On 16/05/2026 14:05, John wrote:
The trade unions fund the Labour party, it's how it started in the
first place.
Indeed, but it's a pity that voters fail to realise that the Labour
Party only exists for the unions, especially the big unions, and if you
are outside the big unions you should expect to be screwed.
Which hasn't come in yet, but the proposal is a 1p increase in
September, a 2p increase in December, and a further 2p in March.-a You
have to remember that this only puts it back to what it was in 2022,
when a 5p temporary cut was announced because of fuel rocketing (pun
unintended) in price due to the Ukraine war, although I don't think
that will go ahead if prices remain high.
Even an extra 2p will make a hole in my pocket.
Not true, If they were raising every other tax they can think of the
obvious one would be income tax, yet they haven't (although to be fair
they did moot it, with a move to reduce nat ins by the same amount)
Taxing private schools, taxing hotel stays, the ridiculous exorbitant
tax on new vehicles, and many others.
Incidentally I'm as dismayed as you probably are that they haven't
increased personal allowance, instead extending the freeze by a
further 3 years.
So they have increased income tax (by stealth and only so that it will affect the poorest, not the richest).
Soft left, which is where I would imagine Jesus would be.-a AB's done
some good work in Manchester, lets put it this way, it should be an
improvement on what we have now.
I see no reason to suspect that the left-wing can in any way be an improvement, even on the apalling mess that we now have.
On 16/05/2026 14:50, John wrote:
Under the previous Government the rich got richer and the poor got
poorer.
The rich got richer, but so did the poorer, provided they worked.
I'm not a tax the rich to extinction believer but I do believe in
fairer distribution of wealth.-a If the poorer people get a fairer
distribution they will spend that money and help the economy grow.
The rich won't do that, because they already have what they need.
My point is that tax does not make the poor richer, it merely penalises
the wealth-creators.
Long gone are the days of 80% tax, the maximum is 45% on earned income
nowadays, on anyone who earns more than -u125,000 a year-a (although you
lose -u1 of personal allowance for every -u2 earned over 100k, which is
an effective tax rate of up to 60%)
So at 45% instead of my notional 80%, the amount the poor will get in my highly hypothetical situation is reduced to 36p instead of 64p. That is really going to help the economy grow!
[Tesco is] a success story, everyone benefits.-a But lets say we ask Mr
Murphy to pay an extra 250,000 in tax. He's still comfortably rich,
and that 1/4 million, when combined with taking a bit extra of all
rich people, gives the Government additional money to invest in
growth, which in turn allows smaller business to increase profits and
pay better wages.
-u250,000 is peanuts. Exactly how would that "invest in growth"? How many apprenticeships, for example, would that paltry sum provide?
On 16/05/2026 17:21, GB wrote:
I vaguely remember the days when the top rate of income tax was 83%,
and there was an unearned income surcharge of 15%, making it 98% for
some people.
In fact I am told that during the first World War the government played
on patriotic feelings and at least some landed gentry were paying
something like 105% income tax - ie. more than their income.
The result was not a mass exodus, but very very careful tax planning.
It distorted the way wealthy people were paid and the way they
invested (for capital gains rather than income). Where they could,
they kept their money offshore. And, of course, there must have been a
fair amount of straightforward tax evasion.
And thereby the tax was avoided and the alleged redistribution of wealth
did not take place.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I think I've only been in a union once, back in 1979 when I worked for
the Post Office for 9 months. A true labour party is still the one that
will treat me the best, possibly with the Lib Dems. If you are really as hard up as you suggest, I'm surprised your politics lean towards the Conservatives. Since being an adult, I was better off in the Blair/Brown years.
In that case you're already screwed, because petrol has risen
approximately an extra 25p a litre and diesel a staggering 50p. I take
it you haven't been out since 28th February?
There's still a lot of taxes they haven't put up, so your comment was untrue.
The conservatives were just as bad though.
Without those pesky unions though we'd probably be on
-u7 an hour, a weeks holiday a year, no sick pay etc etc etc.
Why not? I totally agree that the Starmer/Reeves partnership has doneCertainly there is always unpredictability. I do not expect an
little to improve the lot of the man on the street who is on or just
above minimum wage, but with a new man at the helm who knows?
In relative terms that isn't true, and certainly not true for those who
were unemployed.
Under the present Government and the previous one I would most certainly agree, but wealth creation isn't about tax, and there are far more billionaires in this country now than 16 years ago.-a Have they all
created wealth that makes the country better, have they heck. As you
said, the sly ones will use (legal) loopholes to avoid tax.
