Religions of peace? A thread for sober discussion.

[User removed 4]

We've been down this road 100 times already on NSC and I'm not going back down it today. Instead let me ask you a different question. Let's say you were offered a lucrative, tax-free contract in Saudi. Would you immediately grow a beard and spend your free time in a mosque or would you be more inclined to head to an ex-pat party to drink whisky from Liptons Ice Tea bottles and compare your bank balances, as my wife's cousin who lived in Saudi for 20 years often observed?

I've got two points to make , he's here for good, he's an immigrant, if I was in Saudi I wouldn't be there for good, I'd be a temporary worker. Secondly, there are a hundred people here who could do his job, westerners are in Saudi for a reason, Saudis don't have the skills to do the jobs that westerners are there for.

 

[BigGully]

I'm using two people I know to illustrate the point that Islam is not one thing in totality. Why would you need to identify my colleague (and friend) as a muslim? I don't walk round with "Athiest" tattooed on my head.

It was you that identified them, then somehow they identified to YOU that they were Islamic, thats all.

My point is that we seem to have shifted the religious boundaries, somehow incorporating some religious disciplines as somehow 'moderate', when actually it would normally be seen as quite extreme, whichever religion a generation ago.

Religious sensitivities have been foisted upon us, mostly through mass immigration and their own prioritised religions, It can be an insidious process and something that should be challenged whenever possible.

 

[BBassic]

It was you that identified them, then somehow they identified to YOU that they were Islamic, thats all.

My point is that we seem to have shifted the religious boundaries, somehow incorporating some religious disciplines as somehow 'moderate', when actually it would normally be seen as quite extreme, whichever religion a generation ago.

Religious sensitivities have been foisted upon us, mostly through mass immigration and their own prioritised religions, It can be an insidious process and something that should be challenged whenever possible.

Times change man. Women couldn't vote 100 years ago.

Islam as a religion hasn't changed; we've become a more open and accepting society. And that's a good thing.

 

[Nibble]

I almost typed exactly the same thing. Although I was going to throw [MENTION=5707]Nibble[/MENTION] into the mix.

It's not a subject I care much about if you want the truth. It'll pass and some other group of mutters will take their place. I'm more conceded with catching up on Vikings Season 2 before 3 comes out on DVD.

 

[greyseagull]

It's not a subject I care much about if you want the truth. It'll pass and some other group of mutters will take their place. I'm more conceded with catching up on Vikings Season 2 before 3 comes out on DVD.

Ooooh, now you're talking. I'm still on season one. Top programme.

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

The fact that the old testament has the Ten Commandments is, I think, a triumph for the Jews. It shows they wanted a better way, a just way. The new testament casts aside 'law' by which a person can keep doing good in the vain hope that they will reach God that way, and replaced it with grace and faith in Jesus. In my opinion, the verse 'do unto others as you would have done to yourself' is genius.

..as there have been variations of The Golden Rule expressed throughout history and many of these pre-date Christianity.

Agree with both of you. Here's some geeky links to information about where these types of laws were inspired from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_for_an_eye

 

[ThePompousPaladin]

He is no more Muslim as I am Christian

Is he?
Perhaps he uses the word 'Muslim' as an identity and his family identify with it. So when someone speaks about Muslims, he picks up his ears and listens.

I'm assuming of course that you don't do that when someone speaks of christianity.

 

[BigGully]

Is he?
Perhaps he uses the word 'Muslim' as an identity and his family identify with it. So when someone speaks about Muslims, he picks up his ears and listens.

I'm assuming of course that you don't do that when someone speaks of christianity.

I cannot know, however he should define himself as someone beyond his religion or the religion of his family, just as I have done.

Free him up a little.

 

[carlzeiss]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...eet-to-protest-at-Charlie-Hebdo-cartoons.html

 

[Soulman]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...eet-to-protest-at-Charlie-Hebdo-cartoons.html

No chance of a 1000 demonstrating against ISIS and the be headings then. Thought not.

 

[carlzeiss]

No chance of a 1000 demonstrating against ISIS and the be headings then. Thought not.

It doesn't appear so .

 

[fork me]

Rastafarianism?

Rasta's use the Christian Bible so the same applies...

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

The leaflet contained this quote:

“The recent re-publishing of the cartoons, caricatures and depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) by Charlie Hebdo magazine and other publishers is a stark reminder that freedom of speech is regularly utilised to insult personalities that others consider sacred.'

Perhaps they don't realise that we, in England, consider freedom of speech sacred?

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

I don't get this type of protest at all. It reminds me of this wonderful video on the concept of being OFFENDED.



Just ignore the cartoons if they bother you so much! Nobody is making you look at them.

 

[fork me]

The leaflet contained this quote:

“The recent re-publishing of the cartoons, caricatures and depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) by Charlie Hebdo magazine and other publishers is a stark reminder that freedom of speech is regularly utilised to insult personalities that others consider sacred.'

Perhaps they don't realise that we, in England, consider freedom of speech sacred?

There's no such thing as freedom of speech and there never has been. Nor should there be. We have, for example, libel and slander laws to protect peoople and organisations from incorrect defamatory remarks.

I am not Charlie. I do not for one second support those that would (and did) use violence against them, but nor do I think they were right in publishing deliberately provocative images about another person's faith.

For the record I am an agnostic. I have no idea whether or not God exists, and don't care either way.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Freedom of speech after all.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pegida-anti-islam-group-told-not-5114776

 

[daveinprague]

Didnt somebody get charged recently for shouting 'no public sector cuts' at David Cameron? Who are the guardians of this 'sacred' free speech in the UK?

 

[daveinprague]

Freedom of speech after all.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/pegida-anti-islam-group-told-not-5114776

We have our own boneheads. Not sure 'foreigners' are needed are they? Why do these 'foreigners' feel a need to travel to the UK in order to protest their ideology? If muslims from Germany or France organised a march in the UK in support of of UK muslims, some of you people would be having complete breakdowns.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

We have our own boneheads. Not sure 'foreigners' are needed are they? Why do these 'foreigners' feel a need to travel to the UK in order to protest their ideology? If muslims from Germany or France organised a march in the UK in support of of UK muslims, some of you people would be having complete breakdowns.

If people are genuinly concerned about what's going within that religion, then people should be allowed to go on a peaceful march.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

There's no such thing as freedom of speech and there never has been. Nor should there be. We have, for example, libel and slander laws to protect peoople and organisations from incorrect defamatory remarks.

I am not Charlie. I do not for one second support those that would (and did) use violence against them, but nor do I think they were right in publishing deliberately provocative images about another person's faith.

For the record I am an agnostic. I have no idea whether or not God exists, and don't care either way.

You are probably correct. For what it's worth, I personally wouldn't condone the publishing of those pictures, however I support the right of the publishers to do so. Someone, somewhere, will always find a way of being grossly offensive to someone else. Where do we draw the line?