Burnieman Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 That is not what secular means. There is nothing in the definition about separation of church and state. Religion should not influence government decision, but that is not relevant to the question being asked.It's exactly what it means, and in a secular society a church has no more standing than a pub or hairdressers. Enjoy yer night.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G51 Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 1 minute ago, Left Back said: a secular society is exactly that where the church has no influence over government policy. Agreed - but this is not what was being contested. Scotland is a secular society with church and state separated - correct. Scotland is a multi-faith country with a large number of secular people - also correct. There is no contradiction between those two statements. Both things are good. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superbigal Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 Per 100 thousand surely?!Corrected per million 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Am Featha Taigh Nan Clach Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 Distinct lack of deeply concerned 'well, they're going to have to do x no. vaccinations a day to hit the mid Feb target now!' posts in the last week or so. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 7 minutes ago, G51 said: The economy is not a justification for re-opening businesses. Especially when you consider that the economy is little more than the moral teachings of Adam Smith. This sounds a lot less clever than you think it does. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PWL Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 Can the opposition parties not ask a sensible question with regards to timetable and conditions for easing restrictions rather than focusing on the non issue of Mr Tickle Salmond?! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 21 minutes ago, latapythelegend said: So does the fact that some people can afford multiple holidays a year (probably less than 10% of the general population) mean they should be able to go where and when they want? Some retirees who want to spend the winter in the sun for months on end probably have a very comfortable life at home anyway through lockdown so cry me a river. The general point still stands. Well Yes !!! Incidentally, it doesn't cost very much for a long stay in November - March, I could do you 5 weeks to Portugal, 4* SC with flights included for under £250 per person. Just pm me ! Long weekend to Poland (3 nts), 5* B&B, flights included for under £150 per person. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forest_Fifer Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 Sadly writing a book is beyond Grant, instead it's one of these, a truly bizarre thing to have on your book shelf.Maybe it's just so that people will know who the f**k he is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 57 minutes ago, Marshmallo said: https://news.stv.tv/scotland/scotland-set-for-return-to-levels-system-as-lockdown-eases?top Leitch saying a few things of note here: - Likely to go back to tiers as we begin to roll back restrictions - 100 cases per 100k nationally is "too high" to begin looking at opening anything up - Schools the priority along with "places of worship" where we will take a national approach God-bothering weirdo confirmed. Get him punted now. 56 minutes ago, latapythelegend said: No it's a fortunate bonus to day to day life. Nobody a sunshine holiday to get by, we all enjoy them but its not a necessity. Freedom of travel is a fundamental liberty enjoyed in the West for decades and the state has no right to declare what kind of travel is acceptable except under extreme duress. The summer of 2021 is not such a scenario. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, G51 said: Agreed - but this is not what was being contested. Scotland is a secular society with church and state separated - correct. Scotland is a multi-faith country with a large number of secular people - also correct. There is no contradiction between those two statements. Both things are good. so therefore in a secular society why is religion any more important than going to the gym for example. religious people believe worship helps their well-being. Fitness freaks believe going to the gym helps their well-being. Don't repeat the argument about wider community assistance. many other organisations (such as football clubs) also do that to one extent or another. ETA I neither attend a place or worship or a gym so don't actually care about either. Edited February 10, 2021 by Left Back 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 4 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said: This ^^^ If the vaccines have been approved too early and aren't as effective than needed to open back up just admit that as that's what it's beginning to sound like. However we know there will be no admission of error never mind guilt from Johnson and co. The great British summer was the rhetoric just 2 weeks ago, what has changed or is it just more populist soundbites ? It seems to me like people are interpreting pretty vague statements however they like really. For example, it wouldn’t surprise me one but if there were still “restrictions” this time next year. But I don’t take that to mean no football, no pub, no holidays. I take it to mean that there might still be travel restrictions to/from places with high prevalence/new variants or whatever. Or maybe a limit on the size of indoor crowds while we see if the vaccines have been as effective as advertised and are as long lasting as required through the winter months. But not a full on lockdown. In three weeks time the million most vulnerable Scots will be experiencing a good level of protection from their first dose, and anything up to another million may have had their first dose and are just waiting on it to kick in. By that stage we should see hospitalisation and death rates plummet. Hopefully. But nobody in a position of power having seen what has gone before is going to want to over promise in any way, shape or form. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 But religion is, to be quite blunt, not real. We shouldn't be bending over backwards to prioritise and appease people who live their lives based on what a fictional character says.Ooooft, too far. That's a whole different subject that should be nowhere near this thread regardless of whether churches are open or closed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renton Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 4 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said: This ^^^ If the vaccines have been approved too early and aren't as effective than needed to open back up just admit that as that's what it's beginning to sound like. However we know there will be no admission of error never mind guilt from Johnson and co. The great British summer was the rhetoric just 2 weeks ago, what has changed or is it just more populist soundbites ? Bare in mind that they are still talking about two to three weeks after vaccination to see an impact in terms of protection. If you think about the fact it is Mid February before they have jabbed through the majority of vulnerable groups then it's likely March before we start to see a measurable impact. Data coming out of Israel is encouraging. It took them a while to see the results of vaccinations and they have been obviously chewing through it at a much higher rate than anyone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy Jean King Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 Distinct lack of deeply concerned 'well, they're going to have to do x no. vaccinations a day to hit the mid Feb target now!' posts in the last week or so. Aye it's all gone Kirk session and Sunday school. Some place ! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 2 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said: 12 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: But religion is, to be quite blunt, not real. We shouldn't be bending over backwards to prioritise and appease people who live their lives based on what a fictional character says. Ooooft, too far. That's a whole different subject that should be nowhere near this thread regardless of whether churches are open or closed. Why? It's true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambomo Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said: This ^^^ If the vaccines have been approved too early and aren't as effective than needed to open back up just admit that as that's what it's beginning to sound like. However we know there will be no admission of error never mind guilt from Johnson and co. The great British summer was the rhetoric just 2 weeks ago, what has changed or is it just more populist soundbites ? The point is that right now they don’t know for sure. The roll-out of the vaccine is still a massive data collection stage where they can look at variables that come into play not found within the trials. They collect and study this over a period of time, so we need a good few months worth of data to have a full picture that it’s effective, how effective against not just death but possible serious illness, any unforeseen issues (I.e they found some people allergic to the Pfizer vaccine early on) it’s efficacy against different strains. The trial data and roll out data elsewhere (I.e Israel) all look really positive but it takes time to know for definite and it’ll actually be the opening up of things that is the real crunch time. - so I don’t expect that to be much longer after the majority of people are vaccinated. It’s a bit like hillwalking, although we are near the end of this, the walk back down can be longer than it looks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 Just now, Todd_is_God said: Why? It's true. It's not true if people believe in it. Something doesn't have to be factual to be true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G51 Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 6 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: But religion is, to be quite blunt, not real. We shouldn't be bending over backwards to prioritise and appease people who live their lives based on what a fictional character says. Well religion clearly is real, given we have organised religions all over the world. It would be quite difficult to attend mass at St Peters Square and conclude that religion isn't real. Wars have been fought and people have died for centuries because of religion. You can argue over whether the stories told in the books are factually accurate, or whether the people mentioned in the books even existed, but this isn't really relevant. A majority of people in this world are religious, and a significant minority in Scotland are, and they believe that these various books and stories are real and live their lives from the teachings and morals imparted by these religions. Whether you consider that to be right or wrong, or whether you consider them to be foolish for doing so, is not relevant. They do it. And people live their whole lives following these religions. Not being able to practice their faith has a tremendously negative effect on them - it affects them in ways that non-religious people like you or me cannot really gauge. I know the pandemic is tough on everyone right now, but I think it's pretty poor behaviour when we get to the stage of mocking people for being religious and telling them their religion isn't "real". When we get to that stage, we've lost the run of ourselves. I never thought I'd see people who define themselves as "progressive" mocking religion. Certainly, to my mind at least, it is much more important to restore faith to these people and ensure we don't discriminate against religious people, than it is to open non-essential businesses because of the economy. The money generated by businesses can easily be replaced by the Government - if it is not doing so, then the people need to demonstrate that they're unhappy with that. It is ironic that people are trying to say "religion isn't important because it's simply moral philosophy" while simultaneously trying to use economics to justify the reintroduction of business, given that economics is simply a discipline of modern philosophy (hence why it has many different flavours and no one can really agree on what is right and wrong). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 3 minutes ago, Left Back said: It's not true if people believe in it. Something doesn't have to be factual to be true. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted February 10, 2021 Share Posted February 10, 2021 2 minutes ago, G51 said: Well religion clearly is real, given we have organised religions all over the world. It would be quite difficult to attend mass at St Peters Square and conclude that religion isn't real. Wars have been fought and people have died for centuries because of religion. You can argue over whether the stories told in the books are factually accurate, or whether the people mentioned in the books even existed, but this isn't really relevant. A majority of people in this world are religious, and a significant minority in Scotland are, and they believe that these various books and stories are real and live their lives from the teachings and morals imparted by these religions. Whether you consider that to be right or wrong, or whether you consider them to be foolish for doing so, is not relevant. They do it. And people live their whole lives following these religions. Not being able to practice their faith has a tremendously negative effect on them - it affects them in ways that non-religious people like you or me cannot really gauge. I know the pandemic is tough on everyone right now, but I think it's pretty poor behaviour when we get to the stage of mocking people for being religious and telling them their religion isn't "real". When we get to that stage, we've lost the run of ourselves. I never thought I'd see people who define themselves as "progressive" mocking religion. Certainly, to my mind at least, it is much more important to restore faith to these people and ensure we don't discriminate against religious people, than it is to open non-essential businesses because of the economy. The money generated by businesses can easily be replaced by the Government - if it is not doing so, then the people need to demonstrate that they're unhappy with that. It is ironic that people are trying to say "religion isn't important because it's simply moral philosophy" while simultaneously trying to use economics to justify the reintroduction of business, given that economics is simply a discipline of modern philosophy (hence why it has many different flavours and no one can really agree on what is right and wrong). People are free to believe whatever storybook they like. It doesn't make them any more important, though. If gatherings are deemed unsafe in general, then i'm afraid that includes religious ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.