That attitude, protestors said, mean we have entered an "age of mockery".
no shit sherlock
Google's London office was barricaded on Sunday, after thousands of protestors marched in protest against youTube's continued hosting of the controversial film, The Innocence of Muslims. London's Daily Telegraph says 10,000 protestors participated. The BBC preferred a figure of “up to 3500” and says the peaceful protest aimed …
Behead those who say Islam is violent.
There's one part of Sharia law those who want it to the UK keep very,very quiet about. I can't think why - it's not like it's not going to be welcomed with open arms by the indigenous population, and reported fairly and rationally by our noble elite journalists. I am referring, of course, to the public floggings for drunkenness.
I'd say that just as Google have the freedom of speech to host the video, they also have the freedom to peacefully protest criticising it - that isn't in itself arguing against freedom of speech.
Of course they lose points if "The core of the group's position is that free speech has gone too far" is the case.
A regional cultural religion, while the Koran is one book every Tom Dick and Harry puts their interpretation on it. While one protesting Muslim screams and shouts he is rarely speaking for all of the Muslim Faith. It is also de rigueur to be offended by anything the West does or Western values. Yet the oppression in many Islamic Countries is quietly forgotten. The extremists always shout louder than the moderates.
Should we listen to people who shoot teenage girls, murder diplomats, fight and kill each other because of a difference of opinion, treat women as chattels and where women are not equal, destroy old artefacts and buildings all in the name of one interpretation of their faith.
The blame lies with the so called scholars and what they decide to interpret the Koran as. The blame lies with the people who without question follows these interpretations. Historically Islam was a faith of teaching, it led the world in learning, architecture maths and the written word. That was until the scholars got hold of it and pulled it back so it remained in the Middle Ages.
... sits squarely on anyone who encourages superstition by holding faith in it up as an admirable virtue and on those that refuse to speak up and call it what it is.
If you seek to coddle insanity, the result should come as no surprise. Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, Astrologists, Spiritualists, ..., ... all of them nutters.
"Historically Islam was a faith of teaching, it led the world in learning, architecture maths and the written word."
Not wishing to belittle Islam, but this is wrong.
The Arabic nations encouraged learning, and involved both Islamic and non-Islamic scholars in gathering the teachings from many older cultures and translating them into Arabic. The origins for much of their knowledge were the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Indians, Chinese and Persians, who between them had the greatest philosophers, engineers and mathematicians.
We may have lost much knowledge without the help of Islamic scholars, but they were not working alone, and I have found nothing to say they advanced any of those fields significantly, save to simplify trigonometry, and while they developed a form of calligraphy, other cultures have been doing so separately for much longer.
"The blame lies with the people who without question follows these interpretations."
But that's *exactly* what organised religion wants its followers to do. You can't blame people for being brainwashed from birth to believe that these packs of lies they are 'taught' as truth.
Disclaimer before the down-voters start: I will defend anyone's right to believe in their God or Gods as long as they do not try to impose their beliefs on others. I draw the line at brainwashing and/or mutilating kids in the name of organised religion.
Historically, Islam is a religion of the sword. It didn't go anywhere until they started beheading people who didn't "submit" to the will of Allah. The Crusades were a response to that aggression, not the cause of it. We may look down upon the "religious idiocy" of those who sent millions to their deaths, but in the context of the times it was a reasonable political move. Life was cheap and nothing motivated the average person more than religious fervor and the chance to become a martyr for God. If you wanted to maintain your political status, you had to harness that fervor to your political goals.
"The group's manifesto “Unreservedly condemns the preposterous film vilifying Islam and desecrating the sanctity of the Holy Prophet Mohammad peace be upon Him” and “Calls for all civilised fellow human beings to join in the ‘Campaign for Global Civility’”."
Last i checked you didn't need a video to vilify islam. You have plenty of people that do that for you.
"The core of the group's position is that free speech has gone too far when videos like this are acceptable."
Um its free speech for a reason, last i check just cause your view points don't like what anothers is. You have no right to stop them from voicing it. Just cause you don't like it don't mean he or anyone else has no right to say it, If you want to go down this right of free speech has gone to far. I say it has gone to far for you to Burn a US flag, its offensive to me and pretty much every US citizen. How about that one?
This post has been deleted by its author
I agree, lots of things are offensive to somebody.
The core of the group's position is that free speech has gone too far when videos like this are acceptable.
