Man beheaded in Paris (3 Viewers)

[SBT]

Fascinating - I have no prejudices I’ll leave that to people like you

Off you trot then. 'Case closed', as they say.

 

---

[Grendel]

Off you trot then. 'Case closed', as they say.

It’s also fascinating you say people like me are being left behind while at the same time defending a medieval ideology

Off I trot? Are you a dictator that bans feee speech now? My word how very ironic indeed

 

[SBT]

It’s also fascinating you say people like me are being left behind while at the same time defending a medieval ideology

Off I trot? Are you a dictator that bans feee speech now? My word how very ironic indeed

This may be the fastest pivot from "I'll leave you to it, I have no prejudices" to "HOW VERY DARE YOU btw Muslims are medieval" in internet history. This is galaxy brain stuff here people.

 

[Houchens Head]

 

[Grendel]

This may be the fastest pivot from "I'll leave you to it, I have no prejudices" to "HOW VERY DARE YOU btw Muslims are medieval" in internet history. This is galaxy brain stuff here people.

I didn’t say Muslims are medieval - reading is not your strength is it?

 

[SBT]

I didn’t say Muslims are medieval - reading is not your strength is it?

I mean, it was a joke, but OK

 

[skybluetony176]

I don’t agree as it perpetuates the arrogance and absurdity of a sacred prophet - Muslim councils should support such imagery being published

Why would they do that when they don’t support images of their “sacred prophet“ in Islamic art?

 

[skybluetony176]

It’s an image of a person born centuries ago not a picture of mass slaughter. Nonsense like this has been peddled for decades. The C of E has had to alter and adapt its views as society evolves - not remain stuck in a medieval time warp

You do realise that it’s not specifically this picture, it’s not even that it’s a cartoon. Islam doesn’t use art of the prophet Muhammad. If you go into a mosque it isn’t ordained in religious images it’s ordained in arabesque patterns. Any imagery of Muhammad is a complete no no in Islam.

 

[skybluetony176]

People like you create White extremism by refusal to acknowledge and condemn aspects of religions and scream racism and make accusations of absurd proportions when anyone dares to make such statements - it’s that which creates fear and hysteria and division

What if the religion you refuse to condemn aspects of are a predominately white followed religion? Are you still responsible for white extremism?

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I'm not saying there is any difference, certainly not in how they're dealt with in criminal law.

My point is that, (and I know that most Muslims / people of any other faith are not extremists) the state shouldn't protect / implicitly promote rights to believe in things like it does with religion. It feels like this almost gives religious belief a righteousness that it doesn't deserve.

Ask them why they don’t believe in Thor or Zeus then watch the logical gymnastics unfold.

 

[Macca]

Can't tell if you're talking about the extremist sect that wants to destroy our nation's values, or the French terrorists.

Any extremist brand of any cult. If there was more than 6 members of those loonies in the states that boycott servicemen’s funerals because the think its gods judgement on gays then I’d be pretty scared too

 

[shmmeee]

I'm not saying there is any difference, certainly not in how they're dealt with in criminal law.

My point is that, (and I know that most Muslims / people of any other faith are not extremists) the state shouldn't protect / implicitly promote rights to believe in things like it does with religion. It feels like this almost gives religious belief a righteousness that it doesn't deserve.

I could kind of agree that religion doesn’t need to be mentioned specifically in the HRA, but it’s always alongside “belief”:



The EA protects it along with philosophical belief as well, though looking at this description of philosophical belief from UK: What constitutes a protected philosophical belief? | Lexology (complete with list of things that have been ruled valid beliefs or not - work a look)

• It must be genuinely held.
• It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
• It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
• It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
• It need not be shared by others.
• It must be more than just an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.

I think you could make a fair argument that most religious belief wouldn’t pass those tests

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

What’s the difference between this and the Pizzagate/QAnon killings or attacks though? Or the Andres Bravik attack? Or eco terrorism, or Irish nationalism, or thinking the NFL are reading your thoughts through satellites?

Belief systems aren’t something you can legislate against. That’s why freedom of belief is in every attempt at human rights. It’s not even that we necessarily don’t want to ban religion (though many atrocities have been carried out trying to ban religions), it’s that we can’t. Where do you draw the line and how do you police people’s thoughts?

Difference is those ones you mention are questioned, ridiculed and pulled apart for the nonsense they are. People who believe them aren't given tax exemptions or have their concerns considered, or indeed built into, how society works and is legislated for. They're largely castigated rather than given special allowances. Religion has been used for millenia to police people's thoughts and actions with severe penalties for refusing to toe the line.

