Religion Good news!

[Gwadien]

Re the "complete bullcrap" bit. Yes, depicting Mohammed is against Islamic law. Not ours. They are demanding that we adhere to it under the guise of not causing offense. Well if you CHOOSE to take offense when other people don't behave the same way you do then that's your problem.

Which could be responded with; what legitimacy does the 'law of the land' have over the law of a religion?

This case doesn't revolve around law, it revolves around what is good, it's very easy to say yes, they choose to take offence, but they'll take offence either way, and drastic consequences could be the reactions of the 'West' being not respecting their religion, in their point of view.

The thing you have to understand is; in the eyes of Islam, we're infidels, we're not going to heaven, because we're not Muslim, so therefore it's even more of an offence because we're effecting their chances of going to heaven because we're disrespecting one of their 'holy ones', so therefore they must react because of it, if we chose to ignore it, all sorts of shit could kick off.

Really, we only have 2 major choices;

We carpet bomb anywhere that is a breeding ground for Islamic Fundamentalism, start a new and give them bare minimums until they prove their selves to be democratic, and to drop any extremist ideology.

Or, we accept their different point of view, cater for them, yes, bend over, and take some off them, but whilst we're taking some, get to know them, talk to them, make them not side with the extremists that depict the Ko'ran in the way that it is to many of them.

Or, We carry on what we're doing, say we're helping them out, then accept random acts off small sections of our own society which could completely ruin all the work that we're attempting to do with the Middle East.

Britain is closely related to America in their eyes, in Afghanistan, the Soldiers are trying to build relations with the local populace, when their 'brothers' are making these videos totally shitting on their religion, what do you expect them to do? - They do what any other person does, tarnish the whole society with the same brush.

 

[DaGaffer]

Which could be responded with; what legitimacy does the 'law of the land' have over the law of a religion?

Four hundred years of hard-won separation of church and state. Their laws are not our laws. What's so hard to understand?

 

[Gwadien]

Four hundred years of hard-won separation of church and state. Their laws are not our laws. What's so hard to understand?

I'm not defending them mate, I'm not saying we should follow their way of life, I'm saying that we should respect what they do, not for their benefit, but for the benefit of future relations, stopping a bunch of dicks from releasing a film that is clearly being made just to piss off Muslims isn't exactly a huge blow to our Society, it's not like we've got full freedom of speech anyway.

 

[rynnor]

I'm not defending them mate, I'm not saying we should follow their way of life, I'm saying that we should respect what they do, not for their benefit, but for the benefit of future relations, stopping a bunch of dicks from releasing a film that is clearly being made just to piss off Muslims isn't exactly a huge blow to our Society, it's not like we've got full freedom of speech anyway.

But it wont stop there - showing weakness would just further encourage extremists to demand more concessions and proves to them that the path of violence gets results which could be a lot more deadly than standing up for your principles initially.

 

[Job]

13 people dead in Pakistan, not exactly mayhem is it?
176 million Muslims and 13 are killed in the wave of violent protest sweeping the country, you'd get more dead if you announced free toothpaste on the radio.
Let's face it, if more than a hundred Arabs get together for anything, at least 5 of them die in the crush.
Now THAT'S a racist remark.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes. You do.

That makes you someone who'll kill someone else simply because someone else told you to - and in defence of a sky-fairy and a mysoginistic violent culture.

I wouldn't, but most would. Way of the military and religious leaders treat their people like an army. It's not that far off, defending the land and all that, spun to the people.

I've never quite understood Tohts PoV: For the record, are you religious, or just want to defend religion?

Because in all honestly, I'll respect your opinion more, but also question it more if you're not, but I'll understand why if you are

Both, mostly i defend anyones right to do what they want(not those doing harm to others mind you) and am against all sorts of "must destroy X" mentality with no middleground. I don't defend the bombers, but i do defend peaceful islam folk any day.

I don't acccept death as a way in any reason.

Re the "complete bullcrap" bit. Yes, depicting Mohammed is against Islamic law. Not ours. They are demanding that we adhere to it under the guise of not causing offense. Well if you CHOOSE to take offense when other people don't behave the same way you do then that's your problem.

It was meant merely to show that the guy talks a lot of arse and what i quoted showed this guy too meant that they're not after our freedoms(as i said).

 

[Job]

Ok, there's fuck all actual evidence to support the story of Jesus outside of the Bible.
I didn't realise there is also fuck all evidence to support the story of Mohammed outside the Qoran.

So right from the start both religions are based on fiction, we need to get serious here.

 

[rynnor]

both religions are based on fiction,

Aren't they all?

 

[opticle]

Worth a read.

http://en.avaaz.org/783/muslim-rage...&utm_medium=blast&utm_campaign=stop-the-clash

 

[Job]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19687386
We send fucking aid to that Medieval dump, a frickin minister putting a bounty on someone's head, cut off all diplomatic relations and loan India a nuclear sub.

 

[rynnor]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19687386
We send fucking aid to that Medieval dump, a frickin minister putting a bounty on someone's head, cut off all diplomatic relations and loan India a nuclear sub.

