The General Election - Who Are You Voting For?

[FoxyPV]

All religion is bollox (Satanism included - the Satanic Bible is a right laugh - definite suggested read).

It's just there to make you focus on the next life which never comes so you rarely challenge the inequities that are going on in front of you.

They should teach the history of religion in school because it will put everyone off when they see how hypocritical the Church is. It is one of the most devisive topics on earth, causes more hurt, death and destruction than anything else (apart from maybe disease), and has been proved to be a complete fallacy when L Ron Hubbard stopped writing novels and started a religion because "that's where the money is". (guess the religion)

From religion stems hatred not compassion especially when the topics of women, homosexuality and birth/conception/abortion arise.

Religious beliefs have caused genocide and will do so again in the future.

Science irritates me too as they present their findings as fact yet for every report written there is one contradicting it and its findings.

[BoneDog]

They should teach the history of religion in school because it will put everyone off when they see how hypocritical the Church is. It is one of the most devisive topics on earth, causes more hurt, death and destruction than anything else (apart from maybe disease), and has been proved to be a complete fallacy when L Ron Hubbard stopped writing novels and started a religion because "that's where the money is". (guess the religion)

I don't know why you think religion causes more hurt, death and destruction than anything else. Over 50 million people were killed in WW2 and that had nothing to do with religion. And the list goes on, WW1, Korea, Vietnam, The Falklands, The Gulf War and even the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, none of which have anything to do with religion. Then you've got drug wars, gang wars, rapes, paedos, weekend violence and much more . All of these things are the contributor to the most hurt, death and destruction in our world and none of them are created by religion.

The Propaganda Machine and their allies do quite a good job of convincing the world that it's all religions fault though.

[Fosse Boy]

In response to this, I'm going to quote this article: Probably the best article I've ever read and I encourage anyone to read that.

Completely removing, or failing to take into account religion in politics would suggest to me that at some point the government could impose further restrictions on religion and religious people, especially in terms of expressing beliefs even remotely in public.

And it astounds me how some of those who ridicule Christianity will have no problem singing our national anthem, which is a prayer, and makes several references to God and asks him for safety of the Queen and ourselves. I know the first verse is most commonly used, but look at the last two lines of the second verse: "On Thee our hopes we fix, God save us all."

What's the second best article you've ever read?

Also, why are you making the assumption that a secular nation would make it their aim to supress religion? I couldn't really give a flying fuck what anyone believes in as long as it's not racist, sexist or homophobic. People should be free to practice whatever religion they like, that's what living in a tolerant society is all about. But I do object to the idea that our politicians should be taking their cues from it. Like others have said, morality and religion can quite easily be mutually exclusive.

[Collymore]

I hate to admit it, but I read the sun, mainly because I haven't got the time or the money to get stuck Into an actual newspaper, anyway.... I know during the elections papers choose a party to stick with, but the sun's coverage of the election has been embarrassing. Has anyone seen the tripe they print on a daily basis? I think that cameron will be privately wishing they hadn't chose to support him!

[breadandcheese]

All religion is bollox (Satanism included - the Satanic Bible is a right laugh - definite suggested read).

It's just there to make you focus on the next life which never comes so you rarely challenge the inequities that are going on in front of you.

They should teach the history of religion in school because it will put everyone off when they see how hypocritical the Church is. It is one of the most devisive topics on earth, causes more hurt, death and destruction than anything else (apart from maybe disease), and has been proved to be a complete fallacy when L Ron Hubbard stopped writing novels and started a religion because "that's where the money is". (guess the religion)

From religion stems hatred not compassion especially when the topics of women, homosexuality and birth/conception/abortion arise.

Religious beliefs have caused genocide and will do so again in the future.

Science irritates me too as they present their findings as fact yet for every report written there is one contradicting it and its findings.

I don't often agree with El Empty but he's right when he says religion is made a scapegoat. Stalin, Mao-Tse Tung, Kim Jong il between them killed over 41 million people through their cultural and agricultural revolutions. Not to mention those political opponents, groups and just those they didn't like or trust whom they had imprisoned or killed. No religion involved anywhere.

Your irritation at science shows a flawed understanding of science and must be one of the most ridiculous things I've seen posted. Science is one of the few bastions of truth, being subject to peer review at all times. No scientist will ever tell you a scientific theory is 100% true or fact, as it only represents our current understanding and so is subject to change as we make more scientific discoveries and the ability to test scientific theory improves.

