PT Don't put words into my mouth...I mentioned an athlete and a cook..Now what are the benefits of a mainstream religion, which espouses some extreme views on its non adherents, bringing to the population of the UK...and we can all accept a few docs, lawyers and other professionals...what are the rest of them doing to embrace their new surroundings..
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
I'm an agnostic. As I see it, Jesus Christ was a man who peached about helping the meek and the poor, about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek. Mohamed, on the other hand was a rapist and a mass murderer. Both of these men are seen by their followers as perfect men.
That's a misinterpretation.
The equivalent of Christ in Islam is the Qu'ran, not Mohammed. That Mohammed and Christ were both men is a detail. The theological relevance is that Christ was God incarnate. To muslims, Mohammed, by contrast, was a prophet - the greatest prophet to be sure and the one *through* whom God revealed the Qu'ran but a prophet, a man, all the same. In Islam, it is the book which represents God Incarnate: its contents are His words and His alone. By contrast, to Christians, the Bible is a rather different beast. Undoubtedly holy but *about* Christ and God; not *of* Him: a creation of man.
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
I'm an agnostic. As I see it, Jesus Christ was a man who peached about helping the meek and the poor, about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek. Mohamed, on the other hand was a rapist and a mass murderer. Both of these men are seen by their followers as perfect men.
If you go down a theological road you can argue anything. In the Bible God implies that incest is OK and mass murders all but two of every person and animal in the world.
My reading of the Bible is that Jesus was probably a good man if he isn't fictional (or even if he is fictional then he is a positive fictional creation), but that God is quite wicked.
William Wilberfoce was an evangelical Christian who helped abolish the slave trade. Christianity via Methodism helped support the emergence of the Labour party. That's one plus and one minus. But overall, they've been a civilising force.
I await the time when a Muslim evangelist campaigns for the abolition of Sharia law, FGM, and the killing of gays without having to go into hiding.
"Home Secretary Theresa May said non-violent extremism could not go "uncontested" as it led to the erosion of women's rights, the spread of intolerance and bigotry and the separation of some communities "from the mainstream".
She said that applied to neo-Nazi extremism just as much as Islamist doctrine."
I'm counting the days until these powers are used to silence someone jokingly commenting on Facebook, or a UKIP supporter challenging how well some communities are integrating, or just someone who simply publicly disagrees with prevailing orthodoxy.
And many more will self-silence for fear of falling foul of the law.
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
I'm an agnostic. As I see it, Jesus Christ was a man who peached about helping the meek and the poor, about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek. Mohamed, on the other hand was a rapist and a mass murderer. Both of these men are seen by their followers as perfect men.
If you go down a theological road you can argue anything. In the Bible God implies that incest is OK and mass murders all but two of every person and animal in the world.
My reading of the Bible is that Jesus was probably a good man if he isn't fictional (or even if he is fictional then he is a positive fictional creation), but that God is quite wicked.
It's inappropriate to apply the morals of humans to deities; they exist on a different plane.
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
I'm an agnostic. As I see it, Jesus Christ was a man who peached about helping the meek and the poor, about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek. Mohamed, on the other hand was a rapist and a mass murderer. Both of these men are seen by their followers as perfect men.
If you go down a theological road you can argue anything. In the Bible God implies that incest is OK and mass murders all but two of every person and animal in the world.
My reading of the Bible is that Jesus was probably a good man if he isn't fictional (or even if he is fictional then he is a positive fictional creation), but that God is quite wicked.
Oh God said to Abraham, “Kill me a son” Abe says, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
"Home Secretary Theresa May said non-violent extremism could not go "uncontested" as it led to the erosion of women's rights, the spread of intolerance and bigotry and the separation of some communities "from the mainstream".
She said that applied to neo-Nazi extremism just as much as Islamist doctrine."
I'm counting the days until these powers are used to silence someone jokingly commenting on Facebook, or a UKIP supporter challenging how well some communities are integrating, or just someone who simply publicly disagrees with prevailing orthodoxy.
And many more will self-silence for fear of falling foul of the law.
Looking on the bright side, the more the government censor things that a lot of people want to read, the more people move to systems that they can't censor at all.
''The Home Office would rightly have served him with a deportation order for terrorizing law-abiding, wealth-creating money-changers. ''
Jesus didn't see the money-changing industry was vital to help fund local amphitheatres and leper colonies, as well as providing many much needed jobs.