They are not necessarily acceptable, and whether they are or not is not the point. The thing is that with the internet you have to actively say that you want to watch something by clicking on it. The viewer is in control. If someone can't resist, then that's their own problem.
Nope. Clearly not the case. Ideology is like software, merely a tool. It can be used for good or bad. Being an atheist, it's weird to find myself in a position to defend religion. But there's a weird phenomenon going on here in the comments. People are so liberally brainwashed (including yourself) that they refuse to call a spade a spade. The truth is, these events speak more about Islam then they do about religion in general. However, it's easier to blame ALL of them as then you don't have to appear "uncivilized" by singling out one particular group of people. After all, there are no Christian protests about numerous movies that mock Jesus. So stop engaging in false equivalence. This is a Muslim problem. The own it.
Yes, and there's the Westboro Church protesting at soldier's funerals. And the moment Christianity generates similar headlines, you will have a point:
This post has been deleted by its author
I don't want to get into the debate, but just inject a little education... Westboro Baptists are free speech trolls, they are all trained lawyers and they take (sometimes contradictive) stances on emotive subjects to goad protagonists into violating their free speech rights.
There's also this: http://www.religionnewsblog.com/14189/westboro-baptist-church-three-phelps-children-are-on-states-payroll
And bizarrely enough, Fred Phelps was a top campaigner for civil rights (http://www.towleroad.com/2010/05/fred-phelps-was-a-brilliant-civil-rights-lawyer-before-he-started-hating-gays-for-a-living.html) - that's right, he was one of the good guys - back in the 60's.
Based on the evidence, I don't know exactly what motivates the current activities of this guy or his 'church' but I'm certain it's not religion or faith-based.
This is so true, its the ideology of a belief system that determines how ppl who follow that belief system behave.
It really doesn't matter if there is a god in the belief system or not.
Lots of people have died in the name of communism or nationalism.
I spent 10 years working in Muslim countries and learn a lot about Islam during that time.
If you know what they have to go through to be good Muslims you can totally understand why people who don't live by the same rules can make them very angry.
Don't be silly, almost no organized religions have central governing bodies.
An organized religion is one that is founded and united for the specific purpose of expressing a belief, not just one that is centrally governed.
I think you're mixing up the structure of a large sect (such as the Pope heads with Catholicism) for the organization of the entire religion - the Pope and the various cardinals and bishops below are not in charge of all of Christianity, just their bit. HM the Queen currently heads up the Church of England, for example, which is a different Christian sect, but does share some beliefs and follows a similar power structure.
Yet you forget that lot of public money saved by religious organisations who care for the vulnerable, disadvantaged, poor, sick, addicted, rejected - the very people that would require an increase in your taxes if these organisations (while admittedly receiving tax benefits) which receive the vast majority of their money from freely given gifts from brainwashed sheep, were to vanish.
I work every day with many organisations that help people like these; many of them are not religious, but there are enough to show your point is uneducated.
There is a story about a guy who saw money spent on a religious leader and he complained that the money Could have been better spent elsewhere as well...
"In the days of newsgroups, text would be ROT13 encrypted, marked (in plaintext) "offensive to ...." -- and if you decrypted that ROT13 and got offended, you had no one to blame but yourself.
Could something like that not be done for video, audio, pictures .... ?"
Muslims get offended by knowing it exists. These clowns haven't watched it to get offended. Someone told them it existed and thus they are offended.
"Muslims get offended by knowing it exists."
Not entirely correct.
"These clowns haven't watched it to get offended. Someone told them it existed and thus they are offended."
OK. Much better. They have been told. They haven't observed. Kinda like all of the idiots who practice "religion".
This post has been deleted by its author
I work in the same building as Google's Bangkok office, and there were protesters outside for an hour or two on the afternoon of the 27th September. They came to this area after bothering the US embassy in the morning.
Whatever. If they want to stand outside for a day in Bangkok's notoriously hot and humid monsoon season, that's up to them.
This is not about religion - this is about people *choosing* to be offended to push forward their own agenda.
I haven't seen it either but they are saying it vilified Islam. Look at all the stuff over years followers of Islam have done, suicide bombing innocent people, most recent one is the Pakistan girl. she was 14 and a Taliban gunman shot her on her way from school. No video can't make Islam look any worse.
