international sources). A single shared dimension (identifying as a Christian, in this case*) does not negate the presence of the innumerable other unshared dimensions that cause everyone to be different (e.g., class identity, occupation, education, hobbies, sociopolitical values, etc.); it is this ubiquitous state of difference that underpins my claim that multiculturalism is everywhere. The dimensions of difference manifest in different ways for different people.

    *I'm not going to ask you to substantiate your claim that 100% of the British population at one point identified as Christian, as it is inconsequential. It is, however, very important to note that simply identifying as Christian (or identifying as anything non-specific) means very little:
    1. There are multiple interpretations of religion.
    2. Identifying as a Christian does not give you any information other than the individual's identity.
    3. You do not know the extent to which the identity shapes the person's life or what the identity actually entails.


    Those differences though of not sharing traits being something to not like is echoed throughout the entire country. Whole communities are now seperated by it with the inner cities being so vastly different that they feel like different countries.
    Difference has always existed; people just haven't acknowledged it.

    Unless you or anyone you know is an acquaintance of every British person in this country, it is also apparent that social separation has also always existed without acknowledgement. Do you befriend everyone you meet, or do you gravitate towards those who possess that which you consider important? Assuming the latter is true, it is apparent that you actively dissociate yourself from those who do not share that which you consider to be important. Somebody who you identify as British selectively forms their social relations = apathy; somebody who you do not identify as British selectively forms their social relations = unacceptable social separation. Interesting.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    The veracity of the claim that there were 'closer connections' is contingent on the variable under consideration. As every person is unique and always will be, the space in which those individuals reside will also be unique. There can never be a state of cultural homogeneity, as learning is necessarily fallible.
    So throughout the world whole nations have not been influenced by what the collective stands for. Look at Ireland/ Korea / Japan - China / Middle east, the list is endless.

    To have ignorance of the state of cultures roots when looking at world history means your perspective will always be skewed. You say it depends upon what variable, but every example will have a culture that those set of people stand for.

    Your liberal views are leaking out and trying to smother any argument put against it. It is no wonder you have not even adressed the issues I have stated, as the root cause of them is a change in this country's culture.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fides)
    So throughout the world whole nations have not been influenced by what the collective stands for. Look at Ireland/ Korea / Japan - China / Middle east, the list is endless.
    They are primarily, but not exclusively, influenced by the salient interests of the population. These salient interests do not negate the presence of the various other interests individual members of the population may or may not hold. If you can tolerate British people not holding the salient values, you can tolerate non-British people not holding the salient values.

    To have ignorance of the state of cultures roots when looking at world history means your perspective will always be skewed. You say it depends upon what variable, but every example will have a culture that those set of people stand for.
    Salience and exclusivity are not the same thing. The absence of exclusivity makes any claim to a non-spatial concept British culture invalid.

    Your liberal views are leaking out and trying to smother any argument put against it. It is no wonder you have not even adressed the issues I have stated, as the root cause of them is a change in this country's culture.
    I've decided to address the culture point first, and you haven't been able to construct a cogent counterargument. You've also persistently failed to answer a large proportion of my questions and points.

    What is this country's culture?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    They are primarily, but not exclusively, influenced by the salient interests of the population. These salient interests do not negate the presence of the various other interests individual members of the population may or may not hold. If you can tolerate British people not holding the salient values, you can tolerate non-British people not holding the salient values.
    But those values of British people that I have mentioned are what I believe to be more important to the centre of the country's well being. Yes i can tolerate British people having different values and even non British people. But the state of the country at the moment with massive social change will have the effect that those values will no longer be the centre of the country. If those values become a minority which they are fast becoming I see it as a problem. We are seeing the negative consequences of this already as i have mentioned with my original post.

    I have said what culture we have had, you just won't accept the importance of it. So you have questioned my points, but you haven't answered all i wanted to go with responses. Do you like where society is going? Don't leave it as a Yes/No.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fides)
    But those values of British people that I have mentioned are what I believe to be more important to the centre of the country's well being.
    Well... no, not really, which is why those values are declining rapidly. As the native British population are still in the large majority, it is apparent that they are principally responsible for the creation and continuation of the change in the salient sociocultural values in this country. British people are causing the change and British people, by and large, do not consider those values to be central to their personal well-being (or they would not have taken to personal choice to abandon them).

