NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not here to bash religious people, I believe everyone's entitled to their own belief.

What I don't accept is the Labour government's new proposals...that they will and are taxing people with a 'SPIRITUAL ALLOWANCE' in mind.

Now, being an atheist, I'm being taxed unfairly in my opinion. Taking my money to build a church or a single-faith school is an infringement on my civil rights and liberty.

Am I in the right?

This is really weird. I agree with you. Now I feel dirty.

Although I agree with you in principle, I can't agree with you not paying ALL your taxes because you disagree with this single tax. On the other hand... There's pretty much no other way you can protest so you got my backing.

Thankfully I don't pay taxes, but I think that religious schools not only shouldn't be paid for by the tax payer, but they should be illegal. In my mind they only promote segregation of communities that are already quite insular from the rest of Britain. We need to integrate as a nation, not sit around in our own little tribal camps.

You're in the right. The British government's entanglement with religion is appauling.

Of course, instead of protesting and getting yourself into trouble, you could just go with the flow and found a church so you can reap some ill-gotten tax money :D

Where do you derive these civil rights a liberties?

Though I think the question should be, does the government recognise these rights and liberties?

(By the way, I agree with you, though currently I am unproductive member of society.)

Where do you derive these civil rights a liberties?

Though I think the question should be, does the government recognise these rights and liberties?

(By the way, I agree with you, though currently I am unproductive member of society.)

From the British Constitution...plus, the government says that people of all faiths are equal. It's not our government that's corrupt, it's Blair. The only powerful Christian in a country of Agnostics...

He even proposed to ban jokes that had religious themes from sketch shows.

From the British Constitution...
we dont have a constitution

Well, as a fundie Christian, you're wrong. :p

Not paying your taxes is a bad way of protest, as it's

A) Unaffective, and

B) lands you in prison

Kusarii, I disagree with you. Banning private schools discourages freedom of speech. As public schools, in my experience, are heavily left-leaning, and try to indoctrinate leftwing "values" into children, private schools are necessary for parents who do not want their children indoctrinated with what they (and I) feel is udder bullshit. Plus, I sence antireligious bias coming from you, as most private schools are religious based. I sence that you want religion wiped.

I may be wrong on my interpretation of you, Kusarii, but that's what it seems like.

From the British Constitution...plus, the government says that people of all faiths are equal. It's not our government that's corrupt, it's Blair. The only powerful Christian in a country of Agnostics...

The Annoying thing about the British constitution is that it isn' set in stone. It's very flexible, which whilst that has many benfits, it does get annoying that the government can override it easy enough.

He even proposed to ban jokes that had religious themes from sketch shows.

I watched the Rowan Atkenson speech were he spoke against it. It couldn't help laughing, not because it was funny, but because he spoke in the same way as he did for a sketch on "Not the nine o' clock news"

we dont have a constitution

No, we really, really do. It's just not written down.

It's a constitution of tradition, convention, statute, and ruled law.
It's changing all the time, but it's definitely there.

Read some of Walter Bagehot's work.

No, we really, really do. It's just not written down.

eh....thats what i meant by "we dont have a constitution". as in, we dont have a piece of paper like the US. you have no constitutional guarantees, its all based on changeable common law, statute law, convention etc. but there is no set in stone constitution

The UK relies entirely on common law and does in fact have no written constitution.

Just because it's not written down doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It's uncodified, so yes. You are an ignorant american on this occasion ;)

Plus. Although Public schools might have a slight left-wing biased, single-faith schools are not private. They should be abolished, they segregate and divide society. That's part of what religion is about.

I'm not here to bash religious people, I believe everyone's entitled to their own belief.

What I don't accept is the Labour government's new proposals...that they will and are taxing people with a 'SPIRITUAL ALLOWANCE' in mind.

Now, being an atheist, I'm being taxed unfairly in my opinion. Taking my money to build a church or a single-faith school is an infringement on my civil rights and liberty.

Am I in the right?

You are right that tax money from a broad cross-section of people should not go to a religious institution - or any institution with the purpose of indoctrinating people into a given philosophy.

However, simply not paying won't really do much - you should probably protest and attempt to get the law changed, rather than just not paying.

eh....thats what i meant by "we dont have a constitution". as in, we dont have a piece of paper like the US. you have no constitutional guarantees, its all based on changeable common law, statute law, convention etc. but there is no set in stone constitution

No, it's called an uncodified constitution. It's still a constititution.

You are right that tax money from a broad cross-section of people should not go to a religious institution - or any institution with the purpose of indoctrinating people into a given philosophy.

However, simply not paying won't really do much - you should probably protest and attempt to get the law changed, rather than just not paying.

I'm working on a court case.

Kusarii, I disagree with you. Banning private schools discourages freedom of speech. As public schools, in my experience, are heavily left-leaning, and try to indoctrinate leftwing "values" into children, private schools are necessary for parents who do not want their children indoctrinated with what they (and I) feel is udder bullshit.

...so they can be indoctrinated instead with what *you* feel is right, eh?

Seriously, any school that indoctrinates anybody with anything should be permanently shut down and burned to the ground, as it isn't really performing its function.

No, we really, really do. It's just not written down.

It's a constitution of tradition, convention, statute, and ruled law.
It's changing all the time, but it's definitely there.

Read some of Walter Bagehot's work.

Well Bagehot's The British Constitution is the definitive one.

There is a diference between a "Constitution" as a written down document, and a "constitution" which just descibes how a political system works.

