Last edited by Uzique (2011-07-01 09:21:18)
Really? You'd think I would know this living and being educated in Cambridge...Uzique wrote:
not really, though. just take a look at britain's elite. all its best schools are anglican or catholic strongholds. power and influence are concentrated beyond denial in a class of middle-upper class white (former) christians. perhaps in the new upcoming generation the religion will play a lesser role, but it's still an essential part of their sociological make-up. discrimination based on religion? perhaps not overtly. but it's very evident that a 'certain' sort of person from a 'certain' sort of background is taking up 99% of the upper echelons of our society.FEOS wrote:
Absolutely, 100%, incontrovertibly...wrong.Dilbert_X wrote:
Most Western 'democracies' discriminate in favour of Christianity, Britain and America for example.
That is not the issue.eleven bravo wrote:
how many atheist politicians do you know of?FEOS wrote:
Absolutely, 100%, incontrovertibly...wrong.Dilbert_X wrote:
Most Western 'democracies' discriminate in favour of Christianity, Britain and America for example.
I don't know of many, either. But again, that's a function of the society, not the government.eleven bravo wrote:
just wondering how many you know of. I dont know of many
Rubbish, every US politician has to kow-tow to the Christians and mention 'Gaaahhd' in every third sentence while campaigning.FEOS wrote:
That is not the issue.eleven bravo wrote:
how many atheist politicians do you know of?FEOS wrote:
Absolutely, 100%, incontrovertibly...wrong.
Nor is Uzique's example one that backs up Dilbert's claim.
Dilbert claimed that the government itself--even the form of government--discriminates in favor of Christianity in the West. The exact opposite is the truth. The government goes to great pains to show no favoritism whatsoever to Christianity. The society at large may favor Christianity, and thus the politicians would be predominantly Christian. That does not mean that the mechanism of government favors one religion over another. And it does not.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo … 6085877567Chief UK Rabbi Jonathan Sacks warns of racism risk in Israel
WHILE rabbis and their views are at the centre of a bitter debate in Israel, one rabbi whose words are listened to with great respect by all sides is Jonathan Sacks.
In an interview with The Weekend Australian in Jerusalem, the Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom outlined his views on the peace process and even predicted "the endgame" in the Middle East.
Lord Sacks watched from London as 50 of Israel's leading rabbis - 39 who were on, and remain on, government payrolls - urged Jews not to rent properties to non-Jews. "I was distressed by it, seriously," he says. "And I think a people who have been subjected over the centuries to racism have to be doubly careful never to practise it themselves."
Growing divisions in Israel were highlighted recently when police revealed Jerusalem's Mea Shearim suburb had become a no-go zone. The Jerusalem Post reported that every time police enter "they encounter violence from ultra-orthodox extremists".
"That is why they failed to arrest a criminal suspect for over a month despite knowing exactly where in the neighbourhood he was," the newspaper said.
But a no-go zone was not the reason a prominent rabbi avoided arrest for his support of King's Torah, a book that explains when it is acceptable for a Jew to kill a non-Jew. Police summoned two rabbis, Yaakov Yosef and Dov Lior, for advocating the book, which has sold so well it is about to be reprinted.
Both refused, saying they were being persecuted.
Then came the extraordinary situation when Rabbi Yosef turned up to a swearing-in of a new police commander - though wanted for questioning, he sat with guests of honour. When The Weekend Australian asked Israel's police spokesman why Rabbi Yosef was not detained, he said: "It was only afterwards it was realised there was a problem with that issue."
This week, police detained, then released, Rabbi Lior, prompting riots by his supporters.
Now 20 members of the Knesset have demanded retribution against the official who authorised the detention.
Lord Sacks says he hopes there are enough "internal correctives within Judaism" to deal with problems such as the letter by the 50 rabbis.
Literally? They really don't. There's some truth to it, but it's more stereotype than a constant.Dilbert_X wrote:
Rubbish, every US politician has to kow-tow to the Christians and mention 'Gaaahhd' in every third sentence while campaigning.
