and P r e s t o ! !
Virtue signaling and the Woke Culture develop and pave the way for the Antichrist and the End Times.
Focus on Christ and the principles of true spirituality.
PS How virtuous is virtue-signaling?
Here is what Mahatma Gandhi said about Christ and Christians.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1927 … lieves-in/
What is a Woke Culture?
Maybe I should have titled this thread, "The Dangers and Consequences of Atheism." The internet, I believe, has spread Atheism by promoting doubt of God. Now, the youth have no sense of their "Creator." This lack of faith and an out-right denial of the metaphysical world provides ever growing power to the state. Currently, the state influences the populace where religion otherwise would. I would say this influence gives unfair advantage to those who want to implement their own agendas which may or may not be in harmony with reality, love, logic and/or common sense.
How has the internet promoted a doubt in God? There are plenty of related websites that touch upon every religion and faith that choose to use it.
Religionists have a basic fear of too many people having too much access to too much information. Indoctrination occurs easier with a dearth of information rather than too much. People having information just might be prompted to think a little and come to their own conclusions.
The hypocrisy of so much of Christendom is why there is a lack of faith and belief.
I much rather do my own thinking and come to my own conclusions. I prefer a secular state over a theocracy anytime. Tyrants and authoritarians are afraid of "information". The "state" has nothing to do with it.
We have freedom of religion. What is your complaint?
I should ask, what is your complaint? People make up their own minds based upon what they can see before them. What does the spread of atheism have to do with freedom of religion?
No God, no religion.
The state replaces God.
Humans fall prey to an outside influence where there is a void. Believing in some sort of God is natural. We intuitively want to follow what is Good. People are easily led.
For instance, little children are being indoctrinated to accept and become aware of homosexuality in the name of some good.
Leave those little innocent kids alone!
The GOd most people adhere to is the God of their belly, their appetite, a God that has no requirements or standards that they need adhere to. People are told what they want to hear, as scriptures speak about people content to have "their ears tickled".
People have an obligation to search for the truth and if you earnestly seek, you will find. You are only led astray because you wish to be.
And when has ther ever been a time unspeakable practices that would offend God has not been part and parcel of the human condition? They once accused people of being witches and burned them.
"And when has there ever been a time
when unspeakable practices (that would offend God)
were not part and parcel of the human condition?
They once accused people of being witches and burned them."
Did you miss my point? There were no witches just women that were to be dispensed with for other reasons, accusations of witchcraft was an excuse.
Just to add to what Cred is saying did you know there are 613 Old Testament Laws, 1,050 New Testament commands, and five Covenants in the Bible. What is the solution as to what is the Right path to follow when I bet my bottom dollar nobody knows all those requirements of man. I know the one I need to know and there is no need for anything more.
I think atheistism is as extreme as bible thumpers.
At least I respect, accept and support all religions to their freedom rights and practices to their religion. I don't agree with many of their rules, yet they have some. Where today new liberal is nothing like my old classic liberal.
Being more of an anarchist, I find better answers on the middle ground of anything of extreme toward balance.
Here is Bill Maher take on Woke and laughs at the new liberal views of goofy stuff.
Promoting, by the government, the belief that we should wear masks for the sake of others and get vaccinated for the sake of others. In all actuality, we have the God-given right to make our decisions based upon whatever reasons we may have. Such as, "I need to protect myself for the sake of my own health." Our own thinking should be respected. Yes, we are given options, but no, none of them should be forced upon us.
As they were.
No man is an island, and we live in a world where are survival and success are based upon mutual cooperation.
I wear a mask and am content to continue to do so without compelling others to do the same. This is the new normal and I prefer to continue protecting myself even if others choose not to make that choice. We all get to choose our course and one choice is just as valid as the other.
It goes both ways, that no one should be ridiculed or forced to not wear a mask.
It is practically a religious precept promoted by the government that we accept the trans community, when the Bible claims that God himself does not approve of it.
That we allow gender modification, surgery and hormone replacement in CHILDREN. (Child abuse)
That we allow people born with penis's to compete with girls to the DETRIMENT of girls' sports ...
"The hypocrisy of so much of Christendom is why there is a lack of faith and belief."
This would be a great thing to discusss here.
Got any examples?
Let us weed them out.
I agree, if we could get rid of hypocricy, the world would be a better place.
I am of the Judeo-Christian belief. Looking for a logical explanation for the how and why, it makes the most sense. I make it a habit to read through the Bible, one chapter each morning. So, with divine help, I obtain my own understanding so that I am difficult deceive in regards to these matters.
I know what "false prophets" are and what hypocrisy means (do as I say, not as I do) verses utterings from the lips of men.
Look at the ludicrous nature of some of the religious dogma fed to Islamic extremists.
What awaits them as martyrs? Heaven filled with 75 virgins. For a society that require burkas and excessively modest coverings for women, to think that when they get to heaven, God rewards them with a brothel beyond their wildest dreams? Just one example and there are more. Only man can take a beautifical concept as originally presented by God and soil it beyond recognition.
yes, I agree. But what about the problem of woke-ism,
"Wokeness can also shut down good causes. In 2019, Canada’s oldest women’s domestic violence shelter, based in Vancouver, was stripped of local authority funding because it refused to accept trans women (who were biologically male). Perhaps the shelter should have handled the issue differently, as the local authority won a short-term victory in the name of “inclusion”. But the crippling of an essential service only meant further division and long-term damage to the cause."
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021 … e-so-toxic
- or we could focus on this:
Christ and the principles of true spirituality.
But as you say, its a private matter.
Just pick a televangelist and investigate them and watch what they preach and you will see hypocrisy!!!
Maybe some things "the state" wants to promote should be ignored and RESISTED.
RESISTING should be done in a brave, swift and common sense manner.
Maybe we the people should learn ways to RESIST and tackle "state promoted woke-ism."
... as Jesus dealt with Jewish hypocrisy in the temple.
The same thing with some religions, some denominations, some churches, some preachers/evangelist, and some followers.
I'm talking about easily led people. They benefit most by following their Hearts and their God. Not the state.
That's all I'm saying.
The state could lead them astray
... or even over the cliff,
Maybe some things "the state" wants to promote should be ignored and RESISTED.
RESISTING should be done in a brave, swift and common sense manner.
Maybe we the people should learn ways to RESIST and tackle "state promoted woke-ism."
... as Jesus dealt with Jewish hypocrisy in the temple.
who could disagree??????
The right to RESIST!
Guess who is the women of the year.
It's a man.
(That bra looks disturbingly good on the host.)
What is it about that man?
With open shirt, waving his hand
He's the one who says what's true
Oh what are we to do ...
Oh, what is it about that man?
Reading all your comments, it’s clear to me that with all your prejudices you wouldn’t last five minutes in Europe!
In fact I do find a lot of your comments offensive:-
1. I and my son are atheists, as most of our friends are.
2. My wife is an agnostic.
3. Many of our close family friends are gay.
4. Our closest family friend is a Catholic Priest, and we occasionally socialise with his Archbishop.
5. Many years ago, when my wife went for an interview for an Admin job in a multi-faith Chaplaincy (which included all faiths, including Muslim faiths) the Chaplin interviewing her, re-assured her at the interview by saying “You don’t have to be religious to work here”; an lo-and-behold, even though my wife is an agnostic, she got the job.
Being an optimist I don't have to defend my club because I'll turn it around to be positive or ignore it and let that who ever over ego group sort it out for themselves. Can't be insulted because if it's true, I'm learning something or confirming already working on that weakness. I'm a little bit of every group in me, moderate seem to work out and love best.
Never intended to offend, Arthur.
America is awashed in Religiousity. It is one of the differences between our societies.
Here, those of the "holier than thou" class wield considerable political power, inseparable from rightwing politics. Their stern Republican God is the undergird for "on ward Christian soldiers".
Yes, I know you wouldn’t offend, but I was referring to the atheistophobia & homophobic attitudes of the author of this forum!
Yes, I know that unlike most of Europe, America is awash in religiosity. There’s nothing wrong with being religious, that’s a personal choice - my best and closest friend is a Priest. However, as you say, it’s the “holier than thou” people who breathe “fire and brimstone” and who often wield considerable power in extreme right-wing politics; that’s the people who are the most prejudice.
