Mocking people's beliefs.

[Renton 17744]

Renton is missing Leazes so much he's took up the batton himself

 

Leazes did have some good points mind.

 

Fuck it, someone has to do the job!

[Fop 1]

Yes, but as soon as you start a prescriptive list of things that you are going to protect then it becomes a question of how, in a practical sense, you can give effect to those rights.

 

So as I say, if something is in a minority and makes a case that it is 'threatened' then it is going to follow that other safeguards are then going to be put in place in order to give the right de facto force of law.

 

But that's more perception of threat and indeed laws being altered to allow this to be the case.

 

Which again is a very long way from freedom to believe and practice....... there is no freedom to not be disagreed with (by its very definition it is pretty much contradictory).

 

Although there seems to be a freedom for "such and such" not to be disagreed with developing, and small bites will devour any whole in the end.

 

 

I'm not saying I agree with the ideology behind any of that by the way. I'm merely all for getting away from the mass hysteria angle. We won't become governed by religious thought police because by and large we don't want religion running our lives. Therefore it won't.

 

We are Governed by "speech police" (not thought police yet, but we just don't have the technology, but can you see a Government that repeatedly lied to parliament about the use of ID card finger print databases NOT being interested in that?).

 

But I'd actually even say a lot of the "religious" issues have very little to do with religion and much more to do with political gain in real terms.

 

It's not being controlled by religion that worries me, as being controlled by those that control religion (or use it for their own ends)..... which at the end of the day is what all religion is about.

[Fop 1]

We won't become governed by religious thought police because by and large we don't want religion running our lives. Therefore it won't.

 

True at the moment maybe but if trends continue then it might not be in the future.

 

Send the buggers back tbh.

 

Well I was being a bit tongue in cheek but the rise of both christian and muslim fundamentalism and the level of 'unenlightenment' seen now in the states does concern me. If you dare talk about it however, particularly about immigration and islam, then you are branded a racist, which you have just done.

 

Islamophobe!

[Renton 17744]

We won't become governed by religious thought police because by and large we don't want religion running our lives. Therefore it won't.

 

True at the moment maybe but if trends continue then it might not be in the future.

 

Send the buggers back tbh.

 

Well I was being a bit tongue in cheek but the rise of both christian and muslim fundamentalism and the level of 'unenlightenment' seen now in the states does concern me. If you dare talk about it however, particularly about immigration and islam, then you are branded a racist, which you have just done.

 

Islamophobe!

 

Not guilty, I think islam and christianity are as moronic as each other. 'Religionophobe' maybe.

[Guest alex]

Someone wants to start mocking that spacka smiley.

Edited August 28, 2007 by alex

[manc-mag 1]

Yes, but as soon as you start a prescriptive list of things that you are going to protect then it becomes a question of how, in a practical sense, you can give effect to those rights.

 

So as I say, if something is in a minority and makes a case that it is 'threatened' then it is going to follow that other safeguards are then going to be put in place in order to give the right de facto force of law.

 

But that's more perception of threat and indeed laws being altered to allow this to be the case.

 

Which again is a very long way from freedom to believe and practice....... there is no freedom to not be disagreed with (by its very definition it is pretty much contradictory).

 

Although there seems to be a freedom for "such and such" not to be disagreed with developing, and small bites will devour any whole in the end.

 

 

I'm not saying I agree with the ideology behind any of that by the way. I'm merely all for getting away from the mass hysteria angle. We won't become governed by religious thought police because by and large we don't want religion running our lives. Therefore it won't.

 

We are Governed by "speech police" (not thought police yet, but we just don't have the technology, but can you see a Government that repeatedly lied to parliament about the use of ID card finger print databases NOT being interested in that?).

 

But I'd actually even say a lot of the "religious" issues have very little to do with religion and much more to do with political gain in real terms.

 

It's not being controlled by religion that worries me, as being controlled by those that control religion (or use it for their own ends)..... which at the end of the day is what all religion is about.

 

No doubt you'll think I'm being complacent, but I just have faith in the history of liberties and freedoms of this country....I think they are a defining characteristic tbh, so much so that they are what other nations actually associate with the UK.

 

Agree with the final highlighted point unreservedly mind.

[NJS 3977]

I said I didn't agree with your prediction for some sort of religios totalitarian state. I said faiths are only being protected in the first place because theyre in the minority and theyre in the minority because people by and large aren't interested in organised religion. For that reason we won't go down the road that you predict.

