[Closed] Cameron talks about Easter and god etc

he says: "Easter is not just a time for Christians across our country to reflect, but a time for our whole country to reflect on what Christianity brings to Britain."

I wonder how many Muslims will be doing that, then.

He speaks of the "countless acts of kindness" carried out every day across the UK by "those who believe in and follow Christ".

Probably as many as those who don't. Far as I'm aware "being kind" and "following Christ" are not codependent.

I find it difficult to believe Cameron has any genuine religious beliefs but somebody in Central Office must have worked out the demographics for this move. I'd be interested in seeing their workings.

a time for our whole country to reflect on what Christianity brings to Britain

Is it bad that many of my "reflections" on that matter involve swear words?

I find it difficult to believe Cameron has [s]any genuine religious beliefs..[/s] a soul

FTFY 😉

Given the importance of Jesus in Islam, quite a few Muslims take an interest.

Usual anti-religious fervour being whipped up, like the religion in schools thread.

Anyone who casually dismisses someone elses views as being inferior to their own - religious or not - is arguably blinkered and intolerant.

Every time I look at the Daves Tory party, and their inclusive and caring policies, particularly towards the more disadvantaged in society, I'm humbled by their spirit of benevolence

God bless 'em

He's only saying it to copy Blair.

Who wants an Easter egg?

Well hop off and get your own! Nom, nom, nom

More politicians should follow Jesus example

i.e. we should nail 'em up

A pagan festival about new life gets co-opted by the Church to represent a zombie which then gets co-opted by chocolate companies who use egg laying rabbits to deliver obesity and diabetes to the nation.

Right, that's my reflecting done. Who is next?

the importance of Jesus in Islam

Anyone who casually dismisses someone elses views as being inferior to their own - religious or not - is arguably blinkered and intolerant.

PS I am happy to say Hitlers views were inferior to my view of mutual respect and tolerance...I hope you can forgive my blinkered intolerance of the genocidal racist

😆 @ Graham S

This was my favourite -

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-claims-jesus-invented-the-big-society--he-is-just-continuing-gods-work-9250449.html ]Just continuing God's work[/url]

[img] [/img]

If only Cameron was imaginary.

Basically if you are suggesting Muslims will be thinking about Easter then that is not true.

Well.. they might well be thinking about what chocolate egg to buy - which is probably what 98% of the UK population genuinely "reflect on" at Easter. 😀

Jesus invented the Big Society 2,000 years ago,” Mr Cameron said. “I just want to see more of it.”

“It is the case that Christians are now the most persecuted religion around the world,”

Anyone who casually dismisses someone elses views as being inferior to their own - religious or not - is arguably blinkered and intolerant.

Surely these people's views are not blinkered and intolerant, but rather are just as valid as your own? Only, the alternative would be that in casually dismissing their opinion as inferior to yours here you're a massive hypocrite.

(-:

Their book is a load of piffle, and I am not a believer.

However, I have had to attend various religious ceremonies over the years, mainly christian church services.

I have never heard a sermon or message delivered that suggested intolerance or damnation for non-believers, services of all faiths that I have attended have focused on the principle of being nicer to each other, if you'll excuse the oversimplification, which is not a bad message to put out, regardless of any supposed heavenly reward. To imply that all religious belief is somehow wrong strikes me as rather missing the point of the various assorted flavours of fairy stories involved.

Early post to invoke the Hitler rule, fair play 😉

More politicians should follow [s]Jesus [/s] [b]the Romans[/b] example

i.e. we should nail 'em up

It was the Romans doing the nailing and look how badly society has gone wrong since they stopped!

Jesus invented [s]the Big Society[/s] [b]fiddling expenses[/b] 2,000 years ago,” Mr Cameron said. “I just want to see more of it.”

FIFY

Jesus invented the Big Society 2,000 years ago,” Mr Cameron said. “I just want to see more of it.”

Wasn't it 2000 years ago, the last time anyone mentioned the 'Big Society'?

"Easter is not just a time for Christians across our country to reflect, but a time for our whole country to reflect on what [s]Christianity [/s] co-optoed pre-christian paganism brings to Britain."

FTFH.