In my view it’s dangerous to mix politics and religion, prime examples in the UK being ‘Oliver Cromwell’ who imposed strict puritan religious laws while he ruled England; and in contemporary UK, the DUP (Democratic Unionist Party) in power sharing with Sinn Fein in the Northern Ireland Government. The DUP, a hard right wing political party, apart from being the political wing of a terrorist organisation, are also strict Catholics, who until 2019 was able to block laws to allow gay marriages and equal rights to the gay community, because of their strong prejudice against gays.
Fortunately, the rest of the UK (excluding Northern Ireland) is now a Secular State, and I think we are all the better off for it e.g. people of all religions (including Muslims) and non-religions alike, regardless to their sexual orientation, living together in peace and harmony – “may the lamb lay down with the lion”.
Do Christian bigots even know that Muslims believe in the Old Testament just as much as Christians and Jews do?
'Do christian bigots...just as much as christians and Jews do?' that's an interesting fact. It would be interesting to read the koran in the English translation. As a boy of 20, I did that wondering if I'm reading abstracts of the OT books at the beginning. That being said, I don't think a christian, bigot or not will believe in the Koran. They have a better bible.
That is up to the individual. I wouldn't know how to be a Christian nor an atheist and be my authentic self.
When I was a boy of 20 years, I profess Christ. But I don't go to church, for many years. Yet, my phychological self still remain authenticated to date. Christ is a solution, not a question. The Bible seems like a shadow of Christ. But it's real. I got to know all about God, creation-man, universe and so on in it...so cool
I say what ever works, if your a good Christian, it's likely you will be alright.
Whatever works for you – Although I’m an atheist, our closet and best friend is a Catholic Priest, and through him we’re on social terms with his Archbishop; a few years back I was having a friendly discussion about the bible with the Archbishop (over a bottle of beer in his back garden), mainly on whether the bible should be taken literally or not, and in that discussion I learnt (not surprisingly) that the ‘virgin birth’ is sacrosanct in his view; but what did surprise me is that the Archbishop doesn’t believe that the Messiah rose from the dead!
Also, some years ago, the C&E Archbishop of Canterbury made it public that he didn’t think the bible should be taken literally.
So compared to many Christian religions in America, Christianity is generally taken more philosophical than for gospel by many in the church.
Yes, they should be some stations like that. When guinea faith began to waiver. Some are likely to fall out on the way side. So John the Baptist ask 'Are you who is to come, or should we look for another?' I believe the virgin birth is real. I believe Jesus rose from the death. Both events are foretold. Even the moslems believe Jesus is the word(be) becoming a person.
And you have a good heart; and very tolerant, and wise (well educated). It's a pleasure hearing from you.
Yeah, Christians, Jews and Muslims all believe in the Old Testament (Old Bible) as the foundation of their faith.
However where they diverge is that Christians have the Messiah as their prophet (New Testament/Bible), while the Jews don’t recognise the Messiah as a prophet and hence don’t follow the New Testament, and the Muslims only recognise the Messiah as just another prophet, but not the last prophet; to the Muslims Muhammad ibn Abdullah (who died in 632 AD) – but as we know neither the Christians nor the Jews recognise Muhammad as a prophet.
The Muslims have 25 Prophets, the first ones being ‘Adam’ (Adam & Eve) and Noah (the ark).
That’s why multi-faiths religions work so well in Britain, because most religions have the Old Testament in common; they all ultimately believe in the same thing.
Here in Nigeria, multi-faith works pretty cool as well. Exception is those fanatical muslims who believe 75 virgin wives awaits them when they died in warfare. When Christ appear on the earthly scene, he's so crazely cool, so the Jews don't think he can handle the Romans. Muhammad arise when christianity falls into apostasy because its seeds has already sown in Arabia, by the missinary Paul of Tasus. Decades later, the flames of christianity began to rise with electric fire as a result of the Reformation.
I reason there should be no religion if man had not fallen from grace. The first sign of religion is man righting himself and his ways whether its good or not. If in an examination you've to answer the questiion:what's your religion in another person's shoe, you'll look foolish. That's what a religion is...foolishness.
Ghandi said he like Christ, but not christianity. Christ don't form any religion or promote chritianity. He came to reveal the God-life.
I agree to separate State and religion or even artist free to express..
Every state has a church organizing that tries to convert a gays into a straight with only 1% success rate. Why change someone else idea of their ultimate love one, is beyond me.
Some may say artist are too weird to be taken seriously. Yet, I don't know of any veteran artist that dose not love their work and one can not master life unless they love their work, Beside the arts have been around in human history a lot longer in human history for positive influences for society and cultures than politics or religion.
How can anyone truly call themselves 100% Christian or atheist when the spiritual means 99% of the unknowns or just the unknows to Atheist.
They all have a human right, freedom to free speech and freedom of expression, The last two year the Government is telling us, what work we can do and what we can't do. That is beyond our human rights and the Governments over reach, to shut down my industry.down.
Where you say: “Every state has a church organizing that tries to convert gays into a straight with only 1% success rate.” I assume you are referring to the USA (and other countries where religion and politics share power); because, across most of Europe, including Britain, there are not church organisations trying to convert gays into straight. For one thing such an attempt in Europe and Britain is illegal, and secondly, in Britain a lot of our religious leaders these days are women and homosexuals; one of my wife’s close friends is a Lesbian Chaplin, and we’re also close friends with a gay priest and archbishop. So attitudes in Britain are quite different (far more broadminded) than attitudes in America.
Yes, I just met just in the US. Didn't know it was illegal to try that in Europe. Still same sex is illegal in 80 countries.
I do agree with Kathryn about political woke ness has gone too far in many areas.
Yeah, under various Hate Speech Laws, and Hate Crime Laws, dating back years, it is illegal e.g. under British Law:-
“Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden.”
Also, according to Wikipedia LGBT (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) legal rights in the UK are among the most advanced in Europe.
Some discrimination protections had existed for LGBT people since 1999, but were extended to all areas under the Equality Act 2010.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_righ … ed_Kingdom
In the UK, Transgender people have had the ability to apply to change their legal gender since 2005. The same year, same-sex couples were granted the right to enter into a civil partnership.
Since 2005 the NHS (National Health Service) have offered as a FREE service, Gender Reassignment surgery for Transgender, albeit a long process as the NHS insist on giving Transgenders lengthy counselling to ensure that they are making the right choice, and then the NHS expect that person to live as the opposite sex for at least a year before the operation, just to be as sure as they can that it’s what the person really wants.
Same-sex marriage was legalised in England and Wales, and Scotland in 2014, and in Northern Ireland in 2020.
Today, LGBT citizens have most of the same legal rights as non-LGBT citizens and the UK provides one of the highest degrees of liberty in the world for its LGBT communities,
Jordan Peterson makes good sense to me about free speech.
Yeah, of course Jordan Peterson makes good sense to you; he has American stereotype attitudes on free speech that allows amongst other things, for the conspiracy theories that you love so much to flourish.
You would hate it in Europe, because in our culture free speech comes with ‘responsibility’ e.g. we do take great care not to use speech that would harm, or incite others to harm someone on account of their colour, race, disability, age, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender, gender reassignment or sexual orientation.
And in my view that level of responsibility is just and right.
You’ll also hate the ‘Safety On Line’ Bill that’s currently going through the UK Parliament, especially the Amendment in it that states that “Online ‘content’ that is ‘legal’ but ‘harmful’ will be prohibited” and that it will be the platform e.g. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter etc., who will be prosecuted by Britain for allowing such content to be published, not the person who posted the harmful content – Thus putting the onus on the platforms like Facebook and YouTube to police themselves.
And contrary to Jordan Peterson’s view that it’s the government who decides in such situation what content is considered harmful, in the UK it’s not the government who makes that definition; that will be the responsibility of Ofcom, who are independent of the Government.
