[Closed] Cameron talks about Easter and god etc

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?

Ergo, my point being is that Christianity is used as an excuse to justify crimes perpetrated against people who have so far been Muslim

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

Sorry - you used Kosova as an example of Blair's Christian wars in this regard. You are presumably ignorant of the fact that the UK's role in Kosova was to assist a bunch of Muslims separate from a Christian nation and ethnically cleanse the minority Christians (and, as always, Gypsy/Roma) from the land. If there were war crimes committed in the "liberation" of Kosova, they were predominantly against Christian civilians: those living in Belgrade and Novi Sad who were killed in nato's aerial attacks, or those living in Kosova who were killed, assaulted and cleansed on the ground.

Do you not think our involvement in Kosovo was partly driven by Blairs naieve Catholic view of "just war".

Ahem they reckon its occupation of your country that'll drive you to blow yourself and others up rather than religion.

The evidence that I've seen is that religious violence is mostly linked to social deprivation, I guess a lot of occupied countries experience massive amounts of that. I'll have to read the research presented in your link before I make any further comments.

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/01/14/religious-hostilities-reach-six-year-high/

I guess if Cameron regards "harrasment" as persecution, then he might be on to something.

The first factor is social distance between the occupier and occupied. The wider the social distance, the more the occupied community may fear losing its way of life. Although other differences may matter, research shows that resistance to occupations is especially likely to escalate to suicide terrorism when there is a difference between the predominant religion of the occupier and the predominant religion of the occupied.

Religious difference matters not because some religions are predisposed to suicide attacks. Indeed, there are religious differences even in purely secular suicide attack campaigns, such as the LTTE (Hindu) against the Sinhalese (Buddhists).

Rather, religious difference matters because it enables terrorist leaders to claim that the occupier is motivated by a religious agenda that can scare both secular and religious members of a local community

*cough* Religion is an enabler of violence *cough*

😀

Do you not think our involvement in Kosovo was partly driven by Blairs naieve Catholic view of "just war".

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

But in any case you're just as wrong with your second attempt as with your first because the answer is still no.

[img] [/img]

"Tony Blair viewed his decision to go to war in Iraq and [b]Kosovo[/b] as part of a "Christian battle"

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
/p>

[img] [/img]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-courage-our-conniptions/201007/does-religious-belief-make-you-more-racist

and

http://www.policymic.com/articles/29397/religious-people-tend-to-be-more-racist-study-finds

“all religions offer a moral group identity, and so across world religions — including Buddhism, Hinduism, Muslim, Judaism and Christianity — the religious in-group is valued over out-groups.” This notion is perhaps a basic human tendency, to value familiar social constructs over foreign or competing interests, often the driving force in tribalism and nationalism.

*cough* Religion is an enabler of violence *cough*