Jerusalem's money changing industry was the envy of the ancient world until Jesus' heavy handed interventionism drove it to more lightly intimidated markets.
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
I'm an agnostic. As I see it, Jesus Christ was a man who peached about helping the meek and the poor, about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek. Mohamed, on the other hand was a rapist and a mass murderer. Both of these men are seen by their followers as perfect men.
If you go down a theological road you can argue anything. In the Bible God implies that incest is OK and mass murders all but two of every person and animal in the world.
My reading of the Bible is that Jesus was probably a good man if he isn't fictional (or even if he is fictional then he is a positive fictional creation), but that God is quite wicked.
The G-d of the Old Testament is a vengeful one who can be quick to anger but that isn't the same as 'wicked'.
If you go down a theological road you can argue anything. In the Bible God implies that incest is OK and mass murders all but two of every person and animal in the world.
My reading of the Bible is that Jesus was probably a good man if he isn't fictional (or even if he is fictional then he is a positive fictional creation), but that God is quite wicked.
It's inappropriate to apply the morals of humans to deities; they exist on a different plane.
Well we were created in the deities image supposedly. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for immorality but had no qualms about Lot's line being continued by incestuous rape. Ultimately people take from religion what they want to.
Given that God used to actively destroy entire towns for immorality (but ignore incestuous rape) or flood the entire world from time to time, I wonder what it would take for Him to step in and sort stuff out nowadays. Why the change of heart?
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
I'm an agnostic. As I see it, Jesus Christ was a man who peached about helping the meek and the poor, about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek. Mohamed, on the other hand was a rapist and a mass murderer. Both of these men are seen by their followers as perfect men.
If you go down a theological road you can argue anything. In the Bible God implies that incest is OK and mass murders all but two of every person and animal in the world.
My reading of the Bible is that Jesus was probably a good man if he isn't fictional (or even if he is fictional then he is a positive fictional creation), but that God is quite wicked.
The G-d of the Old Testament is a vengeful one who can be quick to anger but that isn't the same as 'wicked'.
If somebody proposed killing every child on the planet or destroying entire towns due to their morality etc, etc I'd go further than just 'wicked'.
On the substantive issue of tax credits, does anyone have a genuine worked through example of someone who will be seriously worse off by the proposed changes in the round? It will need to include minimum wage rise, personal allowance increase and childcare subsidy increases over the past five years.
My hunch is that those badly affected are working exactly 16 hours a week, an artificial limit which is being removed by Universal Credit.
I posted this the other day:
The local Costa is advertising for staff at £7.50 per hour. A married couple, both working full time in said café, with 2 kids, will be £2068 per year worse off from next year according to the calculator in The Telegraph. If they have 3 kids, they will be £2500 worse off. A single parent, working full-time for £7.50/hour will be £1600/year worse off. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11726113/Budget-calculator-work-out-how-your-finances-have-changed.html
Not everyone on low wage is on minimum wage. The rise in the living wage will not necessarily help all low wage workers in the short run.
"Thirteen million UK families will lose £260 a year on average because of the Budget's tax and benefits changes, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
Tax credit changes could hit three million families, which are likely to lose an average of £1,000, it said.
Even taking into account higher wages, people receiving tax credits would be "significantly worse off", said Paul Johnson, director of the IFS." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864
It would be interesting to see a calculator comparing 2009/10 with 2015/16 or 16/17, so the full range of the changes to the income tax thresholds can be taken into account.
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
I'm an agnostic. As I see it, Jesus Christ was a man who peached about helping the meek and the poor, about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek. Mohamed, on the other hand was a rapist and a mass murderer. Both of these men are seen by their followers as perfect men.
If you go down a theological road you can argue anything. In the Bible God implies that incest is OK and mass murders all but two of every person and animal in the world.
My reading of the Bible is that Jesus was probably a good man if he isn't fictional (or even if he is fictional then he is a positive fictional creation), but that God is quite wicked.
It's inappropriate to apply the morals of humans to deities; they exist on a different plane.
No they don't. They don't exist. (beyond the intangible projections of men and women).
William Wilberfoce was an evangelical Christian who helped abolish the slave trade. Christianity via Methodism helped support the emergence of the Labour party. That's one plus and one minus. But overall, they've been a civilising force.
