Skip Navigation

Religion and Politics.

Travel Forums Off Topic Religion and Politics.

Page

Last Post

61. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

Quoting george1979

I have no problem with peoples personal choices but those should remain exactly that - personal.
I think this partly why these 2 subjects combined are so volatile. People should be free to do what they want within reason as long as they are not offending or hurting anyone. This is why we have secular societies -

I certainly agree, with u, on that one George.
But, I think that is another reason, why it is important to discuss religion and politics. We have to be clear on why it is important to have secular states. Religion has put down deep roots, in society.
And, I think it is also important that secular states really are secular. I was shocked, to find out around a year ago, that if me and my boyfriend want to get married, in England, we can do it easily, if we go through the church. To get married, without the church, would be more complicated, and we would have to wait for longer. And England is supposed to be a secular state. ;)

62. Posted by emma1979 (Full Member 126 posts) 9y

Quoting george1979

Quoting emma1979

i am sick of religion and politics. they make me feel sick.

Ditto Emma! i think Many people in Scotland (especially the West of Scotland) are very fed up with religion. I suppose this may apply to lots of places aswell. I personally have what i would consider a healthy distrust and loathing of all organised religion. I have no problem with peoples personal choices but those should remain exactly that - personal.
I think this partly why these 2 subjects combined are so volatile. People should be free to do what they want within reason as long as they are not offending or hurting anyone. This is why we have secular societies - organised religion and politics do not mix and cannot be allowed to mix. Politicians should not be discussing their own personal religous beliefs as these have nothing to do with their jobs and are only mentioned in order to win votes. Once they win they then feel obliged and pressured into implementing ridiculous policies based on religous ideology which invariably affect many other people for the worse.
This is why i think a lot of people cannot discuss these topics calmly and rationally. Politicians have allowed these subjects (under pressure from powerful lobbyists and religous groups - most notably in the USA) to become entwined in what should be a secluar society thereby polarising opinion on both sides and basically driving a wedge between communities.

I wholeheartedly agree with you George!

63. Posted by HafJafMark (Respected Member 291 posts) 9y

PArdus

But isn't war in direct violation to the Human Right to live? You're proposing to wage war for human rights? Well, that makes a nice addition to war on terrorism, war to bring freedom, war to bring democracy and all the other nice excuses for regimes to gain political influence.

Well ignoring the misery of others does nothing for human rights.

War against the Nazis was vital to bring about the end of the holocaust wasnt it?

Do you think therd be any muslims left in Bosnia if we hadnt intervened?

Look what happened in Rwanda, and is now happening in Darfur because we are too reluctant to use military power.

And people were dying in Iraq too before Saddam was removed, but because the TV cameras werent there, no body cared.

64. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

Quoting HafJafMark

Well ignoring the misery of others does nothing for human rights.

War against the Nazis was vital to bring about the end of the holocaust wasnt it?

Do you think therd be any muslims left in Bosnia if we hadnt intervened?

Look what happened in Rwanda, and is now happening in Darfur because we are too reluctant to use military power.

And people were dying in Iraq too before Saddam was removed, but because the TV cameras werent there, no body cared.

Nobody was suggesting we ignore, the misery. Were they?
I think, we should think up better solutions to problems, than adding to the misery, by going to war.
Anyway, I am not sure, I would call what the UN peace keeping troops do to be war. As far as I can see, they do their best, to disable aggressing countries, while trying to prevent killing people while doing so.
Anyway, I dont know a lot about their methods, so if others can give me examples, of what the UN do to restore peace, please do. ;)

65. Posted by james (Travel Guru 4136 posts) 9y

Quoting Mel.

Anyway, I am not sure, I would call what the UN peace keeping troops do to be war. As far as I can see, they do their best, to disable aggressing countries, while trying to prevent killing people while doing so.
Anyway, I dont know a lot about their methods, so if others can give me examples, of what the UN do to restore peace, please do. ;)

So you are "anti-war", yet you imply that it's okay to "disable aggressing countries".

Are you a lactose-intolerant vegan by chance?

66. Posted by HafJafMark (Respected Member 291 posts) 9y

Some governments, like the current one in Kartoume or Mugabe cannot be persuaded by sanctions or diplomatic efforts. The only thing they understand and will respond to is force.

The UN are absolutely usless at protecting human rights in the face of force. thats why NATO had to take over in Kosovo, because the Dutch troops stood idly by while people were massacred waiting for an order from New York.

67. Posted by Isadora (Travel Guru 13926 posts) 9y

Interesting...
A thread discussing why the topics of religion and politics are "hot" subjects for some is itself becoming political discussion.

68. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

Quoting HafJafMark

.

The UN are absolutely usless at protecting human rights in the face of force. thats why NATO had to take over in Kosovo, because the Dutch troops stood idly by while people were massacred waiting for an order from New York.

I think NATO got involved(taking over is not the phrase I would use), as a last resort. Also, I dont what NATO did was going to war. They disabled Serbia, using the minimum force possible, to put a stop to the war. ;) Because like u said, human misery and violation of human rights, in Europe cant be ignored.

69. Posted by Herr Bert (Moderator 1384 posts) 9y

Quoting Mel.

Nobody was suggesting we ignore, the misery. Were they?
I think, we should think up better solutions to problems, than adding to the misery, by going to war.

Is it ethical to go to war, to stop a war (or even prevent a war), so that there are less casualties?

I agree with you that nobody needs to go to war, if the world would be perfect, but sadly enough, this world is not (yet) perfect.

70. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

Quoting Herr Bert

Quoting Mel.

Nobody was suggesting we ignore, the misery. Were they?
I think, we should think up better solutions to problems, than adding to the misery, by going to war.

Is it ethical to go to war, to stop a war (or even prevent a war), so that there are less casualties?

I agree with you that nobody needs to go to war, if the world would be perfect, but sadly enough, this world is not (yet) perfect.

I think the situation is a bit like, what would I do, if I saw somebody being attacked who might be killed, on an empty street. If I shout for somebody to come out of their house and call the police and nobody answers, would I throw a rock through a window of their house, to get their attention and make them call the police. Likely, even though I dont think it is right to damage peoples property.;)

[ Edit: Edited on Mar 31, 2007, at 12:02 PM by Mel. ]