 

The rights and protection religion has in this country comes from a time when the majority basically had to adhere - hence the establishment of the unwritten constitution itself.

 

I'd loved to think that post-enlightenment, what I would call abhorrent hangovers are left as a sop to the poor little theists almost out of sympathy but the truth is the opposite.

 

I just wish people were more honest when it came to the census - I know evetyone doesn't have to feel the same way as me or Renton but I wish the people who see religion as a Weddings/christenings/funerals deal wouldn't tick the Christian box. If we got a true picture of faiths then at least we could refer to them as the minority and for example don't give them concessions to hate gays or reject anything else the majority want.

 

We've never had an unwritten constitution for the record, it's always been 'written' in one way or another, it's just that it was never codeified or consolidated until the Human Rights Act.

 

Not that we ever really had rights as such either. Liberties would be the correct term....ie whatever the law didnt say you couldnt do, you could do. We never actually had the right to do anything until 1998. OMG!!!11!

 

 

The sad thing is my limited knowledge which I used to refer to it as that comes from seeing St John Stevas describe it as that on several occasions. I bow to your superior knowledge (on this and this alone )

[NJS 3977]

No doubt you'll think I'm being complacent, but I just have faith in the history of liberties and freedoms of this country....I think they are a defining characteristic tbh, so much so that they are what other nations actually associate with the UK.

 

Un-doubtedly but I'd still like to see a few things go just to confirm that - the blasphemy laws for example (I know 1922 or something since successfully used but they sill exist).

[manc-mag 1]

I said I didn't agree with your prediction for some sort of religios totalitarian state. I said faiths are only being protected in the first place because theyre in the minority and theyre in the minority because people by and large aren't interested in organised religion. For that reason we won't go down the road that you predict.

 

The rights and protection religion has in this country comes from a time when the majority basically had to adhere - hence the establishment of the unwritten constitution itself.

 

I'd loved to think that post-enlightenment, what I would call abhorrent hangovers are left as a sop to the poor little theists almost out of sympathy but the truth is the opposite.

 

I just wish people were more honest when it came to the census - I know evetyone doesn't have to feel the same way as me or Renton but I wish the people who see religion as a Weddings/christenings/funerals deal wouldn't tick the Christian box. If we got a true picture of faiths then at least we could refer to them as the minority and for example don't give them concessions to hate gays or reject anything else the majority want.

 

We've never had an unwritten constitution for the record, it's always been 'written' in one way or another, it's just that it was never codeified or consolidated until the Human Rights Act.

 

Not that we ever really had rights as such either. Liberties would be the correct term....ie whatever the law didnt say you couldnt do, you could do. We never actually had the right to do anything until 1998. OMG!!!11!

 

 

The sad thing is my limited knowledge which I used to refer to it as that comes from seeing St John Stevas describe it as that on several occasions. I bow to your superior knowledge (on this and this alone )

 

 

I think that's probably fair, mate.

[Tom 13836]

I hate words like Islamophobe and Homophobe,

 

Because it implies that your fucking shit scared of them!

 

I mean why would anyone be scared of 'Islam', it means peace for fucks sake!

And on closer inspection the religion apart from Sharia law isnt all that bad.

It's the few extremists and the sensationalism created by the media that fucks it all up.

 

They arent shit scared, they were just taking the piss.

 

Weve got to realise that adhering to political correctness too strongly is turning us into victims of our own rights and people go along with it just to feel clever when they are nothing more than bigots themselves,

 

Gives them a dumb sense of power to say ''you cant say this/that, say this''

 

 

Il move with the times but i wont suppress my expression too much,

 

To me a 'Blackboard' is a 'blackboard' and thats all it ever will be.

 

Now call me a racist

[Renton 17744]

Yes, but as soon as you start a prescriptive list of things that you are going to protect then it becomes a question of how, in a practical sense, you can give effect to those rights.

 

So as I say, if something is in a minority and makes a case that it is 'threatened' then it is going to follow that other safeguards are then going to be put in place in order to give the right de facto force of law.

 

But that's more perception of threat and indeed laws being altered to allow this to be the case.

 

Which again is a very long way from freedom to believe and practice....... there is no freedom to not be disagreed with (by its very definition it is pretty much contradictory).