What's needed is wealth creation at the bottom and middle, not at the
top. Creating tax cuts for the rich doesn't benefit the poor, it never
has. No point in having a fat cat employing 1000 on minimum wage if his obscene profits are squandered on his own life pleasures.
As a poor person yourself, I'm highly surprised that you advocate theI certainly do not what to see anyone detrimented. Both my late father
rich getting richer, in general to the detriment of us poor sods.
Many of them were paying with their childrenrCOs' lives, too.
Given the absolutely ginormous advantage the defenders had in WW1, it's surprising that both sides kept mounting ruinous offensives.
By the way, I wonder if you could help me, please. There is a passage
in the Talmud, Tractate Baba Kama, which says:
It is permitted to fish with an angle in the
Sea of Tiberias, provided that no sail is
spread, as this would detain boats. Our
Rabbis taught, rCLThe tribes stipulated with
one another at the very outset that nobody
should spread a sail and thus detain boats.rCY
Do you know - or can you find out - what this "detain boats" means?
How would using sails, as opposed to rowing, "detain" a boat?
On 18/05/2026 11:27, John wrote:
I think I've only been in a union once, back in 1979 when I worked for
the Post Office for 9 months. A true labour party is still the one
that will treat me the best, possibly with the Lib Dems. If you are
really as hard up as you suggest, I'm surprised your politics lean
towards the Conservatives. Since being an adult, I was better off in
the Blair/Brown years.
Remind me who it was that killed off final salary pension schemes? And
your talk of a "true labour party" reminds me of an ex-poster who was
always on about "true Muslims". There did not seem to be any of those mythical creatures around these days, but he still hankered after them.
In that case you're already screwed, because petrol has risen
approximately an extra 25p a litre and diesel a staggering 50p. I take
it you haven't been out since 28th February?
I know, but I still prefer 50p to 52p!
There's still a lot of taxes they haven't put up, so your comment was
untrue.
I don't think it is lack of desire if there is a tax or two they have
not increased, it is a realisation that people can only be pushed so far.
The conservatives were just as bad though.
Bad, but I'm not sure about "just as bad".
Without those pesky unions though we'd probably be on -u7 an hour, a
weeks holiday a year, no sick pay etc etc etc.
I don't deny that unions have achieved some good, though I suspect that
the laws of supply and demand would have produced similar results. If
you offer -u7 and no one bites, you end up offering -u8 just to get workers.
Why not? I totally agree that the Starmer/Reeves partnership has doneCertainly there is always unpredictability. I do not expect an
little to improve the lot of the man on the street who is on or just
above minimum wage, but with a new man at the helm who knows?
improvement, but who knows?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 18/05/2026 11:27, John wrote:
I think I've only been in a union once, back in 1979 when I worked for
the Post Office for 9 months. A true labour party is still the one
that will treat me the best, possibly with the Lib Dems. If you are
really as hard up as you suggest, I'm surprised your politics lean
towards the Conservatives. Since being an adult, I was better off in
the Blair/Brown years.
Remind me who it was that killed off final salary pension schemes? And
your talk of a "true labour party" reminds me of an ex-poster who was
always on about "true Muslims". There did not seem to be any of those mythical creatures around these days, but he still hankered after them.
Without those pesky unions though we'd probably be on -u7 an hour, a
weeks holiday a year, no sick pay etc etc etc.
I don't deny that unions have achieved some good, though I suspect that
the laws of supply and demand would have produced similar results. If
you offer -u7 and no one bites, you end up offering -u8 just to get workers.
Why not? I totally agree that the Starmer/Reeves partnership has done
little to improve the lot of the man on the street who is on or just
above minimum wage, but with a new man at the helm who knows?
Certainly there is always unpredictability. I do not expect an
improvement, but who knows?
On 18/05/2026 11:43, John wrote:
In relative terms that isn't true, and certainly not true for those
who were unemployed.
The moral being to stop being unemployed.
Which is a horrid thing to say if you are unemployed because of
disability or illness or if the factory has closed down, or something
like that. (Mind you, even in the latter case, Tebbit's "on your bike" comment is not entirely without merit.)
However I know of many up here who make no effort to find work and are content to bludge off the system. I begrudge every penny such people receive.
Under the present Government and the previous one I would most
certainly agree, but wealth creation isn't about tax, and there are
far more billionaires in this country now than 16 years ago.-a Have
they all created wealth that makes the country better, have they heck.