Looking out for the richest in society and shafting the poor and vulnerable - pretty sure that was what Jesus stood for wasn't it?

[i]I have never heard a sermon or message delivered that suggested intolerance or damnation for non-believers[/i]

Er, maybe a bit of historical research is in order then..

As for Cameron, he's just doing what a lot of other cockends do - sucking up to his boss

Early post to invoke the Hitler rule, fair play

Its the great conundrum of religion - it can be brilliant and tolerant /follow the golden rule or it can be all fire and brimstone from a wrathful god

they tend to focus on the nicer bits in church but it is not hard to find example in the books of god/allah whomever doing bad stuff nor the followers doing bad stuff even today.

Apparently, according to the bible, it is harder for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. As Dave regularly reminds his friends in the City when they're round at his house for 'kitchen suppers'

It is the case that Christians are now the most persecuted religion around the world,”

Where are all of these Christians being boxxed into an arid coastal region to then have guided bombs dropped on them by Israeli F-15E's?

Christianity despite assertations to the contary, still appears to be a tool for claiming victimhood and identifying a common enemy.

Christianity despite assertations to the contary, still appears to be a tool for claiming victimhood and identifying a common enemy.

Sounds like any / all religions...

More politicians should follow Jesus the Romans example

i.e. we should nail 'em up

It was the Romans doing the nailing and look how badly society has gone wrong since they stopped!

No, they should follow the Jesus example and be nailed, we should follow the Roman example and do the nailing.

Unnecessary pedantry backatchya!!

DezB - I was talking about my personal experiences, I'm well aware of the perils of zealotry.

Seems to me that many people can't see the wood for the trees with religion, and too many, probably rightly, focus on the damage that it has caused when used as a reason to justify political or geographical expansion throughout the ages.

Like all things it can be a force for good. Ghandi for example, Martin Luther King as well. Also amazing acts of forgiveness I could not do were it my loved ones.
However more often it is used as a means of persecuting folk who dont agree with you be it blasphemy or a heliocentric world

Now their power wains to hear them , after centuries of oppressing dissenting voices, argue for tolerance whilst portraying themselves as victims is frankly laughable.
At worst atheists want to marginalise them whilst pointing and laughing rather than kill them

[img] [/img]

Christianity despite assertations to the contary, still appears to be a tool for claiming victimhood and identifying a common enemy.

Absolutely the communities talked about in [url=Christianity despite assertations to the contary, still appears to be a tool for claiming victimhood and identifying a common enemy.]this article[/url] need to MTFU.

mefty in an all too familiar to me C&P error, wanna try again?
🙂

[url=http: http://theweek.com/article/index/255403/the-worlds-most-ancient-christian-communities-are-being-destroyed-mdash-and-no-one-cares ]this article[/url]

[url= http://theweek.com/article/index/255403/the-worlds-most-ancient-christian-communities-are-being-destroyed-mdash-and-no-one-cares ]here you go mate[/url], hate to see a guy struggle 🙂

ta, didn't know second attempt didn't work

As Alan himself said: "Never insult Muslims, ever! Christians? Yes. Jews? A bit. But never Muslims"

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]
A week early, but who cares?

A week early, but who cares?

Wrong as well, he comes back the day before.

Linking the big society to Jesus is a bit rich IMO. JC would have clearly been a proper bleeding heart lefty and seen straight through the hijacking of christian (and indeed other folks/religions/communities) principles of compassion and forgiveness as a shallow excuse to absolve the government of as much responsibility as possible for its most vulnerable and voice-less citizens.
If cameron is the christian he claims to be, he must be rehearsing a pretty hefty deathbed confession/absolution!

so that's 2 more things i won't be taking any notice of from call me dave.

funny how he get's religion but shafts the poor/vulnerable in society 😡

It is a bit hard to imagine Jesus voting Tory isn't it. I can imagine the scene would be a bit more like this:

Struggling to see anything objectively wrong with what Cameron said, or his right to say it. The comments in this thread on the other hand...let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Also Tom_W1987 you might want to consider Christians in Egypt, the Sudan, and most muslim states in the Middle East before you conclude that it's all really the fault of the Jews.