 

Although there seems to be a freedom for "such and such" not to be disagreed with developing, and small bites will devour any whole in the end.

 

 

I'm not saying I agree with the ideology behind any of that by the way. I'm merely all for getting away from the mass hysteria angle. We won't become governed by religious thought police because by and large we don't want religion running our lives. Therefore it won't.

 

We are Governed by "speech police" (not thought police yet, but we just don't have the technology, but can you see a Government that repeatedly lied to parliament about the use of ID card finger print databases NOT being interested in that?).

 

But I'd actually even say a lot of the "religious" issues have very little to do with religion and much more to do with political gain in real terms.

 

It's not being controlled by religion that worries me, as being controlled by those that control religion (or use it for their own ends)..... which at the end of the day is what all religion is about.

 

No doubt you'll think I'm being complacent, but I just have faith in the history of liberties and freedoms of this country....I think they are a defining characteristic tbh, so much so that they are what other nations actually associate with the UK.

 

Agree with the final highlighted point unreservedly mind.

 

I would say you're being a bit complacent personally. I'm no historian but I'm sure there are plenty of examples of free and liberal states sliding into repression and even totalitarianism, one is an obvious example. My concern is more for the US at present, admittedly, but I honestly believe you have to be vigilant if you want to keep your freedom, and I'm glad some people are willing to do it. All hail to the stand up comedians!

[manc-mag 1]

Yes, but as soon as you start a prescriptive list of things that you are going to protect then it becomes a question of how, in a practical sense, you can give effect to those rights.

 

So as I say, if something is in a minority and makes a case that it is 'threatened' then it is going to follow that other safeguards are then going to be put in place in order to give the right de facto force of law.

 

But that's more perception of threat and indeed laws being altered to allow this to be the case.

 

Which again is a very long way from freedom to believe and practice....... there is no freedom to not be disagreed with (by its very definition it is pretty much contradictory).

 

Although there seems to be a freedom for "such and such" not to be disagreed with developing, and small bites will devour any whole in the end.

 

 

I'm not saying I agree with the ideology behind any of that by the way. I'm merely all for getting away from the mass hysteria angle. We won't become governed by religious thought police because by and large we don't want religion running our lives. Therefore it won't.

 

We are Governed by "speech police" (not thought police yet, but we just don't have the technology, but can you see a Government that repeatedly lied to parliament about the use of ID card finger print databases NOT being interested in that?).

 

But I'd actually even say a lot of the "religious" issues have very little to do with religion and much more to do with political gain in real terms.

 

It's not being controlled by religion that worries me, as being controlled by those that control religion (or use it for their own ends)..... which at the end of the day is what all religion is about.

 

No doubt you'll think I'm being complacent, but I just have faith in the history of liberties and freedoms of this country....I think they are a defining characteristic tbh, so much so that they are what other nations actually associate with the UK.

 

Agree with the final highlighted point unreservedly mind.

 

I would say you're being a bit complacent personally. I'm no historian but I'm sure there are plenty of examples of free and liberal states sliding into repression and even totalitarianism, one is an obvious example. My concern is more for the US at present, admittedly, but I honestly believe you have to be vigilant if you want to keep your freedom, and I'm glad some people are willing to do it. All hail to the stand up comedians!

 

For the record, I would always be prepared to stand up to the erosion of fundamental freedoms. It's simply that I don't think the situation is as bad as some make out. I also think I'm a bit more pragmatic about accepting that it's a constant balancing act and if anything there should be some in built flexibility to deal with the prevailing circumstances.

[Geordieboyo 0]

In reply to the opening gambit....

 

Fully agree that religions should be mocked

 

In fact there is very little in this world that some humour should not be pointed towards.

 

However, if you are going to mock one religion you better well mock em all (otherwise its just missed opportunity)

[Fop 1]

Yes, but as soon as you start a prescriptive list of things that you are going to protect then it becomes a question of how, in a practical sense, you can give effect to those rights.

 

So as I say, if something is in a minority and makes a case that it is 'threatened' then it is going to follow that other safeguards are then going to be put in place in order to give the right de facto force of law.

 

But that's more perception of threat and indeed laws being altered to allow this to be the case.

 

Which again is a very long way from freedom to believe and practice....... there is no freedom to not be disagreed with (by its very definition it is pretty much contradictory).