The former definition is a fairly recent innovation, traditionally it just meant the latter. Til some pesky rebels come up with the crazy idea that all men were equal, and that taxes were annoying :p

The UK relies entirely on common law and does in fact have no written constitution.

Well, it's written down. Just not all in the same place, it is just uncodified (sorry, I'm the product of a padantic politics teacher :))

No, it's called an uncodified constitution. It's still a constititution.
you realise thats pretty much exactly what i said?

Well, it's written down. Just not all in the same place, it is just uncodified (sorry, I'm the product of a padantic politics teacher :))

Heh, I teach A2/AS politics. :)

...so they can be indoctrinated instead with what *you* feel is right, eh?

Seriously, any school that indoctrinates anybody with anything should be permanently shut down and burned to the ground, as it isn't really performing its function.

While I may find it is right, I have no control over it. It is what the school and the parents find right.

And if we enacted that rule, every school on the face of the planet would be needing burning.

And if we enacted that rule, every school on the face of the planet would be needing burning.

Only if you are too close-minded to see the difference between *teaching* and *indoctrination*.

So you think you can escape paying tax just because you dont happen to like government policy? Ha.

Some people didn't like the Iraq war but were they allowed to stop paying taxes? No.

Some Christians might not like the fact that some of their taxes goes to help Muslim communities. Does that give them the right to stop paying taxes? No.

I don't like the New Labour government. Does that give me the right not to pay taxes to them? No.

I dont like the EU so can I stop paying my taxes? No.

Some Muslims might dislike the fact that some of their taxes go to help Jewish communities. Can they stop paying their taxes? No.

I dont like the fact that my council likes crappy modern art and persists building statues in the city centre. Can I stop paying taxes to them? No.

Just because you are an atheist, you think you deserve an excpetion to the rule. If you are unhappy with government policy, you complain to your MP. You go to the National Secular Organisation and join up and fight it. You could even run as an MP, get elected, become a minister and change the law yourself. But no one (these days) is excused from paying taxes because of a religious belief unless they are a reconginised charity. Just the same way I cant refuse to pay my taxes because I am a Tory and hate New Labour. Please live in the real world for just 10 seconds.

If you plan to take this to court, I feel sorry for you because I can tell you now any judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.

houl on....

the UK is not a secular state, the Head of State is head of a major religion after all. and she gets paid from tax money.

and you only worry now about your taxes getting involved with religion?

So you think you can escape paying tax just because you dont happen to like government policy? Ha.

Some people didn't like the Iraq war but were they allowed to stop paying taxes? No.

Some Christians might not like the fact that some of their taxes goes to help Muslim communities. Does that give them the right to stop paying taxes? No.

I don't like the New Labour government. Does that give me the right not to pay taxes to them? No.

I dont like the EU so can I stop paying my taxes? No.

Some Muslims might dislike the fact that some of their taxes go to help Jewish communities. Can they stop paying their taxes? No.

I dont like the fact that my council likes crappy modern art and persists building statues in the city centre. Can I stop paying taxes to them? No.

Just because you are an atheist, you think you deserve an excpetion to the rule. If you are unhappy with government policy, you complain to your MP. You go to the National Secular Organisation and join up and fight it. You could even run as an MP, get elected, become a minister and change the law yourself. But no one (these days) is excused from paying taxes because of a religious belief unless they are a reconginised charity. Just the same way I cant refuse to pay my taxes because I am a Tory and hate New Labour. Please live in the real world for just 10 seconds.

If you plan to take this to court, I feel sorry for you because I can tell you now any judge will laugh you out of the courtroom.

This is a breach of human rights. The judge won't laugh me out of the Room. Why would a muslim object to the money helping jewish communities? Surely he accepts the idea of religion by being a muslim?

I don't accept the idea of religion. This is NOTHING at all like objecting to the war in Iraq. This is about a breach of a civil liberty of a citizen.

In terms of you trying to claim this is an infringement of your rights and liberties, I currently think there are worse threat to the right and liberties to the people of this country.

Only if you are too close-minded to see the difference between *teaching* and *indoctrination*.

No, not necessarily. While, yes, my statement was an obvious hyperbole, many a public school indoctrinates children with leftist ideas, hence why America still has them legalized. I will personally see to the assassination of any politition that has this changed.

Personally, though, I disagree slightly on your statement of all indoctrate schools burn, etc. If the parents want their children to have strong moral and religous beliefs, what better to send them to a school that teaches this?

What I believe is that all PUBLIC schools that indoctrinate people should be burned down. This includes many state colleges and many public grade schools in America. Don't know about abroad, but I imagine it's about the same.

This is a breach of human rights. The judge won't laugh me out of the Room. Why would a muslim object to the money helping jewish communities? Surely he accepts the idea of religion by being a muslim?

I don't accept the idea of religion. This is NOTHING at all like objecting to the war in Iraq. This is about a breach of a civil liberty of a citizen.

Now, you are being silly. The idea that government money should not go to religion has *nothing* to do with whether or not you are an atheist. The government simply should represent *all* people equally - and should not take a stance on subjective subjects such as religion. It would be like the government taking the stance that "purple is better than orange."

houl on....

the UK is not a secular state, the Head of State is head of a major religion after all. and she gets paid from tax money.

and you only worry now about your taxes getting involved with religion?

Indeed. How easily people forget that the Monarch is the Defender of the Faith and head of the Angelican Church (of England).

Indeed. How easily people forget that the Monarch is the Defender of the Faith and head of the Angelican Church (of England).

It is a Secular state in theory though, because the monarch has no power and the majority are agnostic. Most MPs are either agnostic or 'Christian' by label and nothing else as well.