Round them up and take them to a departure point from the country. Give them a list of Muslim countries that have blocked Youtube (or had google do the blocking) and point them to the ticket office and suggest they buy a ticket to the country of their choosing that fits their "moral compass".
The funniest thing is if there hadn't been protests I would have not known of the video and wouldn't have gone looking for it.
> How very liberal and tolerate of you, ...
I thought it was very liberal and tolerant of him*. After what he said was:
"... and point them to the ticket office and suggest they buy a ticket to the country of their choosing ..."
Note that he says "suggest they buy a ticket". He does not say you should force them out of the country. He is being very helpful to them by showing them countries that have a system of censorship that they want and showing them where to the buy tickets.
* I say "him" but it might be "her"
"Round them up" did not exactly sound an optional tone though.
I oppose censorship and would do so in this case. I would no doubt disagree with the protestors.
But I also support freedom to protest. I'm not sure that rounding people up, and "suggesting" they leave the country, just because you disagree with them, is so great either. I'm worried at the Daily Mail/EDL style arguments here.
Next time the Daily Mail suggests something should be banned, will the OP be calling for them to be rounded up, and "suggest" they leave the country?
Is it always the case that someone should move to another country rather than protesting? I find that a rather odd idea.
Indeed what is wrong with deporting those that are so violently and steadfastly offended by the state where they choose to reside? Clearly highlands of Pakistan, Afghanistan, deserts of UAE, or if they are enterprising perhaps the economic hothouses of Indonesia and Malaysia would suit them better. I'd suggest Turkey too, but I think they'd put them straight into one of their famous jails.
You do realise that this shooting has caused protests all over the Islamic world? What's that? No? You don't keep up with news that shows Islam in anything except a bad light.
This shooting has utterly disgusted Muslems (and others, obviously) the world over. It's probably going to be the final nail in the coffin of the Taleban in Pakistan.
Relating the Taleban to normal moderate Islam is like saying the pIRA are normal good Catholics, and therefore represent Catholicism the world over. Or the the Red Army Faction represent all Atheists and that everyone who doesn't believe in God is like them.
> You do realise that this shooting has caused protests all over the Islamic world?
Please point to a source indicating peaceful protests, in multiple muslim countries (other than Afghanistan), about the shooting of this girl. Politicians wishing to "score points" don't count,
> Go to the BBC, don't just look at the headline articles, ...
I've previously read every article on the BBC regarding this. None of them detail any protests in any muslim country.
At best you could say that Pakistan’s media have condemned the attack and some people have condemned it in social media but there is not one report about a single person going onto the street and protesting the attack.
Your claim that this shooting "has caused protests all over the Islamic world" does not stand up to scrutiny.
No, this was a single example. I would have thought that would have been obvious.
You see the thing is, I actually have a job, I can't afford the time to research the news a post multiple references, particularly when I know that (judged by the rest of the comments here) they'll just be brushed off with some lame "yeah, but..." argument.
> No, this was a single example. I would have thought that would have been obvious.
The claim was "this shooting has caused protests all over the Islamic world". Your statement that you heard about a protest on Radio 4 is not an example. This "on the street" protest you heard about, on Radio 4, wouldn't, by any chance, have occurred on the street she lived on would it?
> You see the thing is, I actually have a job,
So do I.
> I can't afford the time to research the news a post multiple references
But you can afford the time to repeatedly post claims about a "worldwide" protest and back it up with a recollection of a news item you heard on Radio 4 (presumably whilst driving into work). If the protests were so widespread then finding something to show this should be a trivial matter.
> particularly when I know that (judged by the rest of the comments here)
Obviously you have found the time to read all the comments.
> they'll just be brushed off with some lame "yeah, but..." argument.
Since all you have posted is unsubstantiated claims there is nothing to "brush off".
> Radio 4 news this evening, just about 1820
Driving home from your job were you? This isn't evidence. This is hearsay. It is you saying "You don't believe me when I say there have been worldwide protests but you must believe me when I tell you of a protest in Lahore on Radio 4".
I am looking for something I can see or hear myself and assess what is actually being said.
The only news I can find regarding protests in Lahore is one were several thousand protesters attempted to attack the American Consulate over the "Innocence of Muslims" film.
I did, however, find a report about a protest, over the shooting, on Sunday in Karachi, Pakistan that was organised by the Muttahida Quami Movement which is a secular (i.e. non-religious) movement.