 

Although there seems to be a freedom for "such and such" not to be disagreed with developing, and small bites will devour any whole in the end.

 

 

I'm not saying I agree with the ideology behind any of that by the way. I'm merely all for getting away from the mass hysteria angle. We won't become governed by religious thought police because by and large we don't want religion running our lives. Therefore it won't.

 

We are Governed by "speech police" (not thought police yet, but we just don't have the technology, but can you see a Government that repeatedly lied to parliament about the use of ID card finger print databases NOT being interested in that?).

 

But I'd actually even say a lot of the "religious" issues have very little to do with religion and much more to do with political gain in real terms.

 

It's not being controlled by religion that worries me, as being controlled by those that control religion (or use it for their own ends)..... which at the end of the day is what all religion is about.

 

No doubt you'll think I'm being complacent, but I just have faith in the history of liberties and freedoms of this country....I think they are a defining characteristic tbh, so much so that they are what other nations actually associate with the UK.

 

Agree with the final highlighted point unreservedly mind.

 

I would say you're being a bit complacent personally. I'm no historian but I'm sure there are plenty of examples of free and liberal states sliding into repression and even totalitarianism, one is an obvious example. My concern is more for the US at present, admittedly, but I honestly believe you have to be vigilant if you want to keep your freedom, and I'm glad some people are willing to do it. All hail to the stand up comedians!

 

For the record, I would always be prepared to stand up to the erosion of fundamental freedoms. It's simply that I don't think the situation is as bad as some make out. I also think I'm a bit more pragmatic about accepting that it's a constant balancing act and if anything there should be some in built flexibility to deal with the prevailing circumstances.

 

 

The problem is many things are much easier to lose than to get back.

 

Yes on the one hand with extreme enough action you can get them back, but the trick really is not to have to in the first place.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3193]

In reply to the opening gambit....

 

Fully agree that religions should be mocked

 

In fact there is very little in this world that some humour should not be pointed towards.

 

However, if you are going to mock one religion you better well mock em all (otherwise its just missed opportunity)

 

 

I do.

[The Fish 8989]

coincedentally my taxi driver last night was espousing islam and trying to get me on his side by blaming the jews for pretty much everything on the planet. I was uncharacteristically diplomatic, politely stating my atheist beliefs (always think it's daft to say that my "belief" is that I don't "believe" ) but that I agree with the core commandments of the three religions from that area, don't kill, don't steal etc. etc but I was vehemently opposed to people stating these ancient texts as entirely relevant and that I believed that religion must evolve. He agreed that and admitted all three religious texts were subjective.

 

He then went on to say that the Koran and the Bible both blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus and their greed was the fuel behind that. He said that this was historical fact. I asked how can anything be described as fact when it was (puportedly)written 2000 years ago and has been translated countless times. I asked him how can it be fact when it's subjective as he had admitted earlier... strangely enough he blew past that question.

 

He was eloquent and put his arguments across well, but when I brought up religious terrorism he became more agitated and the volume increased. He kept returning to the Jews and the Americans, saying that they were to blame for everything, they were stealing "our oil". I said that we lived on one planet and to describe things as ours or theirs is missing the big picture, a crime every country is guilty of at the minute.

 

He returned to blaming the Jews saying they were the reason for the fundamentalists, they were behind the wars and they were going to lead to the end of the world. Luckily it was the end of my cab ride so I pithily signed of with something along the lines of "The real reason behind fundamentalism and wars is ignorance and intolerance." not a bad bit of reasoning for someone who was tired and more than a little merry, if you ask me.

 

the point of this post is unclear to me now

 

just wanted to share.

 

food time I think

[manc-mag 1]

He probably just saw your sunburn and thought you must be a failed suicide bomber tbh.

[The Fish 8989]

He probably just saw your sunburn and thought you must be a failed suicide bomber tbh.

Sunburn is pretty bad to be honest, went to the Carnival and the Fishy Bonce is Belisha'd once more

 

Half my left arm is burnt to hell and the rest of me is just glowing nicely

[catmag 336]

He probably just saw your sunburn and thought you must be a failed suicide bomber tbh.

Sunburn is pretty bad to be honest, went to the Carnival and the Fishy Bonce is Belisha'd once more

 

Half my left arm is burnt to hell and the rest of me is just glowing nicely

 

I've just remembered that you sent me a random pic of your burnt arm at the weekend. I may have been drunk at the time...