Also Tom_W1987 you might want to consider Christians in Egypt, the Sudan, and most muslim states in the Middle East before you conclude that it's all really the fault of the Jews.

You might want to consider the mur....oh I'm sorry...collateral damage...caused by the west and compare those statistics to all the 9/11 victims and Christian persecution victims in the middle east.

You will find that one massively dwarfs the other.

Brown people only count if they're Christian though.

OK while I can see your point, these guys aren't being targeted because they're muslims. They're not really being targeted at all. So if you're going to talk about "religious persecution", it's not really relevant.

I think the wider point there is that obsessing about religious persecution is just a way of ignoring enormous amounts of harm and treating some abuse like it's somehow worse because it's inspired by religion.

Cameron is the church's Dyno-Rod...

Is this is superhero alter ego - Cameron the caped crusader [ see what i did there]

OK while I can see your point, these guys aren't being targeted because they're muslims. They're not really being targeted at all. So if you're going to talk about "religious persecution", it's not really relevant.

I beg to differ -

Tony Blair viewed his decision to go to war in Iraq and Kosovo as part of a "Christian battle", according to one of his closest political allies.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5373525/Tony-Blair-believed-God-wanted-him-to-go-to-war-to-fight-evil-claims-his-mentor.html

Not being funny but did you actually read your own link there? It's talking about something entirely different- "all part of the Christian battle; good should triumph over evil, making lives better.".

Okay, I'll quote something I contributed to years ago..... Many critics of the Bush and Blair administration point out that there is little difference between the actions of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and those of Bush and Blair. While on the surface the actions of both Blair and Bush and those of bin Laden and Hussein are similar their intents are completely different. According to Bush "People like Saddam and bin Laden hate us for our freedom while we love freedom". Bush's close alliance with Saudi Arabia as well as his support of Colombian death squads demonstrates this love of freedom. Mass slaughter and destruction are OK when we do it because we are spreading democracy and freedom, when they do it, its because they are spreading fear and hatred. Another difference between "I Can't Believe It's Not Terrorism" and Terrorism is that we have God on our side and they don't. Whether an act of violence is terrorism or "I Can't Believe It's Not Terrorism" also depends on who perpetrates it. If the act is committed by leftist guerrillas in Colombia, socialists or communists in Latin America, Islamic extremists, Basque separatists, or Palestinian militants it is terrorism. If it is committed by American Backed Banana Republics including Colombia, the United Kingdom, Israel, or the United States then it is "I Can't Believe It's Not Terrorism".

Ergo, my point being is that Christianity is used as an excuse to justify crimes perpetrated against people who have so far been Muslim, they are persecuted for their religion in so far that we would have never invaded Iraq had there not been an utterly spurious association between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Palestinians are persecuted everyday, the justification for that seems to boil down to Israeli racism and colonialism.

good should triumph over evil

And according to Blair the "evil" side happened to be Muslim.

When was the last time Blair advocated attacking a predominately Christian country in his personal crusade against evil ?

When was the last time Blair advocated attacking a predominately Christian country in his personal crusade against evil ?

Precisely.

In times like these I find it better to ask
[img] [/img]

http://www.timesofisrael.com/tony-blair-says-west-must-promote-religious-tolerance/

Although he argued that the Middle East, being “the center of Islam,” had to be a focal point of efforts to combat sectarianism — in that regard, he evoked Iraq, which has seen a resurgence of violence and increasing sectarian strife in recent months - — Blair emphasized that “this issue of extremism is not limited to Islam.

Or in other words, I'm not racist but -

[img] [/img]

Christianity is used as an excuse to justify crimes perpetrated against people who have so far been Muslim

Yeah but that's not really true is it ? Christianity isn't used as an excuse to attack Muslim countries, the excuses they use are varied WMD's, habouring Osama bin Laden, etc, but I haven't heard a British Prime Minister claim that a country should be attacked because it is the will of (a Christian) God.

EDIT : Just to clarify - I think Blair does target countries because they are Muslim, but I don't think he would ever publicly admit that he does, and he certainly wouldn't use it as an excuse, he's not that stupid.

