This sounds like an interesting read...

[Lieva]

That isnt the western way of thinking however.
That is the British way of thinking.
I am unsure regarding Scotland and Wales but I know Ireland still come to clashes regarding which people believe or not.
America is very similar to ireland - with less bombs/agro - but certain states would use bombs if they could i suspect.
I am not sure on the other european countries, perhaps someone can tell us what its like there
But largly, most people are intollerant of others. Sure the Islamic nations are extreme and actually exicute people for their beliefs but well, it is their law. Such as our law is that you cannot eat/murder people.
If you were a cannibal you would think our law was wrong and forcing you to adopt different beliefs.
If you wish to live in another country then you should respect their laws.
If their law makes you do something you do not wish to do then you either have the choice to break the law or not move.
Should you choose to break the law then you should expect fully to be imprisioned/killed.

Daniel in the lions den is an example.
When he got the law he couldnt pray he immediatly prayed.
He knew his actions would make him go to prison and when comfrounted by the king told him 'his religion makes him pray'.
He did not turn round to the king and say 'your religion is stupid and wrong and you should be more tollerant of others beliefs' - yet that is what happens so often.

think ive lost my point again *sighs*
ill give up now

[Xest]

I don't really think it's for us to judge how other countries should be run in a lot of circumstances, however there are some exceptions.

Iran is a good example of a nation where I don't think we should force regime change, because they're pushing their very own citizens to the point where they're going to fight back, in this scenario it's better to let the people fight back and force change themselves. If a nation doesn't push it's citizens to change the regime themselves then I think you can argue that for the most part, this means they're not so unhappy with the current regime that they're willing to tolerate it.

As an aside however whilst I don't agree with a forced regime change in Iran I do fully support a military offensive against their nuclear facilities. The Iranian goverment has made it clear they wish to obliterate Israel, and whilst they probably wouldn't actually go ahead and do it, when it comes to nuclear weapons saying they'd do it is enough cause for concern IMO - it's at this point, where one nations beliefs threatens another that action needs to be taken. The problem is however, a nation like the US wouldn't be happy with a surgical strike on Iran's nuclear facilities like Israel performed against Osirak in Iraq 1981 - the US would want to go the full way and attack the regime itself and it's then that you end up with another Iraq.

With regards to our captured sailors, many people saw that as embarassing for us to the point we had no retaliation options and this is because of my previous comments in the other thread - that large portions of the world just don't respect us because of our stupid alliance with the US. If this type of thing would've happened maybe 10, 20 years ago when the UK had more respect we'd probably have had a strong case in international courts for a kidnapping of foreign nationals and piracy case against the Iranians.

With regards to your last paragraph I'm not entirely convinced the Western way is as secular as it probably should be, as I say the whole gay rights vs. religious rights thing was an example of the Church believing it's rights were important than that of others. I'd argue that many things other here, whilst different, were still just as stupid as some Islamic laws - remember that here you can run someone over killing them and get away with no prison sentence, yet if you sell a few pirated CDs you can get 5 years and lose your home and everything - that probably looks as rediculous to the Iranians as Iranian's not being allowed certain haircuts does to us. In Iran you can get arrested for talking against the regime on a blog, but it's not as if Islamic clerics here haven't been arrested for talking against our way of life either, there is of course the argument that they're more likely to follow through on their threats whereas Iranian bloggers were only putting forward well reasoned arguments but it's hard to know, because our media could very likely be spinning both stories.

[Gandelf]

If you wish to live in another country then you should respect their laws.

I agree with that to a certain extent. I think it's all about personal freedom and freedom of speech. It's when these two things are denied the individual, or should say, when the individual is in danger of physical, social, financial or psychological harm because of his/her beliefs that extremist governments are wrong. Obviously there are certain examples where personal beliefs are generally viewed upon with contempt, such cannibalism or paedophilia etc. However, I think there is a general consensus of what is wrong and what is acceptable. Some things may be frowned upon by certain sections of society, but that's to be expected where personal beliefs are concerned.