The point isn't necessarily about policing people's thought, it's about giving them an enquiring enough mind to question what they believe and see past the bullshit. Science has spent much of its life questioning and trying to disprove those that have come before them and sometimes it does and others it doesn't - it grows. Can you see religion trying to disprove the Bible/Koran/Torah the way science has tried to disprove Einstein?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

People like you create White extremism by refusal to acknowledge and condemn aspects of religions and scream racism and make accusations of absurd proportions when anyone dares to make such statements - it’s that which creates fear and hysteria and division

Nonsense. It's people like this that have reduced white extremism. I think there's very very few people who don't think that there is a very small group of Muslim's who are extremist and a genuine threat to people and society in general. But the second you agree to such a statement the extremeists take it as full on acceptance that Muslim's are a problem and need to be sorted out. They see it as tacit approval of their actions and beliefs. So you have to make absolutely sure they can't get that impression by pointing out it's a very very small number of them. Which as we've seen here is taken by the extremists as being apologists and, in your view, fuel their determination.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

It’s also fascinating you say people like me are being left behind while at the same time defending a medieval ideology

Off I trot? Are you a dictator that bans feee speech now? My word how very ironic indeed

The last thing a dictator would tell you to do is 'trot off' and letting you carry on freely, giving you the opportunity to tell others of what you think. They'd be keeping you on a very short leash to prevent you doing exactly that.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Found myself getting frustrated at the news saying he was murdered after showing pictures of the prophet Mohammed. They weren’t condoning it but it sort of does doesn’t it. The guy was murdered by a violent fuckwit with no respect for life. That would be better

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I could kind of agree that religion doesn’t need to be mentioned specifically in the HRA, but it’s always alongside “belief”:

View attachment 17260

The EA protects it along with philosophical belief as well, though looking at this description of philosophical belief from UK: What constitutes a protected philosophical belief? | Lexology (complete with list of things that have been ruled valid beliefs or not - work a look)

• It must be genuinely held.
• It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour.
• It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance.
• It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
• It need not be shared by others.
• It must be more than just an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available.

I think you could make a fair argument that most religious belief wouldn’t pass those tests

Re read this and it’s really interesting. I do think faith receives a righteousness that it doesn’t deserve. The righteous actions of people of faith deserve the righteousness otherwise you’ll get people claiming that it’s a righteous act to murder or hate and that confuses people. The unrighteous acts quite rightly are called out individually and not corporately which I think is what you’re getting at.

It can’t be right for people to think I’m righteous because of what I believe. It’s probably ok for people to think I’m righteous for the things I do or don’t do

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

Re read this and it’s really interesting. I do think faith receives a righteousness that it doesn’t deserve. The righteous actions of people of faith deserve the righteousness otherwise you’ll get people claiming that it’s a righteous act to murder or hate and that confuses people. The unrighteous acts quite rightly are called out individually and not corporately which I think is what you’re getting at.

It can’t be right for people to think I’m righteous because of what I believe. It’s probably ok for people to think I’m righteous for the things I do or don’t do

Its all very righteous isn't it ? Or self righteous , come to that.

 

[Alan Dugdales Moustache]

You do realise that it’s not specifically this picture, it’s not even that it’s a cartoon. Islam doesn’t use art of the prophet Muhammad. If you go into a mosque it isn’t ordained in religious images it’s ordained in arabesque patterns. Any imagery of Muhammad is a complete no no in Islam.

A teacher has had his head severed by some sadistic bastard and here you are trying to score yourself some points by pointing out what is pretty much common knowledge.

It sounds by what you're saying that we ( non Muslims) have to understand that pictures of Mohammed (or cartoons, Allah forbid) are so offensive that we might be subjected to getting similar treatment to this poor teacher. So we shouldn't be doing anything to offend.

Fair enough, but where in the Koran does it tell it's followers to sever heads or go into an Arena and blow people up?
It doesn't .

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

A teacher has had his head severed by some sadistic bastard and here you are trying to score yourself some points by pointing out what is pretty much common knowledge.

It sounds by what you're saying that we ( non Muslims) have to understand that pictures of Mohammed (or cartoons, Allah forbid) are so offensive that we might be subjected to getting similar treatment to this poor teacher. So we shouldn't be doing anything to offend.

