But surely if Dorries's bill became law and more teenage girls abstained, that would only lead to an increase in male homosexual behaviour?

They want to make thier minds up, these tories, do they want more slappers or more irons?

Mad Nad has had a change of heart, apparently:

[url=http://newsthump.com/2012/04/24/nadine-dorries-highlights-david-cameron-and-george-osborne-as-a-compelling-case-for-abortion/Nadine Dorries highlights David Cameron and George Osborne as a compelling case for abortion[/url

Amazingly a church funded study in the power of pray did show how it could harm.

What it found was that patients who were terminally ill showed no signs of improvement while being knowingly prayed for, but when told the praying had stopped they declined at a faster rate due to stress.

=#4000FFThis part is the typical drivel served out to justify "god".

Where all scared of dying, some just have the sense to deal with it.

I can't change how I felt at the time, as I said there was desperation and confusion. I would defy anybody to tell me they would not feel the same emotions when faced with death leaving your wife to cope.
Nowhere in any of my posts on this topic have I tried to justify God.



Sadly not the sense to construct a grammatically correct sentence.

Emotions no, actions yes.

If you were choking would you want me to perform the Heimlich Maneuver or pray?

I've misread it then, by putting "God's work?" it looked like justification.

If I was faced with the prospect of death, as I have said to you before, I wouldn't suddenly start entertaining the possibility that God might exist. In fact, the prospect of my early demise leaving my wife alone and grief-stricken would reinforce my near-certainty that there's nothing there.

I'm relying n the fact that any priest plucked from anywhere can give you complete absolution from anything you have ever done in your lifetime, on your deathbed, even if he's never met you before, I bet even Hitler found a priest to do that for him.

Its like the worlds best Get Out Of Jail Free card, ever.

Unless Christianity is the wrong religion, in which case it'll be "go straight to Hell, do not pass go, do not collect 200 virgins. Allah hates you."

Thats a good point.

How many religious representatives do you think you could gather around your deathbed during your final breaths ?

Just in case.


On the other hand I think we've just spotted a new business opportunity - savioursupermarket.com - you fill in all of your details and our search engine will automatically submit your final confession to all of the worlds deity's and seek online absolution for you, instantly, within one last breath.

Tick box to not receive any further email advertising from this web site.

Well according to George Pell atheists will still get in heaven anyway, God's well forgiving!

I've no doubt Hiltler will have, his mate Eugenio Pacelli will have done it.

Jemima Khan wrote a New Statesman article claiming that 10 years ago or so, George Galloway went through a ceremony to convert to Islam. She claims that she put this to him in a taped interview and that he did not deny it.

Now Galloway is making a big fuss and threatening libel proceedings. He claims it is not true and that he did deny it.

Khan says her information is from someone who attended the alleged ceremony. I don't know whether Galloway is a muslim or not, and can't find anywhere where he has said one way or the other. The nearest I can find is a quote from the Blackburn (or was it Bradford) election where he said words to the effect of "God knows who is a muslim and who isn't".

Why does it matter? Does it matter? Why doesn't he just categorically say what (if any) his religion is? Surely in the case of an MP that is valid info for the public domain? Or maybe he HAS publicly stated what religion he is and I can't find it?

If it is untrue that he converted to Islam, how would alleging that he did make any right-minded person think worse of him? Or is he threatening libel on the grounds of effectively being called a liar?

I read somewhere else that George has won something like 30/30 previous libel actions so maybe the New Statesman should be worried?

Interesting to note that he "affirmed" the Loyal Oath on taking his seat in Parliament, as opposed to "swearing" on a religious text. It all seems a bit strange when viewed against his rabid catholicism of not so long ago

His explanation as i understood it is that there is no question he could swear allegiance to the queen etc and actually mean it, as he has absolutely no such allegiance, and so that's the reason he could not "proper swear" on a holy book.

In fact, unless Jemima Khan's transcription is further faulty, in the New Statesman article it said:

He appears to be talking bollox then (not for the first time), here's the affirmation:

Members who object to swearing the oath are permitted to make a solemn affirmation under the terms of the Oaths Act 1978:

I... do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.

If the quote was accurate, then he would in effect be saying is that he lied on oath, as although he read out the words, the truth is that he bears no allegiance to QE whatsoever. The result is seemingly he would view it as an unacceptable thing to say that lie under a religious oath (can't be upsetting your god) but if you affirm instead, that's OK even if you don't actually mean it, as you're not upsetting your god.

I recall that the NI Sinn Fein MPs never took their seats or claimed any allowances etc as they were not entitled to as they would not on principle take the oath of allegiance. Clearly they didn't think that doing so with your fingers crossed (a la Tony Banks) was the right thing to do.

Came across a case a few years back where a party to a civil trial refused to take the oath on the holy book, unless the judge promised that if he took the oath, the judge would accept that every word of his evidence was true, as he couldn't allow a situation where he had sworn on the book but a court disbelieved him.

So, if he thinks being called a Muslim is derogatory, and thus requires legal action, how will some of new constituents respond to that?

I thought that, bar a few, they're generally ok with people not believing in Islam or becoming a Muslim. Its becoming a Muslim and then abandoning the faith that's the real no no?.

TBF as I read it (and it is confusing) his beef seems to be with being in effect called a liar, he says he denied attending any such ceremony and that he denied it to Khan, they insist he never did and that it's all on tape. Also Khan says someone who was at the ceremony told her about it. So the libel issue is, is he lying that there never was such a ceremony? (Probably.)

yeah their really peaceful.

Apostasy covers everything from leaving the 'faith' to denying the existence of God.

Thanks to Minty for the link

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9232269/Gay-marriage-Pope-representatives-calls-for-Catholic-alliance-with-Muslim-and-Jewish-groups.htmlPope's representative calls for an alliance of churches to oppose gay marriage[/url

The sooner we distance the legislature from this bunch of nutters, the better.

The majority are, yes.

Just as it's not a majority of Christians (or even fundamentalist Christians) who have taen to harassing staff and patients at clinics that carry out abortions in the UK.

One of the questions, though, is about what seems to be a rise in fundamentalism, across religious groups, in recent years.

This is what I don't understand, how can you be peaceful and follow these scrips?

How can a religion that demands pain and suffering ,weather in this life or the next, be peaceful?

The rise is actions against each others rise, they both have prophecies.

Well that covers all the 'big three' Abrahamic religions, then.

The [iOld Testament[/i, which Judaism, Christianity and Islam all accept, is full of violence and calls to violence.

It's always a question of interpretation – but the more fundamentalist the believer, the more they will pick bits and pieces of the really unpleasant stuff to claim is true. So you'll have people using 'an eye for an eye' as a justification for capital punishment, for instance.

All religious people play pick and mix with their holy texts.

Aye, even though Jesus' mwords are all about peace and love and never encouraged any smiting.
That's what I don't "get" about Christianity, it accepts stuff that Jesus reportedly spoke out against (e.g. "Love thine enemy" and the Good Samaritan).


Christians ..."An eye for an eye" when it suits them one way and "Turn the other cheek" when it suits them another way.