I await the time when a Muslim evangelist campaigns for the abolition of Sharia law, FGM, and the killing of gays without having to go into hiding.
If you want to go through history it was the Arabs who helped preserved Graeco-Roman knowledge in libraries while the Christian world was burning pagan ideas. Ironically the Crusades helped reintroduce European knowledge from the Arabic world which then fueled the Reformation and Renaissance.
Sadly since then Christianity has been reformed in leaps and bounds while some in Islam are going back not forwards.
On the substantive issue of tax credits, does anyone have a genuine worked through example of someone who will be seriously worse off by the proposed changes in the round? It will need to include minimum wage rise, personal allowance increase and childcare subsidy increases over the past five years.
My hunch is that those badly affected are working exactly 16 hours a week, an artificial limit which is being removed by Universal Credit.
I posted this the other day:
The local Costa is advertising for staff at £7.50 per hour. A married couple, both working full time in said café, with 2 kids, will be £2068 per year worse off from next year according to the calculator in The Telegraph. If they have 3 kids, they will be £2500 worse off. A single parent, working full-time for £7.50/hour will be £1600/year worse off. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11726113/Budget-calculator-work-out-how-your-finances-have-changed.html
Not everyone on low wage is on minimum wage. The rise in the living wage will not necessarily help all low wage workers in the short run.
"Thirteen million UK families will lose £260 a year on average because of the Budget's tax and benefits changes, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
Tax credit changes could hit three million families, which are likely to lose an average of £1,000, it said.
Even taking into account higher wages, people receiving tax credits would be "significantly worse off", said Paul Johnson, director of the IFS." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864
It would be interesting to see a calculator comparing 2009/10 with 2015/16 or 16/17, so the full range of the changes to the income tax thresholds can be taken into account.
I knew my Friday night spreadsheeting would come in handy.
Not integrated credits into it yet, but, for comparison, (total) take-home pay of 2 people each working 40 hours at £7.50, assuming 47 working weeks, was/is as follows:
2009/10: 23306.51 2015/16: 25351.36
I.e., before tax credits are taken into account, £2000 better off.
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
I'm an agnostic. As I see it, Jesus Christ was a man who peached about helping the meek and the poor, about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek. Mohamed, on the other hand was a rapist and a mass murderer. Both of these men are seen by their followers as perfect men.
That's a misinterpretation.
The equivalent of Christ in Islam is the Qu'ran, not Mohammed. That Mohammed and Christ were both men is a detail. The theological relevance is that Christ was God incarnate. To muslims, Mohammed, by contrast, was a prophet - the greatest prophet to be sure and the one *through* whom God revealed the Qu'ran but a prophet, a man, all the same. In Islam, it is the book which represents God Incarnate: its contents are His words and His alone. By contrast, to Christians, the Bible is a rather different beast. Undoubtedly holy but *about* Christ and God; not *of* Him: a creation of man.
Ok. Christians read the Bible and of God's son who preaches about loving thy neighbour, turning the other cheek, letting him without sin throw the first stone, etc., etc. This is the basic message of Christianity.
The Koran, on the other hand, represents the words of God himself as revealed by Mohamed, the Perfect man. Who wasn't averse to enslavement, rape and murder. As I understand it, it is a basic principle of Islam to follow the example of the prophet Mohamed and the Koran refers to this principle repeatedly.
If you go down a theological road you can argue anything. In the Bible God implies that incest is OK and mass murders all but two of every person and animal in the world.
My reading of the Bible is that Jesus was probably a good man if he isn't fictional (or even if he is fictional then he is a positive fictional creation), but that God is quite wicked.
It's inappropriate to apply the morals of humans to deities; they exist on a different plane.
Well we were created in the deities image supposedly. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for immorality but had no qualms about Lot's line being continued by incestuous rape. Ultimately people take from religion what they want to.
Given that God used to actively destroy entire towns for immorality (but ignore incestuous rape) or flood the entire world from time to time, I wonder what it would take for Him to step in and sort stuff out nowadays. Why the change of heart?
The Lord God was also not married to the mother of His only begotten Son.
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
I'm an agnostic. As I see it, Jesus Christ was a man who peached about helping the meek and the poor, about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek. Mohamed, on the other hand was a rapist and a mass murderer. Both of these men are seen by their followers as perfect men.
If you go down a theological road you can argue anything. In the Bible God implies that incest is OK and mass murders all but two of every person and animal in the world.
