Topic: Barcelona: Van hits crowds on Ramblas tourist area

[TepidT2O]

We could do with these Catalan coppers over here.

Why?

[Mumm-Ra]

Why?

Sounds like they did a pretty amazing job of extinguishing the threat*

*hope they didn't blow away any innocents

[TepidT2O]

Sounds like they did a pretty amazing job of extinguishing the threat*

*hope they didn't blow away any innocents

Pretty much the same as the police in London then...

[Antoine Lavoisier]

Prize for the stupidest idea aired on RAWK in a while goes to...

Not so stupid as you at first think. Maybe "ban" is the wrong term, but the removal of religion from public life is something I, for one, warmly welcome.

[ggcc14]

As the buzzer signalled the start of the 200 metre breaststroke final in the FINA World Masters Championships in Budapest, one competitor stood still as others raced away.
But Fernando Alvarez had not frozen, overawed by the occasion.
The veteran swimmer claims he requested a minute's silence be observed before the race, to honour of the victims of the terror attacks in Spain that killed 15.
When that request was refused, he staged his own poignant tribute.
A video of Mr Alvarez's silent mark of respect, shared by his swimming club, Club Natacion Cadiz, has been watched over half a million times on Facebook.
In its post the club explained that Mr Alvarez had wanted to pay respect to the victims of the attacks.

Speaking to El Espanol, Mr Alvarez said he had contacted the competition's organisers on Friday, requesting a minute's silence be held, but received no reply.
He tried again on Saturday, the day of the race.
"I went to the director of the competition... but I was told that it was not possible because we could not lose a minute," Mr Alvarez said.
"It's something that has affected us all, but maybe because of the distance and because I have family there... I really think it would have been a good thing to do."
He decided to hold his own tribute.
"I stayed alone. I left a minute later. But I do not care, I felt better than if I won all the gold in the world."

Writing on Facebook, Mr Alvarez's swimming club said they were overwhelmed by the attention that the post had received.
"In life you have to hold values above everything else," they wrote.
"It is a great example for our swimmers. All of his peers at his club feel very proud of him. We want to congratulate him for being a great person. For us he won gold."
FINA - the International Swimming Federation, which staged the championships - has faced criticism from social media users, with many people taking to the organisation's Facebook page to voice their concerns.
"Shameful not to keep a minute of silence," one social media user wrote.
"It was only one minute," another said.
FINA has been approached for comment.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-41000266?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_sport&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport



(looks like the dude in lane 6 fell in rather than dived)

 

In regards to Catalan police, they are completely different to English in the sense they are far more severe and intimidating to look at.

Doesn't mean they are necessarily any better or worse, but they certainly take a no-nonsense approach.

[Purple Red]

Not so stupid as you at first think. Maybe "ban" is the wrong term, but the removal of religion from public life is something I, for one, warmly welcome.

So you think the majority of people would support that?

[Alan_X]

Not so stupid as you at first think. Maybe "ban" is the wrong term, but the removal of religion from public life is something I, for one, warmly welcome.

How on earth would that make any difference? Why not just 'ban terrorism' instead?

[Purple Red]

Credit to the Spanish police. We ought to be grateful for the bravery and efficiency of our police forces in the face of these difficult situations.

[So… Howard Philips]

Credit to the Spanish police. We ought to be grateful for the bravery and efficiency of our police forces in the face of these difficult situations.

Whilst I understand why the police, both here and Spain, have shot to kill as the terrorists were apparently were explosive vests, it's a pity they weren't able to simply disable them and let them rot in jail for the rest of their lives.

[Purple Red]

Whilst I understand why the police, both here and Spain, have shot to kill as the terrorists were apparently were explosive vests, it's a pity they weren't able to simply disable them and let them rot in jail for the rest of their lives.

That's true. They won't terrorise anyone ever again though.

[So… Howard Philips]

That's true. They won't terrorise anyone ever again though.

They won't but giving them their free ticket to Paradise is a bit of a bummer.

[west_london_red]

Not so stupid as you at first think. Maybe "ban" is the wrong term, but the removal of religion from public life is something I, for one, warmly welcome.

No, it actually sounds more stupid the more you think about it. Your going to tell people what they can and can't talk about, by extension what they can wear and read? Maybe we could have some book burnings? What are you going to do with all the churches and other religions buildings across the country? Bulldoze them? Cover them up? Are you going to ban people from having US dollars on them because it's says 'In God we trust'? And what about visitors to the country? Maybe customs could remove turbans from Sikh people, skull caps from Muslims and sidelocks from Jews? Sounds like some throwback to the 1930's.