No, not necessarily. While, yes, my statement was an obvious hyperbole, many a public school indoctrinates children with leftist ideas,

Really? Perhaps you should look up the word indoctrinate.

hence why America still has them legalized. I will personally see to the assassination of any politition that has this changed.

Has what legalized?

Personally, though, I disagree slightly on your statement of all indoctrate schools burn, etc. If the parents want their children to have strong moral and religous beliefs, what better to send them to a school that teaches this?

They are not actually learning morals or religious beliefs if they are indoctrinated with them - they are simply being forced to regurgitate them - a violation of the child's human rights.

What I believe is that all PUBLIC schools that indoctrinate people should be burned down. This includes many state colleges and many public grade schools in America. Don't know about abroad, but I imagine it's about the same.

I have attended many public schools in the US, and have yet to see any indoctrination going on. Meanwhile, if there was indoctrination occurring, the students and parents have a legal right (and a moral obligation) to sue the institution.

Now, you are being silly. The idea that government money should not go to religion has *nothing* to do with whether or not you are an atheist. The government simply should represent *all* people equally - and should not take a stance on subjective subjects such as religion. It would be like the government taking the stance that "purple is better than orange."

True, except less would care if the government decided purple is better.

Although, I'm sure there'd be demonstrations. Mostly for the idiocy of the government to CARE which colour was better! :D

This is a breach of human rights. The judge won't laugh me out of the Room. Why would a muslim object to the money helping jewish communities? Surely he accepts the idea of religion by being a muslim?

I don't accept the idea of religion. This is NOTHING at all like objecting to the war in Iraq. This is about a breach of a civil liberty of a citizen.

The judge will will. Believe me, he will. Any solicitor who is telling you otherwise is lying and just prolonging your case to get cash out of you.

Muslims traditionally dislike Jewish peoples so why would they want to pay money to these people?

I dont accept the idea of the EU. I consider its effects on British laws an impeachment on the rights of British sovereignty and the right to be tried under British law as my British citzenship guarntees.

But I am still going to have to pay taxes for it.

It is a Secular state in theory though, because the monarch has no power and the majority are agnostic. Most MPs are either agnostic or 'Christian' by label and nothing else as well.

Actually I believe Mr. Blair is Catholic.

This is the entire flaw with taxes. You don't get to choose where your money goes. Which is why taxes should be minimized. I'm on your side here, much as I dislike you.

The judge will will. Believe me, he will. Any solicitor who is telling you otherwise is lying and just prolonging your case to get cash out of you.

Muslims traditionally dislike Jewish peoples so why would they want to pay money to these people?

I dont accept the idea of the EU. I consider its effects on British laws an impeachment on the rights of British sovereignty and the right to be tried under British law as my British citzenship guarntees.

But I am still going to have to pay taxes for it.

The Barrister is my brother, he's on his way to becoming a QC. I would think that given enough publicity, my case really could explode into a big political issue.

Actually I believe Mr. Blair is Catholic.

He's one MP. Not the majority.

It is a Secular state in theory though, because the monarch has no power and the majority are agnostic. Most MPs are either agnostic or 'Christian' by label and nothing else as well.
if you tell that to a judge, s/he is going to ask you to back it up

and you probably cant

if people refused to pay taxes over every little thing they were offended by then nobody would be paying tax.

i assume that since you wont be paying tax you wont be receiving assistance from the police, fire service, NHS, state school system or any other government funded body?

edit: it would be highly amusing if the judge accepted your case, said you didnt have to pay tax - and then said you werent to receive anything from any government funded body.

The Barrister is my brother, he's on his way to becoming a QC. I would think that given enough publicity, my case really could explode into a big political issue.

I really dont know what cloud you are on. There is no way in high heaven that the judges will let you off paying taxes because you dont agree with government policy. The precedent that would set would be terrible - you would have very time waster in the country claiming that they were all devout atheists too and so should be let off taxes. I am sorry but there is no way on earth any judge in the world would create that precedent, high profile case or not.

He's one MP. Not the majority.

I'm an ignorant American, what does MP mean?

Actually I believe Mr. Blair is Catholic.

Doesn't he just sympathise with Catholicism (I think Cherie is Catholic an bought the children up Catholic).

IIRC, the Church got into a bit of a tizzy a few years back after Blair tried to (and did) recieve Communion at a Catholic church.

AFAIK he has never converted.

I'm an ignorant American, what does MP mean?
Member of Parliament

I'm an ignorant American, what does MP mean?

Member of Parliament. (Our equivelent of your House of Representatives I suppose.)

I really dont know what cloud you are on. There is no way in high heaven that the judges will let you off paying taxes because you dont agree with government policy. The precedent that would set would be terrible - you would have very time waster in the country claiming that they were all devout atheists too and so should be let off taxes. I am sorry but there is no way on earth any judge in the world would create that precedent, high profile case or not.

Can the British courts overturn a law or declare it unenforcable?

Bigeless doesn't have to get out of paying taxes - but may be able to get the law itself changed.

Member of Parliament. (Our equivelent of your House of Representatives I suppose.)

Cool (to us, MP=Military Police LOL)

Doesn't he just sympathise with Catholicism (I think Cherie is Catholic an bought the children up Catholic).

IIRC, the Church got into a bit of a tizzy a few years back after Blair tried to (and did) recieve Communion at a Catholic church.

AFAIK he has never converted.

Probably because theres a bit of constitutional mix up over whether Catholics are allowed to be Prime Minister. The monarch and the heir aren't allowed to be Catholics or marry Catholics.

