chuckwoww Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 I did, and you stand out for the ignorance on the subject, quick to judge without being here. How about the local Iman interfering by advicing the girls not to go to school anymore untill they are free to wear the scarf ? Ever been to Europe ? ever seen how deep the problems are ? BB That's because it's become a political statement related to the problems in the Middle East. I'll make a prediction. If the ban on burqas is enforced there will be thousands of women in burqas protesting outside the courthouse and elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiceMan Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 The Marxist-Leninists are atheists. Good old Stalin, Mao, Kim, the Khmer Rouge etc ...does that give you a warm and fuzzy feeling? I would argue that they were not atheists. Religious belief is characterized by having faith. Faith is defined as "belief that is not based on proof." Lenin and Stalin's ideology was that their brand of socialism would eventually lead to mankind developing a more altruistic nature; the withering away of the state and an earthly communist paradise. This illogical belief is just another form of religious faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 I couldn't call it a religious faith, but it certainly became a pseudo-religion. Atheism simply means "no God or gods" - and that is what the communists preach. With traditional religion, one's reward comes after this life. With the Soviets, Red Chinese etc the reward will come to the future generations. Notice how no one seems to get the goodies in their OWN lifetime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustian Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 For me their "ban" on religion was simply to stop anyone else having any form of power. They wanted it all for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Precisely. No "conflicting allegiances" were allowed - to religions, fraternal organisations and even family ties were weakened when possible. Free labour unions were a no-no too, only the state approved union which all workers "freely" belonged to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lazyphil Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 no christianity, no christmas:-xmas presis, pudding, turkey, works partys, excess eating and drinking, cheasey xmas pop songs.....an unthinkable thought :thumbdown: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted June 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Egg nog, wassail bowls, mistletoe, Christmas trees, carols, decorations, days off work, Christmas bonuses, menorahs, dreidels ... I suppose we might still be able to celebrate Kwanzaa - the "harvest festival" in the middle of the winter that uses the language of the East African slave and ivory trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 <> odd' date=' charles darwin was religious!....MLK also, need i go on?!.....gandhi.....[/quote'] No, the point still stands. MLK and Gandhi, whilst great individuals, were inspiring and steadfast in their beliefs, but I doubt anyone would ascribe anything remotely approaching high intelligence to either of them. Their greatest virtues were their steadfastness, determination, strength and defiance. Charles Darwin wrestled with the concept of god. To say he was devout is wrong. He clung to faith towards the end of his life, as many do, fearing their impending demise. I think you might need to do some more reading. Darwin was a pussy, holding back on publishing Origin of Species because he feared it would rock the religious nutters and interfere with his life. He instructed his wife to publish his works ... AFTER HE DIED! However, young Wallace came along, almost scooped Charles and Charles rushed to publish. He wasn't that religious, at least not as far as the prevailing Christian doctrines ran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khun_Kong Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 "Science can be created only by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion... The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." --- Einstein, 1941 “I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.†“A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary formsâ€â€it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.†--- Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted June 26, 2009 Report Share Posted June 26, 2009 Head covering goes way back in a lot of religions. But I think you're right. Women who wear a full burkha in the West are making a political statement. They know it drives some people crazy. ... or afraid of being the next "honor killing" victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.