How would that actually prevent these acts of terrorism from happening anyway. The people who carry out these acts don't usually walk around in public telling people what they are about to do, nor do the people inciting or recruiting them. They are already in the shadows.

[Alan_X]

No, it actually sounds more stupid the more you think about it. Your going to tell people what they can and can't talk about, by extension what they can wear and read? Maybe we could have some book burnings? What are you going to do with all the churches and other religions buildings across the country? Bulldoze them? Cover them up? Are you going to ban people from having US dollars on them because it's says 'In God we trust'? And what about visitors to the country? Maybe customs could remove turbans from Sikh people, skull caps from Muslims and sidelocks from Jews? Sounds like some throwback to the 1930's.

How would that actually prevent these acts of terrorism from happening anyway. The people who carry out these acts don't usually walk around in public telling people what they are about to do, nor do the people inciting or recruiting them. They are already in the shadows.

And one of the things that is used to radicalise Islamist terrorists is the idea that Islam is under threat from the west and Muslims are persecuted by infidels. Banning religion would be the best way to radicalise hundreds or thousands more young men.

I'm an atheist and think the world would be better off without religion. But that has to happen through education and enlightenment, not banning religion or driving underground.

[TepidT2O]

How could you ban religion in public?
Are you going to knock down every church, chapel, temple and synagogue?

Of course you can't, even if you deconsecrated them they would still be religious beacons.  You can no more ban religion than you can ban love or hate....

[So… Howard Philips]

How could you ban religion in public?
Are you going to knock down every church, chapel, temple and synagogue?

Of course you can't, even if you deconsecrated them they would still be religious beacons.  You can no more ban religion than you can ban love or hate....

Even Stalin wasn't successful.

[classycarra]

Whilst I understand why the police, both here and Spain, have shot to kill as the terrorists were apparently were explosive vests, it's a pity they weren't able to simply disable them and let them rot in jail for the rest of their lives.

True, that's the ideal. But there's a reason these Islamist cowards wear belts that make it imperative the police risk no further civilian casualties, and it's because these pathetic men are cowards, and that death is easy compared to staying alive, being tried and then considering their actions over the course of a lifetime in prison. Hence them doing everything possible to avoid it.

[Antoine Lavoisier]

No, it actually sounds more stupid the more you think about it. Your going to tell people what they can and can't talk about, by extension what they can wear and read? Maybe we could have some book burnings? What are you going to do with all the churches and other religions buildings across the country? Bulldoze them? Cover them up? Are you going to ban people from having US dollars on them because it's says 'In God we trust'? And what about visitors to the country? Maybe customs could remove turbans from Sikh people, skull caps from Muslims and sidelocks from Jews? Sounds like some throwback to the 1930's.

How would that actually prevent these acts of terrorism from happening anyway. The people who carry out these acts don't usually walk around in public telling people what they are about to do, nor do the people inciting or recruiting them. They are already in the shadows.

I doubt too many people will give this the time of day. But to you and other people have clearly misunderstood what I was saying. I’m not advocating banning religion, that’s a ridiculous concept given the reach of its tentacles into every walk of life it has, at this moment in time. (But for arguments sake, imagine yourself a young man or woman in the future; you and some lucky fellow travellers were given the opportunity to resettle on a now fully terraformed Mars. It’s a one way ticket and you’re the first of 100 settlers. Collectively, amongst many other very important tasks, would you look to ensure that no form of religion came with you let alone took root? No building of a Church or Mosque or Synagogue? No praying or dogmatic spiritual rituals of any kind and of course new settlers to arrive must also adhere to this law. Would you be for that? In other words, if you had a realistic opportunity to ban all religion, would you?)

What I am saying is that all religion is afforded too much space in our schools, in our politics and in day to day lives. We have faith schools and they are growing in number – that should be a national outrage, but its not. Politicians can openly claim that their actions and decisions are influenced by their god – an incredible thing to say in this day and age and yet it barley raises an eyebrow. People die in attacks or disasters then politicians and religious leaders of all faiths are wheeled out to parrot the same old mantra “Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims in this time”. You might think that last line is a little crass, but I say it in context of the wider picture. Religion is a cancer – where it can be beaten back and cut out, it should be.

And in answer to your question “How would that actually prevent these acts of terrorism from happening anyway?” It won’t. Not directly and not anytime soon or even if ever, but seeing as the home grown terrorist seems to be the most effective path to terror in this country, I think all religion in all the areas I have mentioned and a lot more besides, should gradually be pushed back. No funding for faith schools, leading to a complete ban on faith schools. An increased public demand for politicians to keep their imaginary gods out of policy making. No tax breaks, gift aid or charitable status for religious groups. Should we not at least try to keep religion out of public life in this way?

Over time, if such measures were implemented, I believe religion would be seen for the sham it is and not given the prominence it is today by association with the legitimate pillars of our social fabric. Even if one day, if such an environment existed, it gave one young man or one young woman the strength and courage – made it so much easier to turn around and say to their family, their peers – “No! Keep it to yourself please, that is not for me!” and still live a normal happy life, well that’s a start, is it not?

[Purple Red]

You don't believe in freedom of expression then? You're really overlooking the role religion plays in public life in the UK. Few politicians talk about it and its influence is school is largely minimal these days. Religious Education is not meant convert people but educate them about a significant aspect of our society and history. You realise that Pandora's Box would be opened with the enactment of such a policy? You would have to have legal ramifications for people who express 'thoughts and prayers' after tragedies etc.

[Antoine Lavoisier]

You don't believe in freedom of expression then? You're really overlooking the role religion plays in public life in the UK. Few politicians talk about it and its influence is school is largely minimal these days. Religious Education is not meant convert people but educate them about a significant aspect of our society and history. You realise that Pandora's Box would be opened with the enactment of such a policy? You would have to have legal ramifications for people who express 'thoughts and prayers' after tragedies etc.

Not got time to answer this fully just now, so I apologise, but I don't think you (still) understand me.

Oh and I'm all for freedom of expression - just not the freedom to express to the determent of others freedom.

[Antoine Lavoisier]

You don't believe in freedom of expression then? You're really overlooking the role religion plays in public life in the UK. Few politicians talk about it and its influence is school is largely minimal these days. Religious Education is not meant convert people but educate them about a significant aspect of our society and history. You realise that Pandora's Box would be opened with the enactment of such a policy? You would have to have legal ramifications for people who express 'thoughts and prayers' after tragedies etc.

I’m sorry Mr Purple

I’ve already dealt with your expression question. You are ignorant regarding religious teaching, especially regarding faith schools, which are on the increase.

With regard to the rest of what you said – I told you, I do not want to ban opinion.

[Purple Red]

I’m sorry Mr Purple

I’ve already dealt with your expression question. You are ignorant regarding religious teaching, especially regarding faith schools, which are on the increase.

With regard to the rest of what you said – I told you, I do not want to ban opinion.

No-one is coerced into going to Faith Schools.

[Antoine Lavoisier]

No-one is coerced into going to Faith Schools.

Excuse me? You cant be for real, surely?

[Purple Red]

Excuse me? You cant be for real, surely?

Who does the coercion? Certainly not the government.

[Antoine Lavoisier]

Who does the coercion? Certainly not the government.

They do and allow it.

[Purple Red]

They do and allow it.

How do the government coerce people to go to Faith Schools? You're being very vague.

[Antoine Lavoisier]

How do the government coerce people to go to Faith Schools? You're being very vague.

Ok I would agree not coerce, but facilitate.

3.1 Number of faith schools
At the start of January 2017 there were 6,813 state funded faith schools in England. The majority were primary schools; 6,176 or 37% of all state funded primaries. The 637 secondary16 faith schools made up 19% of all state funded mainstream secondaries. The proportion of state funded faith schools has increased gradually over time from 35% of primaries and 16% of secondaries in January 2000.
The number of state funded faith schools in England broken down by level and religion is given in the table at the end of this section. Church of England schools were the most common type among primary schools (26% of all primaries); Roman Catholic schools the most numerous type of faith school at secondary level (9%). Non-Christian schools were very much in the minority; there were 48 Jewish, 27 Muslim, 11 Sikh and 5 Hindu schools at the start of January 2017. While the number of Christian schools has fallen slightly since 2007 the number of non-Christian schools has increased. Between January 2007 and September 2017 the number of Jewish schools increased by 11, Muslim schools by 20, Sikh schools by 9 and all the Hindu schools have opened since 2008.17

[Conocinico]

But that has to happen through education and enlightenment, not banning religion or driving underground.

Easier said than done. How do you educate those who have a blind spot? It doesn't matter how bright you shine a light if the nerve is insensitive to it.

[classycarra]

No-one is coerced into going to Faith Schools.

Am I right to assume that parental proselytising/indoctrination doesn't count as coerced to you then?

[Purple Red]

Am I right to assume that parental proselytising/indoctrination doesn't count as coerced to you then?

Given that not all kids who go to Faith Schools are particularly religious, I would say you're overstating the level of proselytising and indoctrination that goes on. But yes, I suppose all children are 'coerced' to go to school whatever type it is because they don't really have a say. It's just a weird word to use for it.

[classycarra]

Given that not all kids who go to Faith Schools are particularly religious, I would say you're overstating the level of proselytising and indoctrination that goes on. But yes, I suppose all children are 'coerced' to go to school whatever type it is because they don't really have a say. It's just a weird word to use for it.

So the label proselytising (or indoctrination) only applies if parents (and their faith school backup) are particularly effective and successful coercers?

For me, any attempt at proselytising is proselytising. Whether it's a pathetically hilarious loudmouth megaphone numpty in the city centre, persuading noone, or a controlling parent succesfully forcing their child to follow their religion

[Purple Red]

So the label proselytising (or indoctrination) only applies if parents (and their faith school backup) are particularly effective and successful coercers?

For me, any attempt at proselytising is proselytising. Whether it's a pathetically hilarious loudmouth megaphone numpty in the city centre, persuading noone, or a controlling parent succesfully forcing their child to follow their religion

Fair enough.

[Jake]

No-one is coerced into going to Faith Schools.

Parents grooming their children into going and living a life of faith. Poor kids don't know any better.

[ToneLa]

Parents grooming their children into going and living a life of faith. Poor kids don't know any better.

True, but I do wonder why I grew up believing in Santa but sense kicked in as I got a little older and by age 27 I wasn't totally convinced

I don't think parents should force religion on their kids - by all means practice yourself and explain why when asked, but critical thought does happen usually.

I think with some religions there's so much pressure and taboo that you won't lean away from what you've been told is real.

In short: if you have to brainwash something into someone, that's proof the beliefs are weak on some level.

[stewil007]

True, but I do wonder why I grew up believing in Santa but sense kicked in as I got a little older and by age 27 I wasn't totally convinced

I don't think parents should force religion on their kids - by all means practice yourself and explain why when asked, but critical thought does happen usually.

I think with some religions there's so much pressure and taboo that you won't lean away from what you've been told is real.

In short: if you have to brainwash something into someone, that's proof the beliefs are weak on some level.

But that goes for a lot more than just religion doesn't it?  Would you allow your kids to support Everton or would you 'co-erce' them into following Liverpool

[Jshooters]

But that goes for a lot more than just religion doesn't it?  Would you allow your kids to support Everton or would you 'co-erce' them into following Liverpool

Yeah but football actually, you know, exists

[stewil007]

Yeah but football actually, you know, exists

Religion exists too, whats your point?

[Purple Red]

Parents grooming their children into going and living a life of faith. Poor kids don't know any better.

As has already been said, religion is not the only thing children don't have a choice in. By that logic, parents should not be allowed to impose any sort of moral values system on their kids and that kind of goes against the whole point of parenthood. At the end of the day it's a parent's right to bring up their child as they see fit and there is little we can do about it.

[zero zero]

As has already been said, religion is not the only thing children don't have a choice in. By that logic, parents should not be allowed to impose any sort of moral values system on their kids and that kind of goes against the whole point of parenthood. At the end of the day it's a parent's right to bring up their child as they see fit and there is little we can do about it.

The government refers to it as Parental Rights and Responsibilities. The two (usually) go hand in hand. The poster you're replying to clearly hasn't thought this one through. If you take away a parent's right to raise their child, who do you give that right to? Not the church. Not the parent. Who? The State? Yes, the world needs more Totalitarianism. 

[Jshooters]

Religion exists too, whats your point?

My point is that I see a vast difference between encouraging your child to support the same football team as you and manipulating an impressionable young mind into believing something for which there is no proof

[ToneLa]

My point is that I see a vast difference between encouraging your child to support the same football team as you and manipulating an impressionable young mind into believing something for which there is no proof

The tooth fairy is acceptable - religion has claimed so many lives and caused so many atrocities

One bit of my post that wasn't picked up on: what element of critical thought makes you snap out of believing in the tooth fairy, when others grow up with religion and never second-guess it? Why don't I believe in santa now, but some people believe in Christ? What's the difference - nature, nurture, the brain, the society? Everything, I guess?