Can the British courts overturn a law or declare it unenforcable?

IIRC, if the law comes into conflict with something higher then national law (suh as treaties or agreements with other state, eg the ECHR) then it can be declared unenforcable.

I don't know it the Judiciary is reactive, like the US Supreme Court, or proactive though.

Bigeless doesn't have to get out of paying taxes - but may be able to get the law itself changed.

Ha, like hell the state would cut its arm open.

Can the British courts overturn a law or declare it unenforcable?

Bigeless doesn't have to get out of paying taxes - but may be able to get the law itself changed.

The only way for the law for be changed is if an amendment was made in the Act. That would have to pass through all the democratic processes and once again there is no way that the government would allow its policy to be challenged or for the general tax paying principles to be challenged. If it did then there would be court cases every 5 minutes by people trying to change government policy.

Oh in answer to your first question, both yes and no. Its difficult if you dont understand the principles of judicial precedent which I am not going through unless the majority pleads at my feet.

if you tell that to a judge, s/he is going to ask you to back it up

and you probably cant

if people refused to pay taxes over every little thing they were offended by then nobody would be paying tax.

i assume that since you wont be paying tax you wont be receiving assistance from the police, fire service, NHS, state school system or any other government funded body?

edit: it would be highly amusing if the judge accepted your case, said you didnt have to pay tax - and then said you werent to receive anything from any government funded body.

I don't believe the NHS is any good, I'm BUPA. Plus, I would say that the whole notion of Spiritual Allowances should be removed on the grounds that it's breaching secularism and infringing on the rights of tax-paying atheists/agnostics, of which there are millions.

Probably because theres a bit of constitutional mix up over whether Catholics are allowed to be Prime Minister. The monarch and the heir aren't allowed to be Catholics or marry Catholics.

Are they afraid that if they retract that law the Queen will run of with Gerry Adams </jk> (Yes, I know. Not a very good one.)

I think Blair took away the restrictions one Catholics becoming PM. (Otherwise, if IDS was still Conservative leader, then Blair would be the only party leader [out of the three main ones] who could become PM. Though the law was changed before IDS came around I think)

I don't believe the NHS is any good, I'm BUPA. Plus, I would say that the whole notion of Spiritual Allowances should be removed on the grounds that it's breaching secularism and infringing on the rights of tax-paying atheists/agnostics, of which there are millions.

Why exactly don't you understand that it is not only infringing on the rights of atheists/agnostics, but of *all* people?

I really dont know what cloud you are on. There is no way in high heaven that the judges will let you off paying taxes because you dont agree with government policy. The precedent that would set would be terrible - you would have very time waster in the country claiming that they were all devout atheists too and so should be let off taxes. I am sorry but there is no way on earth any judge in the world would create that precedent, high profile case or not.

At leas that would bring an end to religion...anyway, I understand it might set a precedent but I believe that it's a fair one to set.
I don't believe I should have to pay to build a church, do you believe you should have to pay to build a triple-X strip club? It's the same thing.

Why exactly don't you understand that it is not only infringing on the rights of atheists/agnostics, but of *all* people?

Sorry, you're correct.

Are they afraid that if they retract that law the Queen will run of with Gerry Adams </jk> (Yrs, I know. Not a very good one.)

I think Blair took away the restrictions one Catholics becoming PM. (Otherwise, if IDS was still Conservative leader, then Blair would be the only party leader [out of the three main ones] who could become PM. Though the law was changed before IDS came around I think)

It was probably removed around the same time as the Tests Act was finally repealed. The Tests Act was a law that denied any position of power or authority to Catholics or dissenters. I think it was finally disposed off in the late 19th century.

At leas that would bring an end to religion...

Think a lot of yourself?

anyway, I understand it might set a precedent but I believe that it's a fair one to set.
I don't believe I should have to pay to build a church, do you believe you should have to pay to build a triple-X strip club? It's the same thing.
Which churches has this government built?

Can the British courts overturn a law or declare it unenforcable?

Bigeless doesn't have to get out of paying taxes - but may be able to get the law itself changed.
The idea of withholding part of one's taxes on principled grounds has been tested up to House of Lords level - IIRC, CND activists in the 80's objected to paying for the Trident missile system. Their case failed - unsurprisingly; taxation on a voluntary pick 'n' mix basis would be wholly unworkable. Based on that precedent, the idea of withholding all of one's taxes because one objected to a small part of government spending would indeed be laughable.

Presumably the current case would call the recent Human Rights Act in aid. Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

At leas that would bring an end to religion...anyway, I understand it might set a precedent but I believe that it's a fair one to set.
I don't believe I should have to pay to build a church, do you believe you should have to pay to build a triple-X strip club? It's the same thing.

I really doubt that the government uses taxes to build triple X strip clubs. As I have already stated, I do not agree with most aspects of New Labour policy and I dont think its fair that taxes should go to the building of religious buildings but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to refuse to pay tax. If you dont like government policy, you do something active about it, not act in a reactionary manner which will only fail.

For future reference, I am agnostic.

Hey, change the damn pro-religion laws. I'm all for it. Those taxes would be so much better used for some other... uhh... tax... receiving thingy...

Hey, april fool's! (do they have that in other countries? On april 1st, people go around tricking other people, saying false things then saying "april fools! i tricked you!")

yup... taxes shouldn't be used for churches.

I really doubt that the government uses taxes to build triple X strip clubs. As I have already stated, I do not agree with most aspects of New Labour policy and I dont think its fair that taxes should go to the building of religious buildings but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to refuse to pay tax. If you dont like government policy, you do something active about it, not act in a reactionary manner which will only fail.

