I'm not saying that the person is effectively mentally retarded to the point of not being able to make any rational decision. But religious belief is not one borne of critical thinking, and greatly compromises ones ability to make sound political decisions.
Teaching of Evolution being removed in Turkish schools
Caporegime
The high quality of this gif represents the care that i give.
Islam or any other dumbly religious people do not really separate church and state, its a way of life.
Based on what?
The article mentions they introduce a law many years after his death criminalising insults towards him. I bet he would have disapproved of that law, too! :/
Ever seen Noah, starring Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly? There's a scene where he combines Creationism and Evolution all in one mad montage. It's bonkers and great, all at the same time. From the above, you'd probably enjoy it.
Minor and petty quibble!
It took six days to make the world and all the things on it. The seventh day God put her feet up.Two flaws immediately apparent in the above. One - there are plenty of religious people who think critically and historically many of our great thinkers have been actively religious. Isaac Newton was a deeply religious man, for example. Two - that's an appallingly inconsistent benchmark. By it, you would ban some person who prays regularly but makes all their economic policy decision based on evidence, whilst allowing in some dogmatic and committed marxist who disregarded all evidence in favour of ideology. As one example of how being religious is far, far from where you should start if you're going to start disqualifying people from public office.
First openly Catholic one, anyway. Blair converted to Catholicism suspiciously shortly after leaving office. (A few months iirc). Blair's cynical manipulation extends even to avoiding open commitment to his own religion for the sake of political gain. (Probably).
No it doesn't.
Yes Isaac Newton was a deeply religious man and did some quite terrible things actually, not a great character to reference in all honesty...
You are creating a false dichotomy here, just because people would be excluded on religious grounds does not mean that other dogmatic people would not also be excluded.
Soldato
gotta wonder what future societies will make of this sort of thing, I can only hope that as education around the world increases, in particular science education, that we'll see less of this nonsense
That clears that up... But... But... Why are there no black people in the Jetsons, Uncle Dowie? :O
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 9,528
And Catholic priests love children.
Soldato
Evolution is part of the GCSE Science course.
No. We should certainly ban religious influence in policymaking, but there is no reason to ban people that follow religion from making policy.
Plenty of religious people can differentiate their faith from evidence, which is something many non religious people can't do. It shouldn't be about whether someone is religious or not, rather what they base their policy decisions in.
That leads us down a rabbit hole however as much of our current law and moral viewpoint is based on religion. We are obviously trying to move away from that but it still infused much of our lives.
It would almost certainly have been taught in GCSE biology.
Foreign policy has rarely been about logic, sense and, ironically, evidence.
Newton is a great person to reference. I don't care if he was nice! What does nice matter? He was someone who had superlative critical reasoning ability and was a deeply religious example. I only need one green mammal to disprove a statement that green mammals do not exist; and history is filled with great and critical thinkers who were religious.
You have stripped away the part of what I wrote that is inconvenient to you claiming it's a false dichotomy. Much like a creationist ignoring an inconvenient fossil and for the same reason. I made the supported point that religion is far from the starting position for excluding people and doing so would exclude candidates who are far superior to worse candidates that are not excluded. A false dichotomy is not me pointing out that your criteria is too weak to filter on. If you attempt to filter on a discriminator as statistically insignificant as that, you're excluding good candidates. That's what weak statistical discriminators do. I can explain the principle if needed.
Maybe he was sick that day lolz
Well according to Dianne Abott, Chairman Mao did more good than bad on balance.
Missing the point
Its easy
Being Religious doesn't suddenly make you not have the ability to critical thought
The mere suggestion...would argue that anyone "outside" of any belief is Valid
Which is BS...
And I posted this already.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,257
She isn't openly Roman Catholic, she's CoE.
She may be a subsect within CoE, but she remains CoE none-the-less.
Your English laws still discriminate against Roman Catholics at the very heart of your entire processes.