As you said, the sly ones will use (legal) loopholes to avoid tax.
Have you noticed how fly-tipping has increased as councils have made
access to tips more difficult and expensive? It's a peculiarity of human nature that if you make something difficult and expensive, people will
find a way round it. Both tax avoidance and evasion would virtually disappear if taxes were drastically reduced. Which isn't going to
happen, but I'm just saying.
What's needed is wealth creation at the bottom and middle, not at the
top. Creating tax cuts for the rich doesn't benefit the poor, it never
has. No point in having a fat cat employing 1000 on minimum wage if
his obscene profits are squandered on his own life pleasures.
Unless said rich person grows his own food and makes his own clothes,
his squandering *does* benefit the less well-off as well as the economy.
If the Beckhams throw a lavish party, where do you think they get the potatoes? And who does the washing up?
As a poor person yourself, I'm highly surprised that you advocate theI certainly do not what to see anyone detrimented. Both my late father
rich getting richer, in general to the detriment of us poor sods.
and my sons have the midas touch. Me? I couldn't sell coal to eskimos. I
see no reason why those who can should not be rewarded for their skills.
One son is, I suspect, a millionaire, but to become that he has to
employ nearly 100 people. I think he pays them properly if not
generously, but of course none of them are millionaires. But how would anyone be better off if he was forced to close down his business, sack
all his employees, and become a minimum-wage earner?
Whilst not claiming to know too much about financial salary pension
schemes, I do know they were becoming increasingly unaffordable.
What's your definition of a true Labour party?
I experienced that supply and demand. Tax drivers received about -u2 an
hour at the time minimum wage came in, security guards the same.-a When I started taxi driving 10 years before it was -u1.20--u1.50-a The minimum
wage was -u3.60
I can't say for certain I'll be proved right, but I certainly hope so.We all hope so.
Even on a full -u146 a week I'd struggle.
Only thing extra we have to pay at our tip is rubble.
If you're
claiming tax avoidance or evasion would disapear if taxes were lower
then I have a bridge to sell if you're interested. Those most able to
pay are the worst at avoiding tax, generally speaking.
No relatively speaking. If someone on 30k a year has more money, it will
be spent directly in the local economy.-a If that money remains with the multi-millionares/billionaires it doesn't have the same affect.
Then your son is one of the good guys, and I have absolutely no problem
with that.-a I am speaking in general, and I would suggest your son is
not the norm
I think the best example of what I'm trying to convey is the Quakers. Cadbury, Fry etc, despite being rich, ploughed their profits back into
the community (Bournville a case in point).
The translation on Sefaria.org uses "underwater FENCE" for what theThanks, but that makes equally little sense. Who builds an underwater fence?
soncino translates as "sails"
On 19/05/2026 11:50, Madhu wrote:
The translation on Sefaria.org uses "underwater FENCE" for what theThanks, but that makes equally little sense. Who builds an underwater fence?
soncino translates as "sails"
The word `Kela' here is called a lattice-work fence, the restriction is
that even the owner cannot build it to restrict access, even on on
water. When considering Fishing Rights on the Sea of Tiberias (which is
given to the Naphtali) the tosfeta includes the Baraita which cites an agreement among tribes
On 19/05/2026 12:24, John wrote:
Whilst not claiming to know too much about financial salary pension
schemes, I do know they were becoming increasingly unaffordable.
Final salary, not financial salary. Basically your pension was based on
your final salary. If you were in well with your employer, you were
given a raise or a promotion three months before you retired.
What's your definition of a true Labour party?
I've no idea. You were the one to introduce the phrase.
I experienced that supply and demand. Tax drivers received about -u2 an
hour at the time minimum wage came in, security guards the same.-a When
I started taxi driving 10 years before it was -u1.20--u1.50-a The minimum >> wage was -u3.60
But taxi drivers were self-employed, were they not?
I can't say for certain I'll be proved right, but I certainly hope so.We all hope so.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Why scoff at it if you don't know?
On 18/05/2026 16:26, GB wrote:
Many of them were paying with their childrenrCOs' lives, too.
Indeed.
Given the absolutely ginormous advantage the defenders had in WW1,
it's surprising that both sides kept mounting ruinous offensives.
No, not surprising. It was positively criminal. Mind you, all war is
wicked.
