how to vote in a UK general election
I am not a fan of illogical choices. We have a UK general election coming up on Thursday this week and I’m forced to make a decision with one tick that can fulfill the following criteria:
1. We need a leader with integrity and intelligence. Jeremy Corbyn is a person who is passionate about social justice and redressing inequalities in society. He is a pacifist who has spent a lot of his political career campaigning for discussions, not bombs. He has never tried to climb the slimy political pole by voting with his party and against his conscience. He is the most honest, sincere and exciting potential leader I’ve ever seen in this country. I’m voting Labour! Jeremy Corbyn deserves to be our leader.
2. We need more political representation from women. Females account for approximately half of our population, but when it comes to elected representation for our government in the UK, men hold 71% of the seats. This is a disgrace! The Labour representative in my constituency is a man and Jeremy Corbyn is a man. I can’t vote Labour if my vote is to mean anything for women in government. I’m voting Greens! They are committed to gender equality, have a female leader and female candidate in my area.
3. We need a party who have a negotiating chance of saving us from the Brexit mess. I have one vote and the Greens have no chance in my area. The Scottish Nationalist Party are our only hope of saving Scotland’s links with Europe – we voted to stay in Europe, why should we leave with the rest of the UK? I’m voting SNP.
4. We need to overhaul our political system. It’s ridiculous that my democratic vote is one tick in what is ultimately a two-horse leadership race, even though I’m technically only electing a local representative for the UK parliament. The only way to support serious political change for the future, and end this kind of undemocratic farce that suits the two main parties, is to vote for the SNP. So, I am voting SNP.
I don’t really want to vote SNP. There are lots of things about the SNP I really don’t like. Nationalism, for one. So how do I help Jeremy Corbyn become our next prime minister (vital) while campaigning for more female representation (vital) while voting tactically within my constituency (vital) and ensure a fairer political system (vital)?
One of the objectives of the European Union is to make your vote useless.
How is that social justice?
LikeLike
Lovely to see you SOM. No idea what you mean.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Violet,
That you don’t know what I mean is exactly my point.
Leftists and atheists think everything just happens because they want it to.
LikeLike
Thanks SOM, that’s certainly worth a ponder.
LikeLike
As long as you’re not voting for the Tories…
LikeLike
I can’t imagine what circumstances would ever make that even a tactical vote. I’m surprised I’m considering Labour to be honest. Are you not one of the ‘comfortable class’ Tory supporters? I’ve not been about much recently, are you happy with Macron?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Seriously? I’m a committed socialist 😛
Macron is okay, we’ll see. My cousin went to university with him and assures me he’s a strong believer in social justice despite what the media portray.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m fortunate in that I get two votes when we go to the polls in September – one for a party and one for my electorate representative.
The party vote always counts as the number of seats in Parliament that each party gets is proportional to the number of votes the party receives nationwide. So my decisions are somewhat easier to make than yours. I choose the party I think has the best policies, and I vote for the person I think will best represent me in Parliament. More often than not, that person does not belong to the party I vote for.
Here in Aotearoa New Zealand the gender imbalance in Parliament is as bad as in the UK (69% male), although most parties are making an effort to have better balance in their party lists. The Greens’ party list alternates male/female, so no matter how many seats they finally win, their gender balance will be as close to 50/50 as is possible. The Greens and several other parties have co-leaders – one male and one female, neither ranking above the other.
LikeLike
You system sounds a lot more sensible. No system is ever perfect but the whole political system here is a stinking mess – I can’t understand why there isn’t a bigger push for full reform. Except I can, because as usual, it suits the status quo.
I think if gender balance doesn’t happen naturally in political representation, then it has to be forced. Your Green party policy is the way to go.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure what the answer is. Some parties have looked at quotas but backed away. As I understand it, part of the problem is that the parties can not attract enough women into politics let alone stand in electoral seats.
A number of women members of Parliament have commented that it is the nature of the political system being too confrontational rather than anything else that turns women away. Until the system itself is more amenable to women then the best of them will stay away. The problem is that it needs women to make those kinds of changes. A catch twenty-two situation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed, political systems have evolved around men, for men. Women are still at the stage of fitting into that existing framework. Women are more likely to be main carers than men in current society, more likely to want to work part-time – we have to find a way to this work within political systems. But as more women move in, more changes get made – it’s just a frustratingly long process of change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m voting Labour, and I’m encouraging as many people as I can to do likewise. It’s unlikely they’ll win but the Tories expected a comfortable victory and the polls aren’t bearing that out, so hopefully they’ll get a nasty shock.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If it was straight battle where I am I’d do the same. But the SNP is the sitting MP and the Greens have a good support base in the area. I’d love to see Corbyn as PM though, it would be interesting to see what kind of difference he can make.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What about Theresa May and the Conservative Party?
LikeLike
Key problem is ‘Conservative Party’.
LikeLike
If I earned loads of money, sent my kids to private school, had private health insurance, and had utter disdain for anyone who didn’t tick all those boxes, I’d vote for the Conservative Party. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason to even consider such a foul option.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
The people you support are the ones who installed the two healthcare system.
The wealthy always take care of themselves, but the uberrich left (Bernie Sanders, the Google, Amazon, Tech and Banking moguls) always blame wealth disparity on their political enemies.
Theresa May is honest about her wealth, while those you support are not.
LikeLike
The Tories have overseen huge cuts to policing, despite warnings of the problems this may cause. They provide weapons to Middle Eastern countries, despite knowing the problems this will cause.
LikeLike
Darth,
It is a shame that the Left has become accustomed to living in the police state.
Also, the quick response by the police in the recent London attacks puts the lie to your claim.
The security problem in Europe is the suicidal, leftist notion of open boarders.
It’s amazing how leftist constantly blame their opposition for problems leftists policies cause.
LikeLike
How is my claim wrong? Theresa May cut policing. The Tories supply weapons to Saudi Arabia. Neither of those statements are false and both issues contribute to the problem. The reactionary right seeks to bury its head in the sand of ignorance, and seek simple answers ala Trump, and meanwhile things get worse.
