Keep widening that door

[TheInspiration 1]

On the Muslim issue as a whole I take every story I read about in the paper with a pinch of salt because a) the story usually originates from some ridiculous, bespectacled, middle aged, right on fucking arsehole who has a lowly position in the local council and wants to ban Christmas and b ) I've met a fair mix of all the religions and by far the most accepting and tolerable when it comes to religious beliefs are usually Muslims or Sikhs. I've met more than a few Christian's who have pretty much declared themselves offended by my atheism and made an issue out of it.

On the other hand, I have unsurprisingly met many a Christian and those I've met seem to have the most respect for other beliefs. Not generalising here (like you aren't I assume), but I've met or witnessed too many atheists who just want to lay into other people's beliefs just for their own or other people's entertainments, as if they're much smarter as they follow reason etc etc. On the other hand I don't see nearly as many Christians looking for a fight over religious beliefs (some exceptions obviously).

 

It's a bit weird if some people are offended by your lack of belief, but that's normally something you can just laugh off (unless I'm mistaken for not understanding the situation right). Christians get incredible amounts of stick nowadays in our secular soicety - just hoping everyone realises that.

[The Fish 11112]

it's not so much when the changes were implemented on the piece of paper, just that there have been changes to the paper. The Qu'ran is still interpreted by a large minority literally.

 

Changes being made to the constitution are about as rare as rocking horse shit. In principle they can be altered, but the fact it's such a difficult thing to do pretty much negates the whole thing.

 

Certain people take both literally, if I had my way i'd throw both on the fire and they'd not be an issue. But that's just me.

... the constitution has been changed though, even if not for 50 years, it's still a more contemporary work than the Qu'ran.

 

You can't compare the two documents to be honest, one is a set of rules loosely based on a religious belief but tries to apply it to modernity, the other is a centuries old manuscript which has as much relevance to this day as Hyroglyphs

[Fop 1]

As for your second point, it's just shit really. You're pigeonholing all Muslim's because the extremists have done a bloody good job of getting into power and whipping up a frenzy. Your 7/7 point is gash too, because you'd have hoyed your toys out the pram anyway if Muslim communities had came out and told us that we deserved it. It's just racism masquerading as a salient, profound point.

 

I implore you to take a look at the link I posted above and watch the Power of Nightmares. Seems like you need a quick capsule education on the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist over the last 30 years.

 

 

The political issue IS exactly right, it's not squint and ignore the bad bits "nice" islam, but it is still the REAL situation in the world today.

 

Islam exists in the sort of political way that Christianity used in Europe hundreds of years ago (Islam has always been tied with politics however, even Sharia is largely concerned with moulding newly conquered territories into fully islamic populations (and yes this is exactly where much of it comes from) - go and actually study the political and religious history of islam yourself to see this (I know, I know knowledge of what you're talking about is clearly "racist" or some such guff).

 

It is no more "wrong" or "racist" to point this out that is it to point out the bad sides of the crusades or of catholic/protestant wars, or christian religious laws neutering science.

 

You'd just got to look at the "cartoons" issue, that was used as political platform (first at conference of Muslim countries - when was there last a political conference of Christian counties? Defined and invited and belonging because of their "religion"?), then there was a political campaign of nearly 6 months, before it finally stirred up enough shit to cause the violence and murder we saw (I suppose those nuns that were murdered "deserved it" too eh? ).

 

It was not a spontaneous world wide outburst as portrayed, but rather a prolonged and well back political campaign that eventually got more than even the politicians that started it and ran it bargained for.

 

(this is an interesting piece on tolerance as well http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/ontv...+people/1518347 )

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also do you really think "we deserved" 7/7? (which has nothing to do with my point of political capital from the event BTW), how and in what way did "we deserve it"?

 

If so that just goes to PROVE what I had said about the Wests current fanatical culture of self-loathing.

Edited February 9, 2008 by Fop

[Fop 1]

Don't see how the views of the head of the CofE indicate that. Any excuse to have a go at the Muslims though. Which was probably what he thought would happen when he said it.