I base my life on good sense, love makes good sense. Hate, killing and stealing is highly unethical in my world perspective, so I don't use it. Where is any evidence of me being unethical or to commit to conspire or be against anything other than aiming for balance. Your prospective and opinions you have a human right to also. For People to understand there has to be an openness to communicate to work out disagreements, differences and compromises . Or the worst liar, murderers and thieves like centralized Banks, State, Pharma cartel and corporatism will totally steal our freedom and health, if we let them.
Government have no business censoring everything we say. All companies can censor their own businesses or they loose customers by bad practice of ethics. Who really will listen to KKK or nazis, almost everyone knows hate and fear dose not work with love and kindness dose. We the people, not we the Government can cencor and protect ourselves better than they can.
The world is my family and it's a free world and many say Canada is the freest Country in the world. Peterson is a Canadian and it's why I live in a very peaceful and open minded country, Although we also have problems with friendly dictators like Trudeau. Where the people power who are the true bosses and must keep them under control as they are our servant we over pay. Everyone conspires hold that sheild to protect ourselves from it. The vast majority of the time we are free to do whatever we want, as long as you are not harming, is the only rule. So carry on to simplified simplified and simplified life. No one above me and no one below me.
'No one above me and no one below me'. What are you?
There is a part of anarchy that is religious. Like JC saying all men are created equal. I incorporated the best bits of every kind of group within my circle. Except unbalanced of over reach athorthties, tyrants dominant, extreme heirarchy and extreme poverty.
Anarchist means no one above me and no one below me. A bio organisms sharing individualism & optimistic independent first & foremost. Everything else is secondary.
Castlepaloma, this is for you, please see this thread: https://hubpages.com/community/forum/35 … y-acharya-
As I express below the best and most important history is to my friends, family and love ones.
I feel your lost.
There will be no more forum posts by him now. Now he will be never around. He has gone forever. He tried to sell that super glue a lot but he failed.
The idea of the magic super glue can continue spreading love through out the Universe. I could write up a script and add it to an podcast episode on Artist on the Beach; and contribute it to his name.
Thank you so much, Castlepaloma. Remember this: https://hubpages.com/forum/post/4211249
"Man is born broken. He lives by mending. The Grace of God is glue."
― Eugene O'Neill
It will be a great challenge to write a script about super glue for the universe. I'll give it a try, and boldly go where no man has ever gone.
He always said that he likes you. Because of your optimistic attitude, he always enjoyed his exchanges with you on forums. He is no longer alive, but I thought I should tell you about it. Nothing can bring him back now. May his soul find eternal Peace. Ameen!
You've probably read his forums, but not his poems. I recommend that you read them someday. His poems can be found on three of his accounts, which I linked to in the forum post about his death, I have shared the link to the post above in my first comment on this forum.
Thank you anyways. Stay Blessed!
We will find some kind of magic coexist with science, glued together with love throughout the Universe
Okay. There's this saying that an independent mind is too individualistic, and do easily fall off tangent. So two heads seems to be reasonable and better. D' you have any take on that?
Two good heads are better than one. Five head are better than two. My life is 50% about me and 50% about everyone else.
I must give to myself first in order to give to anyone else.
If I don't have love I can't give love.
If I don't have money I can't give money.
All I have in life, is what I give away, as it return in different ways.
The best way to grow first, is by personal growth first.
If you were born in a totally Muslims country, you would be a Muslims by constitutional law. I would not, and move from it because I control my soul as an individual. If I live in Germany during Hitlers time, I would move again with my own consciousness mind and heart as my independent individual constitutional of ethics.
"You would hate it in Europe, because in our culture free speech comes with ‘responsibility’ e.g. we do take great care not to use speech that would harm, or incite others to harm someone on account of their colour, race, disability, age, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender, gender reassignment or sexual orientation."
Given that almost any statement outside of unconditional approval and support can be taken to either "cause harm" or "incite others to harm", who makes the decision as to what is unacceptable? A court? A government committee buried in the bowels of government somewhere? Do you have an "internet police" or equivalent?
Who provides the censorship for language that they deem unacceptable?
I learn from being a history buff that by far the best and most important history is to my friends, family and love ones. We all have a similar mind set and have an awareness of the world around us. If Canada was attacked like Ukraine we would leave together. I can not imagine Canada being in that positions because our peaceful background history. It's not our total responsibility for horrible politics and unbalance like Ukraine. Yet do what ever I can for compassion and tell them to get out of town and country for now.
It's the greed vs proverty that kills more than anything,. Yet my circle tries their best with foresight to balance within Canada and to spread it globally. Most of my family have been to at least four Continents with no criminal records , no blood on our hands and everything is acceptable except harm, we prefer harmony because we are family.
It’s the courts who decide what is unacceptable under British law; trial by jury.
And yes, there is an equivalent to an ‘internet police’ in the UK; it’s Ofcom. Ofcom is a watchdog that is independent of the Government. And when the ‘Safety Online’ bill is approved by Parliament and it becomes law then it will give Ofcom a lot of powers to police the Internet.
Online harms: Online Safety Bill https://youtu.be/h5NTJxUIB4M
The general definition of online harm under the new Legislation will apply to content and activity where there is a reasonable foreseeable risk of significant adverse physical or psychological impact on individuals; and will include content and activity that is legal but harmful. Online Companies, such Facebook, not complying with the new law, regardless to where they are in the world, will be subject to fines of up to £18 million ($24 million) or 10% of their annual global turnover (whichever is the higher).
What does Ofcom do? https://youtu.be/cdVUr-NrXng
Ofcom bans China TV in UK (2021) https://youtu.be/KFYHqa-P5n8
Ofcom bans Russian TV in UK on 18th March 2022: https://youtu.be/MuA5SOI3haI
In answer to your question “Who provides the censorship for language that they deem unacceptable?”
Under British law unacceptable language is considered ‘hate crime’ (which is a criminal offence) if the offender has either:
• demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity
• been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity.
Under British Law, the definition of hate crime is:-
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity."
Under British Law there is no legal definition of hostility, so in deciding whether to prosecute in the courts or not the police use the everyday understanding of the word which includes ill-will, spite, contempt, prejudice, unfriendliness, antagonism, resentment and dislike.
I dunno, Nathan. It sounds to me to be very much a quick road to total censorship. Some examples of "harm":
Complaining when males (usually, but could be females) are allowed in female restrooms, dressing rooms, locker rooms, etc. because they claim a female gender.
Claims that one religion or another is false, is not "Christian" (common) or other terminology that indicates the speaker does not believe the tenets of a particular religion and thinks it is bad for people.
Trump has repeatedly been accused of murdering millions in the US - is that "harmful"? He is accused of fomenting an insurrection, an attempt to overthrow the government, by asking for a peaceful demonstration. Is that harmful?
People have tried for centuries to ban alcohol because it is sinful. Is that "harmful" to those that drink?
Claims that women getting an abortion are murders - is that psychologically "harmful" to them?
Statues of people whose crime was fighting for their country or lived in a time where perceived crimes (today) were accepted are said to cause great psychological "harm" to those that see those statues.
As I noted, if you look enough you will find someone, somewhere, that finds "harm" in almost every controversial statement made. And that seems to be what your laws are going after; any statement not completely accepting and approving of any specific activity.
Under British Law, the accused has to have either demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity, or been motivated by hostility e.g. incited by others to cause harm.
The Legislation has been around a long time in Britain, periodically updated to keep up with the times; the most recent relevant Act to date being the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, but hate crime Legislation in the UK can be traced back to the Public Order Act of 1936 which was passed to control extremist political movements in the 1930s such as the British Union of Fascists (BUF).
I can see that from afar it might look draconian, but when you live here it’s not oppressive; I’m still free to say what I want, and get my feeling across – I just have to be mindful in not what I say, but how I say it. And on the bonus side, vulnerable people are less likely to get hurt.
In your examples:-
#1: Yeah, if you insult a cross-dresser or transgender who’s been allowed into a ‘Ladies Locker room’ because of their sexual orientation or transgender identity then yes, that would be hate crime. However, if you just make a complaint that you don’t think it’s right that transgenders shouldn’t be allowed into women’s locker rooms, then that’s a different matter. It’s not what you say, it’s the way you say it e.g. does what you say demonstrate hostility?
