Muslims in Tunisia and Egypt

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Depends. Would you prefer a moderate Muslim who has a strong sense of family values, community, bringing up children to show respect for their elders, living next door or a bunch of atheist chavs intent on getting pissed up, trashing the environment and showing a total disrespect for everyone around them?[/quote]

The moderate Muslims, obviously. But picking the best of the religious and the worst of the atheists it wasn't really a fair question.

I mean, would you rather live next door to a bunch of Nazi supporters, who are quiet, polite and keep their prejudices to themselves or a mixed race family, who champion a multi-cultural society, but constantly piss through your letterbox, flash their genitals at your wife & kids and keep you up all hours of the night with gangta-rap?

We can all do the silly questions.

Is there anything wrong in wishing for a more secular society?

[David Johnson]

"The moderate Muslims, obviously. But picking the best of the religious and the worst of the atheists it wasn't really a fair question"

Obviously, which is why I prefaced the question with "Depends"

"Is there anything wrong in wishing for a more secular society?"

Depends.

You could argue that we live in a far more secular society then say in the sixties. Has this made Britain a better place to live?

Dunno.

[David Johnson]

"You`ve read history. The recent Egypt biz scares the pants off me because it seems like a re-run of the Russian Revolution. Out goes the Tsar (Mubarek), in comes a well intentioned, liberal, Nobel-Prize winning intellectual El-Baradei (Kerensky) wishing to make his country a better place.

As I said, it could go pear-shaped. Given that I have "read history" it is clear that not all revolutions turn out badly. East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Rumania etc come to mind in relatively recent times where people power has played a big part.

Cheers
D

[Sam Slater]

[quote]You could argue that we live in a far more secular society then say in the sixties. Has this made Britain a better place to live?[/quote]

I didn't live in the '60s but my impression is yes. Would you rather be a Muslim/Jew/Woman/Black person/Homosexual living in Britain in the '60s or post 2000?

Any progress away from a bigoted, prejudiced society and towards a more liberal, equal one, is all about moral philosophy. The idea of gay rights and the equality of women didn't come from any holy book, but from moral philosophers and educating the masses.

I'd like this trend to continue and I feel religion slows down and sometimes actively opposes this.

[David Johnson]

"Personally, every day I was on the beach last year in Sharm-el-Sheikh I thanked my God for Mubarek`s tough secret police that showed terrorists no mercy. We can now - in a short space of time - say goodbye to those cheap Red Sea holidays when Egypt goes arse up !!

The problem with tough secret police under a dictatorship is that they tend to show no mercy to any dissent whatsoever, never mind terrorists.

I extend my sympathy to the potential loss of cheap Red Sea holidays for you. If you can't depend on dictators to provide this for you, what use are they?

I do believe winter breaks in North Korea are very a la mode in Blackpool these days. Devilish difficult to tell the bar stewards apart though.

Cheers
D

[David Johnson]

"I didn't live in the '60s but my impression is yes. Would you rather be a Muslim/Jew/Woman/Black person/Homosexual living in Britain in the '60s or post 2000?"

You state just one factor that of equality in terms of race or sexuality as a way of measuring whether Britain is a better place to live now than in the 60's

There is a whole lot of others such as sense of community, crime, respect for neighbours, old people etc etc. that you would need to take into account even to come up with a hopelessly subjective answer to the question.

Cheers
D

[Sam Slater]

Well, if you think (or you're implying) the '60s was better than living in the noughties then that's your opinion. It was, though, a less multicultural society then, which contradicts -only slightly but it does- your original point, I think.

Corporal punishment was still commonplace in the '60s, within schools.

Drink-driving was more commonplace in the '60s.

Smacking your wife around was mostly ignored by the police in the '60s and put down as 'domestic issues'.

Getting a rapist convicted was much harder in the '60s and women were far, far less likely to report rape. Same goes for sexual crimes involving children.

You could still go to prison for being a homosexual in the '60s.

Mortality rates amongst newborns and infants were 6-8 times higher in the 60s.

There are so many things involving working conditions, diet, the battle against disease, air and water pollution etc but I haven't time. I'm sure you get my point. None of our advances from the above were due to any religious beliefs. In fact, history shows us the opposite.

Keep your community spirit, David. It's nice to have but I'd still prefer a more equal and fairer society. You only have to compare the more secular nations in the world against the more religious to see who are the more equal, fairer, progressive nations.