For example, the theory of elementary science has changed from a primitive world where up until 200 years ago it was believed that everything was made up of four elements (air, fire, water and earth) until new discoveries and testing procedures enabled the discovery and isolation of elements (Carbon, Iron, Oxygen, etc) to the technology over the last 60 odd years where we can explore the sub-atomic level and actually see protons, neutrons, electrons that make up elements. This has all been done through peer review with countless scientists testing other scientists' work. The results are clear in medicine today with new transplant technologies the result of this peer review.

The only time peer review falls down is when political interference gets in the way.

[FoxyPV]

I don't know why you think religion causes more hurt, death and destruction than anything else. Over 50 million people were killed in WW2 and that had nothing to do with religion. And the list goes on, WW1, Korea, Vietnam, The Falklands, The Gulf War and even the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, none of which have anything to do with religion. Then you've got drug wars, gang wars, rapes, paedos, weekend violence and much more . All of these things are the contributor to the most hurt, death and destruction in our world and none of them are created by religion.

The Propaganda Machine and their allies do quite a good job of convincing the world that it's all religions fault though.

Over 6 million people in WWII were killed because they were Jewish.

The problems in Palestine stem from this because the British pulled out of Palestine and allowed Israel to invade. Religion and politics are unfortunately intertwined there and this is the same for Northern Ireland (hopefully not for much longer).

The hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq are sectarian - Sunni and Shi'ite factions.

The persecution of people in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc is based on religion and religious interpretation.

One of the reasons for the growth of HIV/AIDS in Africa is due to the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church and refusing to endorse the use of condoms.

The entire Middle Ages.

The war in yugoslavia was based on ethno-nationalism with a very strong sectarian theme running through it.

I'm not arguing against gang wars etc (that has more to do with colonialism, gender politics (which religion shapes) and alcohol) but I think religion has had an absolutely detrimental effect on the world.

[FoxyPV]

Your irritation at science shows a flawed understanding of science and must be one of the most ridiculous things I've seen posted. Science is one of the few bastions of truth, being subject to peer review at all times. No scientist will ever tell you a scientific theory is 100% true or fact, as it only represents our current understanding and so is subject to change as we make more scientific discoveries and the ability to test scientific theory improves.

For example, the theory of elementary science has changed from a primitive world where up until 200 years ago it was believed that everything was made up of four elements (air, fire, water and earth) until new discoveries and testing procedures enabled the discovery and isolation of elements (Carbon, Iron, Oxygen, etc) to the technology over the last 60 odd years where we can explore the sub-atomic level and actually see protons, neutrons, electrons that make up elements. This has all been done through peer review with countless scientists testing other scientists' work. The results are clear in medicine today with new transplant technologies the result of this peer review.

The only time peer review falls down is when political interference gets in the way.

This is what annoys me - the arrogance of scientists to presume they are right.

This is a viewpoint - no more no less. Every scientist presents their studies as fact, often indisputable, and dismisses all other findings.

I'm not saying that science doesn't do good things but it is the manner in which it presents its findings which annoys me.

Political views are just as destructive to humanity (if not more so) but at least they represent the here and now rather than some fantasy transcendant glory after you are dead.

[FoxyPV]

The Ulster unionists have shot themselves in the foot with their coalition with the tories after Cameron's public sector cuts remarks!!

If you ever get fed up with the three main parties on the mainland, youtube Sinn Fein, DUP and TUV electoral broadcasts for this election and see what shite we have to put up with here.

[BoneDog]

Over 6 million people in WWII were killed because they were Jewish.

The problems in Palestine stem from this because the British pulled out of Palestine and allowed Israel to invade. Religion and politics are unfortunately intertwined there and this is the same for Northern Ireland (hopefully not for much longer).

The hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq are sectarian - Sunni and Shi'ite factions.

The persecution of people in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc is based on religion and religious interpretation.

One of the reasons for the growth of HIV/AIDS in Africa is due to the religious beliefs of the Catholic Church and refusing to endorse the use of condoms.

The entire Middle Ages.

The war in yugoslavia was based on ethno-nationalism with a very strong sectarian theme running through it.

I'm not arguing against gang wars etc (that has more to do with colonialism, gender politics (which religion shapes) and alcohol) but I think religion has had an absolutely detrimental effect on the world.

Hitler was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands (maybe millions) of Jews but Hitler wasn't religious. I think he claimed to be Catholic but he really wasn't at all. The religious (and other) folk were the victims not the perpetrators.

Most leaders in all these conflicts are not religious at all, only when they have to pretend to be for support.