LikeLike
She and they are a disaster of economic and political incompetence, acting against the interests of the country in short term party interest, insane ideological actions against all common sense, and incitement of hatred. Apart from that, they have all the charm of an intestinal worm, and they want to torture foxes to death.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Clare,
Leftist propaganda is not an effective argument against people who have brains of their own.
LikeLike
Why do you parrot the lies you are told? Because you falsely imagine you thought them up yourself.
LikeLike
Clare,
I believe what I see and hear with my own eyes and ears always checking its consistency with the Laws of Nature.
LikeLike
In my constituency, there was no contest: Labour might beat the Tory, and no-one else might. I would vote Green in a safe seat for any other party, but mine is a marginal. For me, “Who can beat the toxic Tory?” was the overriding question.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I’d be voting Labour in your position too. Who are all these people in England voting Tory though? I can’t get my head round it. Their policies only support a tiny proportion of the population who have to hate the rest of the population to support them – what is their appeal to anyone not filthy rich?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t know, but was terrified by sweet little old lady Beryl, aged 76, most of whose fb shares are things like sweet puppy videos, “share if you used these old-fashioned roller skates” and a Celine Dion and Barbra Streisand duet, sharing “Share if you will never vote for the Labour party led by this anti-British traitor”. And, possibly, they imagine no-one can do better for us than the Tories, because the Tories have so comprehensively smashed trust in government.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s interesting how they can twist someone so involved in peace and justice, in seeking to resolve conflict through dialogue, into a terrorism supporter. And people buy it, and share it. Depressing.
LikeLike
Violet,
Dialogue with genocidal maniacs only incites their passion for genocide.
You, Carmen and I can’t even have a conversation that goes anywhere and we are civilized people.
The resolution to the Jihad, by its very nature cannot be resolved through dialog.
The Israelis and the Arabs have uneasy peace because walls and armed security separate the two sides.
Don’t you remember 20 years ago when President Clinton offered Yasser Arafat everything he asked for?
Arafat’s response was to walk out on President Clinton.
Also, Arafat died a billionaire.
Like the global warmers, Arafat was all about how much coin he could extort off of people who didn’t have the courage to stand up to him.
LikeLike
I don’t know if you’re familiar with recent history in Northern Ireland. It’s through the efforts of people like Corbyn initiating discussions with groups involved in terrorism that we now have relative peace. Confrontation leads to confrontation. Discussion leads to change.
LikeLike
Violet,
The British pounded Northern Ireland into ruins.
The only reason those people came to the table was because they were militarily defeated.
LikeLike
Is that the story they tell you in the USA? Come over here and speak to some real people.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
It isn’t a story. What you believe is a story.
Here in America we watched the British pound Northern Ireland with our own eyes on the evening news.
LikeLike
Well if you saw it on the news from the USA, it must be true.
LikeLike
Violet,
The news we saw came from European news services particularly the BBC.
LikeLike
A wee history lesson for you, let me know where ‘pounding’ anyone was used. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/good_friday_agreement
LikeLike
Violet,
Reality stands:
The IRA was beaten militarily and only then came to the table to talk.
Thus the Good Friday Agreement.
LikeLike
Also,
The BBC of today isn’t the same as it was decades ago.
It seems to be in league with ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSLSD, the AP, Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times…
as fake news outlets.
LikeLike
You are … everything that’s wrong with the world … or an excellent parody of it. Well done! 🙂
LikeLike
Violet,
Thank you for proving my point on the uselessness of dialog.
If we were nations, you would have just started a war.
LikeLike
Agreed. For this reason I’m glad neither of us is actively involved in politics. We belong on the couch.
LikeLike
Violet,
We belong on the couch with the rest of the world.
You and I are no different than anyone else.
World leaders are no more intelligent or gifted than the people they rule.
They suffer from passion, bias and stupidity as do we all.
LikeLike
Some people are more suited for roles that require open discussion and productive dialogue. I grew up in a ‘right and wrong’ world, and for all I I don’t think it’s logical, it’s a simplistic pattern of thinking I easily fall back into. Many people can discuss issues keeping an open mind and not losing their cool. I’m not one of them. You’re definitely not either. 😀
LikeLike
Violet,
You and I know what we know and think the way we think.
There is no common ground between us.
I think you are dangerous and you think I am dangerous.
There can be no dialog between us.
But notice that you are the one who resorted to insults.
I remained civil all along the way.
You and people like you have more in common with Jihadis than anyone else.
Ironically, you and people like you will be the first ones to go unless you convert to Islam.
Western Christians, especially those here in the United States have had it with the Jihad.
Somos artos cansados con la maldito porqueria que es el Jihad.
LikeLike
Violet,
Here is a recent quote for your friend and mine, Vlad the Russian:
“I am not a woman, so I don’t have bad days.”
How is it even possible to even conceive of negotiating with someone like that?
LikeLike
We never militarily defeated the IRA. They couldn’t win, we couldn’t win, hence the GFA.
LikeLike
Darth,
And peace agreement with Britain was a total defeat for North Ireland.
It’s exactly like the Paris Accords which ended the Vietnam War.
The “peace talks” and agreements were really total defeat for the United States.
LikeLike
How was it total defeat? It brought Sinn Fein directly into seats of government in Northern Ireland, along with the SLDP. It paved the way for a unified Ireland through political means, should the conditions arise. It ended violent conflict through peaceful means, which is always preferred to violent resolution.
LikeLike
Darth,
Another point which is crucial is that Britain was dealing with a Christianized, civilized, Western country.
The Irish and the Brits were able to find common ground.
There is no common ground between the Jihad and the West.
It has always been the moral duty of the Jihad to convert the entire world to Islam…
through any means possible.
LikeLike
You speak of civilised countries yet the violence that erupted was driven, at least in part, by different interpretations of Christianity. Bombs were placed in bins and people were shot, at least in part, because of differences between Catholic and Protestant ideals. That doesn’t sound very civilised to me.