To summarise, your evidence of "has caused protests all over the Islamic world" is a protest, organised by a non-muslim organisation, in the girl's own country.
To make life easier for you I am willing to accept the protest, in Karachi (where 19 people died over protests regarding the film) as evidence of muslims protesting the girl's shooting.
Now all you have to do is provide evidence of protests in at least one other islamic country. (hearing about it on radio 4 isn't evidence)
This post has been deleted by its author
"You do realise that this shooting has caused protests all over the Islamic world? What's that? No? You don't keep up with news that shows Islam in anything except a bad light."
You're quite correct. I haven't seen seen muslim protests about shooting little girls. Haven't seen any for forced marriages. Haven't seen any for honor killings. Haven't seen any for suicide bombers. Haven't seen any for stoning people to death for dancing (follow ad nausum for female education, genital multilation and the rest)
On the other hand I have seen protests followed by murder, burning and pillaging for a crap youtube video. Also seen the same for cartoons of muhammad and burning of korans.
Any other religion, insults are ignored (as the general rule). Islam answers insults with murder and destruction.
Here I am, in a western country.
If I draw a picture of Muhammad with a bomb for a turban and post it on the internet, will muslims A: Ignore it or B: try to kill me?
If a draw a picture of Jesus molesting an altar boy and post it, will the christians A: Ignore it or B: try to kill me?
Christian will ignore it but some looney muslim will try to track me down and kill me followed by other loonies offering vast sums of money as a reward for killing me and a stack more declaring a jihad on my ass and declaring anyone who kills me get a free pass to heaven.
There's the point of difference you peace loving muslim. If there is a god, I'm pretty sure he's not in favor of that shit.
No, not "all of them".
Religion is not the problem. I don't care what people believe as long as they don't dictate to me how I should behave. I don't know if you realize, but overwhelming majority of people in US are religious and about half of Europeans are. Yet, for the most part our societies are progressive and modern. By casting a wide net saying all religion is the problem, you're refusing to see the real problem: Islam as practiced by majority of Muslims is incompatible with modern Western values. Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism have adjusted and modernized. It's high time Islam does the same. That's the real problem and refusing to face it is kicking the can down the road. If Muslims are unable or unwilling to modernize, there are plenty of Muslim countries that have as strict of a version of Islam as they like (genital mutilation, chopped hands and all). No one's holding them here.
> Religion is not the problem.
Sorry I have to disagree.
Most of the western "believers" are believers in name only. They dutifully go to church because they are expected to. Most of them see it as their civic duty.
The vast majority of them don't truly believe the literal "truth" of the Bible or the Quo'ran. They may express that they do publicly, but in their hearts they don't.
The others however, become U.S. politicians or harangue/murder embassy staff over a film that they've never seen.
A christian reading the bible literally is a straw man we see here on the Reg forums time and over again. An atheist picking up the Bible doesn't understand that most Christians don't read the Bible like a science textbook or legal document. While most christians are not fundamentalists (i.e. reading the Bible literally), that doesn't mean they are believers in name only.
"... the Bible is not considered a collection of factual statements, but instead an anthology that documents the human authors' beliefs and feelings about God at the time of its writing—within a historical or cultural context"
Don't confuse us with facts. It's far easier to post sneering comments about 'sky fairies' and 'invisible friends' than to try to understand modern religious concepts. And if the 20th century taught us anything, it's surely that atheists are capable of murder and torture on a scale that would have made Torquemada blush.
This post has been deleted by its author
So you refer to believers as ignorant, but seem to be criticising the atheists who "sneer" and refer to "invisible friends"... And if you think that theists are ignorant, you imply atheists are more knowledgable, yet you criticise those who see it as a "smart club"?
I'm an atheist not because it's a club, but because I don't believe in god. But you seem to be criticising the very kind of atheist that you are.
Stalin, Mao, etc were not merely "assholes", for Marx's sakes: they were ideologues whose actions were based on Communist ideology, which is in the Enlightenment tradition, and which was at the time one of the wider strands of atheist thought. Saying they're not atheists is like saying Torquemada isn't a theist, because he acted based on one small strand of Theistic ideology.
So if people don't really believe these things, why this great charade as if they were true? Why so offended when atheists say they aren't true?
If that's really the case, then why aren't we all in agreement? Why do religious people pray if they don't really believe there is an intervening caring God to help them out?