I think I agree with your opinion on the religious/political leaders around the world, I don't trust them at all. But I don't think that the religions themselves are bad, I think that the religions get hijacked by corrupt and powerful people who would still gain power and commit the same crimes even if religion didn't exist because of the ruthlesness of themselves and their backers.

I know it's the Election thread so I'll give it a rest

[dandannieldanok]

The Ulster unionists have shot themselves in the foot with their coalition with the tories after Cameron's public sector cuts remarks!!

Possibly the biggest gaffe of the election to date from Cameron there. Sure to have lost votes in both Northern Ireland and the North East of England. Hopefully he makes more cock-ups.

[FoxyPV]

Most leaders in all these conflicts are not religious at all, only when they have to pretend to be for support.

I think I agree with your opinion on the religious/political leaders around the world, I don't trust them at all. But I don't think that the religions themselves are bad, I think that the religions get hijacked by corrupt and powerful people who would still gain power and commit the same crimes even if religion didn't exist because of the ruthlesness of themselves and their backers.

I know it's the Election thread so I'll give it a rest

Mainly agree and topic left.

(clarify the Holocaust point - european anti semitism grew from religious antipathy back in the day )

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

This is what annoys me - the arrogance of scientists to presume they are right.

This is a viewpoint - no more no less. Every scientist presents their studies as fact, often indisputable, and dismisses all other findings.

I'm not saying that science doesn't do good things but it is the manner in which it presents its findings which annoys me.

Political views are just as destructive to humanity (if not more so) but at least they represent the here and now rather than some fantasy transcendant glory after you are dead.

How can Science "present its findings"? There isn't some international organization called 'Science' which produces lists of assertions about the universe. And when you talk about the presentation of "findings", do you mean peer-reviewed journals or the half-page reports in a newspaper? Can you give some examples of the kind of wanton dismissal you're talking about?

[Bert]

That's not because as a society we've come to a decision that 'religion is bullshit'.

In schools, the content of religious studies' lessons is usually very poor, something I wish I could change. If young people are barely introduced to religion, given an informed view of why people believe, the theories of creation etc, there would be a lot more people that take an interest.

In my experience, my religious studies lessons at secondary school were more concerned with the issues like morality and abortion than trying to teach more about religious beliefs, history of religion etc. Without this, how are kids being provided with the basis to make a decision for themselves? Whereas in Science textbooks and the like, it will say 'The universe was created by a big bang', without pointing out that this is just a theory and a viewpoint and not actual fact.

And at GCSE level, there was a compulsory 'short course', but on choosing the 'full course' as an additional subject I was told there wasn't the demand for it. At A Level it was not even offered as a subject. With the intention to do Theology at university, I asked several university representatives at this weeks' University Fair at Loughborough Uni whether their University offered it as a degree, to which most answered 'Theology? What's that?'

In most mainstream schools, where the majority of pupils are White British, Christianity is one of the last religions to be taught. To me, that should be the first religion taught in this type of school, and it could be a reason why people don't have an interest in religion, because they're getting taught about a religion that they possibly could not be interested in.

I'm sure, for example, in a specialist Jewish school, the only religion spoke about is Judaism.

Personally I enjoyed R.E and it was great learning about other religions, cultures and ways of life but in a mainly White British school, Christianity should be the first Religion taught and this is often not the case.

I apologise if anyone feels offended by this post, because it's in no means meant to, just my feelings on things.

[Flynny]

In most mainstream schools, where the majority of pupils are White British, Christianity is one of the last religions to be taught. To me, that should be the first religion taught in this type of school, and it could be a reason why people don't have an interest in religion, because they're getting taught about a religion that they possibly could not be interested in.

I'm sure, for example, in a specialist Jewish school, the only religion spoke about is Judaism.

Personally I enjoyed R.E and it was great learning about other religions, cultures and ways of life but in a mainly White British school, Christianity should be the first Religion taught and this is often not the case.

I apologise if anyone feels offended by this post, because it's in no means meant to, just my feelings on things.

Surely that's because, in Britain, Christianity will be the religion that people have already had most exposure to? I know exactly where you're coming from but I don't see the problem. Also when I did RE at GCSE we had to do two religions, Christianity, which was compulsory and one other. As far as I know that's the case in most places, and this was even at Soar Valley which was 85% non-White British in the year I joined.

But apart from this I don't see how the academic study of religion is something anyone religious is interested in, being religious and studying a religion are such very different things.

[l444ry]

Do the right thing on May 6th!!

[Guest DavidJCW]

Decided I'd be voting Lib Dem a long time ago... well before these debates.