Yet, in spite of that, the issue was resolved, not through force but through negotiation. Religion played a part in the Troubles but there were other major factors at work. The same is true of the current situation regarding Islam. In fact, the broad brush strokes that paint Muslims as a homogeneous group, all bent on undermining us, are part of the problem. The reactionary right is unable to grasp the complexities of this issue. People appear to be waking up to this, hence why Corbyn has dramatically sliced in May’s lead in the polls.
LikeLike
Darth,
Christian Europe was a war zone from 1000 AD onward.
That’s not God’s fault or the fault of Christianity.
LikeLike
Right, so Christianity is completely blameless, yet Islam is the sole motivation for the current situation?
LikeLike
Darth,
In the 7th century Anno Domini the Jihad stormed out of Arabia to capture most areas of the Christianized Roman Empire.
That included the Middle and Near East and North Africa.
The Spaniards fought the Jihad for 800 years before they finally kicked it back to Africa.
Yes, Christianity is totally blameless.
The Christian world was minding its own business when the Jihad began its never ending holy war.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Darth,
Who flew airliners into the Twin Towers?
Who just got done with a homicidal rampage in the streets of London?
The list goes on and on.
LikeLike
You assume the only reason is Islam. Sponsoring the aggression of nations like Saudi Arabia by selling them weapons, seeking to impose broad, sweeping bans on travel that apply stereotypes en masse, and actively bombing several nations in the region would have something to do with it.
LikeLike
Darth,
Saudi Arabia is where the Jihad began.
Therefore it should be no surprise that Arabia is intimately involved in the Jihad even to this day.
LikeLike
The chief victims of IS and Saudi activities in the region are Muslim. They are also the victims of bigoted policies from the likes of Trump. When will the right realise continuing to endorse divisive policies will only escalate the problem?
LikeLike
Darth,
The conflict within the Muslim religion is between the Sunni’s and the Shias.
But it boils down to the same thing:
Islamists murdering those it considers infidels.
LikeLike
So you believe invasions, bombings, and deliberately divisive policies have had no influence on the situation?
LikeLike
Darth,
The Jihad is Islam.
Invasions, bombings and deliberately divisive policies influence the Jihad by keeping it at bay.
President Trump is totally correct by saying that the Jihad must be annihilated and that Muslim immigration to the West must be stopped.
LikeLike
You are grossly over-simplifying the situation.
LikeLike
Darth,
Verily.
But violent annihilation is the only method that will stop the Jihad.
LikeLike
You cannot stop extremism like this with violence. Violence helps them – it feeds them and drives them. You are giving them EXACTLY what they want.
LikeLike
Darth,
The Jihadis in London were stopped with violence.
All Jihadi attacks on the West have been met with violence, by necessity.
Otherwise their killing will only continue.
LikeLike
That’s a woefully ignorant position. The attackers should never have been in a position to carry out their attacks; reacting after the fact is a failure. Going all guns blazing will only radicalise more, not less.
LikeLike
Darth,
Blaming the victim simply won’t due.
LikeLike
Your statement doesn’t address what I said.
LikeLike
Darth,
Your statement is the same statement that wife abusers use:
If she had only behaved properly, I wouldn’t have had to beat the crap out of her.
LikeLike
Non-sequiter – you are suggesting violence works to stop extremists – yet it would only appear to work after the fact – after they have already committed acts of violence themselves. That’s like shutting the door after the horse has bolted. Furthermore, you aren’t addressing the underlying issues, but rather, ignoring them.
LikeLike
Darth,
Also, who is wiping out Christianity in Egypt?
LikeLike
Huh?
LikeLike
Also, remember the Falkland Islands?
Margaret Thatcher kicked the crap out of Argentina settling the issue once and for all.
LikeLike
Hardly once and for all, the Argentinians still claim it belongs to them, and have every intention of getting them back. Violence brings a temporary stop to hostilities through murder and suffering. Dialogue and agreement is the only way to achieve ‘once and for all’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
The Argentines can claim anything they want.
The point is, only violence settled the issue.
There is no talking to the Argentines regarding the Falklands, once again proving that what you believe is dangerous nonsense.
LikeLike
The point is that issue isn’t settled.
LikeLike
Violet,
Of course the issue was settled.
The Falklands are the Falklands, not Las Malvinas.
The Argentines are so impotent that they resorted to passing out “Las Malvinas son Argentinos,” T-shirts.
It’s absolutely pitiful.
And believe me, the Argentines are completely aware that Britain cut their balls off.
LikeLike
SOM, you seem to have forgotten I recently lived there for several years. Just because you once attended a scout camp there in the 1970s, doesn’t put your finger on the pulse. They ALL fully intend to get Las Malvinas back – the issue is far, far, far from settled. Only dialogue and agreement can settle these matters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
When I was in Argentina, I was immersed in the culture, and the life and times of the people.
Las Malvinas was an tremendous sore spot even back then.
But the Argentine people as a people have been rendered politically stupid.
They will never get the Falkland Islands back unless Britain choses to give it back to them as an act of charity.
LikeLike
SOM, on your two week scout trip with a bunch of other Americans you scarcely learned to say ‘hola’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet,
When I lived in Argentina I lived with an Argentine family, went to an Argentine Catholic school, and spoke fluent Spanish the Argentine way which is called Castellano.
That you have to resort to insults demonstrates my point about you not being able to engage in a civil discussion with someone who disagrees with your leftist worldview.
LikeLike
Lo siento mi amigo. No sabia que conociste tanto de la cultura y la gente del pais. No fue mi intencion enojarte. Te gustaron el mate y los alfajores?
LikeLiked by 1 person
A drunk rabbit could have kicked the shit out of the Argentinians… But Violet is right; it’s hardly settled.
LikeLike
John,
“In fact, in March 2013, an overwhelming majority of islanders voted in favor of remaining a British territory. This was unsurprising though, considering that most of the current islanders are of British descent.”
From https://www.worldpittsburgh.org/las-malvinas-or-the-falklands-the-current-friction-between-argentina-and-britain-falklands/
Apparently, the will of the free people of the Falkland Islands means nothing to a country of people enslaved by their own stupidity.
LikeLike
The fact that the islands are presently occupied by English-speakers isn’t the concern. Geography is.