#2: Well yeah, if you say that the Muslims religion breeds terrorism, or make similar hostile remarks, then yes, that is hate crime. However, if you state that “In my opinion, the Christian faith is the only true faith” then you are expressing an opinion, not hostility.
#3: Actually, the British people did start up a petition of over a million signatures, which was handed to the government, stating that Trump should be prohibited from entering the UK on the grounds of ‘hate crime’ that he’s committed. Obviously the government dismissed the petition, but with that and other anti-Trump petitions and protests, Trump’s visit to the UK was postponed and down-graded from a ‘State visit’ to just an ‘Official visit’.
#4: Attitudes towards alcohol in Europe is quite different to the American attitudes. In the UK the legal minimum age to buy alcohol is 18; the legal minimum age to drink alcohol in public is 16, provided you are seated, with a meal, and someone over 18 buys the drink for you; and legal the minimum age to drink alcohol in private (in your own home) is 5 years old.
It might be better to look at smoking, which has largely been banned in public in the UK; a smoker and non-smoker arguing over smoking isn’t related to race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity, and therefore has nothing to do with ‘hate crime’, even if they do insult each other.
#5: Anti-Abortion is a BIG thing in the USA, and politically sensitive in Northern Ireland; but it’s not an issue in Britain. However, although abortion may be an emotive subject in some parts of the world it has little to do with race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity, and therefore, even if there were any heated arguments in Britain it wouldn’t be hate crime.
#6: Yep, statues of slave traders; as we know, my fellow Bristolians toppled the statue in Bristol, and when they were taken to court their fellow peers on the jury found them ‘not guilty’.
But putting that aside; showing hostility against Edward Colston (who died in 1721) because of his involvement in the slave trade isn’t exactly going to cause anyone any harm; it’s not as if Edward Colston is going to come back from the grave and take the protestors to court for hate crime!
Yeah, if you look hard enough, you can find someone, somewhere, that finds ‘harm’ in almost every controversial statement made; but it has to be proven in court that such comments were hostile, or perceived to be hostile, and relation to ‘hate crime’, that it relates to race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity. And at the end of the day, it’s your fellow peers (the 12 jury members) who judge you.
It all comes back to America and Europe having different cultural values.
"Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice, based on a person's disability or perceived disability; race or perceived race; or religion or perceived religion; or sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation or transgender identity or perceived transgender identity"
What would scare me about this is "perceived." Perception is subjective.
In your country Christians can be put in jail for quoting the Bible. To me, that is absolutely ridiculous. How can you feel you are free go practice religion if you can't quote from your religious text? So, in England, Christians do NOT have freedom of religion. I don't understand why the English bend over for the Muslims all the time. Why? Are the English afraid of the Muslims? I always wonder about how they cause the English to be so afraid of them.
"Preacher locked up for hate crime after quoting the Bible to gay teenager."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/0 … -teenager/
It’s a bit of an exaggeration. And the title in the newspaper is misleading and an over dramatization. You don’t get locked up in Britain for ‘quoting from the bible’, but you can get locked up for making homophobic slurs.
Yeah, 42 year old Evangelist was preaching in the streets in Scotland when a 19-year-old openly gay man asked him “What does God think of homosexuality?”
I don’t know what pursued from that confrontation, but you can use your imagination. In any event the confrontation was sufficient for the police to intervene and arrest the preacher, who spent the night in a cell before being released. Six months later the courts through the case out on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
The following day the preacher told the newspapers that he was “locked up for hate crime after quoting the Bible to gay teenager" Hence the newspaper’s title. However, we shall never know what really happen e.g. did the teenager deliberately provoke the preacher into a confrontation, or did the teenager ask a civil question and the preacher over reacted.
People do have freedom of religion in Britain, although I’m an atheist, our closet and best friend is a Priest, and my grandparents were Salvation Army. And FYI the English do not bend over for the Muslims all the time; we have as much respect for the Muslim faith as we do for any other faith, religious or not.
My wife, who is agnostic, was an Admin worker for a few years, for the local multi-faith Chaplaincy, which had a close working relationship with all churches in Bristol, including the Mosques.
That well noted and understood.
"English do not bend over for the Muslims all the time; we have as much respect for the Muslim faith as we do for any other faith, religious or not."
There are many people in Britian who would disagree with you.
Here is a series of articles done by the Guardian. Yes, Christians are persecuted in Britian.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … ersecution
The Guardian article raises the question “Are Christians persecuted in the UK?” but it doesn’t attempt to answer the question or offer any conclusion; instead it links to a series of other articles from other sources (see links below) – And if you read those articles fully, you should see that it’s not as stark as you are suggesting.
I’ll take each article in turn, but first you should realise that (excluding Northern Ireland) that Britain has in recent decades become a secular society; so social and cultural values in the UK are quite different to the USA.
For example, YouGov opinion poll in December 2020, which is consistent in trend with other surveys and opinion polls over the years, indicate that:-
• 52% of people in Britain are not religious.
• 36% of the population are humanists.
• Only 27% of British people believe in ‘a god’, and a further 16% believe in the existence of ‘a higher spiritual power, but not a god’. Total 42%
• 35% of the British population are Christian (20% being Church of England), and
• 7% of the British population belong to other religions (including the Muslim faith)
As I stated before, although I and my son are atheists, and my wife an agnostic, our closest and dearest family friend is a Catholic Priest.
We met and befriended the Catholic Priest (we consider him part of our family) from when my wife worked at a multi-faith Chaplaincy.
When my wife went for the interview for job, as an Admin worker, she was concerned that being an agnostic might go against her at the interview; but the senior Chaplin who interviewed her, reassured her by saying to her “You don’t have to be religious to work here”.
Another aspect of British society, which as an American you might find strange, is that not only is our Priest friend openly gay, but his archbishop (with whom we have close social contact) is also openly gay; and the senior Chaplin who interviewed my wife for the Admin job, and who has also become a family friend who we socialise with, is also openly a lesbian.
But taking those four links in turn:-
#1: The title of the article “Bibles put out of reach in libraries” is a bit misleading, in that if you read the whole article, it’s not just the bible, but ‘all religious text’ including Muslim scriptures.
And if you read further into the article, Christianity is not being persecuted because as a Muslim Group stated “all religious texts should be kept on the top shelf, so that “no offence is caused, as the scriptures of all the major faiths are given respect in this way, but none is higher than any other”.
However, that being said, putting ‘all religious text (which includes the bible) on the top shelves in public libraries, in my view was a bad judgment by the Government; but doing so doesn’t prejudice one religion over another.
#2: The School row over pupil's God talk, on reading the article, it seems obvious to me that both the child and her mother (a part time school teacher at the same school) showed religious intolerance, and as such both should have been reprimanded, as they were.
The whole incident started when a school child told another pupil “'if you don't believe in God you're going to go to hell'. The teacher in her class quite rightly told the child that such comments are not OK to say, but she did stress that it is OK to discuss what you believe with others.
The parent of the child made comments to her church in an email, and a copy of that email got back to the head teacher; and the head teacher, in my mind, was justified in reprimanding the child’s mother (part time teacher) for making “unfair allegations” about the school.
#3: Yeah, a nurse being suspended for asking a patient whether she would like her to pray for her”. It did up-set the patient, and although she had the decency not to say anything to the nurse, she did tell others, who complained on her behalf.
When I was in hospital last year, as an atheist, I wouldn’t have wanted a nurse to presume to say anything like that to me; although if she or he did then I wouldn’t make it an issue.
As an atheist I do detest people saying to me they’re going to pray for me, or when they say at the end of conversation “god bless you”, as are close Priest friend does frequently; but I show tolerance, and don’t say anything, because I know they don’t mean any harm by it, and it’s the way they are.
As the article states, the NHS guidelines are quite clear on the subject, it states that "such behaviour, notwithstanding religious beliefs, could be construed as harassment under the disciplinary and grievance procedures." And quite right to; religion has no place in a hospital.