 

He almost certainly has other agendas, but that doesn't change the facts of what I have said, or indeed the inevitable outcome.

 

 

And the fact of the matter is it is just as correct and right to "have a go" a bad aspects of islam, as it is any other group (BNP, evangelical christians, fat cats or whatever).

 

But usually this is a one way street, as indeed the media coverage (or lack of) of cases like this show:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7184166.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7183465.stm

 

Which ironically tied in with that Bishops comments of no go areas.

You're proving my point though, you're using something the head of the CofE said to bash Muslims.

 

 

Except I'm not, I'm just pointing out the reality of things, as opposed to ignoring anything that doesn't "fit" with the West culture of self-loathing.

 

Point out exactly what and where I am "bashing" please, and then when you try you'll realise I'm right.

[Fop 1]

it's not so much when the changes were implemented on the piece of paper, just that there have been changes to the paper. The Qu'ran is still interpreted by a large minority literally.

 

Changes being made to the constitution are about as rare as rocking horse shit. In principle they can be altered, but the fact it's such a difficult thing to do pretty much negates the whole thing.

 

Certain people take both literally, if I had my way i'd throw both on the fire and they'd not be an issue. But that's just me.

... the constitution has been changed though, even if not for 50 years, it's still a more contemporary work than the Qu'ran.

 

You can't compare the two documents to be honest, one is a set of rules loosely based on a religious belief but tries to apply it to modernity, the other is a centuries old manuscript which has as much relevance to this day as Hyroglyphs

 

One is also a more vague touchstone of principles (some fine, some bizarre and outdated - right to bear arms), the other is more a complete system of control of behaviour and really life.

 

It's an amazing system to be honest (for both good and bad) and is pretty effective at what it does.

 

But a lot of what it is based upon is just not compatible with Western democratic principles and freedoms (even non-Western secular democracy and freedoms - as we're subtly beginning to see in Turkey at present).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although equally you have to marvel at how well the people that made up the whole religion understood the ways of human nature.

 

Stuff like a lot of Sharia encouragement to become muslim is subtle and non-threatening, but worthwhile financial gain (how amazingly cunning is that?), although leaving islam is absolutely a crime punishable by death (perfect carrot and stick).

 

Or how praying 5 times a day works, completely grasping the psychological principle that if you want to control someone's mind you first control their routine and behaviour throughout their day.

 

Centuries ahead of its time tbh.

[LeazesMag 0]

As much as I don't agree with Sharia Law as a whole (far too squeamish to be dealing with beheadings, and the whole Queer = wrong lark isn't my cup of tea) in principle it's not that bad. Anyone who has even done the briefest of research into the subject can telling you that it's much more a moral set of laws and in practice only the worst possible cases get arms, cocks, legs etc. cut off.

 

 

The problem is, like with ANY belief system (religious or otherwise), you don't just get the "good" bits.

 

 

Islam itself has a lot of good aspects, and is actually quite nice, if you squint, close one eye and ignore all the downsides........... the problem is divorcing those nice aspects from:

 

 

1: religious laws at least 600 years out of date (it's insane to think someone's belief system could allow the exact interpretation and penalties from say English law in 1400 to be used in today's society, yet that is exactly what is being proposed [and indeed already done in the case of benefit payments to "bigamists" in the UK - it's ok on religious grounds, or rather they dare not close the loop hole that allows it]).

There's lots of islamic debate about modifying Sharia for the modern world, but unfortunately as it is derived from the Koran which DOES NOT change it often remains utterly intractable and un-modified - much like the fanatics that still try to believe the world is 6000 years old and Evolution doesn't exist, and base it on literal translations from the Bible).

 

 

2. politics, islam is as much a political force today as it is a belief system, in fact in many direct ways probably more a political force than a religion (Iran for example, uses Islam as a means to a political end, rather than really taking its politics from the religion per se) .

Islamofascism is rampant across the world today in a way that mirrors colonial power of 150+ years ago, and again I can't see this getting better any time soon, either in Islamic countries (look at the way Turkeys secular state is coming under subtle attack), or by pressure groups in non-islamic countries (when you look at the political gain that was made out of the aftermath 7/7, parts of the UK the islamic lobby gained as much as any Labour spin doctor made out of it).