LikeLike
John,
Brits are not just any English speakers.
Neither the US, nor Australia, nor Canada sent troops to kick Argentina’s ass during the Falkland’s conflict.
The Falkland Islands are British, by right, by culture and by conquest.
Conquest I might add of an aggressor nation hell bent on forcing tyranny on free citizens.
LikeLike
Well, you’re excused for not knowing that the Australian military (being a Commonwealth member) was stood up, as I’m sure Canada’s, NZ’s, and India’s military (among all other Commonwealth members) were stood up. All civilian pilots in Aust were issued a letter informing them they’ll be drafted if Aust had to go to war with Argentina.
LikeLike
Fortunately, the Argentines are cowards who couldn’t stand up to a drunk rabbit.
So there was never any need for the Aussies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
…or the Gurkhas.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, silly me.
I almost forgot about the Gurkas, but you reminded me.
LikeLike
Actually, I see that they did serve in the Falklands.
LikeLike
The 7th Duke of Edinburgh’s Gurkha Rifles Regiment, to be exact.
LikeLike
You don’t know who I am but frankly my doctor is trying to kill me because I said ‘how do’ to an Afghan dental person. And yet the Queen feeds curry and trifle to MI6 in my pantry. Can you deny it? She gets away in the subwarp continuum and I’m quoting Renoir who painted it all with custard on a spiritual journey. I am not talking to my bread bin anymore. But she! Oh no, she manifests all the Corgis of Hell! Whomsoever is evil did transport my molars across three states in a box and I can prove it. They bring me water from the van but nobody understands the importance of cardboard. Not even Joey who cracked his oboe in a paper friend. Ah, but my doctor knew this for he sang how he unlaced his bodice in a Mexican cantina. To think he watered my brain with a gentleman on live TV! And I am still whistling at 3am. Now on the other side the Sisters of the Flying Saucer want you to vote Conservative with me in June for strong government but even I am not that mad.
LikeLike
For Darth,
Some of the terrorist attacks during Ramadan 2017 include:
May 27 — Charchino, Afghanistan — Group fighting in favor of imposing Islamic law ambushes checkpoint, kills 11.
May 27 — Qadis, Afghanistan — Taliban kills 14, injures 17.
May 27 — Khost, Afghanistan — Taliban suicide bomber targets U.S-backed National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF), which includes army and police units, killing 18, woundin six others, including children.
May 27 — Kacha Khuh, Pakistan — “Honor Killing” — Brother hacks 18-year-old sister with axe to death for denying to abide by pre-arrange marriage.
May 27 — Marawi, Philippines — Jihadists kill 19 including women and a child.
May 28 — Marawi, Philippines — Jihadists murder 8 for “having betrayed their faith.”
May 28 — Ramo Adey, Somalia — Jihadists bury man to his neck, stone to death for adultery
May 28 — Mosul, Iraq — ISIS sets hospital ablaze and kills a dozen young people inside.
May 28 — Mosul, Iraq — ISIS kills at least 40 women and children trying to flee besieged city.
May 28 — Shirqat, Iraq — ISIS rocket attack kills three children and their parents.
May 28 — Gumsri, Nigeria — Boko Haram kills at least seven villagers.
May 28 — Shakhil Abad, Afghanistan — Islamic extremists kill district governor and his son inside their home.
May 28 — Baqubah, Iraq — Suicide bomber kills 3, injures up to 16 others outside court.
May 29 — Nguro, Nigeria — Boko Haram beheads five people.
May 29 — Ghat, Libya, — Suspected Islamic terrorists kill 1, injure 4.
May 29 — Shirqat, Iraq — Islamic shrapnel dismembers a child, injures 7.
May 29 — Baghdad, Iraq — 17 killed, 32 wounded — ISIS launches suicide attack against ice cream parlor frequented by families who were breaking their Ramadan fast.
May 29 — Baghdad, Iraq — 14 killed, 37 injured. ISIS attacked Shiites.
May 30 — Mattani, Pakistan — Islamist gun down four peace committee members.
May 30 — Peshawar, Pakistan — Suspected jihadist shoots leader of Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar’s Hezb-i-Islami group while he was leaving a mosque.
May 30 — Shifa, Iraq — Mass grave found with 60 ISIS torture victims, including women, elderly.
May 30 — al-Joura, Syria — ISIS mortar kills 14, including children.
May 30 — Bay Hassan, Iraq — ISIS kills 3 Iraqi guards, wounds six others.
May 30 — Baghdad, Iraq — Jihadists kill 7, injure 19 in a blast.
May 30 — Baqubah, Iraq — A bomb explosion at mosque kills 7, wounds 6.
May 30 — Hit, Iraq — Fedayeen suicide bomber kills 8, injures 10.
May 31 — Kaya, Nigeria —Boko Haram kills 14.
May 31 — Fafi, Kenya — Suspected al-Qaeda affiliate al-Shabaab burns down school, kills one teacher.
May 31 — Bab el-Beid, Iraq — Suicide bombers kill 3 civilians, including a child.
May 31 — Hit, Iraq — Shahid suicide bomber kills 3, injures 7.
May 31 — Mosul, Iraq — ISIS kills 34 for trying to leave the city.
May 31 — Mangai, Kenya — al-Qaeda-linked bombers kill 8.
May 31 — Kabul, Afghanistan — Suspected Haqqani Network kills at least 150, Wounds more than 460, including 11 Americans.
May 31 — Sinjar, Iraq — ISIS kills 2, injures 2.
June 01 — Abala, Niger — Jihadists kill 6 guards.
June 01 — Al-Hazm, Yemen — Terrorists kill 6, wound 15.
June 01 — Behsud, Afghanistan — Suicide bomber kills 1, wounds 4.
June 01 — Oldenburg, Germany — Muslim kills one for smoking during Ramadan and refusing to fast.
June 01 — Zanjili, Iraq — ISIS kills 7 for trying to flee caliphate.
June 02 — Kolofota, Cameroon — Islamist use two girls as suicide bombers killing 9 and wounding 30.