Wonders how long till we invade Pakistan...

 

[Scouse]

it's even more of an offence because we're effecting their chances of going to heaven because we're disrespecting one of their 'holy ones'

That's not true Gwad.

Us taking the piss out of their particular brand of nonsense does not affect their chances of getting into heaven adversely in any way. All it does is offend them.

Well, they offend me. Their religion offends me. The fact that they think I'm an infidel and that not only am I going to hell but they think I deserve it offends me.

But I'm grown-up about it. I don't organise my friends in a campaign to ban their nonsense, or beat them up or perhaps even murder them, or their families, or people who just happen to have been born in the same country, or one nearby.

All I do is tell them what I think in uncompromising terms.

I don't demand that governments change laws to ban their religion. I support their freedom to be utterly deluded.

They want to make it a prisonable (or death-sentence) offence for me to say what I think.

They can get fucked

 

[old.Tohtori]

Actually you are campaigning to ban the nonsense

But that's freedom of speech for ya, swings both ways though.

Take the violence out and you got equal rights to want a ban on religion and ban on mohammed pics.

 

[Scouse]

Bullshit Toht - unless you're calling my previous post lies?


Is religion also exempt from responsibility for this dangerous, almost murderous, advice from religious leaders in the UK - to stop taking antiretroviral drugs - which has resulted in the death of believers?

faith leaders [told people] they had been "healed" [of AIDS] through prayer - and then pressured to stop taking antiretroviral medication

And, praise the lord!!!, they can cure cancer and disabilities too!


So tell me Toht - is religion completely in the clear on this too?

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well you are advocating the banning and abolishment of all religion.

I think you'll find i've said that they're not in the clear for such actions.

Difference in defending religious freedom and defending murderers. Don't pit me in the other camp for defending the other.

 

[Scouse]

Well you are advocating the banning and abolishment of all religion.

No I'm not.

If you can't understand even the very plainly-stated basics why do think you can constructively contribute to anything?

...I don't organise my friends in a campaign to ban their nonsense...I don't demand that governments change laws to ban their religion. I support their freedom to be utterly deluded...

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes and that goes right against what you've been saying all thread, mainly ban religion, religion must die etc.

Or are you now saying that religion doesn't need to go anywhere, it can stay, and all that?

 

[Scouse]

that goes right against what you've been saying all thread, mainly ban religion

Find me ONE instance where I've said that - in this thread or any other, ever.

Go on.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Oh right, now we're going into semantics about the word "ban".

 

[Scouse]

That's is definitely your most twat-like post ever.


I've never said it, ever. I don't want it banned. I never wanted it banned. I'm CLEAR on that point and you're an epic troll.

Why can't you just fucking admit when you're being a cunt? It's this sort of behaviour that makes people stick you on ignore.

 

[old.Tohtori]

So you've never said that we should remove religion? You're saying it can stay around? No worries, you don't like religion, but it can stay?

I'm not being a twat, i'm trying to figure out what the hell your stance on religion is.

 

[Scouse]

It's fucking obvious toht.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Clearly it's not

 

[Scouse]

Yes it is. Obvious.

You're doing your usual despicable trolling thing and turning every thread on this subject into a nyah nyah yah-boo childs argument.

I use despicable and mean it in this case:

des·pi·ca·ble
adjective
deserving to be despised; contemptible: a mean, despicable man.

If you really gave a shit about understanding you'd go back and read the very clear posts. Very clear. So clear they can't be made any clearer. So clear a sub-normal human would understand the difference perfectly.

So clear, that the only conclusion is that you're 100% trolling. Just fucking stop it and - as you don't ever contribute in these threads - PLEASE stay out of the next one.

 

[old.Tohtori]

I meant it's clearly not obvious. It's easy to answer, what's your stance on religion? All it would take.

"I'm an atheist, i don't like religion, but i'm nto saying it should be gone either.", or in those lines.

Because now it SEEMS that you are advocating(want, support, whatever the term you want) for removal of religion completely, but you said a few posts back that it's not the case.

 

[Krazeh]

Are you seriously telling me you can't tell the difference between wanting to religion to fuck off and advocating for it to be banned?

 

[old.Tohtori]

With Scouses posting history, no. That's why i'm asking. I don't see the question to be that big of an issue

 

[Krazeh]

What about his posting history is confusing you when it comes to telling the two apart?

 

[old.Tohtori]

The two terms are not what i'm asking, quite clear difference, i'm asking where Scouse stands on religion as his posting history does not give a clearcut stance.

But forget it, if there's some deep issue with me asking a simple stance question then it's pointless to even try and discuss.

 

[Krazeh]

I disagree, to me it's quite clear from his posting history that he thinks religion should fuck off and that we'd be much better off without it but I don't think I've seen him advocating the wholesale banning of religion.

There isn't an issue with you asking a simple stance question, it's just understanding how you've got to the point where you think it needs asking and how you've got confused between wanting something to disappear and actually advocating to ban it.