 

 

 

If you could divorce those to things there wouldn't be a problem, but you cannot divorce human nature from humanity.

 

I concur whole heartedly with your first point, but then the most powerful, Christian nation in the world bases it's beliefs on a constitution that was written a well over a two hundred years ago. Both need a major fucking revamp.

 

Anyway, in Leazes case he's pretty much decided that murders, rapists, paedophiles and terrorists deserve the punishment we'd dish out in the 15th century.

 

 

that is correct, I have, and whether we dished it out in the 15th century or not doesn't matter a jot if its the right thing to do

with them

[Guest alex]

Don't see how the views of the head of the CofE indicate that. Any excuse to have a go at the Muslims though. Which was probably what he thought would happen when he said it.

 

He almost certainly has other agendas, but that doesn't change the facts of what I have said, or indeed the inevitable outcome.

 

 

And the fact of the matter is it is just as correct and right to "have a go" a bad aspects of islam, as it is any other group (BNP, evangelical christians, fat cats or whatever).

 

But usually this is a one way street, as indeed the media coverage (or lack of) of cases like this show:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7184166.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7183465.stm

 

Which ironically tied in with that Bishops comments of no go areas.

You're proving my point though, you're using something the head of the CofE said to bash Muslims.

 

 

Except I'm not, I'm just pointing out the reality of things, as opposed to ignoring anything that doesn't "fit" with the West culture of self-loathing.

 

Point out exactly what and where I am "bashing" please, and then when you try you'll realise I'm right.

You're always 'right'.

[Fop 1]

Don't see how the views of the head of the CofE indicate that. Any excuse to have a go at the Muslims though. Which was probably what he thought would happen when he said it.

 

He almost certainly has other agendas, but that doesn't change the facts of what I have said, or indeed the inevitable outcome.

 

 

And the fact of the matter is it is just as correct and right to "have a go" a bad aspects of islam, as it is any other group (BNP, evangelical christians, fat cats or whatever).

 

But usually this is a one way street, as indeed the media coverage (or lack of) of cases like this show:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7184166.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7183465.stm

 

Which ironically tied in with that Bishops comments of no go areas.

You're proving my point though, you're using something the head of the CofE said to bash Muslims.

 

 

Except I'm not, I'm just pointing out the reality of things, as opposed to ignoring anything that doesn't "fit" with the West culture of self-loathing.

 

Point out exactly what and where I am "bashing" please, and then when you try you'll realise I'm right.

You're always 'right'.

 

Usually, but clearly I am in this case or you'd have pointed it out.

[Guest alex]

I already did.

[Fop 1]

I already did.

Point out exactly what and where I am "bashing" please, and then when you try you'll realise I'm right. tongue.gif

Nope.

[Guest alex]

Fuck me, what a bore you are Can't be arsed to repeat myself, try reading back through the thread.

[Fop 1]

Fuck me, what a bore you are Can't be arsed to repeat myself, try reading back through the thread.

 

So just to recap and translate that:

 

You're basically saying your statements are completely baseless and that I am right.

[Guest alex]

Fuck me, what a bore you are Can't be arsed to repeat myself, try reading back through the thread.

 

So just to recap and translate that:

 

You're basically saying your statements are completely baseless and that I am right.

Nope

[Fop 1]

Fuck me, what a bore you are Can't be arsed to repeat myself, try reading back through the thread.

 

So just to recap and translate that:

 

You're basically saying your statements are completely baseless and that I am right.

Nope

Yup, I always know when I've won an argument with you because you first go to very vague and generalist accusations and then refuse to actually point any specific stuff out (sensible when you can't, admittedly) and start this stuff instead.

 

If I were wrong you'd be all over it, I'm not wrong, therefore you are not pointing it out and are just doing this instead.

[Guest alex]

Fuck me, what a bore you are Can't be arsed to repeat myself, try reading back through the thread.

 

So just to recap and translate that:

 

You're basically saying your statements are completely baseless and that I am right.