Yeah but that's not really true is it ? Christianity isn't used as an excuse to attack Muslim countries, the excuses they use are varied WMD's, habouring Osama bin Laden, etc, but I haven't heard a British Prime Minister claim that a country should be attacked because it is the will of (a Christian) God.

That's because the loon isn't quite loony enough to do that publicly. His former adviser did state that he thought going to war in Iraq was "gods work".

That's because the loon isn't quite loony enough to do that publicly.

I'm going to bet a tenner that Dave is eventually voted the worst Prime minister ever. EVER.

Nasty, nasty man. Totally concerned for the welfare of a few hundred, immensely wealthy people rather than the millions he should be caring about. Break down the most beautiful institution the world has ever known so a few people can make a bit of profit. He's a terribly vile character.

Tin foil hat time!

Not so hard to imagine. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

I think the lesson to be learned is that anyone bat **** insane enough to believe in some invisible dictator watching over us, should never be allowed to be in a position of power.

And there is a subtle difference between God told me to do it and using Christianity as an excuse.

And there is a subtle difference between God told me to do it and using Christianity as an excuse.

No there isn't, either way they are using their own beliefs as a psychological rationalization for their own actions.

Had the morons not believed in god, the afterlife and forgiveness they might not have been able to morally justify those wars to themselves.

With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

A quick wiki to explain my point further http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_(making_excuses)

In a similar way, acts of aggression will often be seen as 'reasonable, well justified, even necessary...rationalizing their self-interest in these ways'; so that, to cite 'Martin Luther King, Jr...."It seems to be a fact of life that human beings cannot continue to do wrong without eventually reaching out for some rationalization to clothe their act"'.[22] The same may be said of the collective scale. 'When groups commit aggression, they, too, rationalize their acts with high-sounding words...rationalizing their own self-interested desires',[22] so that, for example, 'Their own God is the right God. The other God is the strange God....Our own soldiers take care of the poor families; the enemy rapes them'

His former adviser did state that he thought going to war in Iraq was "gods work".

To be fair his former political agent was/is his political ally so he is bound to want to paint him in what he perceives to be a good light, claiming that Blair was motivated by deeply held religious views would help to achieve that in his eyes, plus he probably thinks that some people who disagreed with Blair decisions might let him off the hook if they believed that his intentions were 'good and honourable', and for those reasons Blair's former political agent's pronouncements probably don't provide the most unbiased and reliable evidence.

In other words....he would say that wouldn't he ?

I don't see why the hell you'd want to tell the British public that we went to war partly because of some deep seated religiosity - that was kept secret until after it had all kicked off. For good reason, I highly doubt people think better of him now we've been told this.

Labour voters tend to be Guardian reading heathens for starters.

Had the morons not believed in god, the afterlife and forgiveness they might not have been able to morally justify those wars to themselves.

Actually the Pope, who presumably is 'a moron who believes in God, the afterlife and forgiveness', was outspoken in his criticism of the planned Western attack on Iraq, and he pleaded with the West not to go to war. Blair ignored those pleas and went to war anyway.

Now who is more motivated in a belief in God, the afterlife, and forgiveness, the Pope or Blair ?

The pope was just more intelligent, which says something.

Also, the true believers tend to be the little people. As you get further up to the top within the Church you start finding reasonably bright theologians, who, although they will not care to admit it - have often doubted their own faith.

LOOK, seriusrie you guys.... loooook at him. He's a sodding fruitcake, if that's not the biggest bag of walking cognitive dissonance I don't know what is.

I don't see why the hell you'd want to tell the British public that we went to war partly because of some deep seated religiosity - that was kept secret until after it had all kicked off. For good reason, I highly doubt people think better of him now we've been told this.

Labour voters tend to be Guardian reading heathens for starters

So you think that Blair's former political agent is trying to sabotage him ?

Well I guess you could be right although I think it's extremely unlikely.

Then choose, either way his religious conviction does not seem to be in doubt.

His former adviser did state that he thought going to war in Iraq was "gods work".

I think there is some confusion here. God's work could be spreading Christianity and punishing heathens, but it could also be helping the poor and downtrodden. God's work can mean good things.

