Keep widening that door

[manc-mag 1]

When you actually read what the articles says there's very little to it.

 

Every epic journey is made up of many small steps.

 

Man who goes to bed with itchy hole wakes up with smelly finger.

[Fop 1]

While we're on this subject, I think we should bring back public stonings. It's what Jesus would have wanted.

 

Fortunately under strict Sharia you'd get that for adultery, being gay, and converting from Islam (to name a few heinous crimes clearly deserving of such).

[Fop 1]

When you actually read what the articles says there's very little to it.

 

Every epic journey is made up of many small steps.

 

Man who goes to bed with itchy hole wakes up with smelly finger.

 

Pretty sure that is un-islamic.

[manc-mag 1]

When you actually read what the articles says there's very little to it.

 

Every epic journey is made up of many small steps.

 

Man who goes to bed with itchy hole wakes up with smelly finger.

 

Pretty sure that is un-islamic.

 

Confucious.

[NJS 4051]

When you actually read what the articles says there's very little to it.

 

Every epic journey is made up of many small steps.

 

Man who goes to bed with itchy hole wakes up with smelly finger.

 

Pretty sure that is un-islamic.

 

Depends which hand he uses.

[Jimbo 133]

While we're on this subject, I think we should bring back public stonings. It's what Jesus would have wanted.

 

 

" Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" ?

[Fop 1]

When you actually read what the articles says there's very little to it.

 

Every epic journey is made up of many small steps.

 

Man who goes to bed with itchy hole wakes up with smelly finger.

 

Pretty sure that is un-islamic.

 

Depends which hand he uses.

 

I think it's ok so long as you get a kafir to do it for you.

 

Otherwise it is "strike off the very tips of their fingers!” [Qur'an 8:12]

[Guest alex]

When you actually read what the articles says there's very little to it.

 

Every epic journey is made up of many small steps.

 

Man who goes to bed with itchy hole wakes up with smelly finger.

[Fop 1]

The thing is though that quite seriously it will probably eventually occur for a couple of reasons.

 

 

 

The Western PC culture has become almost suicidal in its self-loathing. It's a pretty interesting thing that the West has gone from jingoism to pretty much as fanatical self-loathing within a century, and there seems no end to this in sight.

 

Also the muslim population of the UK is expanding at a massive rate (mostly do to the combined issues of immigration and massive birth rate - averaging 5+ kids to the nation average of <2).

 

And last the the UK's muslim population (along with several other populations) is frankly detached from both their own roots and British identity, leaving a lot of angry young idealist looking for something, something that Sharia (and other extreme islamic ideas) gives a sense of right and belonging too (frankly you can related young British muslim women wearing a burka or men wearing full islamic beards, hair and dress directly to other young British men and women dressing up as Goths as such IMO - the basic driving factors behind the two behaviours are the same).

 

 

 

 

Then you've got stuff like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7234163.stm

 

Which just goes to show how isolated and backward thinking parts of our society still are, and out of touch without own Western culture of self-loathing.

[Guest alex]

Don't see how the views of the head of the CofE indicate that. Any excuse to have a go at the Muslims though. Which was probably what he thought would happen when he said it.

[NJS 4051]

His actual motive is something more sinister than being PC imo. He mentioned "consience" in the context of believers being able to "opt out" of laws which went against their creed. I think he wants this to be accepted so him and the other fuckwits can express their bigotry for example on gay adoption which they tried last year without falling foul of the law.

 

On the other hand I'm happy for the idiot to spout crap as its another nail in coffin of organised religion.

[Guest alex]

His actual motive is something more sinister than being PC imo. He mentioned "consience" in the context of believers being able to "opt out" of laws which went against their creed. I think he wants this to be accepted so him and the other fuckwits can express their bigotry for example on gay adoption which they tried last year without falling foul of the law.

 

On the other hand I'm happy for the idiot to spout crap as its another nail in coffin of organised religion.

I'd probably go along with that - his argument is it's inevitable they get some sort of Sharia Law introduced so let's make it fair and have Christian Courts too.

[LeazesMag 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm

 

What I find ironic is how much aligned with your views on justice sharia law is.

 

predictable response of the do gooder type.

 

Advocating shooting some scumbag who is a rapist, child killer or terrorist [most of who seem to be muslims these days unless I'm very much mistaken] means someone is aligned with Sharia Law is it ?

