Religion, or extreme politics verging on a religion (eg Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc) is a major factor. Land is involved, but eg the Zionists don't just want ANY land, they want their land as promised by Jehova.
Not a bad idea. Most wars seem to be fueled by religion.
But if we didn't have religion to fight about we'd fight about something else.
Milk in first or last
Which end of the boiled egg to crack
Petrol, diseasel or electric
Your skin is darker than mine
Your skin is lighter than mine
etc.
All true, but religion adds a new dimension. My God says I'm right/killing you is ok/God says this land is ours.
The endless whinging by the Muslim community and others about Islamophobia is a side product of the Muslim community having to get used to the fact that the overwhelming majority of the UK population either have no religious beliefs or identify as Christian. What are interpreted as insults about superstitious beliefs have to be tolerated by many other UK religious groups, the Muslim community will just have to get used to the right to criticise religions guaranteed by UK secular law. It's called free speech.
Edit: sp
Last edited by irie on Wed Apr 17, 2024 8:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
The Scottish government will deliver a ministerial statement at Holyrood after a report from the Climate Change Committee (CCC) said the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030 is out of reach.
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
The Scottish government will deliver a ministerial statement at Holyrood after a report from the Climate Change Committee (CCC) said the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 75% by 2030 is out of reach.
Did the Germans not say something similar last year?
DT wrote:Nicola Sturgeon’s husband has been charged in connection with embezzlement of funds from the SNP.
Peter Murrell, the party’s former chief executive, was taken into custody at 9.13am on Thursday morning.
He was charged more than nine hours later, at 6.35pm, after further questioning by Police Scotland detectives investigating the funding and finances of the party.
A Police Scotland spokesman said: “A 59-year-old man has today, Thursday, April 18 2024, been charged in connection with the embezzlement of funds from the Scottish National Party.
“The man, who was arrested at 9.13am today and had previously been arrested as a suspect on April 5 2023, was charged at 6.35pm after further questioning by Police Scotland detectives investigating the funding and finances of the party.
Impeccable timing.
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
She's got a point. The world WAS a safer place when Trump was president. Maybe having a dementia sufferer as president isn't such a good idea.
I seem to recall something raging on in his final year. I can't quite put a finger on it, but loads of people died all over the globe.
Did Trump do that? Blimey, that's a conspiracy theory par excellence. Kudos!
Not single handedly. However, he botched the response as well as fucked up before it ever occurred. He slashed CDC staff inside China prior to the outbreak. CDC staff were present in China - about 47 health and science experts. Trump drew that down to around 14. The reductions included epidemiologists and other health professionals.
Do you need to be reminded of his rather insane remarks regarding bleach and light? Or all the ivermectin bullshit? The vaccine rollout during his administration was a clusterfuck. Maybe you weren't privy to his early claims that it'd be completely gone in a few days.
Oh, and while you're making the claim that the world was a safer place, I suspect there are some Kurds that would disagree were it not for the fact they were slaughtered. That kind of foreign policy really works to instill confidence in our allies.
Cousin Jack wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 7:01 pm
Religion, or extreme politics verging on a religion (eg Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc) is a major factor. Land is involved, but eg the Zionists don't just want ANY land, they want their land as promised by Jehova.
Its a convenient interpretation of the holy books that leads to justification for war. All holy books are way out of date and need revising for todays world. By todays standards none could be printed as they are, as the texts contain what would be construed as hate speech today with their misogynist, homophobic and sexist views!
Cousin Jack wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 7:01 pm
Religion, or extreme politics verging on a religion (eg Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc) is a major factor. Land is involved, but eg the Zionists don't just want ANY land, they want their land as promised by Jehova.
Its a convenient interpretation of the holy books that leads to justification for war. All holy books are way out of date and need revising for todays world. By todays standards none could be printed as they are, as the texts contain what would be construed as hate speech today with their misogynist, homophobic and sexist views!
The only 'holy book' I have an real familiarity with is itself a careful selection of writings which fitted into one interpretation of the truth a long time ago. It is, as you say, misogynistic, homophobic, and sexist. It is also warmongering, has been translated and mistranslated (sometimes deliberately) umpteen times, and it's meaning has changed since it was written as words have changed their meaning.
A very unreliable guide to anything at all, yet millions of people view it as THE TRUTH.
I have little doubt that all the other 'holy books' are subject to the same issues. You say 'Holy', I say myths and legends.
Cousin Jack wrote: ↑Wed Apr 17, 2024 7:01 pm
Religion, or extreme politics verging on a religion (eg Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc) is a major factor. Land is involved, but eg the Zionists don't just want ANY land, they want their land as promised by Jehova.
Its a convenient interpretation of the holy books that leads to justification for war. All holy books are way out of date and need revising for todays world. By todays standards none could be printed as they are, as the texts contain what would be construed as hate speech today with their misogynist, homophobic and sexist views!
The only 'holy book' I have an real familiarity with is itself a careful selection of writings which fitted into one interpretation of the truth a long time ago. It is, as you say, misogynistic, homophobic, and sexist. It is also warmongering, has been translated and mistranslated (sometimes deliberately) umpteen times, and it's meaning has changed since it was written as words have changed their meaning.
A very unreliable guide to anything at all, yet millions of people view it as THE TRUTH.
I have little doubt that all the other 'holy books' are subject to the same issues. You say 'Holy', I say myths and legends.
Have you ever read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent, and Richard Leigh?
Its a convenient interpretation of the holy books that leads to justification for war. All holy books are way out of date and need revising for todays world. By todays standards none could be printed as they are, as the texts contain what would be construed as hate speech today with their misogynist, homophobic and sexist views!
The only 'holy book' I have an real familiarity with is itself a careful selection of writings which fitted into one interpretation of the truth a long time ago. It is, as you say, misogynistic, homophobic, and sexist. It is also warmongering, has been translated and mistranslated (sometimes deliberately) umpteen times, and it's meaning has changed since it was written as words have changed their meaning.
A very unreliable guide to anything at all, yet millions of people view it as THE TRUTH.
I have little doubt that all the other 'holy books' are subject to the same issues. You say 'Holy', I say myths and legends.
Have you ever read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent, and Richard Leigh?
The only 'holy book' I have an real familiarity with is itself a careful selection of writings which fitted into one interpretation of the truth a long time ago. It is, as you say, misogynistic, homophobic, and sexist. It is also warmongering, has been translated and mistranslated (sometimes deliberately) umpteen times, and it's meaning has changed since it was written as words have changed their meaning.
A very unreliable guide to anything at all, yet millions of people view it as THE TRUTH.
I have little doubt that all the other 'holy books' are subject to the same issues. You say 'Holy', I say myths and legends.
Have you ever read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail by Henry Lincoln, Michael Baigent, and Richard Leigh?
No, is it good?
Yes I thought so, check the synopsis though. Its a bit heavy going at times with the (needed) qualifications, but also reads a bit like a a novel too.
It'll be interesting and slightly saddening to see how much Murrell is accused of embezzling. I'm minded of the Lib Dem couple that threw away their careers etc for a speeding fine.
at the end of my comment. But in any case:
