Customer smashes SIX display TVs in shop
 

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
I think religious schools should be illegal. If you segregate kids at that
age it has to be harmful. What's more I think religion shoud not be an
excuse for otherwise unacceptable behaviour. For instance, circumcising
babies should be classed as GBH and the parents prosecuted. Religious belief
should lose the special status it has. In the prisons, if you declare you
are a Muslim they can't make you work or go to education or do anything you
don't want to during the month of Ramadan. Bsically they get a month off.

I Completely agree. If anybody wants to believe in celestial fairytales that's
entirely up to them, but foisting them on others by means of force or
brainwashing is utterly wrong, whether or not it's accompanied by chopping
pieces off babies without anaesthetic - something which would be wrong on its
own. Any society that wants to call itself civilised has to have one set of
laws for everybody.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Customer smashes SIX display TVs in shop
 

"brightside S9" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 02:09:43 +0100, "Bill Wright"
wrote:

What a tragedy that after our heroic national struggle to keep our way of
life and our principles intact we are now -- thanks to stupidly liberal
policies on immigration -- about to throw it all away. Those brave men and
women who gave their lives for our freedom must be turning in their
graves.
We have let them -- and the massive numbers of civilian casualties -- down
in a shocking way. We are now about to enter a period of dark struggle,
when
the anti-democratic forces of evil will attempt to take control of this
country.
We must have been mad, literally mad, as a nation to have permitted such
an
influx. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own
funeral pyre. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the
Roman,
I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood.

Try these two articles.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4615213.ece

and then

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle4669816.ece




You seem to be ignoring the 'enrichment' 'diversity' and 'vibrancy' that a
hugely increased size of the population of these small islands will bring.

I appreciate that large number of dinosaurs from previous generations don't
want to see meadowland gobbled up by three new cities the size of London,
however one has to put it into context and think positively, i.e. all of the
extra 'consumers', jobs and taxation that will ultimately accrue.

Of course there is a school of thought among the more pessimistic that if
say oil does go irretrievably into decline within the next 30 years, forcing
the global economy into a state of near collapse, then where will the money
come from for all of the Giro cheques that will be required to keep tens of
millions of our population in the style to which they've become accustomed?

On that particular score my own strongly held belief is that the complete
opposite of a breakdown in social cohesion would occur, instead I would
suggest that the aforementioned 'diverse and vibrant communities' will
become all embracing and a wartime spirit will prevail, this will enable us
to all work towards a common goal, just as in the last war when millions of
our population were perfectly prepared to queue for hours in all winds and
weathers (clutching their ration books) for a few meager ounces of cheese or
butter.

Customer smashes SIX display TVs in shop
 

In article , Bill Wright
scribeth thus

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
In article , Steve Terry wrote:
If the secular become extinct, then so will the science a modern society
relies on. (which is the way we are going)
The future would belong to religiously obsessed mud hut dwellers

Well, if that does happen at least they'll stop planting bombs and flying
planes into skyscrapers because with no science everybody will have
forgotten how to make these things.

I think religious schools should be illegal. If you segregate kids at that
age it has to be harmful.

Too right. I was forced to go to a Catholic school and thats put me
against religion for life!..

What's more I think religion shoud not be an
excuse for otherwise unacceptable behaviour.

Indeed..

For instance, circumcising
babies should be classed as GBH and the parents prosecuted.

You could start with Prince Charles and his mum and dad then;!..

Religious belief
should lose the special status it has.

Yep..

In the prisons, if you declare you
are a Muslim they can't make you work or go to education or do anything you
don't want to during the month of Ramadan. Bsically they get a month off.

Yep you don't -have- to go to prison;!..

Not a lot of people see it that way....

Bill



--
Tony Sayer

Customer smashes SIX display TVs in shop
 

"Bill (Adopt)" wrote in message
...
For instance, circumcising babies should be classed as GBH and
the parents prosecuted.

Not so sure about this one in all cases ..it's a
customary practise in more than one culture, being
thought grounded in health as much as religious
codes ..although within those cultures that generally
circumcise it seems normally agreed as only suitable
for males. Perhaps a matter for a generation or so
of re-education prior to legislation..

Yes they used to do it for health reasons because people didn't used to keep
themselves clean. Nowadays most of us wash our willys periodically.

Now look here, you can't go chopping off parts of people's bodies because of
your religion. It isn't the baby's religion, because babies can't think
clearly enough to have a religion. No-one has any right to multilate a
child, even the parents. They should have to wait until the child is 18 and
then ask it if it wants to be circumcised for religious reasons.

Never mind about it being a 'customary practice'. That doesn't make it
right. It used to be customary to send children up chimneys, spit in the
street, flog the mentally subnormal, and allow the lord of the manor to
deflower your daughter if he felt like it.

Bill

Customer smashes SIX display TVs in shop
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...

I Completely agree. If anybody wants to believe in celestial fairytales
that's
entirely up to them, but foisting them on others by means of force or
brainwashing is utterly wrong, whether or not it's accompanied by chopping
pieces off babies without anaesthetic - something which would be wrong on
its
own. Any society that wants to call itself civilised has to have one set
of
laws for everybody.

I really do think the practice should be treated as assault.

Bill

Customer smashes SIX display TVs in shop
 

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:

"Bill (Adopt)" wrote in message
...
For instance, circumcising babies should be classed as GBH and
the parents prosecuted.

Not so sure about this one in all cases ..it's a
customary practise in more than one culture, being
thought grounded in health as much as religious
codes ..although within those cultures that generally
circumcise it seems normally agreed as only suitable
for males. Perhaps a matter for a generation or so
of re-education prior to legislation..

Yes they used to do it for health reasons because people
didn't used to keep
themselves clean. Nowadays most of us wash our willys
periodically.

...and, with 'modern' knowledge, possibly an even better
reason than that. Once had a doctor (now deceased) explain
to us that the male prepuce (foreskin) isn't just a fold of
of extra skin, but an organ in it's own right. Like the
appendix, it can assist in all sorts of ways that we still
haven't quite fathomed...

Mind, when it does go wrong it goes very wrong and untreated
will be a killer, particularly in those very hot, dry, dusty
climes, where washing water is at an absolute premium.

...as for keeping 'themselves' clean, whom d'you mean??

Perhaps woad-covered peasants in the frozen North beyond
Watford Gap avoiding bollock freeze - or Elizabeth I's
bath once a year whether needed or not in case the servants
saw hers, but in humid tropical countries where personal
washing in the river several times a day always seems to
have been the standard..?


Now look here, you can't go chopping off parts of people's bodies because of
your religion. It isn't the baby's religion, because babies can't think
clearly enough to have a religion. No-one has any right to multilate a
child, even the parents. They should have to wait until the child is 18 and
then ask it if it wants to be circumcised for religious reasons.

Looking at it purely from our point of view, perhaps ..but
some cultures have been doing this for thousands of years
without problem ..and they don't even share our ideas of
when a child reaches their majority ..or anything else, for
that matter.

In their own right - and extremism aside which is a problem
to all cultures - these cultures can be at least as advanced
and as civilised as we think we are ..even more so, if you
look closely at many of the fringe 'benefits' of our Western
'civilisation'.

Never mind about it being a 'customary practice'. That doesn't make it
right. It used to be customary to send children up chimneys, spit in the
street, flog the mentally subnormal, and allow the lord of the manor to
deflower your daughter if he felt like it.

...ie, compared to the rest of World Societies, we were
a savage, ill-educated bunch of woad/skin covered peasants
until the last 100 years ..and even now. Do some items on
your above list still occur north of Watford Gap..? ;'))

Yes, one easily agrees with you, especially in the light of
apparent modern medical evidence and knowledge ..but my point
was and is that it will take many generations of persistent
and gentle persuasion to change whole religious cultures,
custom and practice - if indeed we can ever fully 'change'
some norms in the long term..

...but then, there's always the first step....... :))

Bill ZFC

--
Adoption InterLink UK with -=- http://www.billsimpson.com/
Domain Host Orpheus Internet -=- http://www.orpheusinternet.co.uk/

Customer smashes SIX display TVs in shop
 

Bill Wright wrote:

So I'm a racist? My post expressed fears for everyone, not for any one
section of society. You do anti-racism a great disservice by accusing
someone who attempts to have a sensible dialogue about social problems of
being racist. Don't you see that what I was saying was that we (all of us)
need to look at the danger of social unrest and act now? Why do you want to
stifle debate? What have you to fear? Many of those in the US in the 1950s
who expressed concern about the future were black -- were they racist?

seem to be coming to this one a bit late, but:

Here here...

I think Bill touches here on one of the true evils of the PC received
wisdom. (I don't mean the banning "accident black spots" type of PC, but
the sinister Orwellian thought crime PC that serves only to stifle
discussion and ultimately harm those is supposes to protect).

I fail to see how someone expressing concern over growing tension
between different factions of out society can be considered a racist.
Attempting to suppress discussion of the matter seems to be doing far
more harm.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Customer smashes SIX display TVs in shop
 

In article , Bill (Adopt) wrote:
For instance, circumcising babies should be classed as GBH and
the parents prosecuted.

Not so sure about this one in all cases ..it's a
customary practise in more than one culture, being
thought grounded in health as much as religious
codes ..although within those cultures that generally
circumcise it seems normally agreed as only suitable
for males. Perhaps a matter for a generation or so
of re-education prior to legislation..

Yes they used to do it for health reasons because people
didn't used to keep
themselves clean. Nowadays most of us wash our willys
periodically.

...and, with 'modern' knowledge, possibly an even better
reason than that. Once had a doctor (now deceased) explain
to us that the male prepuce (foreskin) isn't just a fold of
of extra skin, but an organ in it's own right. Like the
appendix, it can assist in all sorts of ways that we still
haven't quite fathomed...

Quite possibly, but the most important thing about the one attached to
a baby is that it's not attached to you, and therefore it belongs to
somebody else, so you have no right to remove it without the owner's
permission. I can't think of any other circumstance (except perhaps
warfare) in which chopping bits off other people's perfectly healthy
bodies without their signed consent would ever be contemplated at all.
I find it astonishing that we still do this.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Customer smashes SIX display TVs in shop
 

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 17:01:37 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:


Quite possibly, but the most important thing about the one attached to
a baby is that it's not attached to you, and therefore it belongs to
somebody else, so you have no right to remove it without the owner's
permission. I can't think of any other circumstance (except perhaps
warfare) in which chopping bits off other people's perfectly healthy
bodies without their signed consent would ever be contemplated at all.
I find it astonishing that we still do this.

It is very difficult to get signed informed consent from a baby.

Parents have the right and duty to decide on medical and
surgical treatment for their babies and underage children.

The question is whether circumcision is a medically necessary
procedure for a baby. I was circumcised for purely medical
reasons. My parents explained this to me years later when I was
able to understand the matter. They did the right thing.

Apart bfrom that I agree with you.

Customer smashes SIX display TVs in shop
 

In article , Peter Duncanson
wrote:

Quite possibly, but the most important thing about the one attached to
a baby is that it's not attached to you, and therefore it belongs to
somebody else, so you have no right to remove it without the owner's
permission. I can't think of any other circumstance (except perhaps
warfare) in which chopping bits off other people's perfectly healthy
bodies without their signed consent would ever be contemplated at all.
I find it astonishing that we still do this.

It is very difficult to get signed informed consent from a baby.

Exactly. So unless there is some life-threatening reason to perform
surgery, it should not be done. Wait until the person is old enough to
understand and let them make up their own mind what they want to do with
their own bodies.

Parents have the right and duty to decide on medical and
surgical treatment for their babies and underage children.

Quite so, but far more of these operations are performed than could be
explained by real medical needs. There's no reason to remove a perfectly
normal component from a perfectly healthy body, and fashion is not a valid
reason when it's somebody else's body.

The question is whether circumcision is a medically necessary
procedure for a baby. I was circumcised for purely medical
reasons. My parents explained this to me years later when I was
able to understand the matter. They did the right thing.

I won't ask for details, but if you're happy that your parents had good
reason, then I guess they must have made the right decision for you.
Personally I'm glad I have all the extremities I was born with and no
serious bother from any of them. If I want anything chopped off, it'll be
my decision.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/