 

The one sure fire way of ending up with Sharia Law in this country is by continuing to allow more people into the country who would like to see Sharia Law. As against me who would like to kick the whole lot of these racists out of the country, you defend them and support those who say that we should adapt to them and be told what we can do and not do, and say what we can and can't say, for fear of offending these fuckers, in our own country.

 

Keep wearing the rose tinted specs.

Edited February 8, 2008 by LeazesMag

[NJS 4051]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm

 

What I find ironic is how much aligned with your views on justice sharia law is.

 

predictable response of the do gooder type.

 

Advocating shooting some scumbag who is a rapist, child killer or terrorist [most of who seem to be muslims these days unless I'm very much mistaken] means someone is aligned with Sharia Law is it ?

 

 

Absolutely - common theme: barbaric thirst for revenge.

 

What is the difference between your enthusiasm for the death penalty and corporal punishment and the tenets of Sharia?

 

Take away the foreign element and the cores are identical.

[LeazesMag 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm

 

What I find ironic is how much aligned with your views on justice sharia law is.

 

predictable response of the do gooder type.

 

Advocating shooting some scumbag who is a rapist, child killer or terrorist [most of who seem to be muslims these days unless I'm very much mistaken] means someone is aligned with Sharia Law is it ?

 

 

Absolutely - common theme: barbaric thirst for revenge.

 

What is the difference between your enthusiasm for the death penalty and corporal punishment and the tenets of Sharia?

 

Take away the foreign element and the cores are identical.

 

not revenge. How can it be revenge when you don't know the victim. Believe it or not, its because I see it as justice, a deterrent, making certain they won't do it again to someone else and so ensuring that some do-gooder won't in future get them released.

 

As I said, typical response really. What do you think of my comment that the one way to ensure Sharia Law will come here is to continue allowing people into the country who would like to implement it, as you didn't clip it ? Or do you think they will have an attack of conscience or something ?

[Fop 1]

Don't see how the views of the head of the CofE indicate that. Any excuse to have a go at the Muslims though. Which was probably what he thought would happen when he said it.

 

He almost certainly has other agendas, but that doesn't change the facts of what I have said, or indeed the inevitable outcome.

 

 

And the fact of the matter is it is just as correct and right to "have a go" a bad aspects of islam, as it is any other group (BNP, evangelical christians, fat cats or whatever).

 

But usually this is a one way street, as indeed the media coverage (or lack of) of cases like this show:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7184166.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7183465.stm

 

Which ironically tied in with that Bishops comments of no go areas.

[Ketsbaia 0]

As much as I don't agree with Sharia Law as a whole (far too squeamish to be dealing with beheadings, and the whole Queer = wrong lark isn't my cup of tea) in principle it's not that bad. Anyone who has even done the briefest of research into the subject can telling you that it's much more a moral set of laws and in practice only the worst possible cases get arms, cocks, legs etc. cut off.

 

There is so much leeway too. For example if someone steals a loaf of bread to feed their family the general idea of Sharia Law in the Western world is that this person will be stoned to death, where as it's quite the opposite. Even if you are guilty of a crime, barring a serious one, you have so many chances to repent and pretty much get yourself off it makes our legal system look totalitarian.

 

Of course, this whole system has been abused to fuck by the likes of Saudi Arabia and thusly seen as some form of scourge that must be stopped.

 

On the Muslim issue as a whole I take every story I read about in the paper with a pinch of salt because a) the story usually originates from some ridiculous, bespectacled, middle aged, right on fucking arsehole who has a lowly position in the local council and wants to ban Christmas and b ) I've met a fair mix of all the religions and by far the most accepting and tolerable when it comes to religious beliefs are usually Muslims or Sikhs. I've met more than a few Christian's who have pretty much declared themselves offended by my atheism and made an issue out of it.

 

Probably wouldn't do Leazes any harm if he watched the Power of Nightmares or a few John Pilger documentaries.

[NJS 4051]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm

 

What I find ironic is how much aligned with your views on justice sharia law is.

 

predictable response of the do gooder type.

 

Advocating shooting some scumbag who is a rapist, child killer or terrorist [most of who seem to be muslims these days unless I'm very much mistaken] means someone is aligned with Sharia Law is it ?

 

 

Absolutely - common theme: barbaric thirst for revenge.

 

What is the difference between your enthusiasm for the death penalty and corporal punishment and the tenets of Sharia?

 

Take away the foreign element and the cores are identical.

 

not revenge. How can it be revenge when you don't know the victim. Believe it or not, its because I see it as justice, a deterrent, making certain they won't do it again to someone else and so ensuring that some do-gooder won't in future get them released.

 

As I said, typical response really. What do you think of my comment that the one way to ensure Sharia Law will come here is to continue allowing people into the country who would like to implement it, as you didn't clip it ? Or do you think they will have an attack of conscience or something ?

 

Justice/revenge its all semantics - boils down to the same thing.

 

Do you honestly think someone as fucked up as the bloke who raped the dying/dead model would stop and think about a deterrent?

 

 

 

I abhor all religious bollocks - I wouldn't necessarily oppose muslim immigration but what I would do is completely disestablish the state then we could more easily laugh at fuckwits like Williams and the other apologits for judaism,islam and christianity - they have no place in politics.

 

Just because I'm a "do gooder" doen't mean I have any respect for the nastier sides of multiculturism like sharia.

[Fop 1]

As much as I don't agree with Sharia Law as a whole (far too squeamish to be dealing with beheadings, and the whole Queer = wrong lark isn't my cup of tea) in principle it's not that bad. Anyone who has even done the briefest of research into the subject can telling you that it's much more a moral set of laws and in practice only the worst possible cases get arms, cocks, legs etc. cut off.

 

 

The problem is, like with ANY belief system (religious or otherwise), you don't just get the "good" bits.

 

 

Islam itself has a lot of good aspects, and is actually quite nice, if you squint, close one eye and ignore all the downsides........... the problem is divorcing those nice aspects from:

 

 

1: religious laws at least 600 years out of date (it's insane to think someone's belief system could allow the exact interpretation and penalties from say English law in 1400 to be used in today's society, yet that is exactly what is being proposed [and indeed already done in the case of benefit payments to "bigamists" in the UK - it's ok on religious grounds, or rather they dare not close the loop hole that allows it]).

There's lots of islamic debate about modifying Sharia for the modern world, but unfortunately as it is derived from the Koran which DOES NOT change it often remains utterly intractable and un-modified - much like the fanatics that still try to believe the world is 6000 years old and Evolution doesn't exist, and base it on literal translations from the Bible).

 

 

2. politics, islam is as much a political force today as it is a belief system, in fact in many direct ways probably more a political force than a religion (Iran for example, uses Islam as a means to a political end, rather than really taking its politics from the religion per se) .

Islamofascism is rampant across the world today in a way that mirrors colonial power of 150+ years ago, and again I can't see this getting better any time soon, either in Islamic countries (look at the way Turkeys secular state is coming under subtle attack), or by pressure groups in non-islamic countries (when you look at the political gain that was made out of the aftermath 7/7, parts of the UK the islamic lobby gained as much as any Labour spin doctor made out of it).

 

 

 

If you could divorce those to things there wouldn't be a problem, but you cannot divorce human nature from humanity.

Edited February 8, 2008 by Fop

[Ketsbaia 0]

As much as I don't agree with Sharia Law as a whole (far too squeamish to be dealing with beheadings, and the whole Queer = wrong lark isn't my cup of tea) in principle it's not that bad. Anyone who has even done the briefest of research into the subject can telling you that it's much more a moral set of laws and in practice only the worst possible cases get arms, cocks, legs etc. cut off.

 

 

The problem is, like with ANY belief system (religious or otherwise), you don't just get the "good" bits.

 

 

Islam itself has a lot of good aspects, and is actually quite nice, if you squint, close one eye and ignore all the downsides........... the problem is divorcing those nice aspects from:

 

 

1: religious laws at least 600 years out of date (it's insane to think someone's belief system could allow the exact interpretation and penalties from say English law in 1400 to be used in today's society, yet that is exactly what is being proposed [and indeed already done in the case of benefit payments to "bigamists" in the UK - it's ok on religious grounds, or rather they dare not close the loop hole that allows it]).

There's lots of islamic debate about modifying Sharia for the modern world, but unfortunately as it is derived from the Koran which DOES NOT change it often remains utterly intractable and un-modified - much like the fanatics that still try to believe the world is 6000 years old and Evolution doesn't exist, and base it on literal translations from the Bible).