#4: Teacher quits over multi-faith assembly. As the article quite rightly points out, most schools in Britain do have multi-faith assemblies, always have had. It’s just for some reason, which wasn’t explained in the article that at this particular school they had separate Assemblies for Christian and Muslim faiths; which is not conducive to religious tolerance; hence, why the teacher tried to do what just about every other school in Britain does, and have just one Assembly. But some (not all) Muslim parents complained, which led to the teacher resigning.
The Muslim parents who complained (as stated in the article) pointed out that they had no objection to a non-secular joint assembly, but object when hymns were re-introduced e.g. forcing the Christian faith down the Muslims throat, rather than before, when the Muslim kids had their own separate Assembly.
In hindsight, in a school where there existed two separate Assemblies (one for Christians, and one for Muslims), merging the two Assemblies although desirable to build on religious tolerance, it would have been prudent to work closely with the parents, so as to make an informed decision; which as the article states, is what is now happening.
I notice in all your comments, you are always having a dig at Muslims, suggesting that you have prejudice against Muslims? Whereas, in a secular society like Britain, where most people are not religious it’s the intolerance of a small minority of Christians that causes the friction not just with Muslims, and other faiths, but also non-religious people, including humanists, and atheists etc.
• https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … -suspended
• https://www.christian.org.uk/news/bible … libraries/
• https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 … ls-schools
"I notice in all your comments, you are always having a dig at Muslims, suggesting that you have prejudice against Muslims?"
Good try. You win the award for making something out of nothing. Why you need to do such a thing I do not know.
I don't take a "dig" at Muslims. I take a dig at the double standards of societies such as Britian and the United States and others. Christians are given a bad time for an incident and if Muslims do the same thing they are ignored.
In the US Christian bakers who refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding can expect a long and draw-out persecution by the government. There has been video evidence of gays trying to purchase wedding cakes for a gay wedding from a Muslim bakery. The Muslim bakery never has any problem from the government. Why?
Why do you think Britian, the US and others have such double standards?
Readmikenow; If it’s true that you’re not prejudice against Muslims then why keep focusing on them in every argument you make, why not also mention atheists and when it has nothing to do with religion, just Mention gays – After all Muslims are only 4.3% of the British population, where as 52% of the British population are non-religious.
Well yeah, quite right, a Bakery that refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding is homophobic, which is a crime. We had a similar situation in a Bed & Breakfast (Guest House) in Berkshire, England, when the Christion landlady was prosecuted for refusing to rent accommodation to a gay couple.
But yes, I agree with you the law should be applied equally regardless to who the offender is, regardless to their religion; and generally, in the UK it is (see article below). If that’s not the case in the USA, then that is wrong.
Three Muslim men in the UK convicted over gay hate leaflets; Ali was jailed for two years while Ahmed and Javed were given 15-month sentences. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/ … e-leaflets
"why keep focusing on them in every argument you make"
This is an exaggeration. You do like drama. I don't know if I can make it any more simple for you. The problem is not Muslims, but the double standards by societies in the US, UK and other places placed on Christians, Jews when compared to Muslims.
"why not also mention atheists"
Have a very low opinion of atheists and don't think their views are worth mentioning.
"Bakery that refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding is homophobic, which is a crime"
I don't agree with that at all. The US Supreme Court ruled the bakers were within their rights to follow their religious views. A Muslim baker does the same thing and nothing is said. They are not attacked by the government. See, that is called a double standard.
"U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Colorado Baker, Leaves Unresolved Issues of Refusing to Serve Same-Sex Couples
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 4 in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The 7-to-2 decision was based on very narrow grounds and left unresolved whether business owners have a First Amendment right to refuse to sell goods and services to same-sex couple"
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/us … efusing-to
The problem I have with you conservatives and "your interpretation" is that your argument of "First Amendment" is just a slippery slope toward permitting discrimination within public accommodations. Are you taking me back to future? Jim Crow?
How do you explain that relative to your "First Amendment" argument.?
But conservatives are to daft to me, anyway. But, that is just "my opinion".
Imagine saying that the Virginia vs Loving Supreme Court ruling in 1967 was a bad ruling, as did one Indiana Congressman admitted recently? His nonsense excuse using "state's rights" to support anti miscegenation laws.
I am neither keen regarding Republicans nor the conservatism they represent. So, sorry to have vented....
You do realize Jim Crow had nothing to do with religion.
Virginia vs Loving Supreme Court ruling
Had nothing to do with religion
#1: "Bakery that refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding is homophobic, which is a crime"
Well that is where USA & UK laws differ; in the UK refusing to bake a cake on the grounds that the customer is gay is homophobic, and therefore a crime.
In UK in 2011 - Homosexuals Successfully Sue Christians for Right to Share a Room in Christian Guesthouse! https://youtu.be/qm5nTY-6jSs
#2: Well yes, you do seem to focus on Muslims in your arguments; it’s not an exaggeration (if you read back on your previous comments).
It may be double standards in the USA, but as I previously explained, it’s not so in the UK e.g. my previous link where three Muslims were given prison sentences for handing out homophobic leaflets. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/ … e-leaflets
You state that you “Have a very low opinion of atheists and don't think their views are worth mentioning.” – I suppose you do realise that 52% of the British public are not religious, and that I, as well as many of my friends, are atheists. So from your comments I would guess that you are also prejudice against atheists too?
If there is a double standard in Britain, then it’s not with Muslims, but with Jews e.g. Jews are very, very sensitive about being criticised, and are far more likely to cry ‘antisemitism’ than Muslims are to complain about being prejudiced against if they are criticised e.g. the Labour Party in recent years got into hot water for being accused of being antiemetic. Labour Party suspends Jeremy Corbyn for antisemitism’ https://youtu.be/NWi0kiYM7T4
So it would seem to boil down to fundamental differences in social and cultural attitudes, and different laws between the UK and USA.
'Junny, Junny?' Papa? 'Stealing sugar?' No, sir. Open your mouth! Ha ha ha.
Oh Hell, I know that rhyme. (and most of the other Dave & Ava kid's vids)
"So from your comments I would guess that you are also prejudice against atheists too"
I'm not prejudiced against atheists. I just don't think they can be considered very intelligent. To ignore the spiritual world and its influence on the everyday lives of people around the world is proof of very shallow thinking. It has been my experience that atheists doesn't have the ability to comprehend the depth of issues or the deep meanings of virtually anything. An atheist can only understand the surface level of things. When it comes to thinking, an atheist is very, very limited.
I think a point that illustrates that is you don't seem to realize there is a difference between believing in a religion and believing in God. Some do one and some do the other while many do both. There are reasons for all of it.
It's complicated. I don't expect an atheist to understand the spiritual world and how it impacts people.
Readmikenow; well if you are not prejudice then certainly you are very condescending, with a twist of arrogance e.g. “To ignore the spiritual world and its influence on the everyday lives of people around the world is proof of very shallow thinking.” Is very a very arrogant and condescending view; it assumes there’s a ‘spiritual world’ and it assumes that an atheist can’t appreciate the beauty and wonders of nature. And of course I understand the difference between believing in a religion and believing in god; after all that’s very much sums up the Church of England where 44% of Christians in Britain don’t believe in god; and 10% of Christians in Britain don’t believe in the spiritual world either.
So to sum up, you believe that anyone with views radically different to you is always wrong, and that you are always right?
State and religion should be separate, but not state and government. The state taking the place of God can be dracula. 'I am the State' is self destructive.
I think, generally State means Government.
Unless in my case I'm first govern self , the outside Government can take care of all my small stuff. When Government starts getting creative , I don't get involved.
Good resisting, people!
Caitlyn Jenner gets called an anti-transgender, what a strange world we live in.
What you may call God, I would call nature.
Can not imagine them allowing men to be dominating both men and women sports.
If they want to advance women to upgrade to complete with men, I'm all for it.
The State is allowing migrants on the southern border into the country without vetting and without monitoring ... why? We have the resources to stop them, but governmental policies are encouraging an open border.
... and we should not call them "illegal" and we should not call them "aliens" ...
Yes, we should protect the citizens of America from the invasion of multitudes of illegal aliens based on the protections provided by our constitution.
These illegal aliens should be deported.
These illegal aliens be prevented from coming in.
