If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
It wasn't the state that called for her death.
Also, I believe we should give as much help as possible to those in Darfur that have been suffering. Not everything is as black and white as you make it out to be.
Yeh like the protestors in London who called for the deaths of Europeans and those who insult Islam, just like the British government supports those types too? :yeees:
I'm not entirely sure why you're comparing the two, however. And nobody has answered the question I asked - why should we give aid to Sudan, a country which has just jailed one of our citizens and allowed its citizens to call for her to be executed?
People demanding she's executed = a few thousand
Yep, that's the whole nation alirght.
I wonder if you've ever called for Sudan's aid to be linked to improvements in human rights, incidentally. (i.e. poor human rights = less money and aid)
It'll probably be linked to the number of government contracts that get farmed out to British companies.
Didn't realise you were against freedom of speech btw.
So we're agreed. You're against freedom of speech.
Exactly, I'm not disagreeing with you. You don't believe in people's right to believe and say whatever they want to believe and say. I do.
Hmm...
I ask yet again, not just of Aladdin, but of everyone - why does Sudan deserve a single penny more in British aid?
And notice the protests in Sudan afterwards. What bets that those protests were also endorsed by the government?
Nope
You know what? That would be a lovely dream world to live in, but not a realistic world at all. People will always, for whatever reason find excuses to exercise prejudice. You only need a basic knowledge of history to understand issues which have gone on that were not linked to religion at all.
People will form group identities, claim territories, find fault with each other. Cultures would clash. People would be fighting just as much for reasons other than religion if religion were not to exist. Don't get me wrong, there are some appalling parts to religious texts which as quite happily exploited by elites, but if not religion, then something else will.
You mean people who give money to charity would support that? That's a bit of a generalisation.
To be honest, I think there would be far less charities around if it weren't for people finding inspiration in religion. Also note how politically active the Quakers have been and how involved with communities and building they've been.
And I agree with the latter argument. There's ore research to suggest it.
There are several arguments for the witchcraft debate. Society can demonise any group it wants. Just look at Falun Gong in China (sorry to keep returning to China lol). Propaganda, be it religious or secular can cause great harm. If the elite see a challenge, they'll stamp all over it without mercy given the right conditions.
Sorry... But who gave Catholic adoption agencies more support than gay potential parents?
However if we are to withdraw support it should be because of that, not because a single UK citizen has been treated unfairly.
I doubt it to be honest.
I wouldn't give a shit. Why would anyone listen to you, let alone actually carry it out? I'm of the opinion that adults are old enough that they don't need shielding from certain views like you would a child.
But were they linked to faith in anything at all? Be it a political idea, a concept of race or whatever other unproven bullshit you might want to mention? I suspect so. Having faith in conservatism, for example, is just as dangerous as having faith in religion. Having faith in anything closes you to criticism of it, and the ability to think critically about a situation, which is the most vital thing if we are going to progress as a race.
Yep, but religion is a pretty good facilitator for it, especially when it comes to indoctronating children. It's much harder to indoctronate your children into your political beliefs, when the discussion is free, open, and not included in the school syllabus (I know that most kids vote roughly the same as their parents, but then most kids also end up living in roughly the same financial situation as their parents, which means they'll likely be voting for the party they feel most benefits their situation).
Haha, no. I'm just saying that it's only with faith that you end up with a fair number of people with such conflicting viewpoints as giving money to combat aids, but not wanting contraception to be mentioned as part of the solution, for example. It leads to inconsitancies in morality, and an idea of morality that is in no way linked to real world suffering (if you think that hell exists, the you'd do anything to avoid your kids going there, even if it meant causing them immense suffering in this life, for example).
Sorry, but I think that's quite a typical argument. People point to charities formed or achievements made before or in the early 1900's, and say, "look at what religious society and religious morality have done for us." But the fact is that you can't point to a period when almost everyone claimed to be religious (and those who weren't were either killed or socially outcast), and then say that any achievements in that period were a result of religious thinking. But a further argument. If your argument so far has been that people will do good and bad things whether religion is involved or not, then how can you cite religion as "inspiration" for these acts? You can't say that it's inspiration for the good acts, but the bad acts are just human nature. I know my argument sounds similar but opposite, but what I'm arguing is that it creates inconsistancies in moral judgement that would otherwise not occur (e.g. no-one would be against stem cell research if they didn't believe in the teaching that human life is holy/sacred).
Again, you're pointing to a secular government despite the fact that I've already argued the point that it's not a religion vs. secular thing, it's a rationality vs. irrationality thing.
Plenty of people said that we shouldn't force people to do something which is "against their religious beliefs," effectively supporting their right to discriminate based purely on their religious beliefs. This was the argument of quite a few people in the media, not the "their hotel, their rules" argument (though that one was also common).
I'd be more than happy to see aid withdrawal linked to that myself. It should have happened a long time ago, but our craven, useless then-PM Tony Blair was too gutless to do it. I wonder if Mr Bean is prepared to do it.
In any case even if you think this was just the final straw it should not be the deciding factor. If aid deserves cutting is because of the human right abuses against the people in Darfur. And if the aid is still in place I don't think it's right to demand it is cut off because of this incident. It wouldn't send a very nice message for starters...