Royal Mail staff in Ramadan holiday row

[stokes11eg]

They aren't exactly wars,

It is quite often described as single-issue terrorism.
It is a jihad.
The issuing of the fatwa against Rushdie isn't a war but it has been used here to stereotype Islam.

And that's exactly the problem with fundamentalists. They fight, torture, etc., in the name of Religion. Despite the fact that certainly in the cases of Christinity and Islam. And most likley, it's the same with other Religions. The true teahings, specifically prohibit that type of beaviour. And it gets the true followers a bad name!

Just look at what happened with the Spannish Inquisition!

For example: Some people quote this passage from the Bible, to justify aggression: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". But that's totally out of context. As it's actually part of a section RESTRICTING punishments, so that they're in proportion to the crime. Rather than killing offenders for the slightest thing! You see how easy it is for people to misquote Religious teahings?

Actually, if you read the bible correctly, an eye for an eye etc, only refers to PREGNANT women, true--if they were attacked, then the attacker in theory, would have his eye taken out if he had taken hers out! but then again, he could also compensate her instead.The vast majority of other 'punishments could also be bought off, or excused.

[Tman]

But I think I have.

It wasn't you I was asking...

But then if your were debating properly perhaps you would not have bypassed them.

Oh, I wasn't "debating properly" when I asked for Andy 2007 to give me what he thought were examples of "wars and Christianity" ? Sorry. Must try harder...

[dvbuk55]

Who cares what religion, what colour, what creed - if ordered to attack then a soldier would, absolutely without question - that's what they do.

[TrueBlueTerrier]

But I think I have.

It wasn't you I was asking...

But then if your were debating properly perhaps you would not have bypassed them.

Oh, I wasn't "debating properly" when I asked for Andy 2007 to give me what he thought were examples of "wars and Christianity" ? Sorry. Must try harder...

Ahh I see a debate only includes 2 people must remember that.

The point I was trying to make was that in a debate anyone can answer a question not just the asked, but thanks for pointing out the finer points of debate I am now suitability corrected.

[Tman]

Ahh I see a debate only includes 2 people must remember that.
The point I was trying to make was that in a debate anyone can answer a question not just the asked, but thanks for pointing out the finer points of debate I am now suitability corrected.

Such heavy-handed (and unnecessary) sarcasm hardly becomes you. You need to lighten up...
Andy2007 made the statement, so I asked him for his opinion. Sorry if you saw my reply to him as a general request of info on (what could be classed as) "religious wars", but it wasn't.
It was trying to engage Andy2007 in debate about what he perceives as a "religious/Christian war", though rest assured if I was after historical info I would hardly ask on an RM forum.....

[fishtank]

The reasons for war are seldom clear cut,often misrepresented and only placed in little boxes marked "Religious".."Political"..."Economic".. etc by those who fail to see the whole picture.
Every war i can think of has involved a mixture of these "reasons" so to ask for a specifically "Religious" example was in my opinion a complete waste of time.
Asking for an even more specific Christian example....even more pointless.

[MinisterofCucumber]

Getting back to the point, union reps are meant to represent the interests of their members. In this case, members have complained to the union that they believe they have been discriminated against. They were denied something they were allowed previously. As they have a good argument, the union is obliged to help them.

'Royal Mail staff in discrimination row' does not sound as catchy as 'Royal Mail staff in Ramadan holiday row'.

[Tman]

="fishtank"]The reasons for war are seldom clear cut,often misrepresented and only placed in little boxes marked "Religious".."Political"..."Economic".. etc by those who fail to see the whole picture.

Exactly Fishy old chap, exactly. Many do indeed blame "religion" for wars when in reality the cause(s) are often unrelated to religion as such.
Hence my asking for Andy's opinion on which wars were religious as he made the original statement.
Not a "waste of time" but merely continuing the debate......

[andy2007]

So come on Tman, have you read my explination (penultimate post on page 6). Is it sufficient, or do you need more details?
You've attacked other's replies. But have yet to respond to me. I wonder why.

[Tman]

andy2007"]So come on Tman, have you read my explination (penultimate post on page 6). Is it sufficient, or do you need more details?

