Will Songs of Praise be replaced by an Imams call to prayer?

[looney]

He certainly shouldn't be qualified by his religion, as you originally suggested. You certainly don't see reference to "the Christian" Jesus. Tbh, I can't recall having seen either mentioned on the news recently (but then I don't watch much news), but assuming you are correct with the way the two are mentioned, you do have a point- both should be addressed in the same manner. I'd guess that maybe the reason for the distinction is that Mohammed is a fairly common name, whereas I can't say I know anyone called Jesus, and therefore the BBC feel that they need to qualify exactly which Mohammed they are talking about.

The equivellant would be Jesus son of god or Jesus Christ

I think for the news reader to say "Drawings insulting Mohammed" would sound more course than misunderstood.

It may just be sloppy journalism though.

and therefore the BBC feel that they need to qualify exactly which Mohammed they are talking about.

If the BBC was to assume anything it would be that minorities would be more aware of majority cultures than the other way round(Maybe Muslims watch songs of Praise?).

Then references to minorities and there cultures would require great discriptive speech. If I started quoting the 9th Prophit would you know which religion I was refering to?

Seems that Christians dont read my posts so cant say on the Blasphemy thing.

Btw

Who would have thought ten years ago Labour would introduce blasphemy laws?


Hang around though. I think The Large one is going to wet himself.

 

[The Large One]

Well at least two others in this thread fully understood what I said and addressed it intelligently lowbrow. That says it all really.

Two? Oooh, you are on a roll.

 

[looney]

Its enough to make the flood of tears wash the clown paint down your face Coco.

Face it, when it comes to politics you should go and make yourself a cup of tea.

 

[The Large One]

The equivellant would be Jesus son of god or Jesus the Christian.

Jesus wasn't a Christian you f***ing headcase. According to scripture, Jesus was born into the House of David, one of the 12 tribes of Israel, and had a claim to be King of the Jews - which is in itself a catch-all terms for the people of Israel, but which in reality only refers to the people from within the House of Judah.

FOLLOWERS of Jesus are called Christians.

 

[Jesus Gul]

whenever the Prophet Mohammed is referred to over here in the UAE one must always after mentioning his name say 'Peace Be Upon Him'. This can be shortened in print but must always follow.

For example a newspaper headline would be...'Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) cartoon row'

 

[looney]

Typo scuse me.

Jesus Christ

Just forgot to correct the other poster ya certified stupid.

 

[Buzzer]

Face it, when it comes to politics you should go and make yourself a cup of tea.

umm....pot....kettle

 

[The Large One]

umm....pot....kettle

Don't even bother going there. The bloke's an idiot.

He's even taken to fantasising about me in his posts (see top of page...).

 

[looney]

whenever the Prophet Mohammed is referred to over here in the UAE one must always after mentioning his name say 'Peace Be Upon Him'. This can be shortened in print but must always follow.

For example a newspaper headline would be...'Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) cartoon row'

Yep thats quite common among muslims and Jack Straw when hes talking to them.

Which leads to the other side of the arguement. Should you refer to the muslim prophet mohammed as the prophet mohammed when you dont beleive it, or when its uttering Blasphemy to your religion?

 

[looney]

umm....pot....kettle

You really should go back and re read your posts about "lazy fair", they are hilarious.

I would no more refer to Hayek and Friedman as LF than I would call EU trade policy Mercantilist, even though the later is more accurate.

MF is know for Monaterism. This is the opposite of LF, its about the state/central Bank controll of the money supply. The opposite of the free money system that Hayek Advocates in TCoL.

Neither is relevant to 19th centuary trade disputes.

It just smacks of Semantic snobbery and ignorance.

You may have noticed by this thread I'm in a pedantic mood, now go and have a cup of tea.

 

[looney]

Don't even bother going there. The bloke's an idiot.

He's even taken to fantasising about me in his posts (see top of page...).

Well your lack of intelligence is obvious, so keep crying blowhard.