Nope

Yup, I always know when I've won an argument with you because you first go to very vague and generalist accusations and then refuse to actually point any specific stuff out (sensible when you can't, admittedly) and start this stuff instead.

 

If I were wrong you'd be all over it, I'm not wrong, therefore you are not pointing it out and are just doing this instead.

I thought you were having a pop at Muslims because the BBC articles weren't particularly relevant to the original topic.

[Fop 1]

Fuck me, what a bore you are Can't be arsed to repeat myself, try reading back through the thread.

 

So just to recap and translate that:

 

You're basically saying your statements are completely baseless and that I am right.

Nope

Yup, I always know when I've won an argument with you because you first go to very vague and generalist accusations and then refuse to actually point any specific stuff out (sensible when you can't, admittedly) and start this stuff instead.

 

If I were wrong you'd be all over it, I'm not wrong, therefore you are not pointing it out and are just doing this instead.

I thought you were having a pop at Muslims because the BBC articles weren't particularly relevant to the original topic.

 

They are relevant to the wider issue, the whole issue of sharia in the UK (or sharia anywhere), is a complex and wide reaching thing, with many underlying issue affecting it directly and indirectly. It's not just an issue, but more 100's of issues working in many different ways that will probably end up with a certain result.

 

 

 

 

 

Part of this issue is the criticism bias that has occurred.

 

Interestingly there was a recent resolution pushed through the UN specifically protecting Islam from criticism of human rights violations (which passed pretty much completely under the West media spotlight).

 

The resolution was created and largely pushed through by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) (one of the several islamic political bodies in operation) and was supported by not only all OIC members and islamic states, but notably some countries with very iffy human rights records such as China, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Cuba.

 

There's certainly a political chess game being played, but a lot of people seem to be completely and utterly unaware of it.

[Guest alex]

What I meant was that the original comments came from the Archbishop of Canterbury then, lo and behold, people start going on about the cruelty of Sharia Law and how it should never be brought into the UK etc. It's not that I disagree with this it's just that it was so predictable that people generally would start getting stuck into Muslims and their ways of life and immigration, etc., etc. All that seems a bit unfair to me when you think about where the comments about 'Sharia Law being inevitable in the UK in the future' came from - i.e. a Christian leader. Basically he was shit-stirring imo and it's worked a treat.

[Fop 1]

What I meant was that the original comments came from the Archbishop of Canterbury then, lo and behold, people start going on about the cruelty of Sharia Law and how it should never be brought into the UK etc. It's not that I disagree with this it's just that it was so predictable that people generally would start getting stuck into Muslims and their ways of life and immigration, etc., etc. All that seems a bit unfair to me when you think about where the comments about 'Sharia Law being inevitable in the UK in the future' came from - i.e. a Christian leader. Basically he was shit-stirring imo and it's worked a treat.

 

I'm not sure he was shit stirring as such, although I suspect he was trying to put forward some self-interested issues too. I also suspect he now regrets both his choice of words and putting it out in a more public (rather than strictly academic and closed) forum as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7236849.stm

 

The irony is that "sensitivity" is also a two way street, and comparable issues would never have been raise if they were the other way around.

 

But you're always going to have issue with immigration and such, unless you have near full assimilation, and even then. Frankly if you look at current immigration issues in the Western world and squint a bit, you could be viewing colonisation issues from a couple of centuries ago. The world never learns.

[Ketsbaia 0]

As for your second point, it's just shit really. You're pigeonholing all Muslim's because the extremists have done a bloody good job of getting into power and whipping up a frenzy. Your 7/7 point is gash too, because you'd have hoyed your toys out the pram anyway if Muslim communities had came out and told us that we deserved it. It's just racism masquerading as a salient, profound point.

 

I implore you to take a look at the link I posted above and watch the Power of Nightmares. Seems like you need a quick capsule education on the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist over the last 30 years.

 

 

Also do you really think "we deserved" 7/7? (which has nothing to do with my point of political capital from the event BTW), how and in what way did "we deserve it"?

 

If so that just goes to PROVE what I had said about the Wests current fanatical culture of self-loathing.

