E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Islam combines is unique in combining all the worst problems from other religions into a totalitarian and inflexible ideology.

Big difference is that in Christianity most of the old testament is disregarded aside from the 10 commandments, hence being able to eat pork and many other things. The reality is that Christianity doesn't require a system of state, those who participate in the religion may bring their personal values to their office or enforce a Christian state but the ideology doesn't require this.

Also it were no coincidence that Christianity's power diminished and reformation happened even within Catholicism and also its role in the state upon the advent of the printing press and the demand that the bible be accessible in languages other than Latin. Before that the power of the theocrats was absolute because they had a monopoly on the knowledge. Effectively they could lie to people about what the bible says.

I knew Judaism would come up in reply. Firstly there are major differences that make Judaism much less of an issue just on the religion in that it is not an expansionist religion. Also as hitchens speculated that is why so many jews are secular or cultural jews.

But the further attests to the point that religious Islam cannot be solved by reformation but by simply not actually believing in that religion whilst culturally still being a nominal Muslim.

They do its called abrogation, you'll struggle to find many mainstream Islamic scholars or imams who don't believe that the later texts in islam take precedence against the earlier. In Christianity the new testament takes precedent over the old in all areas that are not considered fundamental, the old covenant vs the new covenant. Furthermore to the point is the new covenant is based upon personally making yourself morally righteous before god to the point of tolerating and helping those who reject Jesus and are sinners without seeking forgiveness, whereas Islam requires making yourself morally righteous before god by also enforcing the laws of that god on others as well as yourself.

There's a big difference between, misusing a flexible, moral personal ideology tied to a religion that is centred around the person to control people, from your own moral standpoint, on individual freedoms derived from a religion.

And a using, to its true intentions and purposes, an expansionary political totalitarian ideology tied to a religion, centred around a collective responsibility, to enforce on others a totalitarian collective moral standpoint on individual freedoms derived from a religion.

Most those differences come over the question of which of the hadiths are true or not, the koran is the infallible last word of god and any inconsistencies are overridden by an explanation that they were only temporary and that the later revelations were applicable from then on. Most of the differences in the accepted hadith derives from who should have succeeded Muhammad.

The old testament is the old covenant and only from an extremist and fundamentalist viewpoint could someone come to the conclusion that the old covenant applies as much as the new since the new has been fulfilled by Christ.

It's not fundamentalist and extremist religious islam that is a terrible ideology.... it is Islam itself that is.

That would be silly because they aren't always however individual freedoms of classical liberalism only occur in liberal democracies. Not that it unquestionably good but that it is unquestionably better than a tyranny of the likes of Islam, communism and fascism.

And not just that; religious Islam is a more totalitarian, a more destructive, a more inflexible and more intolerant ideology than communism or fascism ever was or will be never mind comparisons to other religions.

Many "progressives" have a problem with the word better in relation to culture, nations and ideology:

There is nothing in Christianity that requires you to enact a totalitarian set of ideals on others. My religion is not Christianity, in fact it is no religion at all. You could be an extremely devout Christian and nothing that is truly Christian would require you to enforce your religion on others through totalitarian practice that Islam itself by its true doctrine commands.

It's not about a trivial matter of winning a "pissing contest" but an important matter of recognising a doctrine that if adhered to is worse than that of the tyranny of state capitalism (communism) and fascism; never mind comparisons to the intolerance of other religions. It needs to be called out as such when it is claimed to have some equivalence to other religions.

And none of this is to say that other ideologies and/or religions do not have their own problems merely that Islam is the worst and will remain so for as long as there are a significant amount of Muslims that are not just simply cultural, nominal or very selective (to the point of apostasy) Muslims.

As fun as theological and ideological discussions can be, WTF does this have to do with Brexit!?!?!.

 

If I was arsed, I could probably dig up something in the bible to base a christian version of a jihad on, but that's not the point. The point is, no religion has anything to offer a modern society other than oppression and fairy tails. The only way the two can co-exist is when religion takes a massive chill pill. They are all a scourge that continue to hold back humanity.

Try using a bigger font, you might be able to get the thread back on track that way

 

I don't think you will in the new testament nor will you find support in the teachings of Christ for a totalitarian ideology of the kind islam is in the new covenant without poisoning it. Whereas Islam is totalitarian from root to branch it doesn't need poisoning because it absolutely is poison to a free society.

Noted Get back on track fools

Oh I need to shut up too....

 

That is an entirely different, and subjective, argument.

That is again not entirely true. Various flavours of Christianity are pretty strict in their interpretation of the text. There is no Christian theocracy at the moment (if we rule out the Vatican) but in the US you still have little chance making it to President if you are an atheist. Meanwhile there are many Muslims living happily in this here Christian country, and even manage to leave their personal values out of office.

That is an unrelated point, but in Islam every believer is supposed to know the verses more or less by heart (although often they don't), and even then how people choose to interpret them can vary widely.

That is again a different argument. However I think you should read the Old Testament again. They don't go around recruiting, but they sure used to go about conquering.

The Turks manage it.