But no, that's not what foo_bar_baz was actually saying at all; and in turn, the OP was saying something different again. Yes, it's true that there are people who don't believe everything in the Bible literally, but these people are still reasonably Christians, because they still do believe the core principles. And atheists know this - they are not making up straw men.
But the earlier post was talking about people who didn't even seem to believe any of the core principles, but identify as "Christian" and go to church but only at christenings and weddings.
So what you're saying is most Christians don't believe in a well defined load of bollocks but a nebulous collection of bollocks that is open to a wide and varied interpretation?
How is that any better?
Ignorance is a smouldering fire that gradually burns away ones ability to make rational decisions. Religion is its accelerant.
Whilst perhaps not all religions are equal, it's not that simple. Here we have religious people peacefully protesting something that they want censored. I disagree with them yes - but it's just one example compared with countless cases where we see a certain other religion doing the same thing.
The difference is that censorship of things that cause offence to Christianity are more likely to get support from people in positions of power - politicians, lobbying groups and so on.
Yes, blanketly criticising all religion is simplistic and not helpful, but nor is it to say that one religion is always a problem, and no others are.
And, like other commenters, you end up with the EDL-style suggestion that they leave the country. Sorry, you talk Western values, but that's not a Western value. Protesting against things in your own country is a Western value (I hope it is!) We could just as well make the ludicrous argument that if you don't like them protesting, you should leave.
Hmmmm its not religion, its the fuckers that use religion to increase their own personal kudos, power etc that is the problem.
If there were no religion 'they' would just use some other means to do the same thing.
In reality someone using their right of free speech to protest that someone else should loose their right of free speech opens the door to quite a bit of mockery, add in protesting against the 'age of mockery' and my irony detection meter is in danger of busting a spring.
Hinduism has the despicable caste system and Buddhism, well don't get me started about the forms of punishment in Tibet before China occupied it. However, the point is that both of those religions have adjusted to be compatible with modern values. Caste system was made illegal in India. And Buddhism is the opposite of torture in people's mind (even though things have been very different). It really is about whether a religion tries to fit into the framework of society or subjugate it. Islam want the society to conform to it's medieval religious norms, whereas most other religions try to conform to social norms.
I guess they think freedom of expression only goes their way huh? Why aren't they protesting videos that call for the death and mutilation of people of different faiths? Why aren't they screaming about the anti-Semitic tripe that is endemic on youtube...?
Oh right... they are too busy giving some piss-ant little film a streisand effect. Seriously. they need to grow the hell up, so you're feelings a hurt, waah waah, get over it.
I oppose censorship, but saying "Why aren't you protesting against this other thing" is poor logic. Firstly you don't know that they're not; it is also an argument that could be used against every protest. It would suggest that many things could never be protested against, unless the people were also spending time protesting every other thing in the world deemed at least as important as that.
Here, let me try a variation: Why aren't you criticising all the violent protests, as well as murders and wars around the world? Surely those are more of a problem than a peaceful protest about a Google video?
religion is a psychological virus causing mental disorder called religiousness.
it should be classified like any other mental disorders like schizophrenia, etc
and studied, unfortunately this is prevented by people infected by religion
ppl first have to admit they are ill, then it can be treated
think about the symptoms:
-hearing voices - check
-seeing invisible things - check
and so on.
on a side note:
abrahamic religions were created as a tool to control global society using a simple setup:
there is a master religion which controls two slave religions,
these slave religions are then periodically pitted against each other,
for power, resources, abuse, exploitation, ethnic cleansing, genocide, etc
templates for all basic ideas were taken from various older religions ranging from
egyptian, babylonian, cimmerian, hittite, etc
learn and THINK, this is the only way to keep your mind healthy and uninfected.
I wish my mind was healthy like yours. You must have somehow avoided the fluoride and mind control rays unlike the rest of us.
Please point to me who are the beneficiaries driving this cycle of yours. I want to see the guy gleefully rubbing his hands together as he pits the slave religions against each other, thanking his forefathers for setting up this lucrative scheme. Or maybe the guy who set it all up is still around. OMG! Jesus was a vampire!
The Arabic inscription around the base of the dome of the Al-Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem says "God has no son". As a Christian, I find that rather offensive. Are our Muslim brothers and sisters going to scrub that inscription off and replace it with "I'm OK, You're OK" or something like that? Should they even be asked to do that?
