the summoning of a Marxist atheist

[downbeatplumb]

man i never knew a joke would cause so much hatred

oh well

Wheres the hatred?
We were just correcting a perceived error.
Jokes dont come across very well in text.

[bozo]

Sorry oscarstruk, don't get the joke! Maybe I don't share the humour of someone your age. I assure you no hatred has been directed at you!

[Violet]

man i never knew a joke would cause so much hatred

We aren't hating. I for one, am amused.

oh well

However, you should put a little more effort into it

---

man i never knew a joke would cause so much hatred

oh well

Wheres the hatred?
We were just correcting a perceived error.
Jokes dont come across very well in text.

Unless you use the following symbols:











:heartL



Etcetera.

[BloodyHeretic]

The Uk is a theocracy in the sense that the queen is head of state and head of the nationalised church. Nobody takes that seriously though, which is fortunate, because a church founded on the family values of Henry the 8th, taken seriously, would involve a lot of decapitation.

Hello comrade, welcome to the forum.

Checking my Chambers dictionary of theocracy " God, or a god, is regarded as the sole sovereign and the laws of the realm as divine commands rather than human ordinances--- the priesthood necessarily becoming the officers of the invisible ruler ".
Shit, we ain't got that just yet have we??

Oh dear, a bit of patriotism? Yes, there is a difference between a theocracy and a monarchy held "By the Grace of God". Thankfully the UK is not a theocracy. They might as well get rid of the Monarchy too and the ridiculous subsidised Church of England. It's a relic of the past.

[BethK]

The uk is not a theocracy. America comes closer even though its expressly forbidden to mix church
and state. I wonder what the US would look like if there wasnt that law?

I suspect that the US would look a little more theocratic than Iran without that law, at least in name, and
on a document which plenty of people have sworn oaths of office to uphold and defend.

I fear that it won't continue to be upheld, as long as there are cases in which it is broken and nothing is
done about it - either no one files suit (which is expensive), or someone sues and loses.

Cases in point I'm thinking of include a town in Oklahoma which I recently got out of that uses tax money
to fund Christian community centers, and a jail in South Carolina which only allows prisoners to keep
in their cells copies of the King James Bible, sent from one particular printer of that Southern Baptist
version, and only a leather-bound copy of it. No modern English Bibles. No Catholic Bibles. No Korans.
No Heart Sutra. No Vedas. No letters from their family. No communications with their attorney. No
books concerning the law to help them mount their own defense. No educational materials. No (other
) fiction books. The amazing thing is that this law has been upheld in courts when challenged!

While there are to be no religious tests for public office, in the high military ranks not being a Christian
and of any of several mainline faiths seems to be a requirement for promotion into or through those high
ranks. Irreligious people are seldom elected to public office at the national level, or even high state
levels (e.g. State Governors). According to a Pew Research Center survey on what features make
someone more or less likely to vote for a candidate, 6 in 10 US citizens would not support an atheist
candidate. Professing atheism made one less attractive as a candidate than one who had never before
held public office, was a minority, was a woman, was gay, had used drugs, or had an extramarital affair.
http://www.secular.org/blogs/mike-meno/s...te-atheist

That seems odd to have as a top priority in a country that has no religious test for public office - the
public demands such a test and won't vote for someone who "fails" such a test.

[Cinjin]

Keep in mind he's 14 people.


Welcome.

[HeyItsZeus]

Marxism is stupid.

[Violet]

Marxism is stupid.

What is Marxism?

Keep in mind he's 14 people.

A miniature borg collective

[bozo]

Marxism is stupid.

Why? Marx laid out how socialism could replace capitalism by means of a proletarian revolution. Unfortunately, so far the proletariat has not emancipated itself , so Marx's prediction has not yet come to pass. However, he did leave us the wonderfully inspiring communist manifesto which concludes:-
" Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE! "
( note, Marx was writing in advance of womens' liberation! )

[downbeatplumb]

Marxism is stupid.

No it isn't, Soviet communism is stupid.

Marxism was designed for an economy based on industry,(like the USA), but was applied to an agricultural society (and badly at that) in Russia.

for Sae

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

What marxism set out to do was fix the percieved injustice of the capitalist system whereby a few workshy rich people lived of the sweat off the masses like parasites, taking the majority of the money and doing little or no work.

The principle was that everyone worked for the 'good of all' with everyone benefitting to the same extent.

Instead of working for rich owners they would be working for themselves. A good expample of this is the English shop Waitrose.

Unlike other major supermarkets, Waitrose isn't owned by shareholders and the City. Instead, as part of the John Lewis Partnership, it's owned by everyone who works for the Partnership. (That's why Waitrose staff are called 'partners'.) And every year they share the profits that would normally go to shareholders. As you would expect this produces an extraordinary high level of committment amongst those who work in our stores.

Ironically Waitrose is where the middle class shop.