My reading of the Bible is that Jesus was probably a good man if he isn't fictional (or even if he is fictional then he is a positive fictional creation), but that God is quite wicked.
It's inappropriate to apply the morals of humans to deities; they exist on a different plane.
No they don't. They don't exist. (beyond the intangible projections of men and women).
On the substantive issue of tax credits, does anyone have a genuine worked through example of someone who will be seriously worse off by the proposed changes in the round? It will need to include minimum wage rise, personal allowance increase and childcare subsidy increases over the past five years.
My hunch is that those badly affected are working exactly 16 hours a week, an artificial limit which is being removed by Universal Credit.
I posted this the other day:
The local Costa is advertising for staff at £7.50 per hour. A married couple, both working full time in said café, with 2 kids, will be £2068 per year worse off from next year according to the calculator in The Telegraph. If they have 3 kids, they will be £2500 worse off. A single parent, working full-time for £7.50/hour will be £1600/year worse off. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11726113/Budget-calculator-work-out-how-your-finances-have-changed.html
Not everyone on low wage is on minimum wage. The rise in the living wage will not necessarily help all low wage workers in the short run.
"Thirteen million UK families will lose £260 a year on average because of the Budget's tax and benefits changes, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
Tax credit changes could hit three million families, which are likely to lose an average of £1,000, it said.
Even taking into account higher wages, people receiving tax credits would be "significantly worse off", said Paul Johnson, director of the IFS." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864
It would be interesting to see a calculator comparing 2009/10 with 2015/16 or 16/17, so the full range of the changes to the income tax thresholds can be taken into account.
I knew my Friday night spreadsheeting would come in handy.
Not integrated credits into it yet, but, for comparison, (total) take-home pay of 2 people each working 40 hours at £7.50, assuming 47 working weeks, was/is as follows:
2009/10: 23306.51 2015/16: 25351.36
I.e., before tax credits are taken into account, £2000 better off.
So, effectively neutral, as the article states the tax credit change causes a decrease of £2k?
The issue with wealth taxes is that it is complex and regularly changing. Basically you rely on self-disclosure & there's plenty of room for disagreement (e.g. is antique jewelry worth more than the value of the metal?)
Value the asset at whatever level you like, with the stipulation that if anybody offers you twice your valuation for it, you have to sell it to them at that price.
So you are going for public disclosure of all assets?
And, for example, how would you deal with heritage assets. As an example, my family is famous (notorious?) for its love of paperwork. We've kept pretty much every relevant document for well over 300 years.
That is fascinating to us, and hugely valuable to historians and economists. But what's the market value? And why should we be forced to sell it?
I'm pretty much opposed to wealth tax. For me, the burden of the costs of the state can be tackled by reducing the scope of the state.
That said, as part of my job is valuing heritage assets....... ;-)
We have one of the earliest cheques written in the modern era...
That must be fascinating to see, but what is meant by 'modern era'? Were some form of cheques used much earlier in history, before modern banking?
On the substantive issue of tax credits, does anyone have a genuine worked through example of someone who will be seriously worse off by the proposed changes in the round? It will need to include minimum wage rise, personal allowance increase and childcare subsidy increases over the past five years.
My hunch is that those badly affected are working exactly 16 hours a week, an artificial limit which is being removed by Universal Credit.
I posted this the other day:
The local Costa is advertising for staff at £7.50 per hour. A married couple, both working full time in said café, with 2 kids, will be £2068 per year worse off from next year according to the calculator in The Telegraph. If they have 3 kids, they will be £2500 worse off. A single parent, working full-time for £7.50/hour will be £1600/year worse off. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11726113/Budget-calculator-work-out-how-your-finances-have-changed.html
Not everyone on low wage is on minimum wage. The rise in the living wage will not necessarily help all low wage workers in the short run.
"Thirteen million UK families will lose £260 a year on average because of the Budget's tax and benefits changes, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
Tax credit changes could hit three million families, which are likely to lose an average of £1,000, it said.
Even taking into account higher wages, people receiving tax credits would be "significantly worse off", said Paul Johnson, director of the IFS." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864
It would be interesting to see a calculator comparing 2009/10 with 2015/16 or 16/17, so the full range of the changes to the income tax thresholds can be taken into account.
I knew my Friday night spreadsheeting would come in handy.