Option two is that we keep free speech and grow up a little about storming embassies and killing other people because some small-time producer somewhere makes an insulting D-movie about your religion.
While I appreciate the sentiment about the insult to movies, telling people to piss off home is a bit wrong.
Many of those that you may want to go home would consider their home to quite close or next to mine and are likely to identify themselves as English people that happen to also be Muslims. This response does vary between generations, but those that are born here (as were their parents), tend to consider themselves as English of X descent - not really different to those that consider themselves to be of, for example, English of Irish descent. Being bloody minded and intolerant is not a singularly Muslim fault, practitioners of pretty much every established religion can be labelled this way at some point. It's just unfortunate how something pointless and trivial as a poor movie can be thrust into the limelight and used as a totem to gather around and cause trouble - if it was just ignored it would have been forgotten about and ignored as it probably should have been in the first place.
Now can we please have some more protests about those dastardly Pythons and their heretical movie, The Life of Brian?
This post has been deleted by its author
I finally got around to watching 'that' video. Bloody hilarious is what it is. I especially liked the part where a good bit of cunnilingus can drive the devil from your mind.
This man echoes exactly my sentiments about the protesters. His video is well worth watching.
AC, because there's no accounting for what length nutters will go to.
Are these folk associated with the The People's Front of Judea, the Judean People's Front, the Judean Popular People's Front, the Campaign for a Free Galilee, or the Popular Front of Judea?
With acknowledgments to TLOB.
Anon as religious action groups are not known for a robust sense of humour.
they should go home, or at least to another country.
Funny how they exercise the British right to complain - which many can't do in Muslim countries - about another British right.
Many Brits will even let them draw pictures of JC or even tear up the Bible, as long as they clean up the mess. So what's so special about Mo?
I'm against censorship - but the right to peaceful protest is (or should be!) part of the culture of this country.
"Funny how they exercise the British right to complain - which many can't do in Muslim countries - about another British right."
Why is that funny? By that logic, there would be many things we couldn't complain about. And unfortunately this isn't like the US - we don't have freedom of speech written into a constitution, or indeed a written constitution at all. So we're not talking about a case where people are trying to oppose something constitutional, but people criticising something no different to the way that many other British people do. (Even in the US, it isn't that simple - people still call for censorship, arguing that freedom of speech has limits, and indeed, it is well established that freedom of speech in the US is not unlimited.) Even for things that are constitutional - should I leave the UK, because I disagree with the principle of the monarchy? Should my non-British partner who lives with me also not be entitled to such a view?
If this was an article about the peaceful republican protestors getting rounded up by police on the day of the royal wedding last year, I would guess that most comments would be against that. I'm not sure I'd see much of a "Well they should leave the country if they can't accept the way things are here". Even though the monarchy is about as constitutional as you can get.
So it's not funny at all. It is entirely consistent to make arguments about what the laws should be, or what the limits of laws should be.
Whilst there is the ECHR, it seems that half the UK population happily argue against that anyway. I don't agree with them, and might be happy to see them leave for another country - but it's clear that your argument is a bit ludicrous. Unless you suggest it's one rule for muslims, and another for Daily Mail readers. (And what is funny that the kinds of people who criticise the ECHR all the time are also more likely to be the kinds of people who would suggest muslims should leave the country if they don't like the rules...)
(Not to mention your assumption that they're all immigrants.)
...your right to say anything I agree with.
Surely the 'civil' reaction would have been to argue against the video and explain why it's wrong and offensive. Decent people would understand. That would be in the spirit of free speech. These people pretend to like free speech but, it seems, they only like it when it suits them.
What they just don't get is that this "film" (I have seen it, really, don't bother) has been made because of Islam's reputation of intolerance.
They've brought it on themselves with the anti-anyone who's not a muslim attitude. They even hate each other!
When you stop thinking that all the Kufar (the word kufar is an offensive term, like saying RagHeads) should be wiped off the face of the planet, maybe the rest of the planet earth may start to show you the respect that you demand.
...equate the actions of a minority with ALL Muslims.
"I heard some football supporters were swearing, being violent and disturbing my town. All football supporters are idiots and football should be banned."
I know the "religion is dumb" sentiment, I had it once. Now I'm older and wiser I can see the benefit in it. I have respect for all religions, they all espouse something good.
Please do not look at the actions of a minority and equate it with Islam and all religion.