For future reference, I am agnostic.

I am doing something active. I'm protesting, and taking it to court. I'm going to try and pour the publicity money into a pressure group that will stamp out the last lingering withering tendrils of theism in the UK. Happy now?

I don't believe the NHS is any good, I'm BUPA.
you have your own private police and fire services as well?

you have your own private police and fire services as well?

No

It was probably removed around the same time as the Tests Act was finally repealed. The Tests Act was a law that denied any position of power or authority to Catholics or dissenters. I think it was finally disposed off in the late 19th century.
No I think the bar on PM was more reason (though I wouldn't know were to start looking for proof of either side. Not that it matters though).


I am doing something active. I'm protesting, and taking it to court. I'm going to try and pour the publicity money into a pressure group that will stamp out the last lingering withering tendrils of theism in the UK. Happy now?

There are already pressure groups (NBG named one of them already)

No
well if i was the judge i would tell him that if he wanted to benefit from things like the police then hes going to pay his taxes.

I am doing something active. I'm protesting, and taking it to court. I'm going to try and pour the publicity money into a pressure group that will stamp out the last lingering withering tendrils of theism in the UK. Happy now?

No you are not you are trying to get off taxes because for some bizaare reason you think that your atheism gives you the right to dictate government policy from your armchair.

You wiull have no constitutional argument against paying taxes to support the church. It is traditional and has been part of British culture for the majority of Britain's existence. If, however, the amount proposed is more than the traditional 10% of your income (from whence the word tithe derives) then you can complain.

You will also have no support form the constitution with respect to this taxation benefitting any church of the ruler's choice. This again is traditional.

You do not however, have any constitutional impediment to leaving the country.

No I think the bar on PM was more reason (though I wouldn't know were to start looking for proof of either side. Not that it matters though).



There are already pressure groups (NBG named one of them already)

National Secular Society or something along those lines. They had a spoke person on Radio 5 yesterday morning discussing the declining condition of the Pope.

well if i was the judge i would tell him that if he wanted to benefit from things like the police then hes going to pay his taxes.

Of course he will end up having to pay his taxes. As I said the judge will laugh him out of court.

Of course he will end up having to pay his taxes. As I said the judge will laugh him out of court.
oh, i have no doubt about that

I suggest taking your Parliament's tea and dumping it into the English Channel! Oh, and dress up like Indians!

If you need any help, contact some Americans.

No you are not you are trying to get off taxes because for some bizaare reason you think that your atheism gives you the right to dictate government policy from your armchair.

Nope. I believe that this government should have no biased. At the moment, it is biased towards Islamic and Christian communities. It's also an anti-semetic government, I doubt much money goes to Jewish communities. Shylock Howard anyone? Muslim swing vote anyone?

I suggest taking your Parliament's tea and dumping it into the English Channel! Oh, and dress up like Indians!

If you need any help, contact some Americans.

How does that work you ignorant fuckwit? Americans needed the French to win their independence, the Indians needed Hitler.

Nope. I believe that this government should have no biased. At the moment, it is biased towards Islamic and Christian communities. It's also an anti-semetic government, I doubt much money goes to Jewish communities. Shylock Howard anyone? Muslim swing vote anyone?
whatever

do tell us your trial date and location....i fancy a laugh

National Secular Society (http://www.secularism.org.uk/)

Charter 88 (http://www.charter88.org.uk)

Liberty (http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/)

These three already serve the function you want. And if they don't have any success I doubt you will

whatever

do tell us your trial date and location....i fancy a laugh

No, really, the labour government is using anti-semetism to win over the Muslim vote.

Nope. I believe that this government should have no biased. At the moment, it is biased towards Islamic and Christian communities. It's also an anti-semetic government, I doubt much money goes to Jewish communities. Shylock Howard anyone? Muslim swing vote anyone?

It wasn't Shylock, it was Fagin.

Not that I particuarly saw the anti semitism in that though.

(Though the poster campaigns of both parties are an insult to democracy imo.)

Nope. I believe that this government should have no biased. At the moment, it is biased towards Islamic and Christian communities. It's also an anti-semetic government, I doubt much money goes to Jewish communities. Shylock Howard anyone? Muslim swing vote anyone?

The government is indeed biased but you aren't going to change it in the way you are proposing.

No, really, the labour government is using anti-semetism to win over the Muslim vote.

Proof?

It wasn't Shylock, it was Fagin.

Not that I particuarly saw the anti semitism in that though.

(Though the poster campaigns of both parties are an insult to democracy imo.)

I dont think even the Tories did, it was just a nice little way to run Labour's name through the dirt.

How does that work you ignorant fuckwit? Americans needed the French to win their independence, the Indians needed Hitler.

lol this is funny "how does that work you ignorant fuckwit?"

definitely worth quoting...

I'm still supporting u tho.

What about indians and hitler? all the indians were practically gone by 1890

Proof?

He has none just like his court case has no grounds whatsover for success.

I dont think even the Tories did, it was just a nice little way to run Labour's name through the dirt.

And so they should have. Not because of electioneering or anything political, but because any party that is that bad at photoshopping deserves that coming to them (I mean, I could probably do better, and I'm crap at photshopping)

He has none just like his court case has no grounds whatsover for success.

Ha, maybe pigs are flying. An anarchist and a tory in complete agreement :D

How does that work you ignorant fuckwit? Americans needed the French to win their independence, the Indians needed Hitler.Simple. Get some anti-Semitic Frenchmen to help out. There certainly isn't any shortage of them!