[David Johnson]

Talking about differences between life in the sixties and now, you state

"There are so many things involving working conditions, diet, the battle against disease, air and water pollution etc but I haven't time. I'm sure you get my point."

At least you have convinced yourself which is always a start.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/ ... comes-poor

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/ ... y-patterns

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7681435.stm

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -22034229/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... avery.html

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/mar10/page17.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/ ... eandhealth

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... pidemic.do

As I have often said in discussion with your good self, I suspect the subject is a tad more complex than you appear to believe.

Cheers
D

[Dick Moby]

Quite right David,British people are notorious for having no backbone.
Hold on a minute,wasn't there a tiff, let me think about it a minute,ah yes the 1939- 1945 conflict. I remember reading about all the British people who surrendered at the first sign of a confrontation.
Please correct me if I'm wrong as my history is a little bit shaky.
r.e. your original post, isn't Tunisia and Egypt a good place to keep Muslims?

[Sam Slater]

1st link is reporting about the gap between the richest and poorest. This isn't good, but it isn't saying the quality of life has deteriorated since the '60s. It just means the quality of life for the richest has increased much more than the poor.

The 2nd link is a little like the first. The gap between the richest and poorest has widened, however the life expectancy for all has risen.

The 3rd link again just talks about a gap between rich and poor. Why concentrate on just one aspect of life? I like the little graph on the page you linked to here, though. Look at the countries with the biggest gap between rich and poor (Mexico, Turkey and the US) and look at the countries with the smallest gap between the rich and poor (Denmark, Sweden and Luxembourg). Which countries are the most secular and which the most religious?

Let's look at what a map on the importance of religion by nation, shall we?:

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... _world.PNG[/img]

How gracious of you to post a link helping me to back up my own point! A true gent! !happy!

Link 4 goes into obesity. While a big problem this is more to do with people's habits and a chosen lifestyle compared to, say, prejudice or imprisoning people based on their sexuality. You can't compare an imprisoned homosexual, or a woman working for half the pay of a man doing the same job, to someone who can't keep himself out of MacDonalds. That's a desperate comparison, David. How far do you want to go to try and win this particular argument? Jesus!*

Link 5 is yet more on the gap between the richest and poorest. I've covered that.

Link 6: see above answer for link 5.

Link 7: Between the '50s and '70s over 50% of men smoked, with over 40% of women smoking. Now it's less than half that. As for drinking, it's a little harder to determine. The amount of drinks consumed has doubled in the last 40 years but alcohol percentages of lager, bitter, wine and even some spirits have gone down to combat drink driving etc. 8-10% bitter was commonplace in the '60s while your average bitter or lager these days is 4-5.5%. The article concentrates on cancer but doesn't mention the detection rates of cancers have risen exponentially over the last 50 years due to medical advancements. (I don't really need to point out the chances of surviving most cancers these days compared to the '60s). Many people who died from drinking, smoking and dietary habits 50 years ago weren't even aware of their problem, and neither did anyone else until the autopsy. I think we're better off today, David.

Ask yourself these questions and be honest.

1. Would you rather be a gay man living in 2011 or 1961?

2. Would you rather be a woman living in 2011 or 1961?

3. Would you rather be of any other ethnicity, living in the UK, in 2011 or 1961?

4. Would you rather have the dietary knowledge of your average man of 2011 or 1961?

5. Would you rather be diagnosed with any cancer in 2011 or 1961?

6. Would you rather bring up a family in today's multicultural, tolerant society where they can bring home a black boyfriend and hang out in gay bars without so much as a second thought or in a time when these things were frowned upon?

I'm far too young to have experienced the '60s and even too young to remember the latter end of the '70s, but I do know that even in the '80s I had pyjamas with a big warning label that said "KEEP AWAY FROM FIRE!" !laugh! No central heating meant I spent most of my bloody nights before bedtime 6" away from the bloody fire! Kids today.........don't know they're born.

Now, I know you can't ever concede an argument and that is a fault of yours. Don't worry, we all have our faults. But listen here and listen good because if this next bit of information won't persuade you then I'll quickly lose all hope with you, David. Right.............well, in the '60s pornhistorian's, rodders', yawnfuck's, max tranmere's and dick moby's views on life wouldn't have been in the slightest bit controversial! Imagine a time when they were the normal folk! *shivers*

No, no, no.....I think I've got this one wrapped up. 2011>1961 - literally.

*See what I did there? !laugh!