Again you are straying into your personal interpretations of Islam vs Christianity. We both know that both religions are interpreted in different ways by different subgroups of those religions.

When you put it like that, you make Islam and Christianity sound rather similar. I refer you to the Crusades, the role of Christianity in Western Colonialism and slavery and the messy history of Catholicism vs Protestantism in Europe.

I think that both Judaism and Christianity had their moments too, but had centuries more time to mellow out a bit.

Why don't you ask people in previously quite secular Middle East countries like Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan how they feel about the tyranny of liberal democracy and communism turning their countries into fundamentalist Islamic ones.

Again subjective judgement (compare ISIS and the Khmer Rouge, for instance), you're just repeating yourself now, and when you start talking about those "progressives" (you sure do like putting things in categories, do you?) I know it's time to bow out.

Back on topic.

 

Just because something is done in the name of Christianity doesn't mean it is mandated by Christianity itself, whereas in Islam it is mandated by the doctrine itself.

It's not just a category of my making but what people consider themselves and what their ideology amounts to and it's not like you don't do it yourself, and it's not like you don't consider yourself belonging to certain categories of values.

Just as an aside on political categories: there is an infiltration of authoritarian in liberal's clothing, regressive in progressive clothing has caused a situation in which the authority of those words is being used by people who are the antithesis to those movements values. To promote fundamentally illiberal and regressive policies that have been termed reverse racist, reverse sexist, positive discrimination, equality etc which are nothing other than racist, sexist, discrimination and equality of outcome etc (not opportunity).

Morality, values and ideology is ultimately subjective and held for subjective reasons doesn't mean that we didn't identify ideologies totalitarian from their very core roots like communism or fascism as an antithesis to individual freedom. I see this as being one of those things that governments and people wont realise till its too late and when they do it will risk a hasty move into likewise illiberal, regressive and totalitarian response, when it could be solved by a classically liberal response. It'll be the defining ideological tests of true liberalism and democracy in the early parts of the 21st century if foreign policy continues in the fashion it has for the last 36 years. But anyway I'm done on this.

We're probably off topic because with parliament out there's bugger all going on. (let's see if we can, I think you managed a farage is a hypocrite thing about German citizenship)

Well aside from the guardian saying it expects the claimant count to rise by 9000 and it falls by 8500 in july and then the same with retail spending to be poor or fall but has a robust rise of 1.4%. I mean these are poor measures but I wish they'd see that it's foolish to make predictions salivating for some brexit vote fallout on early poor data. These apparent surveys of economists predicting doom and gloom need to realise that they are doing damage to the profession in making predictions that forget the actual theory or parts of it, as Krugman stated in conscience of a liberal, in relation to the post brexit vote uncertainty recession.

 

The current barrage of articles proclaiming both that the UK is fine and going down the drain merely are symptomatic of the real problem the EU Referendum has brought to the UK: uncertainty.

Brexit hasn't happened. Brexit may never happened. Brexit may mean WTO. Brexit may mean EEA. Brexit may mean something else.

Nobody knows.

At the moment there is some careful optimism while any company capable of such is hedging their bets, along with UK banks and financial institutes renting office space in Frankfurt and Paris. Plan A is still 'everything goes on as it always has', while Plan B is 'GTFO of the UK' in case of Article 50 being triggered.

Which may happen next year. Maybe.

 

But that was the problem, loud proclamations that uncertainty was going to certainly cause a significant downturn (without also looking at the fact that when certainty happens, investment that was put off happens ) have led to a state where the remainers who could have gotten a strong position from being realists rather than fantasists about the fallout are setting themselves up for failure and discreditation.

What's worse about this is that the predictions are coming from economists who are not really using the theory but a "WOO FREE TRADE" sentiment and being selective in applying theory and through this are continuing to discredit the profession further when in reality it's not the economics that is the problem it is the economists.

Inevitably when the predictions don't show up what happens is a movement to "article 50 will cause all this just you wait and see... ohhh yes you'll see" but then people will say "You said that about the leave vote so we will see."

If the death of the firstborn predictions don't turn out to be reality then I can definitely see that the hard-line remain side and the economists backing them will move the goal posts each time along the process which will discredit themselves each time they do, and what is worse for me it will further discredit an entire subject simply because its academics were using a selective reasoning in drawing from their subject and assuming their own conclusions.

(almost back on topic)

 

Economists will often times help create the economical future they predicted because business will adjust and act in accordance to those very predictions and hey presto, it now become our reality.

 

Wasn't a lot of the doom saying based on the fact that Mr Cameron said he'd trigger Article 50 immediately though, something that's since been proven to be untrue.

I find it more amusing that articles are saying everything is fine, they point to charts and numbers as proof that everything's fine but fail to see that just the result from the referendum resulted in the effects they cite in their articles, i guess what I'm trying to say is if a country doing nothing more than stating an opinion causes this much turmoil what's going to happen when that opinion turns into action.

 

Double standards much?