Titter!

Ha, maybe pigs are flying. An anarchist and a tory in complete agreement :D

I know the world's probably about to explode lol

Ah Bigglesses hasnt replied in awhile. I think he must have accepted defeat.

When I was an idealistic young college student in a former catholic college vastly overburdened with Old Hippies and leftist nuns (no really, it was) My most outspoken left-wing teacher told us of how he was enlightened by a little old lady, who suggested that he pay only the taxes of which he approved. i.e. , if 20% of government spending went for miltary, and he was really the peacenik he claimed, then he could protest by paying only 80% of his taxes. Elegant, daring, the personal is the politcal, yes: makes a difference? who knows. It takes an awful lot of people protesting in that fashion to be considered a movement. However, his ideals influenced me enough to allow the citizens of the Tortuga Buccaneers to choose where their taxes go. :D

Kusarii, I disagree with you. Banning private schools discourages freedom of speech. As public schools, in my experience, are heavily left-leaning, and try to indoctrinate leftwing "values" into children, private schools are necessary for parents who do not want their children indoctrinated with what they (and I) feel is udder bullshit. Plus, I sence antireligious bias coming from you, as most private schools are religious based. I sence that you want religion wiped.

I may be wrong on my interpretation of you, Kusarii, but that's what it seems like.

I have no problem with religious schools existing, I just have big problems with them being state funded. The onus should be on the various religions to fund religious schools, not on the state. The Church of England may be a state religion in this country, but that does not mean I think it should be treated ANY differently as it is no school actively promotes CoE values beyond basic ethics and morality. As for Religious schools be they catholic, muslim judaic or any other in nature, they should be supported by the faith. Everybody is entitled to a STANDARD FREE EDUCATION. Any deviation from this should be seen as personal choice and or a luxury that the state should not have the burden of carrying.

I have no problem with religious schools existing, I just have big problems with them being state funded. The onus should be on the various religions to fund religious schools, not on the state. The Church of England may be a state religion in this country, but that does not mean I think it should be treated ANY differently as it is no school actively promotes CoE values beyond basic ethics and morality. As for Religious schools be they catholic, muslim judaic or any other in nature, they should be supported by the faith. Everybody is entitled to a STANDARD FREE EDUCATION. Any deviation from this should be seen as personal choice and or a luxury that the state should not have the burden of carrying.

On this I agree, but on one thing I wish to add. If you opt out of public education for your children, you should not have to pay school taxes.

On this I agree, but on one thing I wish to add. If you opt out of public education for your children, you should not have to pay school taxes.

Once again this issue of choosing what tax we pay or not, the reason I so objected to this post in the first place. You can no more choose what tax to pay than you can choose what laws to obey.

On this I agree, but on one thing I wish to add. If you opt out of public education for your children, you should not have to pay school taxes.

And fuck up the education system futher?

Once again this issue of choosing what tax we pay or not, the reason I so objected to this post in the first place. You can no more choose what tax to pay than you can choose what laws to obey.


Ah, well, I admit, my plan is more for the American setup of Government. You see, technically, the No Child Left Behind act is unconstitutional, as education is not something granted to the federal government by the constitution. It is granted to state and local governments, hence easier to implement.

And fuck up the education system futher?

THrowing money at something does not a problem fix.

If you had a flat tire, would you patch it and pump it up, or would you throw your wallet at it, then when nothing happens, demand passersby throw their wallet at it too?

THrowing money at something does not a problem fix.

Where did I call for throwing money at it?

Kusarii, I disagree with you. Banning private schools discourages freedom of speech. As public schools, in my experience, are heavily left-leaning, and try to indoctrinate leftwing "values" into children, private schools are necessary for parents who do not want their children indoctrinated with what they (and I) feel is udder bullshit. Plus, I sence antireligious bias coming from you, as most private schools are religious based. I sence that you want religion wiped.

I may be wrong on my interpretation of you, Kusarii, but that's what it seems like.

In my personal experience, actually, my schooling has been very rightwing. The teachers are almost all conservative. Then again, I live in the conservative hotbed of Colorado Springs..but still.

The idea of withholding part of one's taxes on principled grounds has been tested up to House of Lords level - IIRC, CND activists in the 80's objected to paying for the Trident missile system. Their case failed - unsurprisingly; taxation on a voluntary pick 'n' mix basis would be wholly unworkable. Based on that precedent, the idea of withholding all of one's taxes because one objected to a small part of government spending would indeed be laughable.

Presumably the current case would call the recent Human Rights Act in aid. Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

I never said that any court would uphold someone's right to not pay taxes - just that challenging the law itself might get you somewhere, depending on how the British court system works.

On this I agree, but on one thing I wish to add. If you opt out of public education for your children, you should not have to pay school taxes.

You should have the ability to opt out of fire department and police protection as well - and not pay for them...

Oh, wait, that would be stupid.

I never said that any court would uphold someone's right to not pay taxes - just that challenging the law itself might get you somewhere, depending on how the British court system works.
My apologies, I wasn't trying to contradict you, but merely to expand.

In theory, the courts could rule that one law contradicts another; and this in turn creates a political imperative for the Government to sort things out (unless there is a hierarchy in the legisilation, eg EU trade law>UK trade laws). But in reality UK courts are extremely reluctant to do so - they see part of their role as being to support stable government.

The main point to a legal challenge like this would not be to be win (though it has to be fought as though it is, for courts to hear the case), but publicity for the cause.