By the way, I wonder if you could help me, please. There is a passage in
the Talmud, Tractate Baba Kama, which says:
It is permitted to fish with an angle in the
Sea of Tiberias, provided that no sail is
spread, as this would detain boats. Our
Rabbis taught, rCLThe tribes stipulated with
one another at the very outset that nobody
should spread a sail and thus detain boats.rCY
Do you know - or can you find out - what this "detain boats" means? How would using sails, as opposed to rowing, "detain" a boat?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 19/05/2026 07:32, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 18/05/2026 16:26, GB wrote:
Many of them were paying with their childrenrCOs' lives, too.
Indeed.
Given the absolutely ginormous advantage the defenders had in WW1,
it's surprising that both sides kept mounting ruinous offensives.
No, not surprising. It was positively criminal. Mind you, all war is
wicked.
By the way, I wonder if you could help me, please. There is a passage
in the Talmud, Tractate Baba Kama, which says:
It is permitted to fish with an angle in the
Sea of Tiberias, provided that no sail is
spread, as this would detain boats. Our
Rabbis taught, rCLThe tribes stipulated with
one another at the very outset that nobody
should spread a sail and thus detain boats.rCY
Do you know - or can you find out - what this "detain boats" means?
How would using sails, as opposed to rowing, "detain" a boat?
This is well beyond my level of knowledge, so I'd be depending on a translation, too.
One of the issues you face is that you're looking at the detailed bylaws that governed fishing 2000 years ago, and to understand the bylaws you
first need to understand in a bit of detail how people fished in those
days.
Add in some strange translation. To fish with an angle is presumably to
fish with a rod and line?
Spreading a sail may mean spreading a horizontal net between two boats?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I just wanted to add that, however puzzling we find this passage at the moment, I'm quite sure that it meant perfect sense at the time to the
people it was aimed at.
This is well beyond my level of knowledge, so I'd be depending on a translation, too.
One of the issues you face is that you're looking at the detailed bylaws that governed fishing 2000 years ago, and to understand the bylaws you
first need to understand in a bit of detail how people fished in those
days.
Add in some strange translation. To fish with an angle is presumably to
fish with a rod and line?
Spreading a sail may mean spreading a horizontal net between two boats?An ingenious suggestion but ruled out, I think, by the gospel
On 21/05/2026 12:28, GB wrote:
I just wanted to add that, however puzzling we find this passage at
the moment, I'm quite sure that it meant perfect sense at the time to
the people it was aimed at.
That is a level of faith I have not yet achieved.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
The point is in the extract you quoted: "The tribes stipulated with
one another ...".
So, this was a horse trade between the different tribes about competing interests in the Sea of Galilee. And, the resulting agreement must have meant something intelligible to the people who agreed it.
I think it all makes sense if you think of the 'sails' as large nets
spread across the lake by two boats quite far apart.
The fact that fishing with small nets was allowed in Gospel times
doesn't really detract from that.
Besides that, the extract you quoted is probably from much earlier. Does "from the outset" imply 1300 BC?
On 20/05/2026 09:29, John wrote:
Why scoff at it if you don't know?
I don't need to have a definnition to know that claims about "true"
whatever are usually a way to evade evidence of misbehaviour. Muslim terrorists are "not true Muslims" - though others claim that terrorists
are only "true Muslims".
In which case there's no such thing as a true Christian either, thanksThere certainly are true Christians, just as there are true Muslims
for clearing that up!
On 22/05/2026 01:16, John wrote:
In which case there's no such thing as a true Christian either, thanks
for clearing that up!
There certainly are true Christians, just as there are true Muslims
(though exactly what a true Muslim is does not seem clear). It is when
the "not true xxxx" line is rolled out to try to excuse insitutional bad behaviour that I object to it.
So, for example, by insisting on priestly celibacy the Catholic church
sets its clergy up for sexual problems and it is not good enogh to blame
a few individuals for not being "true Christians" when the problem is in
the celibacy.
Same with Muslims, who preach jihad in their mosques and then inspire a
few radical individuals to actually carry it out with bombs. It's no
good saying they are "not true Muslims" when the problem lies in Islam itself
On 22/05/2026 07:46, Kendall K. Down wrote:
There certainly are true Christians, just as there are true MuslimsI agree with you there.
(though exactly what a true Muslim is does not seem clear). It is
when the "not true xxxx" line is rolled out to try to excuse
insitutional bad behaviour that I object to it.
So, for example, by insisting on priestly celibacy the Catholic
church sets its clergy up for sexual problems and it is not good
enogh to blame a few individuals for not being "true Christians"
when the problem is in the celibacy.