 

Are you on glue?

Edited February 10, 2008 by Ketsbaia

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 4098]

Islam is a dreadful religion which should not be allowed any legitimacy in Britain at all. All of it's followers should be allowed to practise it but no part of it should be allowed to be culturally entrenched in our society.

[Fop 1]

As for your second point, it's just shit really. You're pigeonholing all Muslim's because the extremists have done a bloody good job of getting into power and whipping up a frenzy. Your 7/7 point is gash too, because you'd have hoyed your toys out the pram anyway if Muslim communities had came out and told us that we deserved it. It's just racism masquerading as a salient, profound point.

 

I implore you to take a look at the link I posted above and watch the Power of Nightmares. Seems like you need a quick capsule education on the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist over the last 30 years.

 

 

Also do you really think "we deserved" 7/7? (which has nothing to do with my point of political capital from the event BTW), how and in what way did "we deserve it"?

 

If so that just goes to PROVE what I had said about the Wests current fanatical culture of self-loathing.

 

Are you on glue?

 

You said we "deserved it", not me.

 

Even sniffing glue wouldn't excuse you from such utter delusion...... it would seem to explain the utter lack of scope of your "argument" and paltry "come backs" though.

[Guest alex]

As for your second point, it's just shit really. You're pigeonholing all Muslim's because the extremists have done a bloody good job of getting into power and whipping up a frenzy. Your 7/7 point is gash too, because you'd have hoyed your toys out the pram anyway if Muslim communities had came out and told us that we deserved it. It's just racism masquerading as a salient, profound point.

 

I implore you to take a look at the link I posted above and watch the Power of Nightmares. Seems like you need a quick capsule education on the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist over the last 30 years.

 

 

Also do you really think "we deserved" 7/7? (which has nothing to do with my point of political capital from the event BTW), how and in what way did "we deserve it"?

 

If so that just goes to PROVE what I had said about the Wests current fanatical culture of self-loathing.

 

Are you on glue?

 

You said we "deserved it", not me.

 

Even sniffing glue wouldn't excuse you from such utter delusion...... it would seem to explain the utter lack of scope of your "argument" and paltry "come backs" though.

You always put that or similar. Not realising, or choosing not to realise, people just get sick of banging their heads against the proverbial wall.

[LeazesMag 0]

Islam is a dreadful religion which should not be allowed any legitimacy in Britain at all. All of it's followers should be allowed to practise it but no part of it should be allowed to be culturally entrenched in our society.

 

blimey.

 

You've said something thats spot on for once

[Happy Face 29]

But is it as bad as Christianity?

[Fop 1]

As for your second point, it's just shit really. You're pigeonholing all Muslim's because the extremists have done a bloody good job of getting into power and whipping up a frenzy. Your 7/7 point is gash too, because you'd have hoyed your toys out the pram anyway if Muslim communities had came out and told us that we deserved it. It's just racism masquerading as a salient, profound point.

 

I implore you to take a look at the link I posted above and watch the Power of Nightmares. Seems like you need a quick capsule education on the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist over the last 30 years.

 

 

Also do you really think "we deserved" 7/7? (which has nothing to do with my point of political capital from the event BTW), how and in what way did "we deserve it"?

 

If so that just goes to PROVE what I had said about the Wests current fanatical culture of self-loathing.

 

Are you on glue?

 

You said we "deserved it", not me.

 

Even sniffing glue wouldn't excuse you from such utter delusion...... it would seem to explain the utter lack of scope of your "argument" and paltry "come backs" though.

You always put that or similar. Not realising, or choosing not to realise, people just get sick of banging their heads against the proverbial wall.

 

Aye one person that makes dodgy statements then refuses to back them up when they are pointed out supporting another, who'd have guessed it?

 

I replied to his "points" as complete erroneous as their were.

 

He's produced NO coherent argument (other than that "we deserved" 7/7 - although with nothing to back it up) and is now running away with the parting riposte "Are you on glue? lol"..... I mean really.

 

Really if you want to make stand (against me), make sure you're not making your stand along side fuckwits, makes it much harder to "win".