    Yes i can tolerate British people having different values and even non British people. But the state of the country at the moment with massive social change will have the effect that those values will no longer be the centre of the country.
    That is what the majority of the country either actively desire or are indifferent towards.

    If those values become a minority which they are fast becoming I see it as a problem. We are seeing the negative consequences of this already as i have mentioned with my original post.
    Yes, you see it as a problem, and you are free to hold an opinion. Ironically, relative to the British people who are atheist, pro-gay marriage, single parents, etc., you have a different culture—you are an instantiation of multiculturalism.

    I have said what culture we have had, you just won't accept the importance of it. So you have questioned my points, but you haven't answered all i wanted to go with responses. Do you like where society is going? Don't leave it as a Yes/No.
    If I don't appreciate what another person is doing I simply ignore them. You are completely free to remain a Christian, have a traditional family, live in the countryside, vote BNP, etc. if you wish. Nobody is forcing your culture to change; your culture is not British and you are not Britain—it is the culture of Fides.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There is no such thing as cultural marxism. /thread


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    North Korea - culturally homogeneous, politically marxist.

    cultural marxism just sounds like a half witted buzz-phrase someone's trying to pass off
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm opposed to religion because I think it's outdated. A lot of people these days view it like classical mythology. Interesting, but really outdated and has no basis in modern society. This is not an attack on society but rather a more enlightened society. It appears that religion has a strong role in helping societies develop, but then it becomes largely irrelevant and useless, except in the minds of traditionalists.

    Now don't get me wrong, if an individual wants to be religious, that's their right, but they do not have a right to force their religious views onto the entire populace through the political process. Religious people in the West, Christians obviously, had the opportunity to do that for several centuries. It didn't go down very well, especially for indigenous people, non-white people, gays, and oh yes, half the population - women. It wasn't until the second half of the 20th century that women in the West even got the right to vote. And who usually opposed that right? Christian men. Who supported it? People like Simone de Beauvoir, a Marxist feminist
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    Well... no, not really, which is why those values are declining rapidly. As the native British population are still in the large majority, it is apparent that they are principally responsible for the creation and continuation of the change in the salient sociocultural values in this country. British people are causing the change and British people, by and large, do not consider those values to be central to their personal well-being (or they would not have taken to personal choice to abandon them).
    You speak of why when what i have posted does not say why? This social change is not of natural making, it has been influenced massively. The creation and continuation has been taken and manipulated by other means as I have shown with the case of attitudes of Enoch Powell.


    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    If I don't appreciate what another person is doing I simply ignore them. You are completely free to remain a Christian, have a traditional family, live in the countryside, vote BNP, etc. if you wish. Nobody is forcing your culture to change; your culture is not British and you are not Britain—it is the culture of Fides.
    Well yet again you have shown a complete lack of care of community and culture. It is not surprising that you do not let it have much sway on your views on history if you yourself ignore it upon you. You have yet again avoided a question where it asks you directly to associate yourself with a culture. You first changed my question of what set of people you would see yourself more at home with. Now you have decided not to answer my question entirely of if you like where society is going.

    If you want to have a debate you need to stop bending the questions put on you, We do not move the debate on if you choose to not confront these questions.

    For the record although i mentioned the BNP in my original post, UKIP are far more likely to get my vote.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jco19)
    I'm opposed to religion because I think it's outdated. A lot of people these days view it like classical mythology. Interesting, but really outdated and has no basis in modern society. This is not an attack on society but rather a more enlightened society. It appears that religion has a strong role in helping societies develop, but then it becomes largely irrelevant and useless, except in the minds of traditionalists.
    Enlightened yes in parts, there have been many errors of the past I am not going to defend. But would you see all of society as more enlightened? Do you not think we need something like religion?

    (Original post by jco19)
    Now don't get me wrong, if an individual wants to be religious, that's their right, but they do not have a right to force their religious views onto the entire populace through the political process. Religious people in the West, Christians obviously, had the opportunity to do that for several centuries. It didn't go down very well, especially for indigenous people, non-white people, gays, and oh yes, half the population - women. It wasn't until the second half of the 20th century that women in the West even got the right to vote. And who usually opposed that right? Christian men. Who supported it? People like Simone de Beauvoir, a Marxist feminist
    I would not want it forced on anyone like it once was, all I see is that the social change has been to quick and with not enough positives to weigh out the negatives.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.