Not integrated credits into it yet, but, for comparison, (total) take-home pay of 2 people each working 40 hours at £7.50, assuming 47 working weeks, was/is as follows:
2009/10: 23306.51 2015/16: 25351.36
I.e., before tax credits are taken into account, £2000 better off.
So, effectively neutral, as the article states the tax credit change causes a decrease of £2k?
Not seen the article, but as both figures are net of tax credits, presumably. The creeping worry for me is that C2s voted Tory because of this almost 10% increase in the money in their pocket, and might not next time. Only creeping, mind. I wholeheartedly support the policy from a philosophical point of view. The 16 hour trap is horrid.
Mr. Thompson, the Renaissance was also fuelled by Byzantine scholars and documents leaving the city in the run up to and aftermath of the city's fall.
Indeed in the fourth crusade. It is ironic that what is rightly regarded as one of Christianities darker moments is responsible for the Reformation that has made it what is appreciated today.
Why? They'll be legal and laughing all the way to the bank.
legitimate business would finish gangsters off in a heartbeat.
The gangsters have guns. Good luck to Big Pharma.
Gangsters are only interested in industries where there is rent. Legalise recreational drugs, push the price right down to marginal cost, and there'll be no gangsters involved at all (until the government gets greedy and starts taxing the bejesus out of it).
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
I'm an agnostic. As I see it, Jesus Christ was a man who peached about helping the meek and the poor, about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek. Mohamed, on the other hand was a rapist and a mass murderer. Both of these men are seen by their followers as perfect men.
If you go down a theological road you can argue anything. In the Bible God implies that incest is OK and mass murders all but two of every person and animal in the world.
My reading of the Bible is that Jesus was probably a good man if he isn't fictional (or even if he is fictional then he is a positive fictional creation), but that God is quite wicked.
Eh?? Surely there was more than just Noah and Mrs Noah on the Ark? Or are you talking here about Preadamite people?
Nick Dakin MP, on Radio 5 denying that Labour's changes to the energy market are in any way to blame for the problems with UK steel production, and it's all the current government's fault and responsibility, as they're 'the ones at the crease'. Twunt.
Mr. Thompson, the Renaissance was also fuelled by Byzantine scholars and documents leaving the city in the run up to and aftermath of the city's fall.
Indeed in the fourth crusade. It is ironic that what is rightly regarded as one of Christianities darker moments is responsible for the Reformation that has made it what is appreciated today.
Early example of 'liberal-lefty-handwringing'? ;-)
On the substantive issue of tax credits, does anyone have a genuine worked through example of someone who will be seriously worse off by the proposed changes in the round? It will need to include minimum wage rise, personal allowance increase and childcare subsidy increases over the past five years.
My hunch is that those badly affected are working exactly 16 hours a week, an artificial limit which is being removed by Universal Credit.
I posted this the other day:
The local Costa is advertising for staff at £7.50 per hour. A married couple, both working full time in said café, with 2 kids, will be £2068 per year worse off from next year according to the calculator in The Telegraph. If they have 3 kids, they will be £2500 worse off. A single parent, working full-time for £7.50/hour will be £1600/year worse off. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11726113/Budget-calculator-work-out-how-your-finances-have-changed.html
Not everyone on low wage is on minimum wage. The rise in the living wage will not necessarily help all low wage workers in the short run.
"Thirteen million UK families will lose £260 a year on average because of the Budget's tax and benefits changes, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
Tax credit changes could hit three million families, which are likely to lose an average of £1,000, it said.
Even taking into account higher wages, people receiving tax credits would be "significantly worse off", said Paul Johnson, director of the IFS." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864
It would be interesting to see a calculator comparing 2009/10 with 2015/16 or 16/17, so the full range of the changes to the income tax thresholds can be taken into account.
I knew my Friday night spreadsheeting would come in handy.
Not integrated credits into it yet, but, for comparison, (total) take-home pay of 2 people each working 40 hours at £7.50, assuming 47 working weeks, was/is as follows:
2009/10: 23306.51 2015/16: 25351.36
I.e., before tax credits are taken into account, £2000 better off.
So, effectively neutral, as the article states the tax credit change causes a decrease of £2k?
Effectively neutral with a marginal tax rate decrease from ~80% (on tax credits) to a marginal tax rate of 32% (just NI and Income Tax) is a very good thing isn't it?