Do you think either of the Mormon runners are any chance?unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Literally? They really don't. There's some truth to it, but it's more stereotype than a constant.Dilbert_X wrote:
Rubbish, every US politician has to kow-tow to the Christians and mention 'Gaaahhd' in every third sentence while campaigning.
of course romney is leading when you read it in foxnewsKmar wrote:
Romney is leading the Republican field. .. even beating Obama in early polls.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06 … se-behind/
Last edited by AussieReaper (2011-07-02 03:29:19)
"even beating Obama in early polls."Kmar wrote:
Romney has been called a RINO.. not good news for fox. Why wouldnt they back other (more to the right) gop candidates? Again, if you actually knew what you were talking about you wouldn't be making these bad assumptions.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … ing-begin/
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/162009/ … -polls.htm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56810.html
The fox link I gave you didn't even mention Obama.AussieReaper wrote:
"even beating Obama in early polls."Kmar wrote:
Romney has been called a RINO.. not good news for fox. Why wouldnt they back other (more to the right) gop candidates? Again, if you actually knew what you were talking about you wouldn't be making these bad assumptions.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … ing-begin/
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/162009/ … -polls.htm
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56810.html
You think foxnews would reporting anything to the contrary?
ABC wrote:
Romney is leading Obama, 49 percent to 46 percent in the trial heat among registered voters. (Among a larger pool -- all Americans -- Romney and the president are running even). Still, no other Republican even gets Obama under 50 percent. Moreover, Romney and Obama run evenly among women -- a group Obama won by 13 points in 2008
PPP wrote:
A poll released from Public Policy Polling (PPP), a firm with connections to prominent national Democrats, found that former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts is leading the pack of Republican hopefuls seeking their party’s presidential nomination in Florida.
“Every poll we do now is cementing Mitt Romney’s front-runner status,” said Dean Debnam, president of PPP.”
Your question was "does a Mormon have a chance?". I'd say so.Quinnipiac University wrote:
A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday revealed that former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts is leading the race for the Republican presidential nomination and doing better against President Barack Obama than any of his primary rivals.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13863498A roundabout revolution is slowly sweeping the US. The land of the car, where the stop sign and traffic light have ruled for decades, has started to embrace the free-flowing British circular.
A few moments after entering Carmel, it's clear why the city has been described as the Milton Keynes of the US.
As the sat-nav loudly and regularly points out, there's often a roundabout up ahead.
But unlike in the English town famous for them, driving into this pretty city on the outskirts of Indianapolis also involves passing several more under construction.
"We are saving thousands of gallons of fuel per roundabout per year"-Mayor of Carmel, Jim Brainard
"I think they're awesome," says Blair Clark, who has lived in the area for 26 years. "They keep the traffic flowing, you don't have to stop, you save gas and there are less accidents."
And Dan Neil, motoring correspondent at the Wall Street Journal, personally welcomes their arrival but thinks there is something deep in the American psyche which is fundamentally opposed to them.
"This is a culture predicated on freedom and individualism, where spontaneous co-operation is difficult and regimentation is resisted.
"You see it in the way Americans get in line, or as the Brits say, queue. We don't do that very well.
"Behind the wheel, we're less likely to abide by an orderly pattern of merging that, though faster for the group, may require an individual to slow down or, God forbid, yield."
Americans tend to be orthogonal in their thinking and behaviour, he says.
"We like right angles, yes and no answers, Manichean explanations. Roundabouts require more subtlety than we're used to."
Un-American or not, it's only a matter of time before they are covering every US state, says Gene Russell, a leading civil engineering professor at Kansas State University.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-02 05:31:03)
Again, you're confusing the person with the government.Dilbert_X wrote:
Rubbish, every US politician has to kow-tow to the Christians and mention 'Gaaahhd' in every third sentence while campaigning.FEOS wrote:
That is not the issue.eleven bravo wrote:
how many atheist politicians do you know of?
Nor is Uzique's example one that backs up Dilbert's claim.
Dilbert claimed that the government itself--even the form of government--discriminates in favor of Christianity in the West. The exact opposite is the truth. The government goes to great pains to show no favoritism whatsoever to Christianity. The society at large may favor Christianity, and thus the politicians would be predominantly Christian. That does not mean that the mechanism of government favors one religion over another. And it does not.
Whether each President says 'So help me Gaahhd' occupies thousands of hours of airtime, its clearly pretty important.
That and whether muslims are allowed to build a mosque is invariably a huge political potato, churches not so much.