Fair enough, but where in the Koran does it tell it's followers to sever heads or go into an Arena and blow people up?
It doesn't .

There’s enough in all the holy books of all religions that says god is for you who can be against you. Also many stories of god in ancient times destroying the enemy including women and children and cattle and crops. Also military might means that those with power and usually Christian nations whatever that means but look at nazi Germany and the USA in the Middle East can act with the legitimacy of their God saying what you’re doing is for the greater good. Whatever the fuck that means!

There’s also enough in the history books of secular regimes that tells of the same. There’s also anger inside me when I see injustice that often is not acted upon very well on a personal individual nature on far too many occasions

Others have said it better than me it’s about education and respect

 

[LastGarrison]

All religion is bollocks.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

All religion is bollocks.

All philosophy is bollox which is patently not the case so I think you’re wrong

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Re read this and it’s really interesting. I do think faith receives a righteousness that it doesn’t deserve. The righteous actions of people of faith deserve the righteousness otherwise you’ll get people claiming that it’s a righteous act to murder or hate and that confuses people. The unrighteous acts quite rightly are called out individually and not corporately which I think is what you’re getting at.

It can’t be right for people to think I’m righteous because of what I believe. It’s probably ok for people to think I’m righteous for the things I do or don’t do

Indeed. If you do something kind or righteous it's because you've chosen to do so. So if any religion wants to take some of the credit for these good deeds by leading you down that path it also has to accept the heinous crimes committed by some.

I get very irate at certain preachers who say we're now seeing a lack of morals etc in society because we're losing our faith. This is bollocks. If you're doing something because some ancient writing says you should that's not having morals, it's doing what your told either due to fear of the consequences or for a believed reward you'll get in the future. If you don't believe any of that but still treat people with respect and do your best not to hurt them in anyway even if it means you miss out (esp in a society that is now largely everyone for themselves) - that's morals.

 

[shmmeee]

Isn't this as simple as: more Muslims than any other religion, therefore more nutters willing to use it as justification?

Indeed. If you do something kind or righteous it's because you've chosen to do so. So if any religion wants to take some of the credit for these good deeds by leading you down that path it also has to accept the heinous crimes committed by some.

I get very irate at certain preachers who say we're now seeing a lack of morals etc in society because we're losing our faith. This is bollocks. If you're doing something because some ancient writing says you should that's not having morals, it's doing what your told either due to fear of the consequences or for a believed reward you'll get in the future. If you don't believe any of that but still treat people with respect and do your best not to hurt them in anyway even if it means you miss out (esp in a society that is now largely everyone for themselves) - that's morals.

Always think of a Penn Gillette story when this comes up: religious woman says to him “atheists have no moral compass, without God what’s to stop you raping and murdering as much as you want?”

To which Penn replies “I do rape and murder as much as I want, I want to do exactly zero rapes and murders”.

Says something when people claim the only thing stopping them being a terrible person is the fear of retribution from God.

 

[tommydazzle]

Isn't this as simple as: more Muslims than any other religion, therefore more nutters willing to use it as justification?


Always think of a Penn Gillette story when this comes up: religious woman says to him “atheists have no moral compass, without God what’s to stop you raping and murdering as much as you want?”

To which Penn replies “I do rape and murder as much as I want, I want to do exactly zero rapes and murders”.

Says something when people claim the only thing stopping them being a terrible person is the fear of retribution from God.

Yes agree, and of course any reasonable Christian will cherry-pick the bible to suit modern day morality. Take a look at Sam Harris pointing out the immorality and inconvenient truths in the bible to that darling of the Trumpian right-wing and intellectual lightweight Ben Shapiro.

 

[tommydazzle]

Got no problem with that - it's showing respect to other cultures and beliefs.

What shows no respect is failing to accept that others don't feel or think the same.

Don't agree with this at all. There are plenty of cultural practices and beliefs that deserve no respect and have no place in a modern civilized society.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Don't agree with this at all. There are plenty of cultural practices and beliefs that deserve no respect and have no place in a modern civilized society.

Well, naturally if I believe in cannibalism, that is not valid. Or, for that matter, marrying my 11yo cousin.

However, in this particular instance, I have no problem if people are offended by an image, and are therefore given an opportunity not to be offended by it by not seeing it.

What is wrong, in this case, is refusing to accept others may not have the same belief. It's an extension of a Mary Whitehouse position really isn't it, that if you don't want to watch sex and violence, don't watch the programmes with sex and violence, to respect both sides of that belief doesn't impact negatively on the other, to force everyone to your belief however...