@Uncle Slacky - I think you'll find that they do protest against violence, regularly. It's just so much more newsworthy to show a few violent protests or peaceful protests hijacked by a minority of extremists than it is to show people saying "down with this sort of thing."
Thanks for your post, a rare moderate comment. I am a Christian and rarely recognise the characterisation of my religion here. I don't recognise my Muslem friends as they are portrayed here. It's very sad that people who seem to consider themselves above the Daily Mail make comments such as those which are made here.
This post has been deleted by its author
you do not get to pick and choose.
The support of the moderates is the powerbase upon which the fanatics act. Your funds, your buildings, your organisations and your ideologies provide them with personnel, logistics and finances. You are culpable.
Like the pensioner in church who donates money in turn financed the catholic cover-ups, you share a degree of the blame.
All of it based on fairy tales with no evidence.
What, there are people in America who aren't particularly smart as well as Europe?
Also, do you know if they came from the North or South of the USA, because obviously you'll know that Yankees aren't from the whole of the USA. Hang on, of course you do, you're using one interaction with one person to represent the whole of a nation, you must be smart.
>Also, do you know if they came from the North or South
Yes I did
>Or as the conversation often went
Obviously English comprehension isn't your strong point. Notice the use of the word often, this would imply more than one occasion, indeed it would imply quite a few. I didn't use the term Yankee so even reading the words seems to be also a weak point of yours. However, to educate you, we, the English, use Yank to mean any American, it may only be coincidence but it also means jerk.
No, we, the English don't use the word Yank (an abbreviation of Yankee, used as a pejorative term) to mean any American. A bunch of intolerant British people use the word Yank, but they're intolerant and certainly don't represent all of us. It's like using "Frogs" to refer to the French, or "Krauts" to refer to Germans, it's not very nice, borderline racist and doesn't show up the person using the comment in a particularly brilliant light.
>I'm having difficulty following this conversation. Is there any way to identify these various ACs?
1, 3, 5 and this are mine
2 is either an overly sensitive Yank or an apologist for the PC brigade. Given their poor grasp of English I would tend towards the former
4 is a troll who could do better
6 is someone with a vocabulary limited to words of no more than four letters, five if we generously include plurals
7 no idea but probably a sentiment about 6
8 is you
Oh I wish that my life was so content, balanced and in a state of equilibrium that I had time, energy and inclination to get so work worked up over so little.
Really, so what if there is a video? So what if it is critical ? This is the privilege of having an opinion: somebody somewhere will mock it. Remember all the kerfuffle about the "Life of Brian"? So much free advertising and publicity that Muggeridge must be turning in his grave now, assuming of course that he was right that there is an afterlife. Which there isn't. So he isn't.
Still, I am sure the train companies will love all that extra full fair revenue on a Sunday.....
Mockery has been around (at least in the UK) for centuries. It is the civilised way of dealing with people who are getting a bit above themselves and believing that they are better than the rest. There are alternative approaches, but they tend to be a bit messy.
Have we turned into 4chan/b on here?
Sound like a bunch of ill eductated morons in here.
Let's but my position 1st>
1. I'm an Atheist.
2 My wife is Catholic
3 One bridesmaid at our wedding was Hindu
4 Last week I attended a sheikh and Hindu Wedding
5 One of my wife's best friends is Muslim.
6 I am white.
Yet somehow, unlike a bunch of ignorant morons on this forum, I can magically distinguish between a bunch of self centred idiots pushing their own agenda's using religion as an excuse, be they Muslims or Christians and before you get the usual crap about Muslims be more violent, do a bit of history and look up the likes of the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Witch burning and the Puritans.
Every Muslim I know are disgusted by the shooting of the girl in Pakistan and as for getting married at ten, this is CULTURAL thing, not a religious thing.
So stop reading the shit on the web and go and meet people of other religions and you may learn a fucking thing or two.
I think that's a reasonable assessment, but I'd like to add another slant to it.
I have at times looked at a system that I've been working on and considered just how complex the hardware and software are and just how easy it was for a simple software/hardware error to screw the system up - yet when you switched it on and let it rip, it worked.
For me that has always been magical. More magical than the words of any religion.
"the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Witch burning and the Puritans."
We grew out of that sort of things centuries ago. The abhorrant stuff filling today's news ina from, well, today.
"Every Muslim I know are disgusted by the shooting of the girl in Pakistan"
OK - so you don't know the ones who carried out this attrack. Or the stonings. Or the 'honour' (sic) murders...