I'm sure there are others as well as myself who enjoy laughing at you.

 

[The Large One]

Well your lack of intelligence is obvious, so keep crying blowhard.

I'm sure there are others as well as myself who enjoy laughing at you.

No. it's almost certainly just you and your deluded mind. Unless of course there may be one or two others, but it depends if their case workers let them read this or not.

You're the one that jumps from broadcasting pedantry, through religious intolerance to irrelevant cut-and-paste monetarist policy with no coherent link or argument in between like a jabbering moron about to be drowned in his own fear, all the while thinking that the board is on your side, and then drop the hilarious clanger of accusing me - and everyone else for that matter - of having a lack of intelligence?

f*** off.

 

[looney]

You're the one that jumps from broadcasting pedantry, through religious intolerance to irrelevant cut-and-paste monetarist policy with no coherent link or argument in between like a jabbering moron about to be drowned in his own fear, all the while thinking that the board is on your side, and then drop the hilarious clanger of accusing me - and everyone else for that matter - of having a lack of intelligence?

f*** off.

Well no the broadcasting topic is a form off non-secular religous intollerance and the Monetarist post was addressing someone else. Well over your head so dont go there.

Hey why not a poll for whos not a dumbass?

Once your 20 or so unemployed no life mates have voted for you I'll eclipse your total easily when the busier employed intelligent people get back from work.

 

[Buzzer]

You really should go back and re read your posts about "lazy fair", they are hilarious.

I would no more refer to Hayek and Friedman as LF than I would call EU trade policy Mercantilist, even though the later is more accurate.

That's 'cause you're about as clued up as a one column by one row crossword puzzle, you ignorant twit.

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9323971

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire#Laissez-faire_today

http://www.city.ac.uk/economics/dps/discussion_papers/0310.pdf

...and a lovely quote from the selected work...

What I want to suggest is that as well as the more widely known reductionist underpinning for laissez-faire, there is also a holistic rhetorical strategy for laissez-faire, and that Hayek is a prime instance of this standpoint.

This has taken me about 2 minutes using google. Probably 1 minute 50 seconds more than your search. However the difference is that I'm at work on late lunch and don't have my old text books to hand to dispute your drivel.

MF is know for Monaterism. This is the opposite of LF, its about the state/central Bank controll of the money supply. The opposite of the free money system that Hayek Advocates in TCoL.

hmmm....not quite, Sunny Jim. Try reading "Vienna and Chicago. Friend or Foes" where the author (can't remember who wrote it - sorry) argues that both the Vienna and Chicago schools are steeped in laissez-faire principles. Indeed the esteemed philosopher and commentator Norman Barry argued that it was the way in which the underlying principles were practiced that was different rather than the intention.

Originally posted by looney
Neither is relevant to 19th centuary trade disputes.

It just smacks of Semantic snobbery and ignorance.

You may have noticed by this thread I'm in a pedantic mood, now go and have a cup of tea.

Laisez-faire was coined in the 19th century to refer to a way of settling trade disputes but in the 20th century came to mean a whole set of economic and political beliefs. You nobber.

Your posting smacks of ignorance and casual googling.

If intelligence and education smacks of snobbery then me Big Chief Lord Muck, you little squaw much poo poo.

Now go and get an education...and a spell-checker. Your grammar and spelling are appalling.

 

[The Large One]

Well no the broadcasting topic is a form off non-secular religous intollerance and the Monetarist post was addressing someone else. Well over your head so dont go there.

Hey why not a poll for whos not a dumbass?

Once your 20 or so unemployed no life mates have voted for you I'll eclipse your total easily when the busier employed intelligent people get back from work.

I thought - no, I know - I said f*** off.

Are you so THICK as to not understand? Oh, yes you are.

 

[looney]

What I want to suggest is that as well as the more widely known reductionist underpinning for laissez-faire, there is also a holistic rhetorical strategy for laissez-faire, and that Hayek is a prime instance of this standpoint.