 

 

2. politics, islam is as much a political force today as it is a belief system, in fact in many direct ways probably more a political force than a religion (Iran for example, uses Islam as a means to a political end, rather than really taking its politics from the religion per se) .

Islamofascism is rampant across the world today in a way that mirrors colonial power of 150+ years ago, and again I can't see this getting better any time soon, either in Islamic countries (look at the way Turkeys secular state is coming under subtle attack), or by pressure groups in non-islamic countries (when you look at the political gain that was made out of the aftermath 7/7, parts of the UK the islamic lobby gained as much as any Labour spin doctor made out of it).

 

 

 

If you could divorce those to things there wouldn't be a problem, but you cannot divorce human nature from humanity.

 

I concur whole heartedly with your first point, but then the most powerful, Christian nation in the world bases it's beliefs on a constitution that was written a well over a two hundred years ago. Both need a major fucking revamp.

 

Anyway, in Leazes case he's pretty much decided that murders, rapists, paedophiles and terrorists deserve the punishment we'd dish out in the 15th century.

 

As for your second point, it's just shit really. You're pigeonholing all Muslim's because the extremists have done a bloody good job of getting into power and whipping up a frenzy. Your 7/7 point is gash too, because you'd have hoyed your toys out the pram anyway if Muslim communities had came out and told us that we deserved it. It's just racism masquerading as a salient, profound point.

 

I implore you to take a look at the link I posted above and watch the Power of Nightmares. Seems like you need a quick capsule education on the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist over the last 30 years.

[The Fish 9365]

As much as I don't agree with Sharia Law as a whole (far too squeamish to be dealing with beheadings, and the whole Queer = wrong lark isn't my cup of tea) in principle it's not that bad. Anyone who has even done the briefest of research into the subject can telling you that it's much more a moral set of laws and in practice only the worst possible cases get arms, cocks, legs etc. cut off.

 

 

The problem is, like with ANY belief system (religious or otherwise), you don't just get the "good" bits.

 

 

Islam itself has a lot of good aspects, and is actually quite nice, if you squint, close one eye and ignore all the downsides........... the problem is divorcing those nice aspects from:

 

 

1: religious laws at least 600 years out of date (it's insane to think someone's belief system could allow the exact interpretation and penalties from say English law in 1400 to be used in today's society, yet that is exactly what is being proposed [and indeed already done in the case of benefit payments to "bigamists" in the UK - it's ok on religious grounds, or rather they dare not close the loop hole that allows it]).

There's lots of islamic debate about modifying Sharia for the modern world, but unfortunately as it is derived from the Koran which DOES NOT change it often remains utterly intractable and un-modified - much like the fanatics that still try to believe the world is 6000 years old and Evolution doesn't exist, and base it on literal translations from the Bible).

 

 

2. politics, islam is as much a political force today as it is a belief system, in fact in many direct ways probably more a political force than a religion (Iran for example, uses Islam as a means to a political end, rather than really taking its politics from the religion per se) .

Islamofascism is rampant across the world today in a way that mirrors colonial power of 150+ years ago, and again I can't see this getting better any time soon, either in Islamic countries (look at the way Turkeys secular state is coming under subtle attack), or by pressure groups in non-islamic countries (when you look at the political gain that was made out of the aftermath 7/7, parts of the UK the islamic lobby gained as much as any Labour spin doctor made out of it).

 

 

 

If you could divorce those to things there wouldn't be a problem, but you cannot divorce human nature from humanity.

 

I concur whole heartedly with your first point, but then the most powerful, Christian nation in the world bases it's beliefs on a constitution that was written a well over a two hundred years ago. Both need a major fucking revamp.

 

Anyway, in Leazes case he's pretty much decided that murders, rapists, paedophiles and terrorists deserve the punishment we'd dish out in the 15th century.

 

As for your second point, it's just shit really. You're pigeonholing all Muslim's because the extremists have done a bloody good job of getting into power and whipping up a frenzy. Your 7/7 point is gash too, because you'd have hoyed your toys out the pram anyway if Muslim communities had came out and told us that we deserved it. It's just racism masquerading as a salient, profound point.

 

I implore you to take a look at the link I posted above and watch the Power of Nightmares. Seems like you need a quick capsule education on the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist over the last 30 years.

 

 

don't they make ammendments to the constitution though? I've not heard of any such ammendment to the Koran.