That being said, Mary Whitehouse never tried to cut off Robin Askwith's head...

 

[tommydazzle]

I thought education was about teaching children to think for themselves. I personally think they should have stayed in the class.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I thought education was about teaching children to think for themselves. I personally think they should have stayed in the class.

They could have

 

[shmmeee]

Don't agree with this at all. There are plenty of cultural practices and beliefs that deserve no respect and have no place in a modern civilized society.

Like unbridled capitalism.

*runs*

 

[SBT]

A teacher has had his head severed by some sadistic bastard and here you are trying to score yourself some points by pointing out what is pretty much common knowledge.

It sounds by what you're saying that we ( non Muslims) have to understand that pictures of Mohammed (or cartoons, Allah forbid) are so offensive that we might be subjected to getting similar treatment to this poor teacher. So we shouldn't be doing anything to offend.

Fair enough, but where in the Koran does it tell it's followers to sever heads or go into an Arena and blow people up?
It doesn't .

Surely it's not hard to be disgusted by attacks like this, and at the same time be aware of things that offend other groups of people? (Even if you don't really understand the reasons why)

I'm with you, I don't get the whole pictures of the prophet thing, and I never will, but I can still accept it and act accordingly, it doesn't cost me anything.

This insane scumbag in France obviously makes this all so heated - that's why he did what he did in the first place. I just don't see why we have to let a tiny group of nutters stop the rest of us from trying to be decent to each other - these people WANT to breed hate. Why let them?

 

[clint van damme]

Surely it's not hard to be disgusted by attacks like this, and at the same time be aware of things that offend other groups of people? (Even if you don't really understand the reasons why)

I'm with you, I don't get the whole pictures of the prophet thing, and I never will, but I can still accept it and act accordingly, it doesn't cost me anything.

This insane scumbag in France obviously makes this all so heated - that's why he did what he did in the first place. I just don't see why we have to let a tiny group of nutters stop the rest of us from trying to be decent to each other - these people WANT to breed hate. Why let them?

Sorry, but I don't agree. People should be free to ridicule all major institutions, be they religious, political, whatever.

 

[AVWskyblue]

Re read this and it’s really interesting. I do think faith receives a righteousness that it doesn’t deserve. The righteous actions of people of faith deserve the righteousness otherwise you’ll get people claiming that it’s a righteous act to murder or hate and that confuses people. The unrighteous acts quite rightly are called out individually and not corporately which I think is what you’re getting at.

It can’t be right for people to think I’m righteous because of what I believe. It’s probably ok for people to think I’m righteous for the things I do or don’t do

So your saying good works gets you saved?

Sent from my Alba7Nou using Tapatalk

 

[SBT]

Sorry, but I don't agree. People should be free to ridicule all major institutions, be they religious, political, whatever.

They should, but they aren't, for all kinds of reasons. Some of them controversial, most of them not.

It really doesn't seem like the most pressing free speech issue in the world today, but of course now it's the single most controversial free speech issue on the planet. And that's entirely because of fundamentalist lunatics. Society as a whole has risen to the bait (admittedly it's pretty fucking big bait) and we go round in circles because people's emotions get triggered every time by this stuff. The heat generated from stories like this just ends up making people less tolerant, and plays right into the hands of the people who started this bullshit.

Obviously freedom of speech is important, I would just rather we didn't let maniacs set the agenda each and every time. They're not going to stop doing their part anytime soon - so why don't we?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

So your saying good works gets you saved?

Sent from my Alba7Nou using Tapatalk

No I’m just saying it’s a bit rich of me to say isn’t Christianity great. Look at all those people serving their community and abolishing slavery and bringing about societal healing unless I’m also willing to accept that it’s understandable for others to say look at Christianity and how awful it is with all the abuse by clergy, suicides from lgbt kids who’s parent and churches making them feel their gender isn’t normal and a whole host of other stuff.

That’s all. If this is a theology discussion I’d talk about james and his sin cycle and how faith without works is dead but also about the grace of god freely given our for all people. I can’t believe that if Jesus did something to open up a relationship for all people with god that’s it’s dependent on anything that I do or don’t do. Also I can’t believe as a father that I could ever hate what I have made enough to punish them for the whole of eternity. I’m quite happy that my Christian faith is more dependent on gods love for his creation than his judgment