Why? They'll be legal and laughing all the way to the bank.
legitimate business would finish gangsters off in a heartbeat.
The gangsters have guns. Good luck to Big Pharma.
The worst scumbag companies of the Phama and Tobacco industries are angels when compared to the way the illegal drugs market works at the moment.
The current laws around the world make no sense, the only models that work are the extremes on both sides, either Portugal or Singapore - some messy middle way as in most places helps no-one.
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
I'm an agnostic. As I see it, Jesus Christ was a man who peached about helping the meek and the poor, about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek. Mohamed, on the other hand was a rapist and a mass murderer. Both of these men are seen by their followers as perfect men.
If you go down a theological road you can argue anything. In the Bible God implies that incest is OK and mass murders all but two of every person and animal in the world.
My reading of the Bible is that Jesus was probably a good man if he isn't fictional (or even if he is fictional then he is a positive fictional creation), but that God is quite wicked.
It's inappropriate to apply the morals of humans to deities; they exist on a different plane.
No they don't. They don't exist. (beyond the intangible projections of men and women).
They do exist. At the minimum they exist in people's mind and many societies' collective consciousnesses.
But either way it implies that to try to rationalise with and persuade god(s) on the same basis as one would with humans is both arrogant and absurd.
It is not a good idea to have more than one major religion (5%+) in a country... Not if you are interested in a cohesive society anyway. Islam gets the bad press because it is the insurgent religion in the west, but it would be the same if it were any other... A mass of people will always find something worship and it's better we all worship the same thing be it religion or whatever
For a long time people considered Catholicism and Protestantism as separate religions and for recent decades or centuries have in most places peacefully co-existed side by side at over 5% each.
Islam gets a bad press because the actions of some of its adherents are utterly reprehensible. If people just wanted to worship in a different temple most people in this country couldn't particularly care less. Most people in this country don't go to any temple on a weekly basis so it makes zero difference to cohesion where the minority who do choose to go.
I'm an agnostic. As I see it, Jesus Christ was a man who peached about helping the meek and the poor, about loving they neighbour and turning the other cheek. Mohamed, on the other hand was a rapist and a mass murderer. Both of these men are seen by their followers as perfect men.
If you go down a theological road you can argue anything. In the Bible God implies that incest is OK and mass murders all but two of every person and animal in the world.
My reading of the Bible is that Jesus was probably a good man if he isn't fictional (or even if he is fictional then he is a positive fictional creation), but that God is quite wicked.
It's inappropriate to apply the morals of humans to deities; they exist on a different plane.
No they don't. They don't exist. (beyond the intangible projections of men and women).
They do exist. At the minimum they exist in people's mind and many societies' collective consciousnesses.
But either way it implies that to try to rationalise with and persuade god(s) on the same basis as one would with humans is both arrogant and absurd.
As I said, they don't exist beyond the intangible projections of men and women.
Now if your argument is that you cannot win an argument over beliefs using solely reason and rationality, I'd agree one hundred percent. But you don't need to introduce gods into the equation in order to make that argument.
Welfare reform was in the manifesto. If the Lords blocks it are they going to propose an alternative £12 billion in cuts as was in the manifesto?
TRIPLE LOCK!!!!
As I said last night the Triple Lock is unsustainable, but you seem fanatical in your hatred of pensioners when they pay 11% of all income tax in this country.
Owls is also a 'sponging' pensioner.
Thanks, but I think the OAP I receive should be lower than under the Triple Lock if I live long enough to get it so my Grand Kids dont have to work beyond 70 to pay for it.
I think those who have been receiving state pension from 60 whilst calling for Welfare Cuts to Working Age benefits and expecting their Grand Kids to work to 70 or beyond to pay for it are the "Spongers".
But hey Ho sticks and stones.
So it will be an OAP and not a benefit? Interesting!
An OAP is a benefit, the most expensive benefit by far.
I thought numerous posters had explained this yesterday
And numerous posters agreed with me, the sensible ones.
I don't want to go over it again, but if the Old Age Pension is a benefit why is it taxable?
On the substantive issue of tax credits, does anyone have a genuine worked through example of someone who will be seriously worse off by the proposed changes in the round? It will need to include minimum wage rise, personal allowance increase and childcare subsidy increases over the past five years.
My hunch is that those badly affected are working exactly 16 hours a week, an artificial limit which is being removed by Universal Credit.