You may consider that to be your "explination" but it wasn't anything I asked for. I merely asked you what, in your opinion, were examples of religious wars from a Christian perspective. No response from you on that one.

You've attacked other's replies. But have yet to respond to me. I wonder why.

I haven't attacked anyone. TBT saw fit to post some heavy-handed sarcasm for reasons known only to him, but as I'm still waiting for a response from you (see above, and previous posts) why would I respond to you? So wonder no more....

So, for about the fifth and final time of asking, do you know of any examples of religious/Christianity wars or not?

[andy2007]

andy2007"]So come on Tman, have you read my explination (penultimate post on page 6). Is it sufficient, or do you need more details?

You may consider that to be your "explination" but it wasn't anything I asked for. I merely asked you what, in your opinion, were examples of religious wars from a Christian perspective. No response from you on that one.

You've attacked other's replies. But have yet to respond to me. I wonder why.

I haven't attacked anyone. TBT saw fit to post some heavy-handed sarcasm for reasons known only to him, but as I'm still waiting for a response from you (see above, and previous posts) why would I respond to you? So wonder no more....

So, for about the fifth and final time of asking, do you know of any examples of religious/Christianity wars or not?

Try reading my earlier posts properly. . I confirmed that the 200 years of crusades, were fought in the name of Christianity, and added an earlier example. Teebs has also added some extra ones.

But sticking to my examples (as you seem to think this is a personal issue, between you and I): Are you seriously suggesting that either, wasn't sold to the public, and armed forces, as a Holy War?!?

[andy2007]

Getting back to the point, union reps are meant to represent the interests of their members. In this case, members have complained to the union that they believe they have been discriminated against. They were denied something they were allowed previously. As they have a good argument, the union is obliged to help them.

'Royal Mail staff in discrimination row' does not sound as catchy as 'Royal Mail staff in Ramadan holiday row'.

Exactly! Why wasn't there any attempt to deal with RM through the anti discrimination laws?
It makes good PR for RM to say "we can't have that many people off at once. It's not our fault". But it wasn't a problem last year. The lack of action is embarrassing.

It doesn't help, when they're demonised by the Press, as all potential terrorists. And people believe the reports, and even try to deny that Christianity was ever abused in the same way! Denial isn't just a river in Egypt!

What we need to remember is, that they are our fellow workers, our brothers and sisters. An injury to one, is an injury to all. And it's about time we started putting that philosophy into practice. Don't you think?

[Tman]

Try reading my earlier posts properly. . I confirmed that the 200 years of crusades, were fought in the name of Christianity, and added an earlier example. Teebs has also added some extra ones.But sticking to my examples (as you seem to think this is a personal issue, between you and I): Are you

OK Andy. Obviously you can't or won't say anything new, so let it go.

[dvbuk55]

Getting back to the point, union reps are meant to represent the interests of their members. In this case, members have complained to the union that they believe they have been discriminated against. They were denied something they were allowed previously. As they have a good argument, the union is obliged to help them.

'Royal Mail staff in discrimination row' does not sound as catchy as 'Royal Mail staff in Ramadan holiday row'.

Exactly! Why wasn't there any attempt to deal with RM through the anti discrimination laws?
It makes good PR for RM to say "we can't have that many people off at once. It's not our fault". But it wasn't a problem last year. The lack of action is embarrassing.

It doesn't help, when they're demonised by the Press, as all potential terrorists. And people believe the reports, and even try to deny that Christianity was ever abused in the same way! Denial isn't just a river in Egypt!

What we need to remember is, that they are our fellow workers, our brothers and sisters. An injury to one, is an injury to all. And it's about time we started putting that philosophy into practice. Don't you think?

Yes - if it is reciprocal

[TrueBlueTerrier]

What we need to remember is, that they are our fellow workers, our brothers and sisters. An injury to one, is an injury to all. And it's about time we started putting that philosophy into practice. Don't you think?

Yes - if it is reciprocal

Sorry IMHO No - if a thing is right you do it because its right, not because you expect something in return.