British Teens the Worst Behaved in Europe

[afleitch]

What irritates me is that Bono is unable to grasp the fact that the UK has never been consistently and strongly religious going back 100 even 200 years, and is more Christian now than he thinks it is.

[Bono]

I do think that with the lawlessness of this generation, Britain is reaping what it has sown for turning its back on the Lord.

So what do you want us to do about it jmf...Bono? What laws would you wish to see overturned?

What laws. This isn't a problem for the state--however, it would help to get rid of the ridiculous restrictions on bars hours.
That is an issue for preachers, and in that field, the church of England and the church of Scotland are complete failures. Of course, this may be due to the fact that they are more NGOs than churches, and are more concered about "helping the world" than in saving souls.

The Moderator of the CofS is going to push for gay marriage recognition within the kirk according to reports today while we're on the subject.

Of course some genuinely don't pre occupy themselves with 'saving souls' because they believe in predestination so are concerned with the welbeing of people while on earth (which also results in them not becoming heartless b-stards)

I believe in presdestination. THat doesn't matter. We're still comanded to preach the gospel so that we can be instruments of the Spirit.
You remind me of that hyper Calvinist, that when faced with a young man eager to go preach the gospel replied: "Sit down your man. When God decides to save the heathen, He will do it without your help."
Not that any of those churches preaches (normal) Calvinism anymore anyways(I'm sure there are some exceptions).
Anyways, both those churches have become so engrossed with liberal "theology" that they obviously don't care abut saving souls because they believe every religion provides a path to God or some other such nonsense. The CoE doesn't even require pastors to affirm the 39 Articles anymore. The fact is, that while charitable work is important, it is secondary to ministering to the faithful and fulfilling the Great Comission. That is where they have been a complete failure.

[Bono]

Bono your recent rise in religiousness is worrying. Have you now completely left individualism? Do you no longer believe in the individual as the basis of society? Have you become nothing more than another man of great religion who believes that if we just all hunkered down with our families and went to church every Sunday we would be a-okay?

I don't know how religion equals colectivism. maybe you're too stuck in your romanist conception of religion.
I do think that with the lawlessness of this generation, Britain is reaping what it has sown for turning its back on the Lord.
My political positions remain the same.

I have never encountered a fundamentalist religion that is individualistic. Yes some "religions" like Unitarian Universalism are individualist but really that are neither very religious nor very Christian. Christianity is a communal and collectivist enterprise.[/quore]
Free association!
As long as no one mandates colectivization at state level...
Seriously, you're sounding like some randroid who oposes any sort of collective association, even if it is free.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have it backwards. I first attain my beliefs, then look for a church that agrees with me doctrinally.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obviously the reprobate can still have a measure of respect for God as sovereign creator(though not as Lord and Saviour), especially if they are part of the visible church.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What goodness of the individual? I always believed that people were fundamentally bad, and that only strenghtens my libertarianism. Anyways, you're one to talk, given that you've been becoming a total socialist lately.

[afleitch]

I can't see how philosophically seeing people as fundementally 'bad' can strengthen your libertarianism. Classic liberalism has always embraced the individual as being the 'greatest good' who is only corrupted when 'collectivised' either into the family unit, the community, the state or organised religion.

If you believe people are fundamentally bad then how one earth can you allow them the ability of free choice if they are therefore inclined to make 'bad' choices?

Neither do you embrace religion as an indivudual pursuit for your own good, but also allowing others to follow their own desires even if they are the antithesis to your own; instead you berate those who are faithless and blame societal (I never knew you cared so much about society) ills on a perceived godlessness that in reality doesn't exist (unless you consider those who do not subscribe to your interpretation of faith as godless)

Why? Who knows, but it's an easy brush to tar people with when you can't actually offer any practical solution to the problems in society you often (and rightly) point out.

[Tory]

I've never understood the libertarian belief that man is inherently good. My libertarian-esque beliefs have always come from a belief that man is naturally bad and therefore I don't want to be ruled by them, nor do I put my trust in them to handle the running of large parts of my life.

I have to agree with Bono on this one. A lack of religiousity in Europe accounts for a good deal of its ills. No, I'm not saying this is the wrath of God. This is just a product of a society where he isn't represented. The religious groups in the UK and most of Europe arent fufilling their job in being zealous for their faith. Their insistence on tolerance and a watering down of everything Christian has created a moral vacum. Britain hasn't been religious for a long time, but it's never been so anti-religion. My entire family has had a lot of problems dealing with this. My brother got so upset at what he saw in the world that he couldn't take it and became a pretty conservative Muslim. I've bounced around from religion to religion without finding any real substance in the Christian churches I've attended(although I'm attending an LDS church now with my wife and finding it to be of my liking as far as the views and general atmosphere go).

[afleitch]

But if yourself, your brother and Bono have chosen to attend churches or adhere to faiths that suit your own views, don't decry those who choose to attend liberal churches or indeed none at all if it suits their views or their perceived wellbeing.

If people have collectively chosen to distance themselves from orthodoxy or religion completely then that is their choice,

[Bono]

I can't see how philosophically seeing people as fundementally 'bad' can strengthen your libertarianism. Classic liberalism has always embraced the individual as being the 'greatest good' who is only corrupted when 'collectivised' either into the family unit, the community, the state or organised religion.

If you believe people are fundamentally bad then how one earth can you allow them the ability of free choice if they are therefore inclined to make 'bad' choices?

I think you are mixing two things. One thing is the bellief that the individual and tis rights should be above "collective rights"(that don't exist anyways). ANother completely different thing is the view of the nature of human nature--pardon the redundancy.
Anyways, what you are arguing is the Hobbesian argument. It falls by the base when you consider that the government is constituted of the very same people that are fundamentally bad, and that by being in the government they gain a monopoly of force on you.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't "allow" others? But I never expressed here any desire for a state church anyways--not that England doesn't have one to begin with, even if it's barely a church anymore. I don'0t get what's wrong with "berating" people. I am a paleolibertarian, thus I am a cultural conservative and defend that certain behaviours should happen in socoiety, even if I do not defend the use of covernment cohercion to mandate them. If we take that "berate" thing to its logical conclusion, we wouldn't be able to preach Christianity, because we could be offending people.
Oops, my bad, I forget that that already happens in the UK.

I am simply criticizing the churches for not doing what is their job, the reason they were instituted by Christ on earth, and offering a solution that implies no amount whatsoever of cohercion.

[Bono]

But if yourself, your brother and Bono have chosen to attend churches or adhere to faiths that suit your own views, don't decry those who choose to attend liberal churches or indeed none at all if it suits their views or their perceived wellbeing.

If people have collectively chosen to distance themselves from orthodoxy or religion completely then that is their choice,

In a free society, I can criticize everything  and anyone I want.
Oh, btw, as for caring for society, since the UK denies its subjects the right to defend themselves, obviously people have to worry about lawless thugs roaming the streets.

[Tory]

But if yourself, your brother and Bono have chosen to attend churches or adhere to faiths that suit your own views, don't decry those who choose to attend liberal churches or indeed none at all if it suits their views or their perceived wellbeing.

If people have collectively chosen to distance themselves from orthodoxy or religion completely then that is their choice,

No doubt it's their choice, but just as they have the right to decry orthodoxy and religion(and they do, to annoying extremes), I have the right to decry the ridiculousness of modern European religion and post-60's human-centric thought.

[afleitch]

I am a paleolibertarian, thus I am a cultural conservative and defend that certain behaviours should happen in socoiety, even if I do not defend the use of covernment cohercion to mandate them.

I don't see why you linked to that Christian Voice group who are to such an extreme that even evangelicals dissociate themselves from them (partly due to their harrasment of Catholics leaving mass)...

But Bono, give me some specifics. It's all very well saying how terrible society and people are but what exactly is it that annoys you that is a direct result of 'godlessness'? Civil partnerships, abortion? Was the welfare state the product of a godless society?

Stop stomping around posting long articles and whining about the state of society and a perceived lack of religion and put meat on the bones and give us some specifics.

[Bono]

I am a paleolibertarian, thus I am a cultural conservative and defend that certain behaviours should happen in socoiety, even if I do not defend the use of covernment cohercion to mandate them.

I don't see why you linked to that Christian Voice group who are to such an extreme that even evangelicals dissociate themselves from them (partly due to their harrasment of Catholics leaving mass)...

It could even have been scientologists. They were doing a peaceful handing of flyers, exercising their freedom of expression and religion, and some jackbooted thug infringed on it. I doubt they would have done the same if it was a group of communists handing flyers about the extermination of the "bourgouise".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, how about the very topic of this article.
Each friday and saturday night, the streets of british cities become reministcent of France during the muslim riot--and that the british government persists in denying its citizens the most basic right to self-defense. British teens are the earliest in europe to have sexual intercourse, and to drink heavily. Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in europe, and a very heavy alcoholism rate. Society is hostile to religion, and the church leaders don't care and go along with it. The welfare state is just a symptom of the problem.

[afleitch]

Okay, how about the very topic of this article.
Each friday and saturday night, the streets of british cities become reministcent of France during the muslim riots. British teens are the earliest in europe to have sexual intercourse, and to drink heavily. Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in europe, and a very heavy alcoholism rate. Society is hostile to religion, and the church leaders don't care and go along with it. The welfare state is just a symptom of the problem.

Then do you not agree that in order to solve this 'sexual' crisis we should lower the age of consent to 14 or 15, offer full and uncensorced sex ed to every child in state schools (including faith schools where, in Scotland from experience, they are not required to teach sex ed at all). If we combine this with the recent axing of VAT on condoms and the repeal of Section 28 to allow schools to teach about homosexual relationships (and encouraging gays to practice safe sex) and the introduction of civil partnerships to allow monogamous gay couples to have legal recognition (1000 couples and counting in Scotland alone) In short to pull down all barriers to consensual sex amongst similar aged teenagers and allow people to regulate their own sex lives?

(oh and if you think STD rates, pregnancies, abortions, affairs and illicate sex is bad now you should see what it was like in the 1940's, 1920's, 1900's, 1880's ...

[Bono]

Okay, how about the very topic of this article.
Each friday and saturday night, the streets of british cities become reministcent of France during the muslim riots. British teens are the earliest in europe to have sexual intercourse, and to drink heavily. Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in europe, and a very heavy alcoholism rate. Society is hostile to religion, and the church leaders don't care and go along with it. The welfare state is just a symptom of the problem.

Then do you not agree that in order to solve this 'sexual' crisis we should lower the age of consent to 14 or 15, offer full and uncensorced sex ed to every child in state schools (including faith schools where, in Scotland from experience, they are not required to teach sex ed at all). If we combine this with the recent axing of VAT on condoms and the repeal of Section 28 to allow schools to teach about homosexual relationships (and encouraging gays to practice safe sex) and the introduction of civil partnerships to allow monogamous gay couples to have legal recognition (1000 couples and counting in Scotland alone) In short to pull down all barriers to consensual sex amongst similar aged teenagers and allow people to regulate their own sex lives?

Oh my God. no, I don't support any of that, since I don't believe in positive rights. Especially not forcing religious schools to teach sex ed, that's just totalitarian. Except lowering the age of consent, of course, but then again, I don't see how that has been stopping anyone.  THat doesn't adress any of the other things, anyways.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But at least it was socially censored.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But at least it was socially censored.

You mean behind closed doors?

Would it benefit society for me to marry a woman and have a few kids to 'keep up appearances' and then sleep with my boyfriend on the side?

[Bono]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But at least it was socially censored.

You mean behind closed doors?

Would it benefit society for me to marry a woman and have a few kids to 'keep up appearances' and then sleep with my boyfriend on the side?

Er, no. I am not endorsing the past situation, just saying that it was marginally better than the present.

EDIT: Actually, refering to the sexual thing, I retract. They are equally as bad.
However, the lawless youth was never this lawless.

[afleitch]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But at least it was socially censored.

You mean behind closed doors?

Would it benefit society for me to marry a woman and have a few kids to 'keep up appearances' and then sleep with my boyfriend on the side?

Er, no. I am not endorsing the past situation, just saying that it was marginally better than the present.

What present situation? My own?

[Bono]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But at least it was socially censored.

You mean behind closed doors?

Would it benefit society for me to marry a woman and have a few kids to 'keep up appearances' and then sleep with my boyfriend on the side?

Er, no. I am not endorsing the past situation, just saying that it was marginally better than the present.

What present situation? My own?

I meant society, but check my edit.

[afleitch]

I meant society, but check my edit.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'equally as bad' what is equally as bad?

But why should you be concerned with society? Should you not be concerned with the individual? Who else can regulate their behaviour but themselves. I choose to be have been with my partner in a monogamous relationship for the past 18 months, my friend chooses to take home a different man every night. I don't approve of it, but it's his decision.

As for the present, let's take crime. Crimes against the person, gang related criminality etc is actually lower if we use raw data in the inner cities now than it was in the 1950's (In Glasgow in particular) If we were to compare it to the Victorian era you'd think we were living in a utopia.

[John Dibble]

I've never understood the libertarian belief that man is inherently good. My libertarian-esque beliefs have always come from a belief that man is naturally bad and therefore I don't want to be ruled by them, nor do I put my trust in them to handle the running of large parts of my life.

I'm not sure there really is a 'libertarian' belief that man is inherently good - some libertarians may believe that but I don't think it's inherent to libertarianism. Libertarianism I think mainly says that humans are to a degree naturally corruptable. (on the flip side, you might say that humans are to a degree naturally empathetic) In governing their own personal affairs people are generally suited enough to at least get by, but in governing others you get problems due to corruption and conflict of interests. That's all libertarianism says, at least in my view. My personal opinion is that man is neither inherently 'good' or 'evil', that we're more of a blank slate overall, though individuals might have leanings towards certain behaviors due to biological factors.


Anywho, on the subject at hand. I don't think that religiousity or lack thereof is the problem. Keep in mind that religiousity isn't necessarily a good thing - just look at witch hunts, cults, jihads, and all the other horrid things involving religion. Let's not act as if things were all honkey dorey back in the day. Of course I'm not saying it's inherently a bad thing either. Religion has been on the decline in many ways throughout the world, Europe not excluded in the least, but I don't think that in itself is the problem. There are quite a large number of secular folk who live law abiding, honest lives - hell, I've had some religious people tell me that some of the secular people they know are more pleasant than some of the religious folks they know.

When I look at the issue, the real problem isn't the decline of religiousity - it's what it's being replaced with. Relgion gives people a moral code to live by. While I have my issues with Christianity, there are certainly parts of it that allow a civil society to function. Same can be said for many other religions. People have depended on religion to give them a code to live by for thousands of years, and those who decide to do without have to come up with a code of their own. Next comes the real problem: how do you do that? Some decide their code based on logic, reason, and 'moral intuition', while others just decide to do what feels good at the time because they don't see anything beyond this 'short' life. Most secular people are somewhere inbetween the two, but if secular parents don't raise their children towards the former it's likely they'll end up near the latter. Unfortunately that's happening in a number of secular households.

Of course, let's not lay the blame solely on religious issues - I'm sure a number of these little troublemakers are from religious families and consider themselves religious themselves. There are other things at work, and I think most of them can be solved through proper parenting(secular or religious).

[Bono]

I meant society, but check my edit.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'equally as bad' what is equally as bad?

But why should you be concerned with society? Should you not be concerned with the individual? Who else can regulate their behaviour but themselves. I choose to be have been with my partner in a monogamous relationship for the past 18 months, my friend chooses to take home a different man every night. I don't approve of it, but it's his decision.

As for the present, let's take crime. Crimes against the person, gang related criminality etc is actually lower if we use raw data in the inner cities now than it was in the 1950's (In Glasgow in particular) If we were to compare it to the Victorian era you'd think we were living in a utopia.

It's lower in those places, but it's more widespread. Anyways, comparing it to the victorian era is a bogus comparison, I could as well compare it to puritan new england and say it was hell.
As for concern with the individual, NO. NO NO NO!
I can be a libertarian and be concerned with society all I want, I just can't want to use the state to use cohercion to restrict private activity. I don't have to respect people who do things I find repulsive, like binge drinking. I may respect a few individual people who do so, but I don't in general.

[afleitch]

I don't have to respect people who do things I find repulsive, like binge drinking. I may respect a few individual people who do so, but I don't in general.

And neither do I But I believe we should relax restrictions on alcohol and encourage responsible drinking, and yes even amongst young teenagers should be encouraged to drink responsibly at mealtimes at their parents discretion. Tighter restrictions would have the opposite affect. The only way to enourage this is to roll back the state and roll forward personal responsibility. Indeed 'glassing'; attacks from broken glasses inside and outside bars in Glasgow was 'slashed' by introducing plastic glasses (except for wine)

Aside for that, what did you mean was 'equally as bad' I've read over it but need clarification in order to repond to that point (which was why I veered off into crime!)

[Bono]

I don't have to respect people who do things I find repulsive, like binge drinking. I may respect a few individual people who do so, but I don't in general.

And neither do I But I believe we should relax restrictions on alcohol and encourage responsible drinking, and yes even amongst young teenagers should be encouraged to drink responsibly at mealtimes at their parents discretion. Tighter restrictions would have the opposite affect. The only way to enourage this is to roll back the state and roll forward personal responsibility. Indeed 'glassing'; attacks from broken glasses inside and outside bars in Glasgow was 'slashed' by introducing plastic glasses (except for wine)

Aside for that, what did you mean was 'equally as bad' I've read over it but need clarification in order to repond to that point (which was why I veered off into crime!)

Well, I at first I was saying that people pretending but go having illicit sex  hddenly was better than the current situation, but I changed my mind and I say the state it was then and the state it is now are both bad.

[afleitch]

Well, I at first I was saying that people pretending but go having illicit sex  hddenly was better than the current situation, but I changed my mind and I say the state it was then and the state it is now are both bad.

So in my scenario, having a long term relationship with another man is as bad as marrying a woman and having illicit sex with a man behind her (and presumably the childrens) back ?

In other words open and honest monogamy (but with another man), in this situation, is comparable to hiding my sexual orientation and cheating?

EDIT: If so, and correct me if I am wrong, if monogamy in this case counts for nothing, why should someone who is gay be encouraged to be monogamous at all?

[Bono]

Well, I at first I was saying that people pretending but go having illicit sex  hddenly was better than the current situation, but I changed my mind and I say the state it was then and the state it is now are both bad.

So in my scenario, having a long term relationship with another man is as bad as marrying a woman and having illicit sex with a man behind her (and presumably the childrens) back ?

In other words open and honest monogamy (but with another man), in this situation, is comparable to hiding my sexual orientation and cheating?

EDIT: If so, and correct me if I am wrong, if monogamy in this case counts for nothing, why should someone who is gay be encouraged to be monogamous at all?

When did sexual orientation come to the topic?
I don't recall mentioning it, and I sure don't think sexual orientation is behind the sorry state of british youth.

[afleitch]

Well, I at first I was saying that people pretending but go having illicit sex  hddenly was better than the current situation, but I changed my mind and I say the state it was then and the state it is now are both bad.

So in my scenario, having a long term relationship with another man is as bad as marrying a woman and having illicit sex with a man behind her (and presumably the childrens) back ?

In other words open and honest monogamy (but with another man), in this situation, is comparable to hiding my sexual orientation and cheating?

EDIT: If so, and correct me if I am wrong, if monogamy in this case counts for nothing, why should someone who is gay be encouraged to be monogamous at all?

When did sexual orientation come to the topic?
I don't recall mentioning it, and I sure don't think sexual orientation is behind the sorry state of british youth.

I brought it up as an example (of a sexual practice that was in your words 'socially censored') and I was referring back to it.

I believe youth are easy targets. For every bad egg there is someone hard at work in school or at university and I won't go down the line of putting my faith in tabloid sensationalism. I believe that the heart of the problem is not about money, or welfare or religion or morals; it's about parenting. You're either good at it or bad at it regardless of your situation. Religious parents don't always make good parents (who in my own religious school often raised the most self obsessed obnoxious bigots I've ever had to meet) I was raised by religious (and socialist) parents and I still consider myself to be religious, but I believe their ability as parents would have been strong regardless of what faith they were or none at all.