I posted this the other day:
The local Costa is advertising for staff at £7.50 per hour. A married couple, both working full time in said café, with 2 kids, will be £2068 per year worse off from next year according to the calculator in The Telegraph. If they have 3 kids, they will be £2500 worse off. A single parent, working full-time for £7.50/hour will be £1600/year worse off. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11726113/Budget-calculator-work-out-how-your-finances-have-changed.html
Not everyone on low wage is on minimum wage. The rise in the living wage will not necessarily help all low wage workers in the short run.
"Thirteen million UK families will lose £260 a year on average because of the Budget's tax and benefits changes, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
Tax credit changes could hit three million families, which are likely to lose an average of £1,000, it said.
Even taking into account higher wages, people receiving tax credits would be "significantly worse off", said Paul Johnson, director of the IFS." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864
It would be interesting to see a calculator comparing 2009/10 with 2015/16 or 16/17, so the full range of the changes to the income tax thresholds can be taken into account.
I knew my Friday night spreadsheeting would come in handy.
Not integrated credits into it yet, but, for comparison, (total) take-home pay of 2 people each working 40 hours at £7.50, assuming 47 working weeks, was/is as follows:
2009/10: 23306.51 2015/16: 25351.36
I.e., before tax credits are taken into account, £2000 better off.
So, effectively neutral, as the article states the tax credit change causes a decrease of £2k?
On the substantive issue of tax credits, does anyone have a genuine worked through example of someone who will be seriously worse off by the proposed changes in the round? It will need to include minimum wage rise, personal allowance increase and childcare subsidy increases over the past five years.
My hunch is that those badly affected are working exactly 16 hours a week, an artificial limit which is being removed by Universal Credit.
I posted this the other day:
The local Costa is advertising for staff at £7.50 per hour. A married couple, both working full time in said café, with 2 kids, will be £2068 per year worse off from next year according to the calculator in The Telegraph. If they have 3 kids, they will be £2500 worse off. A single parent, working full-time for £7.50/hour will be £1600/year worse off. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11726113/Budget-calculator-work-out-how-your-finances-have-changed.html
Not everyone on low wage is on minimum wage. The rise in the living wage will not necessarily help all low wage workers in the short run.
"Thirteen million UK families will lose £260 a year on average because of the Budget's tax and benefits changes, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
Tax credit changes could hit three million families, which are likely to lose an average of £1,000, it said.
Even taking into account higher wages, people receiving tax credits would be "significantly worse off", said Paul Johnson, director of the IFS." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864
It would be interesting to see a calculator comparing 2009/10 with 2015/16 or 16/17, so the full range of the changes to the income tax thresholds can be taken into account.
I knew my Friday night spreadsheeting would come in handy.
Not integrated credits into it yet, but, for comparison, (total) take-home pay of 2 people each working 40 hours at £7.50, assuming 47 working weeks, was/is as follows:
2009/10: 23306.51 2015/16: 25351.36
I.e., before tax credits are taken into account, £2000 better off.
So, effectively neutral, as the article states the tax credit change causes a decrease of £2k?
On the substantive issue of tax credits, does anyone have a genuine worked through example of someone who will be seriously worse off by the proposed changes in the round? It will need to include minimum wage rise, personal allowance increase and childcare subsidy increases over the past five years.
My hunch is that those badly affected are working exactly 16 hours a week, an artificial limit which is being removed by Universal Credit.
I posted this the other day:
The local Costa is advertising for staff at £7.50 per hour. A married couple, both working full time in said café, with 2 kids, will be £2068 per year worse off from next year according to the calculator in The Telegraph. If they have 3 kids, they will be £2500 worse off. A single parent, working full-time for £7.50/hour will be £1600/year worse off. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11726113/Budget-calculator-work-out-how-your-finances-have-changed.html
Not everyone on low wage is on minimum wage. The rise in the living wage will not necessarily help all low wage workers in the short run.
"Thirteen million UK families will lose £260 a year on average because of the Budget's tax and benefits changes, says the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS).
Tax credit changes could hit three million families, which are likely to lose an average of £1,000, it said.
Even taking into account higher wages, people receiving tax credits would be "significantly worse off", said Paul Johnson, director of the IFS." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33463864
It would be interesting to see a calculator comparing 2009/10 with 2015/16 or 16/17, so the full range of the changes to the income tax thresholds can be taken into account.