June 02 — Sidi Bouzid, Tunisia — Jihadist beheads one man.
June 03 — Marawi, Philippines — Islamic sniper kills 70-year-old man.
June 03 — Halabsah, Iraq — Four suicide bombers kill 1, injure 3
June 03 — London, England — Three Jihadists plow into pedestrians, then stab people, killing 7, injuring 48.
June 03 — Zanjili, Iraq — ISIS kills 43 for trying to flee caliphate.
June 03 — Lower Munda, India — Hizb-ul-Mujahideen kill 2 security troops, injure 4
June 03 — Nawabshah, Pakistan — Alleged victim’s brother-in-law kills two people for alleged adultery.
June 03 — Kabul, Afghanistan — Suicide bombers kill 20, injure 87
June 04 — Kandahar, Afghanistan — Afghan police insider attack leaves six dead, one injured
June 04 — Spini, Pakistan — Two Shiites from Hazara minority group killed.
June 04 — Talibul, Moula, Pakistan — “Honor Killing” — Father kills 18-year-old daughter for allegedly “having an affair.”
June 04 — Zanjili, Iraq — Wave of suicide bombers kills 32, injures 24.
June 04 — Quaidabad, Pakistan — Jihadis kill 1 barber.
June 05 — Melbourne, Australia — ISIS-linked migrant from Somalia kills man, takes prostitute hostage, an injures 4.
June 05 — Baghdad, Iraq — Terrorist mortar fired into family home dismembers 10-year-old boy, injures 4.
June 06 — Lower Munda, India — Hizb-ul-Mujahideen kill 2 security troops, injure 4
June 06 — Paris, France — Jihadist wounds cop with a hammer outside Notre Dame cathedral.
June 06 — Herat, Afghanistan — Terrorist kill 7, injure another 16 near the northern gate of the Great Mosque of Herat.
June 07 — Mosul, Iraq — Islamic State massacres 160 civilians trying to flee city, according to United Nations.
LikeLike
So, Silenceofmind, you would then agree, that religion is indeed a harmfull force? You would name one religion, but how is this different from Christians burning people alive after having tortured them first to confess, that the burning alive was somehow justified? Or the god of the Bible alledgedly sanctioning slavery and genoside. In comparrison it does not matter if Jews or Christians do not act our such atrocities today, because that would make it only – in the words of C.S. Lewis – a form of “chronological snobbery”. What has changed for Jews and Christians, that still seems to affect Muslims? Why is it, that the Jews and Christians no longer think their god demands them to murder other people? Secularization has changed Judaism and Christianity. Obviously they are not inherently any better than Islam, because for centuries the sincere believers in the Biblical god have thought it is the will of the god to kill people by the most horrid ways.
As for your list. Most of those acts have happened in countries in civil turmoil or even civil war. The reasons for these attacs are far more complex, than just their religion. The attacks in the western countries, that are at war in Muslim countries, should not come as a surprize to anyone. If ISIS had bombers, they might use them, but they do not, now do they? Instead they have individual desperate radicalized religious people. Besides, I have some suspicions about your list. There are some attacks that you may want to double check, before you believe the sources where you got these. Was there infact an attack on “June 01 — Oldenburg, Germany — Muslim kills one for smoking during Ramadan and refusing to fast.” The only news source I found, that claimed this to have happened was Breitbart, but if it really happened, I would have expected to find something on it on the BBC, YLE, or Reuters. You do not deny, that there is a lot of fear and hatred against the Muslims, that seems to produce exaggerations and even false, made up news about the Jihad, do you? Not long ago a couple of German soldiers were arrested, because their right-wing convictions and hatred of Muslims had motivated them to plan a terrorist attack and to pin it on Muslim immigrants. It seems, like they thought, that the Jihadists are not doing enough terrorist attacks to bring about enough hatred and fear of the Muslims in the western countries. Why do you think this was the case, if indeed there is so much Jihadist violence, to wich you seem to refer to?
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
You need to get a brain of your own and learn how to tell the difference between good and evil.
Christianity brought Western Civilization.
Islam brought the Jihad.
You do the math.
Oh, I forgot.
You people don’t do math…
…or science, or history.
You just make it up as you go.
LikeLike
Who is this “you people” you are referring to? The Finns, the atheists, the socialists, the proletarians, the archaeologists, the museum workers, the historical re-enactors, or what? I belong to a number of groups, of us people, to whom you claim does not fit in any way.
How do you tell the difference between good and evil? I make the distinction by comparing the effects the actions of people have, to how beneficial or harmfull our actions and inaction are and could be, to human wellbeing. See, I did not need any gods in the process? Do you? No, you just do the math and hope you have all your variables right.
Christianity brought the crusades, and the inquisition. Did it not? Are you not engaged in the “chronological snobbery”, I warned you of? If I was to be as silly in my comparrison as you abowe, I could add that Islam brought a society free from alcohol abuse, modern mathematics (even you use Arabian numbers), but I am not. Rather I just want to point out, that by cherry picking you can do all sorts of “math” with Arabian or with Roman numerals, that does not add up to reality or history, as you have quite obviously done. Have you not?
The Western Civilization, is the product of long and complex history, but as for the benefits of it, Christianity has done very little. Perhaps, you would like to name one? Just one? The difference between the western countries and the Islamic countries is that we no longer call the western countries the Christendom – Secularization, as I allready pointed out in my previous comment. It no longer is OK to kill people on religious grounds, or because you think your “god wills it”, within the Western Civilization, and that may be why for example you are alive.
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
Christianity did NOT bring the Crusades!
The Islamic Jihad brought the Crusades!
LikeLike
Silenceofmind, no it did not. The Crusades and the Inquistion were thoroughly Christian projects. As was – for centuries – burning people alive after torturing them in the name of Jesus.
The first Crusades were launched to conquer Jerusalem, that had been a part of the Islamic world for generations and centuries (since 638 AD) before the first crusade (1099) was made. Besides, most Crusades were made against other Christians and pagan nations, not the Muslims. Did you really not know this?
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
Thanks for proving me right.
You people just make things up as you go along.
Get a brain of your own and go study some real history.