As for Brexit, Elledan says it best:

And as Corky42 points out, all the doom predictions were predicated on Cameron triggering Article 50 immediately, which he didn't do, and which none of the Brexiteers has yet done. In fact we don't even know when they will. But the mere idea of it sent the Pound plummeting and rocked the market, so that ought to tell you something.

But now we see an interesting new narrative develop around Brexit with Pro-Leave The Telegraph explaining how complex Brexit will actually be, and urging that it should not be rushed but a careful and considered process. Even The Express is now posting articles suggesting that it is the EU that is pushing for a speedy Brexit --thus seeding psychological reactance in its fringe lunatic readership going: "Oh yeah? We'll take as long as we want!" (Well played, Desmond. BTW I wonder how many of your readers know that you are of proud Latvian-Ukrainian Jewish descent ).

It is becoming clear that Brexit is undergoing a reality adjustment.

Meanwhile I would not attach too much significance to consumer confidence (especially consumers with this kind of financial management skills), nor to data from only one month past a referendum the result of which came as a bit of a surprise to everybody. We'll see how things go when Article 50 is actually triggered.

Which may happen next year. Maybe.

 

Yikes. I can't imagine going in to debt to buy things or holidays or other junk that I want rather than need.

 

This could go in the demote thread.
I hope those polls weren't representative. How can people be so irresponsible?

 

Meanwhile corky and nexxo:

Meanwhile guardian economics editor appears to be one of the few at guardian towers with any sense:

Brexit Armageddon was a terrifying vision – but it simply hasn’t happened- Larry Elliott

my thoughts exactly

 

We don't really need a copy paste of the article you've linked, just the bold bit that you agree with

On the other side of the project fear aisle - Turkey still hasn't invaded.

 

Pretty much agree with it all...
I was going to highlight more and that needs context, but if I din't do the entire article then the risk is run that a 20 post argument about being selective in quoting could happen, I'd rather just have the entire article.

 

Make no mistake: Brexit hasn't happened yet. We don't even know what Brexit is. neither does the team in charge, it seems.

So the markets are adopting a wait and see approach: freeze hiring and investment while carrying on with business. Consumers haven't got a clue as usual so they are spending as usual. Let's rack up some more credit card debt. I wouldn't read too much in that.

But the mere rumour that Article 50 might get triggered in April sent the Pound down again. That ought to tell you something.

 

That's very disingenuous, it wasn't Nexxo or myself that moved the goal posts it was Mr Cameron who done so when he didn't follow through on what he'd previously said.

Also that article in the guardian has holes in it large enough to drive a house through, such as the claim that the 1.4% jump in retail sales in July is down to the weather and the Olympics, the weather was average for July and the Olympics was another week away.

At that point i stopped reading as the author seemed a bit dumb, however now I've got more time maybe I'll pick some more holes in it.

This one made me laugh though "The financial markets are serene" maybe the author hasn't noticed the 10% fall in sterling and the £300 billion of quantitative easing.

Then there's his claim that Britain was supposed to be reeling from the emergency budget, true that it never came to fruition but when you consider the public finances surplus was lower than expected in July by something like £200-600 million it's not difficult to see where a £30 billion black hole would come from, and that's even before we've enacted what was promised before the referendum, triggering Article 50.

 

Disequilibria is an expert in the subject. Every time his argument is challenged, he just changes the argument.

He should be in charge of Brexit, really.


Or StingLikeABee TheGreatPretender, who keeps asking us what we think Brexit should mean but never puts his own view forward.

 

You are starting to sound quite childish there Nexxo. Can't win an argument so go on the personal attack? Disequilibria has a valid point, that the impending doom we were promised would happen if people voted in favour of leaving the EU has never materialised yet. Things may indeed take a turn for the worse when Article 50 is invoked, but we were told that the result alone of the referendum would be enough to plunge us into a deep recession.

 

I don't have to 'win' the argument. The predictions of adverse economical effects have been demonstrated by the Pound dropping so rapidly in value that it has become the worst performing main currency this year, and even yesterday's rumour of Article 50 being triggered in April 2017 causing it to drop again.

They have also been demonstrated by Article 50 having, in fact, not been triggered and no date having been put forward when it will. We were told that if people voted Leave, Cameron would invoke Article 50 immediately, so naturally predictions were predicated on that. Instead he chose to walk away. May handed control of the process to the Brexiteers. If they are so confident that the UK will in fact be just fine, why haven't they pulled the trigger yet?

Seems to me that impending doom has not materialised because Brexit has not materialised: no Brexit plan, nor Brexit date. Instead we see pro-Leave newspapers like the Telegraph constructing a new narrative of how Brexit is actually going to be really complicated and should not be rushed --a far cry from the original: we vote Leave, we pull the trigger the week after. It seems to me that the Brexiteers-in-chief themselves are afraid of the economic consequences of Brexit. The only people still pushing for it are lightweight nobodies like Andrea Leadsome, John Redwood and Ian Duncan Smith.

Farage? Too busy queuing up in the German embassy to ensure his kids retain German citizenship while planning his retirement in France.

But seeing as you're here: what would you like Brexit to look like?