The State, however, has something else to say about it.
... so what? We just listen to The State, (Biden Administration,)????
For instance, does The State and the democrat party agree that child rape is fine due to easy technological access to pictures and videos of it? This philosophy paves the way toward freedom to make and view child pornography. This philosophy takes away the rights of the people to protect themselves against criminals and all dangers to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness which the Constitution protects.
I don't see from the government answers. And don't complain unless I have one or two good ideas for solutions myself.
How can child rape be okay? If a man wants to released his sex urge, are they not enough mature and unmarried females or whores around? Why the child then? The Constitution is clear about human rights. But the state and party is bent on infringement of such. Shame!
Maybe its something like this:
Independence was grated to humans by God. He expected them to use their independence wisely. He did not give them freedom to do whatever the hell they wanted, disregarding negative consequences to themselves / others. God probably said, Oops. what have I done?" at some point. Or did he know we would become so incapable of properly and consistently guiding ourselves?
The founding fathers clearly understood the need for government, law and boundaries. After all, when one abuses freedom and hurts others in so doing, it must be stopped/prevented.
Anarchists do not agree.
It’s not just anarchists like Castlepaloma, or atheists like me, who don’t believe in god, only 56% of Christians in Britain actually believe in the existence of god.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/philosophy/ … ish-people
My point is that when people don't believe in God they start looking to the government for what perhaps a god could provide.
Currently, the state influences the populace where religion otherwise would. I would say this influence gives unfair advantage to those who want to implement their own agendas which may or may not be in harmony with reality, love, logic and/or common sense.
PS Thank you for the link. We are so close but so far ... or maybe so close, but so far... well, distantly related, we (many of us here) are.
The Saxon people, nevertheless, are a very hearty and robust people as Charles Dickens noted in the book, "A Child's History of England."
Have you read it?
He said, "I am writing a little history of England for my boy ... For I don't know what I should do, if he were to get hold of any conservative or High Church notions; and the best way of guarding against any such horrible result is, I take it, to wring the parrots' neck in his very cradle."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Child%2 … of_England
Thanks for the link, no I haven’t read the Charles Dickens boot “A Child's History of England”, it’s one of his works that I wasn’t aware of; they stopped using it as part of the school curriculum after the World War Two, so I didn’t get to see it at school - So I’ve gained something worthwhile from our exchanges; thanks.
Looking at the Wikipedia link you gave I found it fascinating that Charles Dickens didn’t want children indoctrinated by Conservatism by Church or State; quite an enlightened view.
Yes we all are closely related; the Human Genome Project (DNA fingerprinting) has helped to trace our origins back to Africa with the most recent migration wave being some 50,000 to 70,000 years ago – and it’s even been possible to show that we all share a small percentage of Neanderthal DNA, indicating that our two species did interbreed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_Af … ern_humans
Yes, the Saxon people (English people), of whom many Americans are descendants, are robust; The English are not just Saxon’s, we’re the result of interbreeding between the Saxon’s, Angles and Jutes (from Germany) who migrated to England when they invaded it in the 5th century (after the Romans left), the Vikings from Scandinavia who raided and settled in Northern England in the 8th century, and the Norman’s (French) who settled in England after 1066.
The end result of all that mixing of cultures and genetics was a warrior race who then went onto conquer most of the rest of the world (British Empire)!
Yes, I agree, many people (but not all) look for guidance, either from god or the State.
However, my observation is that when Religions have power that they tend to impose their own agenda, which tends to be rather draconian e.g. making abortions and same sex marriages illegal.
Whereas, when the State is the centre of power then their agenda tends to be more political e.g. in Britain the Conservatives agenda is capitalism, the Labour’s agenda is Social Justice, the Greens agenda is Environmental and the Liberal Democrats agenda is a ‘mixed economy’ – so when voting, you choose the party that best represents your views: Democracy.
However, the people who tend to be more dependent on guidance from their religion and or the State tends to be the less well educated; hence the importance of a good education, to teach people to think for themselves.
"the people who tend to be more dependent on guidance from their religion and or the State tends to be the less well educated; hence the importance of a good education, to teach people to think for themselves."
I am not sure that I agree with that statement, though I think I understood what your point is. In my view the ability to think for myself has nothing to do with how many facts and figures I know, which is a big portion of education. Yet, I can agree education as a system teaches better ways to think based on historical evidence of success/failure through developing for self a means for a thinking process; e.g. scientific method.
Another reason I would question it is it seems to negate the creative process of thinking as being valid thinking. I don't think Beethoven knew the mathematical nuances attributed to his works today by analysts of music. He simply thought through the process of composing his music.
Where did Beethoven go to school?
https://www.popularbeethoven.com/where- … to-school/
Yes, I agree with what you say; perhaps I need to clarify my meaning, when I made my comment.
I didn’t mean ‘learning by rote’; which was being phased out in British primary schools when I was there; I meant ‘being taught to think’ which (as a teaching technique) replaced learning by rote by the time I went to secondary school.
I don’t know what the teaching methods are in America, but in Britain, since I was at school, we didn’t get marks for just learning ‘facts and figures’; we you got much higher marks for being creative, and for showing originality.
Also, when I was at school and college we were taught ‘how to research’ and to ‘reference our sources’, and we’d get far higher marks if we demonstrated our thought processes and wrote things in our own words, rather than just copying from source references – to show that we understood what we read and that we’d put thought into what we wrote.
A good example being that, when I took my English Language exam at college, we weren’t marked on just spelling and grammar, but also we’d pick up extra marks for originality e.g. one of the questions in my English Language exam at college was asking us to write a short thesis on whether we agreed with the ‘Trade Union Movement’ in Britain, and to explain (qualify) our reasoning for our view.
Of course, there were those at school who (for whatever reason) was not interested in learning, so they would leave school with few or no qualifications and get unskilled manual work, end up getting a woman pregnant, and then get a Council House, and most typically buy the ‘Sun Newspaper’ – A right-wing newspaper that thrives on ‘sensational’ headlines and right-wing propaganda, using simple short words and short sentences, for easy reading (without having to think), a newspaper aimed at the lower working classes.
In contrast, those who got a good education, even if they didn’t get highly paid jobs would more likely end up doing office work, buy their own house, and would tend to read one of the quality newspapers, such as ‘The Guardian’ or ‘Independent’, or if they’re Conservative, then the Telegraph or Financial Times. Newspapers which the less well educated would find a boring read.
I think we are saying the same thing and are in agreement. For me especially with my life history there is vast difference between education and learning. Yes, learning is part of education, however it is how to learn that I think you are inferring you got out of your education experience that brought you the greatest value. Maybe I got that wrong. I dun'no . . . In other words learning how to learn should be emphasized.
I frankly don't know what a good education is. I can think of many avenues for that to occur. I got in my mind a great education when I first studied architecture and took the required classes (1973-74). I got a good education when I took metal working classes, wood working classes, welding classes, and automotive tech classes later in life at night (1975 - 1980). I got a good education when later still in life when I returned once again finishing required classes and took a new avenue with psychology, philosophy and sociology classes (2002 - 2003). And, in jest I didn't read newspapers . . . I skimmed them.
Of course we all go to UHK, right? The University of Hard Knocks
I used to challenge the teachers in class. I don't just ask questions. Seriously, I don't copy the teachers notes. I take down key points and work them into briefs. That made me one of the best 10 students in class. Actually, the best thinking processes is making independent investigation.
Cool, that's the way to do it.
Yep, spot on; as you said, the greatest value I got out of my education experience was learning how to learn.
You have an impressive range of skills, from woodworking, metal work and welding (practical skills) to psychology, philosophy and sociology. I did metal work and woodwork at school, but never really took to it (although I’d love to be able to because it would be so useful around the home); but do I love woodwork, and now it forms the basis of all my DIY projects in the home and garden. I did touch on psychology briefly, and found it a fascinating subject, but was too pre-occupied with my other studies (Business Administration) at college to take it up as a formal subject; but I can imagine that the knowledge you’ve built-up in these areas must be rewarding.
