In England, deism, Christ, Allah, Krishna, is it the same?

In England, deism, Christ, Allah, Krishna, is it the same?
there are deist educators
Anglicans are in power, the prime minister is a Krishnaite, the mayor of London is a Muslim
I feel good about agnostic atheism and atheistic agnosticism

 

In BRITAIN we abolished the established church in 1830 so no, Anglicans are not in power. Beyond that yes we've always had a proud record on religious pluralism, as part of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 we had the Act of Toleration which we still celebrate every 12th of July.

 

Is monotheism better than Marxism or Maoism?

 

then, Islam is better than Marxism

 

I cannot prove or disprove deism

 

Religious pluralism is to be applauded. Religion goes off the rails when it teaches that those who don't share your views are evil and should be opposed or even murdered.

The Muslim extremists are the worst element of their movement. They do nothing further the cause of Isam and only stoke the dislike and distrust of their movement.

 

As long as they remain neutral and don't try to convert the population they are okay. We have "separation of church and state" to address "holy mayors".

 

it will not help the European peoples
they decided to get high and die

 

Americans assume the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is England repeatedly.
Are there any Americans who know the difference?
Americans also use the catch all term ‘Asians’ to cover all peoples from Turkey to Japan.
It is better to say nothing than expose your ignorance.

 

There is still an official "Church of England": https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/church-of-england , a.k.a, the "Anglican Church". I'm not a member, and I'm not in England, so I can't speak authoritatively about what effects "religion", generally, has there.

It is clear to me, nevertheless, that whether the cause is rooted in anything having to do with "religion" or not, Great Britain has been in a state of continuous decline and decay ever since August 4, 1914, when it stupidly blundered into becoming a primary antagonist in World War I. Then, it doubled-down on its own further ruination and destruction by launching into another ill-conceived war with the only European power that could have contained Soviet Communism -- Germany!

Thus in less than 35 years, Great Britain went from being one of the world's most prosperous, powerful nations to being a bombed-out, economically devastated cripple which had either lost, or was in the process of losing its entire world-wide empire, along with a total of over 1.25 million of its military personnel killed, and many more badly wounded!

Oh, and yes, the Church of England was an ardent supporter of Great Britain being up to its earlobes in both of those wars....

 

In World War Two it was Germany who declared war on America. A Germany who had become somewhat depleted due to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland along with allies from Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, the West Indies and elsewhere standing against them.
The fact the Britain has 'lost' it's worldwide influence due to many conquered places gaining independence is one of the Glories of the twentieth century, it is a pity it ever happened in the first place all over the world including in the Americas, but to an extent it is good that places all over the globe have self determination, as they always ought to have had, and to the eternal shame of the British that there was ever an Empire in the first place.
If there is any evidence that Religion was a factor of some kind in anything I wouldn't know, I doubt it.

 

Yes but we don't have an established church, the church of England, Ireland, Scotland does not have an official position and dictate to the population (I mean we're not the Irish Free State). Britain won the Great War to stop the coast of the German Military dictatorship being visible from Europe and saved world democracy in both world wars. Sure we gave up the Empire but the age of colonialism was over, the fact that we gave it up is to our credit. And we still are one of the most prosperous nations on Earth.

Britain, you know, the good guys.

 

History is full of 'woulda-coulda-shoulda' as we have seen. But, the smart thing for Britain to have done would have been to let the inevitable conflict between the Nazis and the Soviet Union come to fruition, and then to sit back and let Hitler and Stalin destroy each other! Both of them were both headed in this direction when Winston Churchill (the master-strategist of Gallipoli ) decided that a war started by on-again-off-again Idiot Neville Chamberlain should be pursued full-tilt, whereupon Hitler and Stalin honored their recently-signed non-aggression pact! Hitler broke it later, because he, too, was an idiot, but the damage the Nazis did to Britain in the meantime was deep and lasting.

During the war, English priests endorsed fighting Germany. And, German priests endorsed fighting England. In Russia, as the Nazis drew close to Moscow, Stalin hastily enlisted the prayers and support from Orthodox Christian priests, and, oddly enough, when the war was over, it was Russia that ended up much better off than either Germany or England....

 

I wonder, in this revisionist world, what would have been the 'smart thing' to do for America when Germany declared war on it.
Surrender?

 

The Soviets and Nazis signed the pact BEFORE WW2 broke out. Chamberlain did the right thing, we were never going to accept a Europe conquered by either of these great evils.
Religion was irrelevant.

 

Correct, Bob, the Soviets and Nazis signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed a few days before they carved Poland up between themselves -- but both of them immediately fortified their sections of Poland and stood across from each other in an uneasy occupation. If England had simply left the whole thing alone, it would have merely been a matter of time before Hitler went ahead and fulfilled his long-desired, well-publicized dream for additional German "Lebensraum" by attacking the "racially-inferior" Slavs in Russia -- as he did anyway, in June 1941.

The Nazis and Soviets would have destroyed each other, Bob, and then AFTER both warring factions had 'bled themselves dry' it would have been easy to pick a fight with the 'winner' and subdue him with relative ease. Remember, too, even before WWII started, America was already working on developing a nuclear weapon, while Idiot Hitler thought that nuclear physics was just a bunch of discredited "Jewish science" and "Jewish nonsense"....

 

No they wouldn't, Britain was not going to stand by and see Europe divided between these 2 unspeakable evils. The US only started working on the A-bomb after the Nazis conquest of Western Europe. Britain did the right thing, as always.

 

Must've been pushed into it by Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales somehow eh?

 

"The United States first began developing nuclear weapons during World War II under the order of President Franklin Roosevelt in 1939, motivated by the fear that they were engaged in a race with Nazi Germany to develop such a weapon." Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_of_the_United_States#:~:text=The United States first began,to develop such a weapon

Obviously, 1939 was a long way before "the Nazis conquest of Western Europe".

Afterthought -- Fact: English voters expressed their real admiration for Winston Churchill by tossing his ass out of office as their Prime Minister just two months after "Victory in Europe Day"
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later_life_of_Winston_Churchill#:~:text=Winston Churchill's Conservative Party,continued to influence world affairs.

 

When you say English voters, what role did voters in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland play in the result of that General Election?
Seeing as you're all about facts 'n stuff.

 

OK, nitpickers love to pick nits... so... let's replace "English" with "United Kingdom"! Satisfactory? Thus, it was the United Kingdom voters who threw Churchill out on his ass two months after World War II in Europe ended. Fact.

 

It is not nitpicking.
It is about truth.

 

Well, the TRUTH is that the Labour Party enjoyed a "landslide" victory, and gave "Winnie" Churchill a sound thrashing in July 1945... a scant two months after the end of the war in Europe -- which is what I said in the first place: https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/how-...the-conservative-party-lost-the-1945-election

Har! As it turned out, the Irish were the only smart ones in that archipelago....

 

Your link does not show the difference between the percentage of votes cast in Northern Ireland as opposed to the rest of the United Kingdom. Do you know that then, as now, Ireland is a land mass with a different national government in two parts of that land mass?
I think the problem of any American assuming that the whole group of islands is England, is it exposes American ignorance. It matters, but it is simply arrogant to assume pointing that out is nit-picking. If you’re going to comment on another country it is respectful to get your facts right, but maybe it is an example of American exceptionalism when they react to the truth by calling it nit picking.
Before you comment know what you’re talking about.

 

Yes and....? We also brought him back again for another term.