When the established order of the religion considers these actions by the teacher a crime how can that not in a sense he condoning the subsequent action taken?
So I assume therefore the Christian church would therefore be condoning the killing or imprisonment of Hindu's as it's number one edict is having no other god than the one true God? Or anyone that has a painting/statue as there should be "no graven images"? Or me because I'm a blasphemer/non-believer?
I think the whole religion thing is a load of nonsense but just because their stupid rules say something is banned doesn't mean they automatically condone the diabolical actions of an utter nutcase who's been radicalised.
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
When you consider the relative ages of Islam to Christianity at the same age Christianity was doing the same fucked up shit to people for questioning church teachings or not believing (or even those of the same faith but a slightly different branch). And there's still a lot of nutters who take it all as absolute truth.
Also as a Western religion we've had centuries to slowly eat away at this with science - and many people paid the ultimate price to do so. The Islamic world hasn't had as much time exposed to this but it will and whether you like it or not the only way to bring in that questioning of those laws is to allow Muslims to be involved in our society and be exposed to other ways of thinking and questioning of the validity of those beliefs. For some that's a very hard thing to accept - if you've lived your entire life by a set of rules and someone is there pointing out all the flaws in the story behind them it's going to be hard for some to accept. A bit like Brexit and capitalism/socialism
It creates legitimacy to the perpetrators - if they welcomed the imagery the justification for the crime is lessened
The notion of all religion is a nonsense as far as I'm concerned. People still follow it though for whatever reason.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
Cause I believe it’s the truth is why. You not agreeing however is very little to do with how i live my life. I may love you a little more and practically try to ensure you receive blessingThe notion of all religion is a nonsense as far as I'm concerned. People still follow it though for whatever reason.
Exactly, as bizarre as it is to me I understand that people feel otherwise for myriad different reasons. I can't pretend I think it's a good thing but we all should respect each other's beliefs on some level so society can function.Cause I believe it’s the truth is why. You not agreeing however is very little to do with how i live my life. I may love you a little more and practically try to ensure you receive blessing
I don’t think you’ll find many people making excuses for it. Those who encourage it to flourish are extremists on both sides wishing to exploit itWhat’s more frightening than the perpetrator in any extremist attack is the yehbuts. For every person ready to act there are many more that refuse to condemn. The NZ attack “it’s terrible” “yehbut maybe he felt intimidated by Islam. The thing yesterday “it’s terrible” “yeh but he insulted the sky fairy”. These are the people that allow it to flourish
When the established order of the religion considers these actions by the teacher a crime how can that not in a sense he condoning the subsequent action taken?
The EFL considers it a crime if I somehow watch today's game on IPTV, does that mean they would condone me getting decapitated for it?
You sound quite scared of Muslims. (Is there a word for that?)
I’m fairly scared of this particular brand to be fair
Allah told him to cut his head off so that's that.When you consider the relative ages of Islam to Christianity at the same age Christianity was doing the same fucked up shit to people for questioning church teachings or not believing (or even those of the same faith but a slightly different branch). And there's still a lot of nutters who take it all as absolute truth.
Also as a Western religion we've had centuries to slowly eat away at this with science - and many people paid the ultimate price to do so. The Islamic world hasn't had as much time exposed to this but it will and whether you like it or not the only way to bring in that questioning of those laws is to allow Muslims to be involved in our society and be exposed to other ways of thinking and questioning of the validity of those beliefs. For some that's a very hard thing to accept - if you've lived your entire life by a set of rules and someone is there pointing out all the flaws in the story behind them it's going to be hard for some to accept. A bit like Brexit and capitalism/socialism
The EFL considers it a crime if I somehow watch today's game on IPTV, does that mean they would condone me getting decapitated for it?
You sound quite scared of Muslims. (Is there a word for that?)
Perhaps the EFL are a bit more educated and forward thinking. I reckon they'd be happy with a fine or ban - whatever the law allows for.The EFL considers it a crime if I somehow watch today's game on IPTV, does that mean they would condone me getting decapitated for it?
You sound quite scared of Muslims. (Is there a word for that?)
As a man of faith it is preposterousI think 'faith' or 'belief' as a protected characteristic is complete bollocks tbh, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam or anything else. Religious practice should be discouraged and receive no favour from the state including tax exemptions etc.
I mean seriously, an atrocity like this because you are offended on behalf of an entirely fictional God. It is preposterous.
I’m fairly scared of this particular brand to be fair
Perhaps SBT can put an image of old Mo on as his Avatar and put his address on his signature - what’s there to be scared of?
I wouldn't do that because many Muslims find it offensive, and I'm not a total dick.
Funnily enough, many Muslims also find decapitating people offensive, which is why I took issue with your earlier Islamaphobic nonsense. You're aiming for Richard Littlejohn but you're coming off more Alan Partridge.
How was my comment islamaphobic - it’s people like you who create the lurkers of this world
Absolutely spot on. I reckon if Peter Sutcliffe had committed his crimes today he'd have had the benefit of internet sympathisers if he'd claimed God had told him to do it. It's the way to go .I think 'faith' or 'belief' as a protected characteristic is complete bollocks tbh, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam or anything else. Religious practice should be discouraged and receive no favour from the state including tax exemptions etc.
I mean seriously, an atrocity like this because you are offended on behalf of an entirely fictional God. It is preposterous.
How was my comment islamaphobic - it’s people like you who create the lurkers of this world
Your comment suggested that extrajudicial beheadings like this one were somehow condoned by the Muslim 'established order' (whatever that means). Then you're pulling the whole tried and tested 'If they're so great why don't you taunt them with your avatar' trick (I was going to change it to your last shag, but I only have so many pixels and Google Image Search only goes so far back in time)
I don't give a shit about whatever insight you claim to have on Muslim theology and morality (no-one does) but it seems to me that you're pretty fucking terrified of them. Moan all you like about The Lurker, the only meaningful difference between him and you is about a dozen syllables per sentence.
I think 'faith' or 'belief' as a protected characteristic is complete bollocks tbh, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam or anything else. Religious practice should be discouraged and receive no favour from the state including tax exemptions etc.
I mean seriously, an atrocity like this because you are offended on behalf of an entirely fictional God. It is preposterous.
Case proven
No problem. I'm sorry for embarrassing you with the Alan Partridge stuff earlier, this is clearly much more of a Lionel Hutz thing you have going.
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?
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
You might feel a bit overmatched here, but I didn't create white extremism - I'm not THAT good. It existed long before me, and sadly always will. They don't need my encouragement to pop up, so you'll have to try something else.
I sympathize that people like you are getting more and more left behind, and it can be reassuring to blame other people for your views getting more and more outdated. Making 'people like me' the boogeyman is only natural, in a world where your preferred targets now seem out of bounds.
Presumably you at least think of yourself as an intelligent guy - if you had real courage in your convictions, you'd simply ignore 'people like me' and embrace your prejudices, speak your truth openly, apologize for nothing. Instead you're waving imaginary yellow cards at the ref when people push you on it, and letting plankton like The Lurker pick up the final blame. No wonder you feel so irrelevant.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?