[The Fish 8989]

He probably just saw your sunburn and thought you must be a failed suicide bomber tbh.

Sunburn is pretty bad to be honest, went to the Carnival and the Fishy Bonce is Belisha'd once more

 

Half my left arm is burnt to hell and the rest of me is just glowing nicely

 

I've just remembered that you sent me a random pic of your burnt arm at the weekend. I may have been drunk at the time...

you mentioned something about being at a stately home and having a "splendid" time

[catmag 336]

He probably just saw your sunburn and thought you must be a failed suicide bomber tbh.

Sunburn is pretty bad to be honest, went to the Carnival and the Fishy Bonce is Belisha'd once more

 

Half my left arm is burnt to hell and the rest of me is just glowing nicely

 

I've just remembered that you sent me a random pic of your burnt arm at the weekend. I may have been drunk at the time...

you mentioned something about being at a stately home and having a "splendid" time

 

Yup, that sounds suspiciously like my weekend!

[Meenzer 14031]

He probably just saw your sunburn and thought you must be a failed suicide bomber tbh.

Sunburn is pretty bad to be honest, went to the Carnival and the Fishy Bonce is Belisha'd once more

 

Half my left arm is burnt to hell and the rest of me is just glowing nicely

 

I've just remembered that you sent me a random pic of your burnt arm at the weekend. I may have been drunk at the time...

you mentioned something about being at a stately home and having a "splendid" time

 

Yup, that sounds suspiciously like my weekend!

[Radgina 1]

He probably just saw your sunburn and thought you must be a failed suicide bomber tbh.

Sunburn is pretty bad to be honest, went to the Carnival and the Fishy Bonce is Belisha'd once more

 

Half my left arm is burnt to hell and the rest of me is just glowing nicely

 

I've just remembered that you sent me a random pic of your burnt arm at the weekend. I may have been drunk at the time...

you mentioned something about being at a stately home and having a "splendid" time

 

Yup, that sounds suspiciously like my weekend!

what were you doing in a stately home Cath ??

[catmag 336]

what were you doing in a stately home Cath ??

 

I was at a wedding in Cheshire dahhhling.

 

I've not forgotten about your pressie btw. I will send it soon - I promise!

[Fop 1]

coincedentally my taxi driver last night was espousing islam and trying to get me on his side by blaming the jews for pretty much everything on the planet. I was uncharacteristically diplomatic, politely stating my atheist beliefs (always think it's daft to say that my "belief" is that I don't "believe" ) but that I agree with the core commandments of the three religions from that area, don't kill, don't steal etc. etc but I was vehemently opposed to people stating these ancient texts as entirely relevant and that I believed that religion must evolve. He agreed that and admitted all three religious texts were subjective.

 

He then went on to say that the Koran and the Bible both blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus and their greed was the fuel behind that. He said that this was historical fact. I asked how can anything be described as fact when it was (puportedly)written 2000 years ago and has been translated countless times. I asked him how can it be fact when it's subjective as he had admitted earlier... strangely enough he blew past that question.

 

He was eloquent and put his arguments across well, but when I brought up religious terrorism he became more agitated and the volume increased. He kept returning to the Jews and the Americans, saying that they were to blame for everything, they were stealing "our oil". I said that we lived on one planet and to describe things as ours or theirs is missing the big picture, a crime every country is guilty of at the minute.

 

He returned to blaming the Jews saying they were the reason for the fundamentalists, they were behind the wars and they were going to lead to the end of the world. Luckily it was the end of my cab ride so I pithily signed of with something along the lines of "The real reason behind fundamentalism and wars is ignorance and intolerance." not a bad bit of reasoning for someone who was tired and more than a little merry, if you ask me.

 

the point of this post is unclear to me now

 

just wanted to share.

 

food time I think

 

Isn't it something stupid like 75%+ of British Muslims belief that Jews commited 9/11 to cause issues for muslims?

 

 

Although even more bizarely something like 80% of British Muslims believe Jews murdered Diana.

 

 

As I mentioned before when you see the Islamic cartoon mocking (and much worse tbh) Jews (and other faiths too), it's bizarre that they have the gall to get upset about some cartoon that at worse gentle mocked Islam and Allah.