The massive problem for the Lib Dems is that a massive amount of the voting public WOULD vote for them if they thought they could win, it's just that because they're worried that they won't and it'll help the Conservatives, they shy away from voting Lib Dem. There was a poll done quite a while ago that showed that 49% of the public would vote for them if they had a chance.

What people need to realise is that if you want to vote Lib Dem, vote for them as it's only through almost all of the 49% voting for them that they'll get in... hedging your bets as some seem to be doing isn't going to do any good at all.

[coale39]

Decided I'd be voting Lib Dem a long time ago... well before these debates.

The massive problem for the Lib Dems is that a massive amount of the voting public WOULD vote for them if they thought they could win, it's just that because they're worried that they won't and it'll help the Conservatives, they shy away from voting Lib Dem. There was a poll done quite a while ago that showed that 49% of the public would vote for them if they had a chance.

What people need to realise is that if you want to vote Lib Dem, vote for them as it's only through almost all of the 49% voting for them that they'll get in... hedging your bets as some seem to be doing isn't going to do any good at all.

The Lib Dems want to institute a full amnesty for illegal immigrants living in Britain. I cant support that, and will make people traffickers rub there hands together.

[Guest DavidJCW]

The Lib Dems want to institute a full amnesty for illegal immigrants living in Britain. I cant support that, and will make people traffickers rub there hands together.

Full amnesty for illegal immigrants that have been living here for 10 years or more (and presumably can prove it) and are willing to contribute fully to society (taxes et al.) and pay back through community service of some sort for being here illegally in the first place. If they don't or haven't been living here for 10 years or more (or presumably can't prove it), they'll be deported back out of the country.

Introducing a points based system for those wanting to come into the country so that they can only be sent to places where they are needed and not to places where jobs are thin on the ground.

Re-establishing a exiting system to keep tabs on not only those coming into the country but also on those going out, a system the Conservatives abolished in the first place.

They they have already said that they want to clamp down on the traffickers and through saving money in other areas of the economy, they would invest more on policing and in trying to stop the drugs problems we have here, one of the main areas where trafficking is an issue.

The Lib Dems are the only party from what I can tell where a clear plan has been laid out on how they want to go about trying to deal with this issue, not only in stopping those coming in, but also for those already here... neither the Conservatives or Labour have said exactly what they propose to do.

[Flynny]

Also important to note that such amnesties already operate, and have done whilst both parties have been in power - just quietly so you don't kick up a fuss. It's a position that makes much more sense than Labour and Conversatives trying to sound tough about the number of 'Non-EU migrants' when these are a tiny minority anyway.

[Guest DavidJCW]

Actually I got it wrong... in their policy, it's not an amnesty they're offering, it's a "route to citizenship" to those who've been here for 10 years, are willing to pay taxes, speak English etc. meaning that presumably they'll have to go through checks to make sure they can stay here and integrate with society.

So in the end it's not a open invitation to all to come here at all...

[coale39]

Full amnesty for illegal immigrants that have been living here for 10 years or more (and presumably can prove it) and are willing to contribute fully to society (taxes et al.) and pay back through community service of some sort for being here illegally in the first place. If they don't or haven't been living here for 10 years or more (or presumably can't prove it), they'll be deported back out of the country.

How could they prove it exactly, if they been here 10 years? Do you think they are illegal, as opposed to legal, immigrates for a reason?

Introducing a points based system for those wanting to come into the country so that they can only be sent to places where they are needed and not to places where jobs are thin on the ground.

I agree with a points system, Australia's system on the face of it. However, where in the country are jobs not thin on the ground at the minute?

Re-establishing a exiting system to keep tabs on not only those coming into the country but also on those going out, a system the Conservatives abolished in the first place.

.

They they have already said that they want to clamp down on the traffickers and through saving money in other areas of the economy, they would invest more on policing and in trying to stop the drugs problems we have here, one of the main areas where trafficking is an issue.

Same as conservatives Border Police Force.

The Lib Dems are the only party from what I can tell where a clear plan has been laid out on how they want to go about trying to deal with this issue, not only in stopping those coming in, but also for those already here... neither the Conservatives or Labour have said exactly what they propose to do.

Polices are polices, I could say the lib dem dont say exactly what they are going to do.

Cant have labour for another session, and lib dems have always been too idealistic. For instance the Lib dems plan to not build anymore nuclear power plants or coal plants. Its all ideological instead of realistic aims. So it has to be Conservative for me.

[Guest]

The Lib Dems want to institute a full amnesty for illegal immigrants living in Britain. I cant support that, and will make people traffickers rub there hands together.