Then get back to me.
My goodness, you people are indoctrinated into pure stupidity.
LikeLike
Oh Silenceofmind, how exactly have I proven you right? What did I supposedly make up? Come on, make sense.
You on the other hand failed to provide even one example of positive effect Christianity has had on the development of the Western Civilization. Was that so hard?
You have also failed to answer me who is this “you people” you keep referring to. Is it Europeans? Or does it have something more precise to do with ethnicity or culture? Or are you just lashing out blindly, because you have no evidence to back up your position?
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
Western Civilization is Christian Western Civilization.
What you have made up is a world without Christianity.
All civilizations have risen up around religion.
Christianity is religion upon which Western Civilization rose.
LikeLike
Silenceofmind, you keep saying that, but you saying so does not make it so, or even provide any evidence, that this is actually the case. Western Civilization rose long before Christianity took over. Did it not? You have heard of it. The Hellenistic culture, that gave the name to democracy, and The Roman Empire, most of wich fell when Christianity became the dominant religion within it. We call the following centuries, the Dark Ages and for a good reason too. Yes? Do you value democracy? Where in the Bible or Christian tenets does it say democracy is a valuable thing? Even if you personally do not value it, the Western Civilization does value it, does it not? In other words, a central value of the Western Civilization has nothing at all to do with Christianity. Does it? Oops, I think I just burst your bubble. Did I not?
You could at least try to come up with at least one positive aspect of the Western Civilization, that is the result of Christianity. If what you say is true, that there is no Western Civilization beyond Christianity, then this should not be such a hard task, should it? So, why have you not given it even a try? Is it because you actually fear, that I am right, and the two are not the same? Is it because you know I am right, but would rather I was not? What makes you so affraid to face the reality? Fear of hell, or simply the fear of death? Who now is the indoctrinated one? Or do you have some other reason?
If Western Civilization is Christianity, as you claim, then the Crusades, the Inquisition, torturing and buring people alive for having “wrong” perception of Jesus are also the products of Christianity. Are they not? You can hardly put the blame for the Inquisition on the Jihad (even if you knew next to nothing about the crusades, and thought there was some reason to blame the victim – well, one of many), can you? Further more, colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, dictatorship, communism, fascism, nazism, holocaust and even toxic waste are the products of Christianity, because they are all the products of Western Civilization. Are they, or are they not the products of Christianity? Wich ones are and wich are not?
Add to injury, you have failed again to explain who are the “you people” you have mentioned repeatedly in our conversation before? Why is that so hard for you? You have also failed to even point out what did you think I made up about history? Why is that? Because, I made nothing up, you simply do not like the history as it is? Does it not fit your preassumptions, that would excuse your faith based beliefs?
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
No, Western Civilization did NOT rise long before Christianity.
Western Civilization is a product of Christianity.
Please study the late Antiquity and the Christian Middle Ages.
Those two time periods are when the Catholic Church became the most powerful institution in the world.
Christianity influenced EVERYTHING within the old Roman Empire.
Regarding the Crusades, they were a response to the Islamic Jihad’s conquest of the Eastern Christianized Roman Empire plus Christianized North Africa (which was part of the Roman Empire).
All the Middle and Near East and North Africa where Christian for CENTURIES before they were conquered by the Jihad.
LikeLike
Silenceofmind, you would have the Western Civilization to have emerged at the moment in history when we actually know it sank to the least civilized era, that we do call the Dark Ages because of precisely that. You know, that makes no sense at all. The Western Civilization arose before Christianity during the inception of written historical sources in Europe in the early Antiquity.
I agree with you, that Christianity influenced just about everything within the Roman Empire after Constantine the Great and not before long the direct result seems to be, that the Empire fell apart. Did it not? Then followed the Dark Ages of barbarism and feodalism, as the Catholic Church superimposed itself over the Empire. Lost were many of the achievements of Western Civilization thus far, from irrigation systems to Pax Romana, and from the sewer systems of cities to water toilets. (That you seem to have valued highly in our past discussions, or was it just toilet paper?)
Democracy, sewerage, nor Pax Romana were not the achievements of Christianity. Were they? Were they not representations of a Civilization? Oh, yes they were. Where was that Civilization located? In the so called western parts of the Eurasia (and as you point out) North Africa. Hence, we are talking about the Western Civilization, or else you have invented your own version of it, that does not relate to reality. But once again you have failed your opportunity to name one positive result of Christianity within the Western Civilization. Or do you really think that mustard gass, the atom bomb and nazism are the products of Christianity? Or do you deny them as being the products of Western Civilization?
The idea, that the Crusades were a reaction to Islamic Jihad in the Near East and North Africa is revisionist if anything I have ever heard is. It is like excusing nazism and the holocaust by appealing to the nazies as some sort of defenders of the Western Civilization against Communism and the great Jewish conspiracy – as they themselves did. But hey, maybe the UK is going to finally react to the USA for braking away from the British Empire in a couple of hundred years or so, to come and send forces to stop the indipendence of the US, just as a reaction? You do realize, that there are several hundred years and dozens of generations in between Christendom losing those areas where the crusades against the Muslims were directed to, when the crusades even began? Saying it is a reaction, is just nonsense and silly.
The Jihad is wrong, but it does not serve as some sort of excuse for the Crusades. Not if you know anything about the Crusades. You should read about the subject, since you are so confused about it.
If you ever decide to challenge your faith based beliefs about the Crusades, and read about them, it might be helpfull if you asked yourself first what about all the crusades against other Christians? What were those a reaction to? You can hardly blame the Jihad for the Albigens crusades, or the crusades against the Hussians, nor against Greek and Russian Orthodoxes. Or can you? They were the products of both Western Civilization and a direct influence of Christianity on it. See, now I have named several negative things that have resulted from Christianity and after several comments you have still not been able to name one positive thing. Why?
You have not yet named who are the “you people” you mentioned before, even though I have asked you to. If you keep throwing out obscure insults at people you do not even want to name, you are bound to look idiotic. Are you not?
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
It is the Roman Empire and Greco-Roman culture that died out.