You should have the ability to opt out of fire department and police protection as well - and not pay for them...

Oh, wait, that would be stupid.

It would be stupid, yes, and both fire and police are essential services that cannot be provided with a normal person's budget. Education can be. I do not believe education should be the sole responsibility of the national government. The parents should have the right to educate their children the way they see fit, and not have to spend money on a system they do not send their kids through, or might see as corrupt. (Just throwing examples out)

Again, though, in Britian, I don't know how that would work, but here in America, public schools are run and paid for locally, sometimes statewide. National doesn't (well, isn't allowed to) get involved. It is a lot easier to implement.

I'm not here to bash religious people, I believe everyone's entitled to their own belief.

What I don't accept is the Labour government's new proposals...that they will and are taxing people with a 'SPIRITUAL ALLOWANCE' in mind.

Now, being an atheist, I'm being taxed unfairly in my opinion. Taking my money to build a church or a single-faith school is an infringement on my civil rights and liberty.

Am I in the right?

you know the majority of voters in this nation are republican.. many of whome can be considered conservative.. most conservatives dont belive in welfare and other socialist policies... should we follow your lead and not pay taxes because we are being unfairly taxed ?

what about rich people.. they pay 80% of our taxes.. and get almost no services.. what happens when they follow your lead and dont pay.. ill tell you what happens.. those nice services disapear... so are you in the right ? would they be in the right ? Personally if your right..t he Federal government falls apart and State governments gain the power they deserve... but im still torn... and would probably have to say NO YOUR NOT RIGHT!

In my personal experience, actually, my schooling has been very rightwing. The teachers are almost all conservative. Then again, I live in the conservative hotbed of Colorado Springs..but still.

Damn, I pity you, but then again, stuff isn't much better up here by Denver either. But that just might be because I live in Parker, but oh well...

Damn, I pity you, but then again, stuff isn't much better up here by Denver either. But that just might be because I live in Parker, but oh well...

then you two live in what is the minority... I have received a brutally liberal education which could get you failed if you so disgreed... but such is the public education of New York State... most studies have show the achedmia of the US is fiercly liberal..

No, really, the labour government is using anti-semetism to win over the Muslim vote.

............

long live freedom of speech on the internet....long live the freedom of people to express their opinions, no matter how nutty they may be,......

(sometimes I have to remind myself)

It would be stupid, yes, and both fire and police are essential services that cannot be provided with a normal person's budget. Education can be. I do not believe education should be the sole responsibility of the national government. The parents should have the right to educate their children the way they see fit, and not have to spend money on a system they do not send their kids through, or might see as corrupt. (Just throwing examples out)

Do you know how much education costs? Education is just as, if not more, essential than fire protection and is *not* something a normal person can afford.

Again, though, in Britian, I don't know how that would work, but here in America, public schools are run and paid for locally, sometimes statewide. National doesn't (well, isn't allowed to) get involved. It is a lot easier to implement.

Doesn't change the fact that *everyone* benefits from all children getting a good education. As such, they should have to pay for it, or forego all benefits and live alone with no help from outside.

then you two live in what is the minority... I have received a brutally liberal education which could get you failed if you so disgreed... but such is the public education of New York State... most studies have show the achedmia of the US is fiercly liberal..

I would be willing to bet money that by "disagreed", you actually mean "disagreed and could not back up your point." Most teachers don't expect you to agree with them but *do* expect you to be able to back up your viewpoint. If you cannot, *that* is when you get failed.

The Labour Party is appealing to the anti-Semitism of the Muslim community and of the 'Chav' community to win votes. Haven't you been watching the news recently? That's why their posters were banned. I'm not saying the party is anti-Semitic, but there's definetly some dirty hands at play.

Although I agree with you in principle, I can't agree with you not paying ALL your taxes because you disagree with this single tax. On the other hand... There's pretty much no other way you can protest so you got my backing.

Thankfully I don't pay taxes, but I think that religious schools not only shouldn't be paid for by the tax payer, but they should be illegal. In my mind they only promote segregation of communities that are already quite insular from the rest of Britain. We need to integrate as a nation, not sit around in our own little tribal camps.
Make religious schools illegal? I competely agree with not putting tax dollars into them, but make them illegal? Do you realize that untill recently religious schools WERE the only schools. Where I live the public schools are horrid, and if I didn't go to private school I would be screwed.

The Labour Party is appealing to the anti-Semitism of the Muslim community and of the 'Chav' community to win votes. Haven't you been watching the news recently? That's why their posters were banned. I'm not saying the party is anti-Semitic, but there's definetly some dirty hands at play.

How is putting Letwin's and Howard's faces on flying pigs anti-semitic?

How is putting Letwin's and Howard's faces on flying pigs anti-semitic?

They're practising Jews. Jewish relationship with pigs? Consider it.

Make religious schools illegal? I competely agree with not putting tax dollars into them, but make them illegal? Do you realize that untill recently religious schools WERE the only schools. Where I live the public schools are horrid, and if I didn't go to private school I would be screwed.

It is perfectly feasible to have private schools without any religious leaning. In my experience, religious schools highlight differences between religions in society. They reinforce the idea of an insular community where it's people of "our" religion and people of "their" religion. To me that can only be a bad thing.

With regard to private secular schools, well I can honestly say that they were probably the best I ever went to. I started off going to catholic priavte school, then a secular private school, followed by an anglican private school, ending with a secular albeit anglican leaning public school.

The secular private was by far the best of all of them.

Jewish relationship with pigs?