The other thing, Lieva, if say ten years down the road, there was a general election and the British Government became an Islamic fundamentalist one, would you still say that we should respect that Government's laws?

If overnight, the drinking of alcohol became illegal and all the pubs had to close, would you respect that? If you were suddenly forced to have to wear a Berka, would you cheerfully comply or resist?

I'm not having a go at you Nana, but I'm just trying to make a point that sometimes it's hard to respect the laws of certain governments. Especially when those governments have been "voted in" because they threatened to harm anyone who voted against them:

Example

...as I say the whole gay rights vs. religious rights thing was an example of the Church believing it's rights were important than that of others

I have nothing against consenting homesexuality... that's freedom of choice. What I am against is how the British Government passed a law forbidding the Roman Catholic Church's adoption agencies to discriminate against homesexual couples wanting to adopt a child. The Roman Catholic Church actually said that it was willing to refer such couples to non-religious agencies, but the Government said that would not be allowed. That is clearly wrong. Now the Roman Catholic Church is closing its adoption agencies, which is very sad. All the Government had to do was say, "OK, if you are approached by any homosexual couples wanting to apply for adoption, then refer them to a non-religious agency." That would have been the sensible choice and a choice that would not have upset Roman Catholics. At least then, Roman Catholics would have felt that at least there was some respect for their beliefs. Instead, the Government is forcing its beliefs on the Church. It's showing utter contempt for religion. That's what's wrong in my opinion.

The Church forcing its beliefs on the Government is just as bad as the Government forcing its beliefs on the Church.

[Xest]

What I am against is how the British Government passed a law forbidding the Roman Catholic Church's adoption agencies to discriminate against homesexual couples wanting to adopt a child.

I know exactly where you're coming from and I understand the argument. The problem is that say, another adoption agency would be breaking the law if they refused to allow a couple to adopt based on their religious beliefs - the Church ignored this meaning that it was essentially trying to deny homosexuals the same rights that religion has already enjoyed for years.

You know how I feel about religion and again this is no attack on you, but I do feel that a lot of it is based on brainwashing and indoctrination, as a result if I was running an adoption agency I wouldn't feel comfortable allowing a kid to go to a home where he would be given no choice in his beliefs and where he was forced to pray each day, read the bible and so forth. To me this would be taking away the childs right to a free mind where they could figure the world out for themselves. I couldn't however refuse this religious couple the chance to adopt if I was in this situation due to laws against religious discrimination. I wouldn't however then go as far as threatening to shut down the agency if I was told I had to allow a deeply religious couple to adopt! Better the kids go to a decent home than be left without any chance at all - That's why to me the Church's stance seems horribly hypocritical, it really was a case of one rule for them one for everyone else that they were seeking.

To be honest I'm not even sure it was the people running the adoption agencies that were making the threats to shut them down, I'd question the true motives of any adoption agency willing to shut itself down over something like this, it suggests to me that the kids really aren't their number one priority. It seems more likely that those actually on the ground in the adoption agencies probably wouldn't go to such an extreme, I'm sure those people really do just want to get the kids into a good home regardless of their personal beliefs, more likely it was the Church leaders using it as a blackmail tool in a typical "think of the children!" political move - the same sort of move that can be put alongside the "terrorist", "drug dealer", "racism" or "paedophile" cries that are so often abused when people want to push personal motives in politics.

[Lieva]

The other thing, Lieva, if say ten years down the road, there was a general election and the British Government became an Islamic fundamentalist one, would you still say that we should respect that Government's laws?

If overnight, the drinking of alcohol became illegal and all the pubs had to close, would you respect that? If you were suddenly forced to have to wear a Berka, would you cheerfully comply or resist?.

Thats utterly different.
You are talking about changing a culture and practice which has exsisted for years, overnight.
If anything changed overnight there would be riots...

But, hypothetically, should the government change its laws and manage to not be blown up then well...yes. I would have to abide by it. I possibly would not be happy about it and consider leaving the country but I would have to do what the laws of the country I am living in say.