Spain and Italy do this every few years and found it's productive, as it encourages immigrants who want to integrate and to become a functioning part of society. People who have, and will, contribute a hell of a lot more than the indigenous wasters claiming every benefit under the sun that already live here.

That's not condoning people traffickers who bring people into the country not to work in what would be an otherwise lawful profession, but who bring in women and children to work in the sex trade. This is clearly unacceptable, and I don't doubt that this isn't on the Lib Dems agenda.

[Guest DavidJCW]

Full amnesty for illegal immigrants that have been living here for 10 years or more (and presumably can prove it) and are willing to contribute fully to society (taxes et al.) and pay back through community service of some sort for being here illegally in the first place. If they don't or haven't been living here for 10 years or more (or presumably can't prove it), they'll be deported back out of the country.

How could they prove it exactly, if they been here 10 years? Do you think they are illegal, as opposed to legal, immigrates for a reason?

Introducing a points based system for those wanting to come into the country so that they can only be sent to places where they are needed and not to places where jobs are thin on the ground.

I agree with a points system, Australia's system on the face of it. However, where in the country are jobs not thin on the ground at the minute?

Re-establishing a exiting system to keep tabs on not only those coming into the country but also on those going out, a system the Conservatives abolished in the first place.

.

They they have already said that they want to clamp down on the traffickers and through saving money in other areas of the economy, they would invest more on policing and in trying to stop the drugs problems we have here, one of the main areas where trafficking is an issue.

Same as conservatives Border Police Force.

The Lib Dems are the only party from what I can tell where a clear plan has been laid out on how they want to go about trying to deal with this issue, not only in stopping those coming in, but also for those already here... neither the Conservatives or Labour have said exactly what they propose to do.

Polices are polices, I could say the lib dem dont say exactly what they are going to do.

Cant have labour for another session, and lib dems have always been too idealistic. For instance the Lib dems plan to not build anymore nuclear power plants or coal plants. Its all ideological instead of realistic aims. So it has to be Conservative for me.

What they actually said about nuclear power plants are that they are extremely expensive to build and maintain therefore looking at alternative sources of power would be something that they'd want to do.

And as for the Lib Dems not saying what they're going to do, I think from laying out all their plans as I stated above, they clearly do. The only thing that the Conservatives have said is that they'll set up a cap on immigrants. Now, you said they want a Border Police Force, but that again is only making sure more don't come in... they aren't saying anything about what they'll do with those already here and the problems we already have with trafficking. Seems that the Conservatives are all too wooly on their policies...

What's more is that the Lib Dems want to set up an independent agency to control asylum seekers too, reducing amounts of decisions being overturned on appeal and meaning less people coming in.

[Guest]

Just noticed something else. For the umpteenth time, just in case anyone didn't read it the first time I posted it, or if you're just ignoring the fact because you don't like it

THE UK HAS A POINTS BASED IMMIGRATION POLICY IN PLACE

Link...

[l444ry]

Full amnesty for illegal immigrants that have been living here for 10 years or more (and presumably can prove it) and are willing to contribute fully to society (taxes et al.) and pay back through community service of some sort for being here illegally in the first place. If they don't or haven't been living here for 10 years or more (or presumably can't prove it), they'll be deported back out of the country.

Introducing a points based system for those wanting to come into the country so that they can only be sent to places where they are needed and not to places where jobs are thin on the ground.

Re-establishing a exiting system to keep tabs on not only those coming into the country but also on those going out, a system the Conservatives abolished in the first place.

They they have already said that they want to clamp down on the traffickers and through saving money in other areas of the economy, they would invest more on policing and in trying to stop the drugs problems we have here, one of the main areas where trafficking is an issue.

The Lib Dems are the only party from what I can tell where a clear plan has been laid out on how they want to go about trying to deal with this issue, not only in stopping those coming in, but also for those already here... neither the Conservatives or Labour have said exactly what they propose to do.

So this means that if, for example, there is a need for an immigrant’s skills in Inverness or Bognor Regis, the immigrant will be allowed into the country on the basis, presumably, that he may work only in Inverness or Bognor Regis.

Sounds reasonable at first David, but what would happen if the job in Inverness or Bognor disappeared? Would the immigrant be allowed to move to London, or would he be sent home? Would there be an internal passport system that applied to immigrants only, with an appropriate bureaucracy to enforce it? Has Vince Fable costed this?

You'll need these Border Police on every motorway in the country!!!

Like many Lib Dem bright ideas, the policy is incoherent.