The Catholic Church picked up the pieces and an entirely new civilization came to be:
Christian Western Civilization.
LikeLike
Pfff… Silenceofmind, yes you could call it that during the medieval period. It is not a commonly used term, though. Is it? Have you invented it yourself, or have you borrowed it from somewhere, because I have never before ran into it? Most often that is referred both in contemporary sources and today as the Christendom. However, such terms are vague at best. The civilization would of course be different without Christianity, or some other religion in it’s place, but it would still be called the Western Civilization. Yet, we have no means to evaluate what would it be like. What we can say, is that there would most likely be something we could call the Western Civilization, since there existed one long before Christianity was even invented.
None of this means, that the Western Civilization emerged at the point when the Catholic Church had defeated competition from other Christian movements like Arianism, Roman Empire fell and the Dark Ages began. The Western Civilization had existed for centuries before that. Yes?
If you would want to rename the entire Western Civilization, as the “Western Christian Civilization”, these two are not synonymes. Rather the latter is a smaller part of the larger concept of the Western Civilization. It seems like you are trying to arbitrarily embellish the meaning of Christianity, that has had a great impact on the Western Civilization, by redefining the entire Western Civilization according to the most prevalent religion within the culture. But we do not call Indian Civilization the Hindu Civilization, or the Chinese Civilization according to Buddhism, Taoism, nor Confucius. No doubt these have had a great impact on how those civilizations have evolved, just like Christianity has had an impact on the western culture.
Maybe you have become confused, because the Muslim World is a concept thrown about when people refer to a predominat religious culture from Indonesia to Morocco and you would want to counter that by some form of your own cultural religious terminology. But the actual difference between the countries where Islam is the predominat religion and those, that have Christianity as the predominant religion, is that in general in the latter countries religion plays a lot smaller role in politics and social morals. And we are all happy about that, are we not? Or would you want the Roman Catholic Church to have as much power, as it had during the medieval times, when they could burn “heretics” alive? I bet you would not want that any more than you would want the different sects of Christianity to engage in a religiously motivated war, like what is happening still between the sects of Islam. Would you? But it happened within Christianity also, so the difference between these two “civilizations” today, does not come from different religion. Appealing to that as an indicator of one religion being better than the other, would be just “snobbery of chronology”, would it not?
Now, we have moved past the Dark Ages, and the Medieval period when the Catholic church ruled supreme in a sort of harmony with feodalism, centuries ago. Calling the Western Civilization Christian is just nonsensical, because most of the achievements that make it a Civilization are not the products of Christianity and our base of values has moved beyond Christianity. Secularism has overridden Christianity in the morals of the western nations during the past centuries. That is why you can no longer give supernatural wittness in a court of law. Because people do not believe spirits and other supernatural phenomenons are reliable enough for a trial to be fair. Do you agree with that?
Once again you have failed to answer to my actual questions. Why? I ask once more can you name at least one thing about Christianity you think has had a positive cultural influence on the Western Civilization? There must be at least one, since the two clearly are not one and the same? Are they? Or do you think Scientology is a product of Christianity? It certaily is a product of the Western Civilization, is it not?
I would also like to hear who are the “you people” you referenced abowe? Because it is not clear to me at all, what you meant by that.
Now, if you do not hear from me in a few days, that is because I am engaged otherwise, not because I would ignore you. I am celebrating the Midsummers Eve – an ancient pagan ritual with bonfires and alcohol, that the Finns never stopped having even though Christianity came to our country some 800 years ago. You see, civilizations are rarely built on just one religion. Culture and civilizations evolve mostly indipendent of even the most dominating religions, even though religions have a quite pervasive influence on human behaviour, because they enable a form of arbitrary power to be weilded by appealing to the authority of this or that god. Religions do not tell you often how to built toilets, and if they do, those guidelines may become seen as a bit archaic, like those rules about toilets in the Bible. If you do not know about them, look them up, and have fun.
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
All the terms I use are commonly used terms.
Look, I got the same rotten, false undergrad history lessons as you did.
And I took those classes back in the early 1970’s.
Yes, that would be over 40 years ago.
Undergrad education in Western Civilization has been a steaming mess for decades.
Rautakyy, I’ve taken graduate level classes in Western Civilization offered by various universities including Harvard and the Catholic Church.
They all teach the same basic lesson:
Western Civilization is CHRISTIAN Western Civilization.
And the Dark Ages, weren’t dark at all.
The 1000 years situated between late Antiquity and the Renaissance is called, yes, you guessed it, the…
…CHRISTIAN Middle Ages…
…during which time Western Civilization came into being.
LikeLike
Hullo again Silenceofmind. I see you would put yourself as some sort of an authority in this matter. I am sorry, but I do not buy it.
1. If indeed they taught you in Harward university, that the Crusades were merely a reaction to the Jihad, or that the concepts of Western Civilization and Western Christian Civilization are equal to each other, they were simply wrong. Assuming it is true, that you went to Harward, it is obviously much more likely, that you have somehow missunderstood what was taught to you.
The reason why I think this is: a) Because the areas to wich the Crusades were directed to had been conquered by the Muslims several hundred years before the Crusades began, and because the Crusades were much more ofted directed against other Christians and pagans, than against Muslims. What do you say to that? b) Because I do not find the term Western Christian Civilization used by anyone exept you anywhere. It is not, that commonly used term. Is it? If there is someone else besides you, who is it and what are their motives to mix up things like that? The Western Civilization is so much more than just one religion, that has been rather dominant in the field of religions, but not some obscure monoculture ever. Not even in the Middle ages. Or do you not count the European Jews as part of the Western Civilization? Are you some sort of an anti-Semite?
2. Asking the Roman Catholic Church, wether if the Crusades were someone elses fault, is no different from asking whose fault the holocaust was from the Nazi party of Germany in 1945. Of course they are not likely to take any responsibility of the horrors they were responsible for. I bet they would deny that the Crusades even happened, if they possibly could without becoming the subject of ridicule. That is the same reason most likely why the pope has conceded to the theory of evolution even though it challenges their benevolent-creator-god concept just like the Crusades do. But once they were proud about the Crusades. Were they not? What did they teach you in the Roman Catholic Church about the Inquisition and burning heretics alive after torturing them first? Did you know, they once were proud about that too?