[Ketsbaia 0]

As much as I don't agree with Sharia Law as a whole (far too squeamish to be dealing with beheadings, and the whole Queer = wrong lark isn't my cup of tea) in principle it's not that bad. Anyone who has even done the briefest of research into the subject can telling you that it's much more a moral set of laws and in practice only the worst possible cases get arms, cocks, legs etc. cut off.

 

 

The problem is, like with ANY belief system (religious or otherwise), you don't just get the "good" bits.

 

 

Islam itself has a lot of good aspects, and is actually quite nice, if you squint, close one eye and ignore all the downsides........... the problem is divorcing those nice aspects from:

 

 

1: religious laws at least 600 years out of date (it's insane to think someone's belief system could allow the exact interpretation and penalties from say English law in 1400 to be used in today's society, yet that is exactly what is being proposed [and indeed already done in the case of benefit payments to "bigamists" in the UK - it's ok on religious grounds, or rather they dare not close the loop hole that allows it]).

There's lots of islamic debate about modifying Sharia for the modern world, but unfortunately as it is derived from the Koran which DOES NOT change it often remains utterly intractable and un-modified - much like the fanatics that still try to believe the world is 6000 years old and Evolution doesn't exist, and base it on literal translations from the Bible).

 

 

2. politics, islam is as much a political force today as it is a belief system, in fact in many direct ways probably more a political force than a religion (Iran for example, uses Islam as a means to a political end, rather than really taking its politics from the religion per se) .

Islamofascism is rampant across the world today in a way that mirrors colonial power of 150+ years ago, and again I can't see this getting better any time soon, either in Islamic countries (look at the way Turkeys secular state is coming under subtle attack), or by pressure groups in non-islamic countries (when you look at the political gain that was made out of the aftermath 7/7, parts of the UK the islamic lobby gained as much as any Labour spin doctor made out of it).

 

 

 

If you could divorce those to things there wouldn't be a problem, but you cannot divorce human nature from humanity.

 

I concur whole heartedly with your first point, but then the most powerful, Christian nation in the world bases it's beliefs on a constitution that was written a well over a two hundred years ago. Both need a major fucking revamp.

 

Anyway, in Leazes case he's pretty much decided that murders, rapists, paedophiles and terrorists deserve the punishment we'd dish out in the 15th century.

 

As for your second point, it's just shit really. You're pigeonholing all Muslim's because the extremists have done a bloody good job of getting into power and whipping up a frenzy. Your 7/7 point is gash too, because you'd have hoyed your toys out the pram anyway if Muslim communities had came out and told us that we deserved it. It's just racism masquerading as a salient, profound point.

 

I implore you to take a look at the link I posted above and watch the Power of Nightmares. Seems like you need a quick capsule education on the rise of the Islamic fundamentalist over the last 30 years.

 

 

don't they make ammendments to the constitution though? I've not heard of any such ammendment to the Koran.

 

I wouldn't call them amendments in the literal sense. They can add stuff to the already existing constitution but not alter anything already there.

 

IIRC the last real amendment to the constitution was made in the early 70's. It's not a living, breathing being and nor is the Qu'ran.

[The Fish 9365]

it's not so much when the changes were implemented on the piece of paper, just that there have been changes to the paper. The Qu'ran is still interpreted by a large minority literally.

[Ketsbaia 0]

it's not so much when the changes were implemented on the piece of paper, just that there have been changes to the paper. The Qu'ran is still interpreted by a large minority literally.

 

Changes being made to the constitution are about as rare as rocking horse shit. In principle they can be altered, but the fact it's such a difficult thing to do pretty much negates the whole thing.

 

Certain people take both literally, if I had my way i'd throw both on the fire and they'd not be an issue. But that's just me.

[Guest alex]

Don't see how the views of the head of the CofE indicate that. Any excuse to have a go at the Muslims though. Which was probably what he thought would happen when he said it.

 

He almost certainly has other agendas, but that doesn't change the facts of what I have said, or indeed the inevitable outcome.

 

 

And the fact of the matter is it is just as correct and right to "have a go" a bad aspects of islam, as it is any other group (BNP, evangelical christians, fat cats or whatever).

 

But usually this is a one way street, as indeed the media coverage (or lack of) of cases like this show:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7184166.stm

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7183465.stm

 

Which ironically tied in with that Bishops comments of no go areas.

You're proving my point though, you're using something the head of the CofE said to bash Muslims.