Canal World

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


churchward last won the day on March 24

churchward had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

512 Excellent

1 Follower

About churchward

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
  • Boat Name
    NB Lady Moonlight
  • Boat Location

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

9,057 profile views
  1. It is of course the women's choice to do what she wishes but it does not prove your point. I can say by personal experience how people of one faith or another have helped people on the brink of suicide to see a better way and live a happy full life and not always a life of faith either. A particular individual I know has gone onto help others not I might add in any missionary or conversion sense but just to campaign for human rights and helping those that have less. So a life saved a goodness in itself but it is a gift that goes on giving as due to their presence others are being saved. The assertions you use pile up, through education we will see that there is no need for religion? So logically you are saying only the uneducated believe? That is another nonsense. Religion and what it does and its relevance to lives may and will change. Many people of faith work hard to campaign and change injustices, have done in the past and our world is better for it and are doing so now. I can understand that you may not recognise what has been achieved or be aware of them and the people who worked for it. I will now show some restraint and bow out of this futile discussion. I did not wish to get into it in the first place but given your statements about the Jewish faith and Hitler's motivations I cannot let those kind of opinions remain unchallenged. The Jews were victims of his evil not the cause. The world has been made a better place due to the convictions and campaigns of people of faith you may not recognise or be aware of what these things are but it is true none the less. You can show a similar restraint or carry on and do your worst, your choice.
  2. I wish you wouldn't but there seems no stopping such diatribe.
  3. On that we kind of can agree that it is possible to interpret the persons motives another way. Whatever his motives were and we truly do not know yet the event happened and whatever the reason the victims were killed and maimed. They do like publicity but the issue is that they do not need us or the BBC or the media in general to provide it. What is clear is that ISIS have a sophisticated (and less so) means of getting their message across and get to the impressionable people who they can recruit without our help. That cycle is what needs to be broken and those impressionable people given different reasons to participate in society.
  4. I did not say that. The answer is I do not know. It is not within my living memory The likelihood is that they would not but it does not mean that there would not have been some other conflict during that time for another reason. The thing is what I (and you) are showing is that there are many conflicts over time that have been because of religious differences and also just as many that have not so to think wars can be avoided with the absence of religion is incorrect. I used a simplistic example to make a comparison (a sort of simile if you will) with how simplistic and false your assertion was and splitting hairs over his motives misses the point by a mile.
  5. Again you wish to restrict your definition further to hold so you think to your "truth" What were the Americans and British and Australians etc. doing in Korea and Vietnam then? (minus brits) yet on the other hand you want to throw your notion about further by saying the world and the last 1000 years. How about all the colonial wars and invasions started by Britain over time for one thing. Are you saying that was all about religion? Power, trade and commerce more like. People of power (and often too much power) want reasons to stir up the people to support a war on the "enemy" often that can indeed be religion as the excuse but to think that therefore if we did not have religion these people would not do these thing is just plain wrong. Don't get me wrong terrible things have been done and continue to be done in the name of one religion or another but to tar everyone who has faith with the same brush is like saying The Yorkshire Ripper (Peter Sutcliffe) was from Yorkshire therefore all Yorkshire-men are murderers and the county should not exist.
  6. True enough but I think the point here in the context of being raised was the premise that WWII would not have started if it wasn't for the Jews and their faith. They did not start the problem but were the victims of it that is a vital truth. They were (as the fascists saw it) a convenient group to blame the economic woes of the 1930s in Germany and if they got rid of them it will be much better. Again the Jews (among many other ethnic and religious groups or even homosexuals or anything non aryan in the end) were the victims. But it is probably time someone claimed Godwyn's law.
  7. You seem to be narrowing your definition by the minute soon it will be name a war not started with a religious context a week last Tuesday. Also muddying the waters with cultural references that can have nothing to do with it. I am sure you will want to twist the cause just like your reasons for WWII but I can think of at least two, Korean war and the Vietnamese war (2nd indo-china war if you wish) Neither had religious reasons. The regime of the Khmer Rouge and the atrocities caused had nothing to do with a religion. As I said above the whole point is a non sequitur, a fallacy and delusional in the light of the recording of history whether you wish to restrict it to within living memory or not.
  8. Oops your right! My bad. I shall edit.
  9. This is a set-back for Trump no doubt as it was a key pre-election promise. With the Legislative defeating Obamacare repeals and The Judiciary defeating or at least taming the immigration ban the country can see how their style of government works and that the President is not all powerful on all matters. Excuse the Pun but the Executive does not trump the other pillars of the constitution.
  10. That is a weak counter to my point. Lots of wars have been started by proclaimed non religious factions and leaders and all wars started by human beings. I am not interested in getting into a downward spiral of tit-for-tat specious arguments. People are free to believe what they wish or not as they please in this country.
  11. I have no wish to get into a debate on religion but to think that if we did not have them we would have peace is naive in the extreme. If there is no god (of any kind) then there is only us humans and our need to find an excuse to do horrible things and it is us we are responsible for all the evil in the world no one else. If this person was violent and on a short trigger if it was not radicalisation that caused the outburst it would be something else. The logic of It is religion that causes all the violence and therefore if we got rid of religion it would stop is non sequitur and a fallacy
  12. Yes it's odd and of course any publication can make a mistake.
  13. Not saying you were wrong I just don't know. The pocket book I have is a Collins Gem published 2012. In the description it says as follows: ... Tiny scarlet-orange feet and large dagger-shaped black or black and orange beak. Sexes broadly similar. I will have to dig out my larger reference book and see what it says in there.
  14. Interesting, I did have a quick look in my pocket guide and it said that that either gender could have a black or black and orange beak rather than be a difference between genders.
  15. I think the Kingfisher is called Kevin but since they are hard to sex it may be his pal Dorothy.