3. I seriously also doubt, that we have gone through the same “undergrad” education. Or did you go to school in Finland? The mere idea, that kids are first lied to in school, and then those of them who can afford to go to the Harward get a glimpse of some hidden truth – that you seem to advocate here – is banal, and one of the most wild conspiracy theories I have ever heard. Is that how things are done in your country? Here our school education is dated according to the latest information that the universities have after it has been peer reviewed. In the universities here, we do get a more precise look on the subjects, but nothing contradictory to our previous education, unless science has found something new in the meantime. And we do not challenge the discoveries of science on faith based claims (exept the theologians – who are not real scientists as their predecided conclusion is based on faith). Do you?
4. I studied archaeology in the university of Helsinki at the turn of the millenium and my main line of study was late Iron age from the Roman period to the crusade period and in addition I have kept busy researching the subject even later on, so my understanding of it is pretty much based on the latest and best information awailable. I do not say this to put myself as an authority on the matter (though I think I am) rather to point out, that I have no good reason to think you know this issue better than I do. Now, if you DO actually have some new information about it, that I lack, I would like to hear about it, but so far you have not presented any, or even given it a try. You have simply made bold assertions to protect your faith based beliefs. Or do you have something substantial to back up your claims?
5. I have studied the Middle Ages, and it is not commonly referred to as the Christian Middle Ages any more than the Western Civilization is referred to as the Christian Western Civilization. This is all your own fabrication, or by someone who pulled the fast one on you. Watch out not to too easily rely on what they tell you in the future, or what they have told you about other issues. It might be just as bogus. You could claim, that the Western Civilzation began when the Roman Empire fell (as you have and I find this a particularly weak line of reasoning), as you could equally claim, that that it began when the Reneissance began, or when the Enlightenment began, or even when the Industrial Revolution began, or at least a dozen similar turning points in the course of the Western Civilization. But by wich indicators do we measure something to be a civilization? Those indicators existed long before the Christianity was even invented in a cultural continuum in the European countries, from wich the Western Civilization sprang forth from. Hence, the Western Civilization existed centuries before Christianity was added to it starting from the Near-East. When we address the world today, Civilization is global, and it is ever harder to put a stamp on, that this or that is an indicator of a particular civilization. The cultural evolution leading to this point has taken ages. Are you using Roman or Arabian numerals if you want “to do the math”? Are those numerals an indicator of the Western Christian Civilization you are trying to evoke?
6. I have to conclude, that you are unable to name even one positive impact the Christian religion has had on the Western Civilization, rather you think all things from mustard gass to the burning of heretics within the Western Civilization are the products of Christianity. Do you really want to defend such an absurd position? Is it not more reasonable to assume one is and the other is not? One is something done motivated by the Christian faith, is it not? Wich one, can you recognize?
7. You have not named the “you people”, even after several requests by me, so it seems that this was just a futile attempt to lash out, when you were overcome by your emotions and the connected remark was not a description of reality, rather just of your distressed emotional state. Was that it? If you have nothing to add, I assume I got it right.
8. If there existed this entity called Western Christian Civilization, would that not be responsible for the torture and burning of heretics in the name of Jesus? Would that make it any better than Islam and Jihad? If the only actual difference between two religious cultures is that in one their god no longer allowes people to do evil things in good faith, then does not claiming that one is better, make such a mere “snobbery of chronology”?
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
I NEVER, EVER claim personal authority for my claims.
In fact, it is the absolute opposite.
You might consider me a total mouthpiece for the Western Heritage.
LikeLike
Silenceofmind, sorry it took so long for me to reply. I have been very busy elswhere (and shall remain such at least for next weekend). Anyway, are you conceding to my points? You did not address them much.
What do you mean you are “a total mouthpiece for the Western Heritage”? Do you work for that cowboy museum, or what? How is that even remotely relevant?
As to wether you tried to impose yourself as an authority by appealing to your alledged Harvard education on history and the Crusades (wich seems factually wrong, and I find it hard to believe such a noteworthy university as Harvard would have failed you in this way) and the more obscure concept of the “Catholic Church” I leave for anyone who may have read our conversation through to ponder.
It is of course nice to hear, that you did not at least deliberately attempted to put your personal authority forward. However, since I got the impression that you did, then could we at least agree, that this shows how chances do happen and not everything is after all pre-designed? Could we even go so far as for you to admit, that most things indeed in the universe do happen by mere chance? I doubt you are able to handle this bit of reality (I guess because you find it somehow scary), but in case you are, you might be also able to consider the possibility, that when chances happen often enough, they may form a pattern, that may look like design, even when it is really not. Or, is it too much to ask?
LikeLike
There are people who demand voting to be a civic responsibility rather than the right of a citizen. I do not agree with them, because there may come the situation, in wich the choises are all so bad, that I would not support even the lesser of bad choises. When ever, the political system turns into a situation, in wich choosing to vote between two parties is the only viable possibility to have any effect on politics, to me that sounds not at all like actual democracy. Two party systems are effectively not much different from one party systems that give one a choise of candidates within the one party. That has not happened to me yet, as I live in a country with multiple parties and a political system wich seems to best work when different ideological parties try to come to a consensus to form a government.
Our very first socialist president Mauno Koivisto died of old age recently and everybody mourned him. He was respected even by the nationalists on the far right, because he was a veteran, if not for anything else.
It seems to me, you had a good number of good choises, not the opposite. Yes?
I would say future of politics does not look so very dim at all, at the moment, as the wave of ultra right wing populism (wich is curious, as it is powered by somewhat oxymoronic radical conservatism – much the same way as organized terrorism is), seems to have not broken the barriers of democracy in Europe, like it was prognozed to do this year. On the contrary, the radicalist conservative populist parties that still exist seem to compete between each other who is less racistic and more civil, than the others. The bubbles, like UKIP, and in my home Finland the “True Finns -party” have bursted.
LikeLike