Even better, read the history of the Islamic countries at the time of the Crusades, the Inquisitions and the Puritans..
This notion that the Moslem world 'suffered' at the hands of the Crusaders ignores that Islam's had a fairly unbroken trail of spilled blood - from the time of the Prophet right on through to today. Does anyone here believe there was a time that the Sunni and Shia ever got along? I haven't been able to find it - that schism was 100% political and they've been fighting over it since Day1.. But we don't *know* of the internal history of the countries and cultures and their own politics, so we can automatically assume the worst about the actions that came from the Crusaders..
I'm tired of this historical 'what about the past.." rubbish. Guess what.. It's PAST.
Let's deal with the here and now.
Grow up and quit trying to blame your 'parents' (the past) for the 'bad things' that seem to hold you down. Islam's got a problem and saying it's beyond ridicule or being criticized is a cowards way of not dealing with the flaws inherent in cultures that hide behind religious mantles.
You Tube won't show naked boobs because - as far as I can make out - they don't want to offend middle America and their investors back home.
You Tube are happy to host a video calculated to be as offensive as possible to a major world religion.
You Tuble are happy to host a video of Saddam Hussain being executed.
What's wrong with this picture?
There should be protests against this video. But not for the reason these ignorant, hate professing individuals invoke (makes me wonder btw, how can anyone have an opinion on a movie he/she didn't see personally? )
The real reason is: this piece of garbage of a production is worse than the birthday party video taped by uncle Harry after he had his 10th beer of the afternoon. Yes. it's that bad. Rubbing your eyes on a cheese grater should be less painful, but I didn't want to try. On the other hand... the redneck accents of most "actors" added a nice touch.
Yes, you can have opinions about things you've not seen: I have an opinion about the video of Saddam Hussain being executed, I have an opinion about the video of Ken Bigley being beheaded. I have opinions of videos of gangs dissing each other, brandishing weapons and running turf wars via you tube. I don't need to see them, if I have a reliable report about their content.
As I said to someone who asked me if I wanted to see the video of Ken Bigley being executed, which he had on his phone: "Why the fuck would I want to see another human being being brutally murdered? Why would anyone want to see this?"
I don't believe this is a problem of religion, organised or disorganised.
What we have here is a sty full of murderous pigs hiding behind "religion" and exploiting the ignorant and stupid to further their own greed for political power.
Am I the only one to see the parallels with Northern Ireland? Or Bosnia?
"First they leave their country and come to ours"
I think you'll find that the vast majority of Muslims in this country are British born a bred. Maybe when you're looking at 50+, some of them may be of foreign extraction, mostly from the Commonwealth, but will be naturalised, so British.
I for one am really rather glad about the mix of cultures. I can remember what food was like in the 70s.
One day we will look back on all of this and call it the period of the Culture Wars.
The Muslim vs the world thing has a long way to go before it is going to settle down. I only hope we can get to that point without too many more bullets ( from either side ). I fear, however, that isn't going to be possible.
More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason. Therefore the outward practice of any and all Organized Religion is evil and should be banned. Your personal religious beliefs are personal, keep them to yourselves and I won't feel the need to strangle you.
No religions are exempt from the above statement. They all lie, cheat, steal & murder, they all break the very laws they try to make us beholden to.
In my mind, one of the greatest "sins" is that of hypocrisy. "Do as I say, Not as I do". In particular Islamic Fundamentalism breaks that rule every second of it's existence as the Ten Commandments are the same for Judeaism, Christianity and Islam.
There is no truth that you or anyone else can twist to justify the attempted murder of 10 year old girls who want to learn or to maim and disfigure others just because they are female and voice an opinion on who they want to be married to.
Liars, murderers and thieves go to hell and each and every one of you fundamentalists of all beliefs are going to the Hell of your creation regardless of your particular religions.
Stop trying to infect the rest of the world with your evil and shut up.
To use your logic, since you sick cowards offend me, MY God tells me that I have right to kill that which offends me. Under your rules, I am entirely justified in hunting you down and summarily executing you and your progeny wherever you stand.
Maybe, you need to grow up and throw off the shackles of superstition long enough to understand that what you do has consequences regardless of who told you to do it. The only people that "God" talks to today usually end up in an asylum. People who believe they "speak for God" are liars and the ones who believe them are fools.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019