Who said that? Considering I said it was leftwing rhetoric that would be quite important.

holistic rhetorical strategy for laissez-faire

what the f*** is that?

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/andy.denis/


argues that both the Vienna and Chicago schools are steeped in laissez-faire principles.

Someone else who doesn't know what he was talking about. The Veinna school included Wittgentstien and Bertrand Russel, hardly rightwingers and Popper was not a member of it(Read his autobiography Unending Quest).

The chicago school is full of rightwing Nobel winners steeped in all kinds of principles and thinking.

Ronald Coase is not Lazy fair as he delt with trade/market regulatory principles. Neither was Lucas or the chap whos name escapes me who wrote the treatise on the family.

None of this was Googled dumbass, The term LF was ressurected in the 80's from history departments to label thatcher as neo-victorian.

Oh and its the Vienna Circle not school as it was a philosophy group like Der Frien, f*** you must be really struggling to find odballs to back you up.

 

[readingstockport]

One day - ONE DAY - you will actually bother your arse to make some sense, and back it up with a coherent argument, instead of resorting to childlike insults - a sure sign of loneliness and insecurity, as well as a definite uncertainty in the rationale behind your arguments. But somehow, I don't think we'll ever see that day.

Meanwhile, I am going to place myself in your universe, and resort to this... referring to the quote above, you pondlife fuckwit, why did you call it that? You've got some f***ing neck to call anyone other than yourself dumb.

Post of the day

 

[readingstockport]

Yep thats quite common among muslims and Jack Straw when hes talking to them.

Why do you insist on posting on things you so evidently know nothing about. It is a tenet of the Muslim faith to always say PBUH after saying Mohammed. All good muslims will do so.

Edit to add, they do not have to do so unless refering to him by name. So if they say 'the prophet said...' there is no pbuh. However if they say 'mohammed said....' they must phrase it mohammed, pbuh, said....'

 

[withdeanwombat]

Songs of Praise?

Call to Prayer?

Anyone still believe in all this tosh?


Now,call to Match of the Day,and I'm right there.

Thank you god,allah,and whatever else,


BUT........Up the Albion.

 

[Buzzer]

What I want to suggest is that as well as the more widely known reductionist underpinning for laissez-faire, there is also a holistic rhetorical strategy for laissez-faire, and that Hayek is a prime instance of this standpoint.

Who said that? Considering I said it was leftwing rhetoric that would be quite important.

holistic rhetorical strategy for laissez-faire

what the f*** is that?

http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/andy.denis/


argues that both the Vienna and Chicago schools are steeped in laissez-faire principles.

Someone else who doesn't know what he was talking about. The Veinna school included Wittgentstien and Bertrand Russel, hardly rightwingers and Popper was not a member of it(Read his autobiography Unending Quest).

The chicago school is full of rightwing Nobel winners steeped in all kinds of principles and thinking.

Ronald Coase is not Lazy fair as he delt with trade/market regulatory principles. Neither was Lucas or the chap whos name escapes me who wrote the treatise on the family.

None of this was Googled dumbass, The term LF was ressurected in the 80's from history departments to label thatcher as neo-victorian.

Oh and its the Vienna Circle not school as it was a philosophy group like Der Frien, f*** you must be really struggling to find odballs to back you up.

ha ha ha. half an hour busy googling and this the best you can come up with?

Wittgenstein and Russell members of the Vienna circle? Utter bollocks - they were influenced by Wittgenstein who was influenced by Russell but then rejected his empiricism for a more holistic and somewhat mystical approach to philosophy. Nobber.

As for my quote...it comes from the link above it. People who spend all their working lives studying write these things. Not fuckwits like you who spend their time drooling into their laps....and where did I say that Popper was a member of that group?

...and who was the leading light and founder of the Chicago school? That's right...Friedman.

Guess who's gonna be spending the next few hours desparately googling trying to come back with spurious arguments?

That's right! You!