Same with Muslims, who preach jihad in their mosques and thenI probably misunderstood what you were saying, but doesn't the same
inspire a few radical individuals to actually carry it out with
bombs. It's no good saying they are "not true Muslims" when the
problem lies in Islam itself
argument apply to Christians as well, or is that more defined?
On 21/05/2026 16:15, GB wrote:
The point is in the extract you quoted: "The tribes stipulated with
one another ...".
At best one can say that there was a tradition that "the tribes
stipulated". A more cynical view is that the authors of the Talmud hoped
or imagined that the tribes were all involved.
So, this was a horse trade between the different tribes about
competing interests in the Sea of Galilee. And, the resulting
agreement must have meant something intelligible to the people who
agreed it.
If indeed there was such an agreement.
I think it all makes sense if you think of the 'sails' as large nets
spread across the lake by two boats quite far apart.
Such large nets might be possible using nylon ropes; I doubt that
ancient rope-making skills were up to the job, nor that the fishermen of
the time could have handled such large nets (particularly when wet)
without modern winches.
The fact that fishing with small nets was allowed in Gospel times
doesn't really detract from that.
But it is eminently more practical!
Besides that, the extract you quoted is probably from much earlier.
Does "from the outset" imply 1300 BC?
It implies nothing more than that the authors of the Talmud believed
that to be true. It is not evidence that it was actually true.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I probably misunderstood what you were saying, but doesn't the same
argument apply to Christians as well, or is that more defined?
I don't think the last point is a fair or honest comparison: it states
the defect isn't in christianity, but in the practice of christianity ("celibacy"), but analogously the defect is in unambiguously with islam.
The issues Ken has with "islam" are the reusult of the situation solely through the lens solely of the western banking propaganda.
I'd suggest Ken read the few chapters before this dealing with the role
of britain and the war and oil banking industry in the middle east in
the 20th century, and see where the source of the antagonim (that he has faced in his travels in Iran, Iraq etc.) comes from
I fear that to understand this passage you need a detailed understanding
of fishing techniques at the time. An interesting challenge for you when
you get the time!
There's a shortage of independent evidence from biblical times.
On 22/05/2026 16:21, GB wrote:
I fear that to understand this passage you need a detailed
understanding of fishing techniques at the time. An interesting
challenge for you when you get the time!
That would doubtless be an interesting study. Nothing that I have read (Josephus) or seen (reliefs showing fishing) leads me to think that nets strung between boats were common. The Biblical accounts seem to only
refer to a single boat and a single net and when the catch was so heavy
that one boat couldn't contain it, they had to call and summon a second
boat - but no hint that the second boat was involved in spreading the
first net.
There's a shortage of independent evidence from biblical times.
I quite agree. But the little we have does not support the suggestion of nets so long that they were strung between two boats. Rope strong enough
to support and form such a net would, when wet, be far too heavy for
unaided muscle power to handle.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
Possibly, because it was banned? :)
Bear in mind that the weight of the water content of the rope would be supported by the water it is sitting in. (Archimedes principle.) So, I
think you're overestimating the practical difficulties.
On 22/05/2026 13:52, Madhu wrote:
I don't think the last point is a fair or honest comparison: it states
the defect isn't in christianity, but in the practice of christianity
("celibacy"), but analogously the defect is in unambiguously with islam.
Christian teaching - and Jewish teaching before it - is unambiguously
in favour of marriage. In fact, there is a warning against those who
would devalue marriage. So the celibacy heresy of the Catholic church
goes completely contrary to Christianity's sacred book.
The same cannot be said about Islam and jihad, which is taught in the
Qur'an.
The issues Ken has with "islam" are the reusult of the situation solely
through the lens solely of the western banking propaganda.
Strangely, in all the time I have been banking with Lloyds, I have
never seen anything in the bank either for or against Islam.
I'd suggest Ken read the few chapters before this dealing with the role
of britain and the war and oil banking industry in the middle east in
the 20th century, and see where the source of the antagonim (that he has
faced in his travels in Iran, Iraq etc.) comes from
I didn't know that there was an industry set up to bank oil? Probably
a good idea - store oil away and hopefully earn interest on it as it self-multiplies.
Yes, I know about Britain and Iran. A bit ironic that the British
government was busy nationalising everything in sight and trampling on
the rights of private owners, but got all hoity-toity when the
Iranians did the same with their oil industry!
If you get a chance to read the article, I'd appreciate your assesemntIt's an interesting thesis. Of course, the problem is that Islam's
of the author's claim.
