The only legitimate time for a politician (even one in the UK) to slag off all religion is if they’re resigning and want to go out with a bang as it would be political suicide, it’s bizarre that you’d hold the Lib Dems failure to do so against them.Rye wrote:I'm not disputing any of that, but there are legitimate times to call it like it is rather than playing it safe.The Guid wrote:Do you really think that would a. Do any good or B. Actually be a good idea? Apart from the fact that complaining about "the crappiness of religion in general" is a really stupid thing to do it is also political suicide and for no gain. And the Liberal Democrats are a political party wanting to be in power, you can't laden yourself with potential foreign diplomats by calling their country a pile of crap because its a theocracy. Apart from anything else it might piss the Americans off. Sometimes it is best to keep silent on issues and then take practical measures as best you can.Have you ever even heard a Lib Dem complain about theocracies or the crappiness of religion in general?
No its textbook ‘don’t tar all Muslim’s with the terrorist brush’ line of argument.Yes, it is textbook "they happen to have religion but it is in no way responsible," line of argument.Hang on wait minute. They say that Islam is laced onto it and your taking that as religous apoligism?
The ideology of Bin Laden and the rest of the militant Islamists grew out of amongst other things the failure of Arab nationalism it’s the religiously inspired manifestation of an ongoing, failing political struggle to rid the middle east of imperial domination. It’s obviously shot through with religion but that doesn’t stop it from being at its heart a political movement.So? What are OBL's political motives? If he were a politician that happened to be bending religion to his profit, he wouldn't be throwing his millions at his terrorist groups. He obviously wants to affect political change which rejects the poisons of the west and exalts islam.And besides, look at every conflict and though religion can inflame and make things much worse you still have to admit that there are political motives.
No, it was your typical we’ve had enough of covering for a drunk and we’re not gonna do it anymore type behaviour. Kennedy is a great guy and I hope he gets over his troubles and comes back to be a major figure in the party but having been friends with addicts in the past I can understand the way in which those at the top eventually couldn’t put up with Kennedy’s behaviour any longer.I've seen nothing from them to imply they wouldn't cave to religious bullshit given the backbiting and power plays we saw with reference to Kennedy's stepdown. That was your average "we are in it for ourselves" politician behaviour,So they practise as you would wish them to practise but don't start a big argument for the sake of it? I have to admit I think that this is not their problem.
How about our consistent opposition to Labours ‘incitement to religious hatred law’ which they specifically drew up to try and drive a wedge between the Lib Dems and Muslims who supported Labour until the Invasion of Iraq. Or the Lib Dems consistent backing of their liberal social policies despite the fact that these alienate conservative Muslims attracted by our anti war stance, those are clear recent examples of the Lib Dems preferring principle to political advantage.which leads me to think their principles are just as bound by political correctness and religious pressure as anyone else. I don't think their principles would necessarily win out if it means them looking mean, is what I'm saying.
Well the Lib Dems want to abolish the Blasphemy laws, oppose the governments plans to create more faith schools and amend existing schools admissions policies so they can’t select students by religion, strongly opposed Labour’s incitement to religious hatred law, support the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia, it’s also policy to end religious groups current ability to discriminate against employees on the basis of religion and sexuality. They also want to end religious adoption and foster agencies current right to discriminate against homosexuals.They don't even need to say it, if they more zealously pursued the seperation of church and state (an issue i've not heard about in years), and sidestepped the bullshit about religion only being a tool, at the same time not caving to PC religious pressure (the examples I gave just being super obvious, off the top of my head examples of this), I would easily vote for them.What would be the point? Who is going to help and what will it prove? Do you seriously think it would be a good idea for someone like Sir Menzies Campbell to make a speech attacking Islam? And what about our Prime Minister? I mean, please, do you not see how bad that could get on the richta scale of dumbass backlashes?
So basically the Liberals are pushing for secularism about as hard as a mainstream party can, they obviously aren’t going to come right out and openly attack all religion as doing so would achieve nothing beyond killing us at the polls and causing many of our members to leave. I really don’t understand why you’d rather the Lib Dems made noisy, self defeating declarations against religion rather than actually getting on with the job of actually trying to implement secular measures and opposing theocratic ones.
I'll concede as far as actively fucking off the religious, I was ignorant about how much progression they've stated they want to make on the secular front. 
and this is your ‘evidence’ that the Liberals aren’t a secular party and have been ‘sucking muslim cocks’? That’s just pitiful.