I knew my Friday night spreadsheeting would come in handy.
Not integrated credits into it yet, but, for comparison, (total) take-home pay of 2 people each working 40 hours at £7.50, assuming 47 working weeks, was/is as follows:
2009/10: 23306.51 2015/16: 25351.36
I.e., before tax credits are taken into account, £2000 better off.
So, effectively neutral, as the article states the tax credit change causes a decrease of £2k?
Depends if that's nominal or inflation adjusted.
What inflation?
Bank of England Inflation calculator: £23306.51 in 2009 is equivalent to £27,923.57 This is Money Calculator puts it at £27,775.65 (in 2014 Money)
This is because they use RPI (i.e. real infaltion) rather than CPI
Comments
The equivalent of Christ in Islam is the Qu'ran, not Mohammed. That Mohammed and Christ were both men is a detail. The theological relevance is that Christ was God incarnate. To muslims, Mohammed, by contrast, was a prophet - the greatest prophet to be sure and the one *through* whom God revealed the Qu'ran but a prophet, a man, all the same. In Islam, it is the book which represents God Incarnate: its contents are His words and His alone. By contrast, to Christians, the Bible is a rather different beast. Undoubtedly holy but *about* Christ and God; not *of* Him: a creation of man.
My reading of the Bible is that Jesus was probably a good man if he isn't fictional (or even if he is fictional then he is a positive fictional creation), but that God is quite wicked.
I await the time when a Muslim evangelist campaigns for the abolition of Sharia law, FGM, and the killing of gays without having to go into hiding.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34568574
"Home Secretary Theresa May said non-violent extremism could not go "uncontested" as it led to the erosion of women's rights, the spread of intolerance and bigotry and the separation of some communities "from the mainstream".
She said that applied to neo-Nazi extremism just as much as Islamist doctrine."
I'm counting the days until these powers are used to silence someone jokingly commenting on Facebook, or a UKIP supporter challenging how well some communities are integrating, or just someone who simply publicly disagrees with prevailing orthodoxy.
And many more will self-silence for fear of falling foul of the law.
Abe says, “Man, you must be puttin’ me on”
UN "To call for worldwide decriminalisation of drugs"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11940643/United-Nations-agency-calls-for-global-decriminalisation-of-drugs-says-Sir-Richard-Branson.html
Jesus didn't see the money-changing industry was vital to help fund local amphitheatres and leper colonies, as well as providing many much needed jobs.
Jerusalem's money changing industry was the envy of the ancient world until Jesus' heavy handed interventionism drove it to more lightly intimidated markets.
Given that God used to actively destroy entire towns for immorality (but ignore incestuous rape) or flood the entire world from time to time, I wonder what it would take for Him to step in and sort stuff out nowadays. Why the change of heart?
At bl88dy last.
The only people bricking it will be the dealers.
Until multinational business muscles in on the act, of course. That would be interesting.
legitimate business would finish gangsters off in a heartbeat.
Sadly since then Christianity has been reformed in leaps and bounds while some in Islam are going back not forwards.
Not integrated credits into it yet, but, for comparison, (total) take-home pay of 2 people each working 40 hours at £7.50, assuming 47 working weeks, was/is as follows:
2009/10: 23306.51
2015/16: 25351.36
I.e., before tax credits are taken into account, £2000 better off.
The Koran, on the other hand, represents the words of God himself as revealed by Mohamed, the Perfect man. Who wasn't averse to enslavement, rape and murder. As I understand it, it is a basic principle of Islam to follow the example of the prophet Mohamed and the Koran refers to this principle repeatedly.
Mr. Thompson, the Renaissance was also fuelled by Byzantine scholars and documents leaving the city in the run up to and aftermath of the city's fall.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermetica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsilio_Ficino
New Thread
The current laws around the world make no sense, the only models that work are the extremes on both sides, either Portugal or Singapore - some messy middle way as in most places helps no-one.
But either way it implies that to try to rationalise with and persuade god(s) on the same basis as one would with humans is both arrogant and absurd.
Now if your argument is that you cannot win an argument over beliefs using solely reason and rationality, I'd agree one hundred percent. But you don't need to introduce gods into the equation in order to make that argument.
Some are, like job seekers allowance.
This is Money Calculator puts it at £27,775.65 (in 2014 Money)
This is because they use RPI (i.e. real infaltion) rather than CPI