Right up to my parents days school education in Britain had always been ‘learning by rote’; but when I went to school attitudes were changing, a recognition that just learning dates, like what happened in 1066, or when did the Romans invade Britain, and being able to recall your ‘times tables’ was no measure of intellectual intelligence. So that’s when teaching techniques starting to change, so as to make kids think; hence the importance of the thesis, and homework etc. You might take notes from the teacher in the classroom, and read the relevant parts of the text books, but doing your homework, and end of year thesis, you were on your own, you had to think for yourself; or sometimes jointly with others e.g. these days you’re often paired off with someone else, or a small group, to work on Projects together, so as to promote ‘team work’ skills.
In my final two years at school, one of the subjects I wanted to take my final exams in for qualifications was Astronomy. There wasn’t a teacher to teach that science in our school, but the school was willing to give us lesson period each week so that we could spend time teaching ourselves the subject, and in exchange we had to give a couple of lessons to class of school children from time to time. So I and two of my friends taught ourselves Astronomy (as a science), and I’m pleased to say I passed the exam – which helped towards getting into the civil service as science or maths was one of the three qualifications required.
Also, in my last two years at school I was also able to get permission to have day release from school once a week to study ‘electrical engineering’ at college. And what I loved about that course is that we had three hours theory in the morning and three hours practical in the afternoon e.g. putting to practice what you learnt (hands on), which I think is a very good way of learning.
Of course, as you say, we all also learn from the UHK.
I think we both had a fantastic experience with Learning. I wonder if that itself can be an innate quality some have and some don't. hmmm . . .
I took an assessment once by Gallup Organization classifying me as a Learner. You may be interested if at least peeking at their program called the Clifton Strengths Finder. They have a book for it titled Now Discover Your Strengths. You get access to the assessment with the book or can be bought separate.
I have taken their assessment every four years since first introduced to it. Basically it maintains to know what they are and build on those for career, education, and life.
It was recommended to me by the owner of the company I worked for a 24 store, 2 warehouse, corporate office and 3 Mexico store company [Corporation]. When I reported back to him my results and evaluation of it we made it part of our Manager and manager training program and I conducted it. We used the results of the manager and trainees to guide them in their positions as store managers/assistant managers and know where they will need help based on their strengths. Then we could coach them accordingly. We used it for over ten years until I left the company.
Now Discover Your Strengths
https://www.amazon.com/Discover-Your-St … amp;sr=1-1
A Clifton Strengths Finder Intro
https://www.gallup.com/cliftonstrengths … gIo-vD_BwE
What are the 34 Strengths Themes
https://www.gallup.com/cliftonstrengths … hemes.aspx
You can get the assessment alone
https://store.gallup.com/c/en-us/assess … gKhTPD_BwE
Realizing we both are no longer on our official career path it is still an interesting perspective of their program. I would recommend it to any person about to embark on an education journey especially thinking of choices of curriculum. I gave the book to all my nephews and nieces one Christmas while some had graduated college, some were attending, and some still in high school. My Sister-in-Law with a doctorate in education and also school district superintendent thanked me for it.
Thanks, t !
You wrote, "I think we both had a fantastic experience with Learning. I wonder if that itself can be an innate quality some have and some don't. hmmm . . ."
I believe the natural propensity for intense learning can be preserved by protecting and encouraging it in all stages of child-development.
Sorry to harp on someone so apparently archaic, but Montessori lights the way toward true learning. Repeating: She was ahead of her time.
Wow, great minds think alike.
Your Gallup Organization assessment is very similar in principle to the ‘Insights Discovery’ Personal Profiles.
The ‘Insight Discovery’ Personal Profiles are based on the works of Carl Jung: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung
As part of one of the ‘Team Building’ courses I was sent on at work, they’d arranged for each of us to have our work related Personality Profiles done by Insight Discover; a 26 page personalised report for each person, complete with charts and graphs.
I was so impressed on how accurate the personality profile was, that when I got home I paid to have one done each for myself and my wife; from the ‘Relate’ (Marriage Guidance) website, as they were offering that service for personality profiles that were relationship orientated rather than work related, using the same methodology of Carl Jung; and those Profiles were just as accurate as my work one.
The key chapters to the work related personal profile were Introduction; Overview; Key Strengths & Weaknesses; Value to the Team; Communication; Possible Blind Spots; Opposite Type; Suggestions for Development; Personal Achievement; Lifelong Learning; Learning Style; The Insights Wheel, and Colour Dynamics.
Below are the two wheels:-
The first wheel (work related) shows me as a Co-ordinator, and
The second wheel (relationship related) shows me as a Supporter.
Interesting!!! Thanks for that info. I have always been interested in discovering who I am from the experts perspective. It began back in 1973 the first year of my college experience (age 18). Consider I attended a community college with two year Associate of Arts degrees, transfer curriculum programs, and certificate programs, not a four year institution with Bachelor degrees and graduate Master Degrees and Doctorates.
Anyway, I took a class titled Quest for Identity. Its aim was to assist with choosing a suitable education, career, and life path based on assessments and such combined with instructional and class discussions. The idea is that what we think, which many times is based on what others project upon us, e.g. parents, is not really suitable to personal makeup.
That was when I was introduced to the Myers-Briggs assessment also based on Jung. I have retaken it throughout life noting when change did occur realizing life experience affects personality makeup. I used an online assessment for it with that manager class I conducted. My first assessment I was an INTJ, yet was on the cusp. The last time I took it I was once again on a cusp between being an INFP and INTP, yet had moved away from being an INTJ.
https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-per … ti-basics/
When I returned to the same community college (Age 40) I took that same class Quest for Identity again. One thing that was new they got into heavy was understanding the Gardner's Multiple Intelligence Theory. I was intrigued by it and it definitely opened doors for me while gave me insight to understand other people. I am sure that helped with causing a the change with Myers-Briggs assessment result.
https://www.verywellmind.com/gardners-t … es-2795161
My Dear Friend in Sweden at one time expressed she did not feel she was intelligent. She is a very talented poet and wonderful artist and I think personally her intelligence is beyond average, yet not what society looks for. I found a fantastic online site with a Multiple Intelligence Assessment I paid for her to take. The site also had plenty of info to use the results and give understanding of it all.
She most definitely was Visual-Spatial with also a strong Interpersonal. It was monumental for her. It had a very strong impact on her self esteem and how she views herself that has grown stronger over the years. She embarked on new pathway with her art and poetry to the extent of her artwork shared and sold at different sites today. And, her poetry has been published beyond here at HP at other specific sites for it.
Wow and wow.
I loved the links; thanks.
As your first link (personality-types) allows you to do a free questionnaire for your personalised personality-type, I did the questionnaire, and saved the report to my hard drive for future reading.
Having done the on-line test, but without yet reading the full report (which I shall do when I have a spare moment) the results for me look about right; good old Jung.
My results were:-
• 89% Introverted
• 54% Intuitive Energy
• 64% Feeling (Nature)
• 90% Tactics (Judging)
• 58% Assertive
And another wow for helping your friend in Sweden: A great success story.
I just read the first paragraph of my personalised personality-type from your link; and the last sentence in the first paragraph reads:-
"For Advocate personalities, success doesn’t come from money or status but from seeking fulfilment, helping others, and being a force for good in the world."
Which for me, is 'spot on'.
Cool!!! I am glad you got something from it and perhaps gave you a little hop in your step
I didn't realize they had an assessment. I took it too discovering as you I am an advocate or INFJ. Interestingly I transitioned once again from my last assessment saying I was on the cusp of INFP and INTP. I went back to the site discovering you can explore your result further. Note: It appears they must track you based on IPS because it recognized me and gave the opportunity to 'Retake' the test rather than take the test.
Interestingly, the new result fits me to a tee too for today. Perhaps that is because of how much life has changed since last doing an assessment maybe twelve years ago when still working and considering what my position was with responsibilities and etc plus it made up probably 80% of my life.
I also noticed there is opportunity for further exploration, though at a nominal cost. However, as shared being a Learner I may do it just for giggles.
I took the Myers Briggs Test in the early nineties and came up as an INTP, today am a bit more extrovert than I once was. Being more forthcoming and confident is a byproduct of age and experience. So, I am now somewhere between INTP and ENTP.