It's an interesting thesis. Of course, the problem is that Islam's
response to European superiority was to retreat to an imagined
original Muslim religion instead of abandoning the false religion
entirely and adopting Christianity.
Islam, shorn of its saints and djinn and shrines, is still a
misogynistic, superstitious collection of Arab traditions that may
have passed muster in AD 700 but is totally unfit for the modern
world.
If you are basing this on the text rather than the people, the OT is no
less violent, and the text highlights the same principles and
whitewashes everything else.
As the article indicated, in practice,
despite the principles you highlight in the core text, was there was no dearth of science and arts and vast periods of peace and proseperity
between the conquests.
On 05/08/2026 01:37, Madhu wrote:
If you are basing this on the text rather than the people, the OT is noThe Old Testament does not force women to cover their faces or stay
less violent, and the text highlights the same principles and
whitewashes everything else.
inside their homes or prevent them being educated. If, by "violence"
you mean the use of the death penalty, then certainly the Old
Testament was violent, but you don't find individuals being encouraged
to kill those who transgress. In fact the "cities of refuge" was a
clear attempt to prevent individual killings.
As the article indicated, in practice, despite the principles you
highlight in the core text, was there was no dearth of science and
arts and vast periods of peace and proseperity between the conquests.
Yes, after the Muslims conquored somewhere, they profited from the
educated elite, but within a short time, after that elite had died
out, the Muslims sank back into ignorance and poverty, which is the inevitable outcome of their religion.
I don't see any basis for your claim. The muslims sank into ignorance
and poverty _after_ they were defeated and their economy became part of
the western banking economy
YourSurprisingly, Scripture has very little to say about Muhammad or his
arguments against Islam are just Israeli Propaganda points at this
point, and not from a consideration of scripture.
Surprisingly, Scripture has very little to say about Muhammad or his religion, which started 500 years after the canon of Scripture closed.
I think
1. We should interpret and witness to our present condition on the basis
of scripture and not on the basis of the dominant propaganda
2. You were handling "islamic scripture" in a non-proprietary waySo in other words, no one has any idea what you are trying to say
(where "witness to" and "non-proprietary" are non standard usage)
2. You were handling "islamic scripture" in a non-proprietary waySo in other words, no one has any idea what you are trying to say
(where "witness to" and "non-proprietary" are non standard usage)
because you are giving words your own meanings.
No, that was to cover the possibility of you dismissing what I wroteNo, your meaning was not at all clear.
without trying to understand it. (c.f. your response)
But as long as my meaning was clear
YourSurprisingly, Scripture has very little to say about Muhammad or his religion, which started 500 years after the canon of Scripture closed.
arguments against Islam are just Israeli Propaganda points at this
point, and not from a consideration of scripture.
On 06/08/2026 07:00, Madhu wrote:
No, that was to cover the possibility of you dismissing what I wrote without trying to understand it. (c.f. your response)No, your meaning was not at all clear.
But as long as my meaning was clear
On 05/08/2026 01:37, Madhu wrote:
If you are basing this on the text rather than the people, the OT is no
less violent, and the text highlights the same principles and
whitewashes everything else.
The Old Testament does not force women to cover their faces or stay
inside their homes or prevent them being educated. If, by "violence" you mean the use of the death penalty, then certainly the Old Testament was violent, but you don't find individuals being encouraged to kill those
who transgress. In fact the "cities of refuge" was a clear attempt to prevent individual killings.
With Wes Streeting, who is a practicing Christian, resigning as Health Secretary and a leadership battle more than likely, could he be our next
PM?
He's done an excellent job as Health Secretary, although I personally
would like Labour to go a little bit more to the left, helping the
ordinary man (and woman) in the street to have a better quality of life.
Either Andy Burnham or Angela Rayner would get my vote.
As we know Andy Burnham became PM, but he does become the firstSo, I believe, are most Mafioso.
Christian since TM anyway, as he is a devout Catholic.
Christian women did cover their hair, as do most Muslim women.
The
burka is worn by very few and, correct me if I'm wrong, more to do with culture than any Islamic text.
Women were considered property so their
place *was* in the home and "learning" was frowned upon, an example of
which was Martha's attitude to Mary.
Other than honour killings (I may be wrong but I don't think it is based
on the Qur'an) I don't know any other "offence" that individuals will kill.-a The death penalty is usually left to the state rulers to carry out.
I see Islam as more based on OT principles.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:51:47 |
| Calls: | 1,102 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,965 |