You don't have to believe in a god to be an arse hole. Proof plenty right here in this thread. I'm not excluding myself from that definition incidentally.
There's always a war waiting to happen where religion is concerned. If we were all face to face having this discussion,, the fists would already be flying.
[b]Junkyard[/b] should get a lamping just for the mere mention of Hitler on the first page. 😆
I choose to accept a Christian God. It's my choice. I have no desire to condemn anyone else's belief and the nature of faith is that you will have doubt. That's why it's called faith! It's a belief based on no physical proof.
It doesn't mean I think any non believer is condemned to damnation because although most people here will think I'm stupid and gullible, I can still actually formulate my own ideas as well. It doesn't mean I I feel threatened by other faiths.
Extremism exists in every facet of society in one form or another. It's not limited to religion.

Good post gs.

I think there is some confusion here. God's work could be spreading Christianity and punishing heathens, but it could also be helping the poor and downtrodden. God's work can mean good things.

Well there's some stuff in the Bible which provides clues :

[b][i]There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, false witness who pours out lies, and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.[/i][/b] - Proverbs 6:16-19

I think we can probably all agree that Tony Blair has haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, and a heart that devises wicked schemes. Feet that are quick to rush into evil is a bit more tricky as Tony Blair insists on other people doing that while he stays somewhere safe where no one can harm him.

But apart from that last reservation it would appear that Tony Blair is completely at odds with some fundamental stuff in the Bible. In fact I'm starting to wonder if he might be the anti-Christ ?

You don't have to believe in a god to be an arse hole.

I don't think it does any good these days for politicians to spout on about religion and god's work. There are supposed to represent all of us (even if we didn't vote for them), so it is divisive to emphasise a particular faith. I think it's high time we had a fully secular political system.

Extremism exists in every facet of society in one form or another. It's not limited to religion.

Name one animal rights type, tree hugging hippy, or feminist that's even come close to doing a 9/11 or a suicide bombing for that matter? If you can name one then I bet the numbers are dwarfed by the things done in the name of modern day religious extremism. The only ones that come close tend to be far right loons and hilariously enough they often associate themselves with Christianity.

What? The fact that some nutters also happen to be religious doesn't incriminate religion. The Muslim extremists are as upset about foreign power invading or occupying their territory as anything else.

People focus on differences between themselves and others. The fact that some people see it as Muslims vs Heathens is neither here nor there. If we were all atheists it's be Palestinians vs Israelis or Iraqis vs Americans etc.

If you think inter-tribal aggression in humans would disappear without religion, you're as guilty as they are of slapping religious labels on things.

Id wager that terrorist activity significantly correlates with religiosity, when was the last time you heard of an atheist suicide bomber?

I guess religion is often associated with economic or social deprival, so maybe that causes the terrorism. Which means that for all religion likes to bang on about morality, what really makes people behave is plain old hard cash and a job.

There's plenty of examples of people both religious and non-religious going on suicide missions/accepting certain death in furtherance of their cause (and 'falling on a grenade' to save the lives of others is surprisingly common).

Such acts tend to be very much acts of desperation when the situation is stacked in the enemies favour, and certainly blowing yourself with the intention of killing many more numbers of your enemies would be classed as such.

But it is rather insulting to atheists to claim that they could never freely and deliberately scarify their own lives in furtherance of a cause which they passionately believe in.

Because whilst [i]"No greater love has any man than to lay down his life for another"[/i] might be the central core theme to Christianity it certainly doesn't mean that only religious people have a monopoly over such morality.

A very good post, molgrips. I don't contribute to religious debates because the "imaginary friend" comments wind me up, but I do read some of the discussions.

What? The fact that some nutters also happen to be religious doesn't incriminate religion. The Muslim extremists are as upset about foreign power invading or occupying their territory as anything else.

So when religious people do good stuff it's thanks to their faith, but when they do bad stuff it's nothing to do with their faith?

Amusingly where they are persecuted it is by other religious groups so it sort if prove the point it the religious who are the nutters.

Did the persecution of religionists by atheistic regimes like Albania and the USSR prove the point that it the nonreligious who are the nutters?

Where are all of these Christians being boxxed into an arid coastal region to then have guided bombs dropped on them by Israeli F-15E's?