• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

UK PM David Cameron: "We are a Christian country"

From the BBC article on the matter:

"he staunchly defended the role of religion in politics"

In that case, he's an idiot. I'd already formed an opinion of him as such and this has only enhanced that opinion.
 
Skepticemea said:
From the BBC article on the matter:

"he staunchly defended the role of religion in politics"

In that case, he's an idiot. I'd already formed an opinion of him as such and this has only enhanced that opinion.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "he's an idiot"?
 
gumboot said:
1. The Monarch is not selected by divine right, but by law.
Click to expand...

Big diff, said law is nothing more than an extension of the original divine right to rule principle. Any job you get simply for being born is an affront to fairness and democracy, and rooted in religious or otherwise despotic principles.

2. The Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the head of the Church of England. The Queen of New Zealand is not. The Queen of Australia is not. The Queens of all of the Commonwealth Reams are not.
Click to expand...

Also part of the BS rules. These "queens" are all one and the same person. Let's face it, England still has a queen because the French Revolution was a success and the Brits are still miffed at being kicked out of France by a little girl in the 15th century, so they'd never want to do what the French did first. :D

OK, enough trolling, but Cameron was technically correct, which we all know is the best kind of correct. (that's a Futurama reference)
 
Whether Cameron is technically correct is irrelevant. Cameron a shameless liar. Political expediency always trumps truth.
 
zooterkin said:
What role do you think religion should have in politics?
Click to expand...


What do you understand the word "idiot" to mean? Does the word accurately convey Cameron's motives in allegedly saying that he staunchly defends the role of religion in politics? (I say "allegedly", because it is editorial spin and misrepresents what Cameron actually says. See article)

Some options from da web:

- A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

- a person of subnormal intelligence

- (Psychiatry) a person with severe mental retardation

- a foolish or senseless person

- a person with very low intelligence.


I have the impression that Cameron probably has quite a high IQ.
 
Last edited:
Here we go again! Look Jane, I know we don't agree on many things (y'know, about what percentage of the Tottenham rioters had priors etc) but have you listened to the speech?

Here's a copy of the text:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/king-james-bible/

If you don't like my calling him an idiot, fine, but remember than I'm not allowed to refer him in an anatomical manner, either. He's not literally one of those either, but I've heard him referred to as such a few times.
 
Skepticemea said:
Here we go again! Look Jane, I know we don't agree on many things (y'know, about what percentage of the Tottenham rioters had priors etc) but have you listened to the speech?

Here's a copy of the text:

http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/king-james-bible/

If you don't like my calling him an idiot, fine, but remember than I'm not allowed to refer him in an anatomical manner, either. He's not literally one of those either, but I've heard him referred to as such a few times.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with you calling him an idiot, but the word does contain much information. I was looking for deeper analysis.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Last of the Fraggles said:
Really? He looks like the kind of gormless public schoolboy drooling fool that I wouldn't trust to sit the right way round on the toilet.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know, but looks can be deceptive.
 
He may be right technically that we're a christian nation, but I think he'd be in for a shock if that could change with a public vote.
 
Jorghnassen said:
Big diff, said law is nothing more than an extension of the original divine right to rule principle. Any job you get simply for being born is an affront to fairness and democracy, and rooted in religious or otherwise despotic principles.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Succession is a law, passed by a democratically elected parliament. "The People" have chosen the arrangement. "The People" can change it any time they want.



Jorghnassen said:
Also part of the BS rules. These "queens" are all one and the same person.
Click to expand...

The person is the same, the position isn't. If you can't get your head around this fundamental distinction you will never, ever have any understanding of the British Monarchy.




Jorghnassen said:
Let's face it, England still has a queen because the French Revolution was a success and the Brits are still miffed at being kicked out of France by a little girl in the 15th century, so they'd never want to do what the French did first. :D
Click to expand...

England doesn't have a Queen. The English throne hasn't existed for over 300 years (which was well before the French Revolution).
 
gumboot said:
Nonsense. Succession is a law, passed by a democratically elected parliament. "The People" have chosen the arrangement. "The People" can change it any time they want.
Click to expand...

Really? How would the people go about this? Which mainstream political party would I vote for who have this as part of their manifesto?

Even the SNP want to keep the hangers-on hanging on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom