Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Good

About Julianne

  • Rank
    Junior Member


  • Den


  • Gender
  1. Yes, thank you! I'm really getting tired of all the misplaced arguements or worse non-arguements I get from these people, even if it is from time to time. I understand that there's way too many denominations of Christianity for any atheist to fully keep track of the semantics, but I hear them being completely misinformed even on the fundamnetal skeleton of what Christianity is. Maybe it's an issue of lack of interest on their part to understand what it is they are denying...and I've come across people who simply parrot the fallacies spouted by other misinformed atheists on Youtube videos. Any self respecting person would at least inform themselves on the basics before going in a debate on a certain topic, and religion is no different. Just because it's a matter of belief doesn't mean they can turn any such debate into "pidgeon chess".
  2. Faith is important, but not as important as how they choose to deal with their religion, or whether they are impartial to involving church in politics. I think that there should be a balance: neither a total separation between religion and politics, nor a complete entanglement between the two. There's an important social aspect to religion that politicians cannot turn a blind eye to if they want to be up to speed with the zeitgeist of the people. Such omissions would be culturally dissastrous, bordering on the practices of Bolschevik communism, where religion was obliterated for the sake of the state's efficiency. When it comes to the UK, there's a lot of religious plurality with many non-Christian religions on the mix, such as Buddhism, Daoism, Muslim, Hindu, etc. These people wouldn't vote for someone that would oust them or marginalise them because of their religion. What it boils down to is questions like "Do they want to lead based on the Bible, or do they keep their own beliefs to their own?", or "Do they intend to conform to the ideas of their religious leaders (e.g. the Pope), everytime they change their minds?"...So in the end the attitude towards religion (any) is definitely going to play a part in the elections, but because there's a separation between the part and the individual leading the party it won't be as noticable. Talking about Cameron, cohesion in a party is important as well. If a leader wants to push for something that is completely against party lines, it could generate enough turmoil to destabilize a Brexit-fresh government...and Brittain will need all the stability it can get at this point.
  3. Julianne


    Personally I don't mind people using marijuana for medical purposes (either physical or psychological), however I do have a problem when people close to me begin to obviously abuse it and "can't live without it" (in their own words). There's users that say it's not an addictive substance, that it's up to the user to quit. I agree that it's up to the user, but sugar is also considered a non-addictive substance and people abuse sugar intake all the time. It's easy to fall into abusing anything you can get a hold of when life doesn't work out the way you expected. There's a reason that low-income families score higher in smoking and obesity. This is not exactly accurate, as weed only helps with brain cells after trauma or a stroke. It's the other way around however when it comes to adolescents, where it's been found that regular (weekly to daily) use of weed actually inhibits learning processes, the younger the adolescent is. This is actually the reason I'm against legalising non-medical use of marijuana to underaged individuals..
  4. I think that's a fair point, usually we become more outspoken and protesting when a problem emerges too close to us. When we're unaffected it's easy to say "Someone else will handle it", and go back to our life, even if unbeknownst to us we're part of the problem (e.g. by not voting, etc). But ultimately, as David Lee and theophilus mentioned above, it's us (people in general) that need to seek peace individually before we can hope for universal peace. In that regard Lennon did promote ideas in the spirit of inner peace, however I think he'd be overshadowed by the popular culture either way. A billboard does very little to inspire these days and meaningful music gets buried beneath the marketing of colossal music industries. Social media and YouTube would have been the ideal venue for his peace campaign, but would he have been willing to put himself out there as a blogger or a vlogger or a social media persona?
  • Create New...