That saying - I am still protesting regarding the half penny removal. And I dislike the metric system. But I dont riot over it

You could say that what about the refugees which are from other countries.
Their circumstances changed overnight and were told to adopt a new culture.
Sure some of them dont like it nor will try to change but the majority do try.

The whole thing is that people go to the countries with full knowlege of what will happen should they differ from what that country has stated is law.
Agree with it or not but you cannot bleet about it should you get caught..

Whilst it is not fair or right in our eyes, in the other countries eyes, they have seen countries (such as ourselves) which has allowed other faiths to join into the crountry so it is a total mishmash of faiths. They just dont want that. It is in the old testiment that that is what the Jewish faith should be like also. Most religions state it in fact.

[Gandelf]

That saying - I am still protesting regarding the half penny removal. And I dislike the metric system. But I dont riot over it

The way the metric system was supposed to work was good in theory, i.e. a system based on a specific unit that has a relation to the distance from the north pole to the equator. Trouble is, the French got their measurements wrong and so the metric system is based on an inaccuracy, LOL! They should have stuck with Art and Cuisine. Science was never their forté.

I prefer the Imperial system because it's more "human" and you can relate more easily to what the units are, i.e. a foot is roughly the length of a foot, horses are measured in "hands", because a hand was used to measure them. An Inch, A Pound, a Pint... well I could go on but there's no need. I think fractions are easier than decimal points too... you just simply use the next fraction up or down etc, so half of a eigth is a sixteenth etc... more simple that trying to measure it in millimeters.
A dozen eggs are easier for sharing among the average family of four people, than 10 eggs are.

I was happy to read last week that European politicians agreed that it was ok for Imperial units to be used in shops. There was talk of them being made illegal altogether.

But I felt sad when we got rid of the old three-penny bit... it was such a lovely shape and size. I just wish we could reverse it all, because it represented an aspect of our culture that was so unique.

[Xest]

I'd say metric is just as human, 10 fingers makes working things out much easier for many people.

Fractions haven't gone anywhere either, they're still rather important, in some cases you need precise values and only fractions can give that, you just can't express certain numbers precisely in decimal format, only approximations.

[Ovi]

I'd say metric is just as human, 10 fingers makes working things out much easier for many people.

Fractions haven't gone anywhere either, they're still rather important, in some cases you need precise values and only fractions can give that, you just can't express certain numbers precisely in decimal format, only approximations.

Mmmm, Pie!!!


I prefer base 10 as most calculations that we do every day are easier. I can see the advantages of the imperial system in certain areas, but I don't think that they are enough to outweigh the advantages of Decimal.

Most of the time I don't really care what units are used, take the Pint for example, I really don't care whether I buy a pint, half a litre, a litre, 330ml or whatever, I only care about whether I have had enough or not. If I drink a pint and want more I'll buy another one, the same with whatever measurement is used.

It is also beneficial for international relations if we all use the same units, while it is all very well trying to hold on to cultures the more commonality between different countries / regions the more likely people are to get on.

The only real issue is that the consumer always gets screwed when the system changes, so I really think the sooner we make changes the better.

[Lieva]

thing is
1 pint is not the same as X amt of ML which theyre giving us so you end up paying more for less.
Thats whats naffed everyone off

[Xest]

thing is
1 pint is not the same as X amt of ML which theyre giving us so you end up paying more for less.
Thats whats naffed everyone off

But that's nothing to do with the system used, that's to do with companies ripping us off. If you blame the change in system then you're doing exactly what the companies want you to do - you're taking the blame away from them and blaming some virtual entity that is the measurement system.

I'm more than happy for pints to stay as pints because as I said it's a standard unit when ordering beer. Even in the metric countries I've been to beer is still ordered in pints! This kind of thing is fine, but for situations where more than basic calculation (i.e. counting the number of whole pints you drunk last night) is involved then metric is much better.