Cool! You may want just for giggles go to that first link and take the assessment to see what it is today.
Here it is again
Footnote: When I go to that link it takes me to my personal info I believe since I took the assessment and I think they use your ISP for that. I hope it shows you the assessment link, yet I dun'no . . .
I too think I am more an E than an I. I think that is because I had to because I was in sales interacting with people and also a store manager. Later in a corporate environment interacting with corporate managers, store managers/assist managers, and office personnel. But, when taking the assessment the other day it indicated I was an I. Maybe that is because over the last ten years being retired I no longer interact with people daily and fell into my natural self. I dun'no . . .
Thanks Tim, yep, it did give me a little hop in my step.
Yeah, when I first took the originally assessment 18 years ago, the instructor on the works course who was co-ordinating it all did explain to use that people do change, so that over time your assessment my change to reflect that.
But interestingly after doing the online assessment yesterday, I copied and pasted each page of my results into a Word document; and having since read most of it, I find it strikingly similar to the two assessments I had done over 18 years ago – a good indication that I haven’t really changed a great deal in all that time, which is probably right as I don’t feel that much different.
I am glad we both discovered an interest in exploring ourselves with that assessment. I think we have a core regard where one is placed. What is interesting is and they show you is how far one way or the other a spectrum you are. Regard we may change I think it is how far from or how close to the center one is. I am near the cusp on two elements. One may see the core with my transition from
And, this one INFJ
Also note I will explore my records to see what the others were.
The I and N has always been so and not near the center. The next two are where change occurs and doing this assessment the other day those two are close to the center rather than being strong ones away from it. Maybe it is because I am on the cusp of Virgo and Libra ha-ha
I have my old assessments still in my files, so I am going to go back and look them over and use that site I recommended to explore for a bit and a byte of playtime. It will be interesting perhaps leading to a Hub article.
Religion is still a problem. It divides man from man; and worst man from God. Only love builds the divide.
Yes, religion is a way to find God,
but, we need to perceive and feel God directly.
When Nearly nine-in-ten members of Congress identify as Christian (88%), compared with two-thirds of the general public (65%).
I trust the public far more, feel very little love or and good God consciousness from US congress.
maybe they loose their faith once they're there, for some reason.
or their faith is tested.
or never truly had much to begin with. Being Christian is no guarantee to stay in touch with reality from within,
from the heart and soul.
It takes diligence.
The significance of the SELF cannot be underestimated in education.
But what do they still do here in America as far as that end? Indoctrinate, tyrannize and demean. Right brain thinking is utterly shut down. Creativity is a NO No. Forced obedience is the prevailing classroom management technique here. Still to this day! And it may be at the root of our, (American society's,) absolute downfall in so many areas. Those who survive our educational system are those who maintain their abilities to guide and confer with their own minds/wills. It is obvious, we need a revolution in education.
Maybe there are some school districts/teachers, somewhere in the middle of America, who Respect the inner-lives of their students and:
*Treat them with compassion and common sense.
*Provide what the students will need toward the development of aptitudes/abilites.
*Enable them to guide themselves intelligently and successfully.
According to what I have witnessed,In general, teachers do everything but ENCOURAGE true learning. After 2012 it got really bad here in my school district with the advance of the Common Core curriculum. Today, Common Core lessons and Chrome books dominate.
Are they learning:
*To write? A little I suppose, not sure any more.
*To compute basic math? No. They are being dumbed down and are mathematically abused.
*Contributing Data to whoever needs the data? Yes.
*Being indoctrinated with progressive ideologies? Yes.
It's a crisis, as many many parents discovered during the pandemic when their kids were required to work remotely from home.
The Way I See (and Saw) It
PS I eventually got fired in 2018 after 20 years of subbing in my district for telling second grade students that the "Elf on the Shelf" was just a myth, just a doll and could not fly across the room or to the North Pole. The "Elf On the Shelf" was being used by the teacher to surveil the students. They were told the Elf would tell Santa who was Good and Bad for the entire month of December (and part of November, right after Thanksgiving.) No student would want to miss out on his Christmas presents via the Elf's communication of his or her bad deeds to Santa. How convenient for the teacher.
I'm not certain how education or schooling in America goes on. But one thing is very clear to me: indocrinating students/pupils is very bad. Nothing good comes out of it. Government that wants to control all will never give that independence or freedom to the mind. You ether conform or you get out.
Many are getting out/resisting/homeschooling. Thank You, Miebakagh.
what is removed with such an education is
Joy Of Life.
Wow, that sounds very!!!!!
I couldn’t think of the most appropriate word to use above, but when I asked Google, it offered ‘Oppressive Education’; and there’s even a Wikipedia article on ‘anti-oppressive education’ which might strike a chord with you; especially the last paragraph, which reads:-
“….students simply memorize mechanically the narrated content transmitted by the educator. This is the banking model of education, in which the scope of action allowed by the students extends only as far as receiving, filling and storing the deposits. Thus, projecting an absolute ignorance onto others, a characteristic of the ideology of oppression, negates education and knowledge as a process of inquiry. As a result, the more students work at storing these deposits entrusted to them, the less they develop the critical consciousness that would result from their intervention in the world as transformers of that world. As a result, oppressive social controls are never questioned and remain as an integral part of our culture thus, perpetuating oppression in our education systems.”
My mentor was a woman who worked with Dr. Maria Montessori who was, it turns out, way ahead of her time. She was cancelled long ago in our teaching schools and universities. Nevertheless, reading and understanding her philosophy/methods and seeing them in action could help us pave the road to a beautiful future.
Basically she presents the epitome of an anti-oppressive approach toward true learning.
Yes, our schools have become oppressive, however, It wasn't always like this. I and my children received very good, (not excellent,) educations with great teachers K-12!
Thanks again Nathan, for helping us isolate the difficulty of current educational trends, (according to what I have observed after twenty years of subbing in more than one district.) The problems started after 2012 with the introduction of computers in the classroom..
As you said, "Wow, that sounds very oppressive!!!!!"
* Nailed it.
... who can truly learn with out it?
Hey are you guys allowed to have so much fun?
My Kathryn, what's hinding you to join in and contribute to the 'fun'?
Years ago as a young unmarried man, i regularly peruse my mind over a British publication, called the Psychologist Magazine. Seriously, it's out of print but whether it has made a come back that I don't know. Significantly, the magazine made me encounter some reads within to access my personality. Good for me...and I later stumbled upon a book:' Know Your Own Personality'. In every page you read, you've got to take a personality test. And, I'm glad on the average I made 85+ Guys, thanks for the link anyway. I've saved them to study and to access me later. Enjoy your day.
I found Tim's links most enlightening; and I'm sure you'll find them just as fascinating as I did.
Thank you. I've saved the link likewise for my study.
Interestly, the contents of the magazine were transform into book form. I bought some of the handy pocket books, and I still read them. There are a perfect references for example, for mind and body topics, or nutrition. I believe if I had not fall head over psychology, I would no longer made head way in my schooling and career. It made me more focus and concentrate, sharping my mind over the challenges of life.
by yoshi97 13 years ago
Before I go into this discussion, we all need to understand that I am not a scientist, I am not a prophet, and I am not an expert on the topic. I am merely trying to offer my belief in how atheism occurs. And why some of you might not like what I am about to say, understand that it is not meant as...
by Brittany Williams 3 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 10 years ago
Why do so many people have misperceptions about atheism and agnosticism?
by Cattleprod Media 12 years ago
I find most people are clueless. They say they are atheist, but can't properly form an argument as to WHY, or they say they are agnostic, with zero clue as to WHAT that is.Ignorance, above all, is our weakness. Not religion. Although ignorance and religion are good bedfellows.
by Eric Dierker 6 years ago
Is Atheism really just another religion or faith based concept?It seems like the notions that there is a God or there is not a God, are both founded in belief because there is not proof either way. Well there is proof, but not conclusive in either direction. So aren't organizations with set forth...
by James Q smith 13 years ago
Just a question, but it would seem if there really were no God, then Atheists couldn't exist. Is Atheism a religion? They definitely seem to be unified by a common belief.
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|