Now, I am hardly an expert on Judaism but, Jews tend to have no relationship with pigs, no?

Now, I am hardly an expert on Judaism but, Jews tend to have no relationship with pigs, no?

That was my point. ;)

That was my point. ;)
:confused:

Jews and pigs don't have any relationship at all, so therefore to photoshop a Jew's face onto a creature that they have no relationship with is racist?

Is it anti-rasta to photoshop Bob Marley's face onto a llama (say)?

:confused:

Jews and pigs don't have any relationship at all, so therefore to photoshop a Jew's face onto a creature that they have no relationship with is racist?

Is it anti-rasta to photoshop Bob Marley's face onto a llama (say)?

His point is that in Judaism, pigs are seen as "unclean" animals. This is why Pork is not considered Kosher by Jewish people.

Therefore, you can see how associating a practicsing Jew with being a pig might be more than a little offensive? :p

His point is that in Judaism, pigs are seen as "unclean" animals. This is why Pork is not considered Kosher by Jewish people.

Therefore, you can see how associating a practicsing Jew with being a pig might be more than a little offensive? :p

I can see how it can be offensive, but I don't see it as anti-semitic.

I can see how it can be offensive, but I don't see it as anti-semitic.

The fact that they ARE practicing Jews and they were "conveniently" potrayed as pigs makes the adverts racially targeted, aka anti-semetic.

The fact that they ARE practicing Jews and they were "conveniently" potrayed as pigs makes the adverts racially targeted, aka anti-semetic.
How? It didn't compare them to pigs, but was using the phrase "pigs will fly..." to show that (from Labour's pov) Conservative economic policy was bunk. I'm sure that if the phrase was "cow will fly..." I'm sure it would be cows used.

I still find the idea of juxtaposing two things that don't have any relationship with each other as prejudicial dubious at best. Yes I know that pigs aren't kosher but that has nothing to do with the price of fish, it doesn't effect the [non-] relationship of the two groups.

It insulted two individuals, irrespective of religious affiliations, not a whole race. (Well actually, it insulted the intelligence of everyone that saw ad, but moving on.)

But honestly, these charges of racism, to all parties (or nearly all of them) just cheapens the democratic process even further then the parties have already with their negative campaigning against the individuals.

.....

...... Yes I know that pigs aren't kosher but that has nothing to do with the price of fish,
......

From an economic standpoint, that's incorrect. Pork and fish (particularly smoked fish) are cross-substitutes, so the fact of pork being non-kosher would be expected to increase the price of fish. [/incredibly lame joke]

Dempublicents1, you bring up a good point. In which case, I must say I support school voucher programs. They can go to any school they wish, including private RELIGIOUS schools. People cry 'Seperation of Church and State!', but in reality, the First Amendment doesn't imply total seperation. It says that it may not establish an official church, or ban others. Allowing school vouchers for faith-based schools is not a violation, as it is not saying you may only got to a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/etc. school. It is allowing any school of your choosing. If this happens to be a religious school, fine, but remember, it is not endorsing a religion, as you can choose whatever faith you want.

At least, that's how it is (supposed to be) in America.

Kusarii, I disagree with you. Banning private schools discourages freedom of speech. As public schools, in my experience, are heavily left-leaning, and try to indoctrinate leftwing "values" into children, private schools are necessary for parents who do not want their children indoctrinated with what they (and I) feel is udder bullshit
I agree that private schools should be allowed, but what left-wing bias are you talking about? Crazy "socialist" ideas such as.... "science" and "tolerance for all people (yes that includes white Christians before you start whining)"?

I agree that private schools should be allowed, but what left-wing bias are you talking about? Crazy "socialist" ideas such as.... "science" and "tolerance for all people (yes that includes white Christians before you start whining)"?

Why isnt this bloody thread down? I bashed the fool who started into submission over his idiotic ideas about taxation. Let it die in peace.

Dempublicents1, you bring up a good point. In which case, I must say I support school voucher programs. They can go to any school they wish, including private RELIGIOUS schools. People cry 'Seperation of Church and State!', but in reality, the First Amendment doesn't imply total seperation. It says that it may not establish an official church, or ban others. Allowing school vouchers for faith-based schools is not a violation, as it is not saying you may only got to a Christian/Muslim/Jewish/etc. school. It is allowing any school of your choosing. If this happens to be a religious school, fine, but remember, it is not endorsing a religion, as you can choose whatever faith you want.

At least, that's how it is (supposed to be) in America.

This is true only if said schools allow students of any faith and do not indoctrinate their students. Otherwise, public dollars are going to indoctrinate people into a specific religion - which *is* endorcing a specific religion.

This is true only if said schools allow students of any faith and do not indoctrinate their students. Otherwise, public dollars are going to indoctrinate people into a specific religion - which *is* endorcing a specific religion.

Nope to both.

The government is not endorsing a specific religion. If the government decided to support only (insert faith here) schools, then yes, I'd agree with you. But since no requirement will be made dealing with it, then no, it is not an endorsement at all.

Nope to both.

The government is not endorsing a specific religion. If the government decided to support only (insert faith here) schools, then yes, I'd agree with you. But since no requirement will be made dealing with it, then no, it is not an endorsement at all.

You forget that a lack of religion is also protected. If the government supports *indoctrination* of any religion, it must also support indoctrination of atheism.

Meanwhile, all religiously affiliated schools do not attempt to indoctrinate their students. As such, teh government would be selectively providing more support to the religions that attempt to force their doctrines upon others.

Of course, the main point is that the government should never, under any circumstances, no matter how broadly, support indoctrination.