Breaking terror attack in France
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 kingdowieonthewall  Sussex, ex-Cronx. 19 Jul 16 5.03pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
apologies if posted elsewhere.
Kids,tired of being bothered by your pesky parents? |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stuk Top half 19 Jul 16 5.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by kingdowieonthewall
apologies if posted elsewhere. Any minute now someone will reply to say that they'll wager that more French children have attacked Moroccans for wearing too many clothes.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| kingdowieonthewall Sussex, ex-Cronx. 19 Jul 16 5.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
Any minute now someone will reply to say that they'll wager that more French children have attacked Moroccans for wearing too many clothes. what do I know Stuk mate.
horrible times we are living in.
Kids,tired of being bothered by your pesky parents? |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 19 Jul 16 5.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
There are no images of him, only drawings that people say are him. So making a generic image illegal would be impossible. Actual real, living, people struggle to control having their image published so making a law for a circa 1300 year old dead bloke is utter lunacy. Well yes, but then if it wasn't defined as a picture of Mohammed, it wouldn't be illegal. We have stupid rules for a bloke who died 1300 years before that, that prevent say Gay people getting married in church, or women for having jobs as his spokesman etc. We could live with a few rules that prevent people needlessly provoking British citizens. Sikh's can carry knives and not wear crash helmets, Catholic nurses and Doctors can refuse any association to work related to abortion and the UK even allows for religious polygamy, provide marriage occurred outside the UK and so on and so forth. But I understand that making similar exceptions for Muslims would bring down all of western civilisation. Personally, I think the question isn't whether you have the freedom to do something, but why your doing it. If all you can achieve with freedom of speech is deliberately antagonising people, then its wasted on those people. I means sure, you could create a picture of a nun sucking a donkey with a crucifix up her arse, and stick it on a magazine cover - but there's only one reason your doing it, to court controversy and upset people. We can probably get by with legislating that publishing pictures or images of the prophet Mohammed should only be accepted where artistic merit can be established.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 19 Jul 16 5.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
This all sounds very reasonable but I do not agree. I think there is every reason not to ban images of the prophet. It would be the thin end of the wedge and run totally counter to our secular principles. We make all manner of special exemptions in law for religion, and not just Christianity. Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
This is our country and we set the rules. The rise of UKIP had been partly because a large section of society resents having mass migration forced on them 4% of the UK population are Muslim. Its their country too. I thought it was about the EU. Notable that Farage isn't actually against migration, it was freedom of movement. Most Muslims in the UK stem from the Commonwealth. Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
How will pandering to religious medievalism go down? It is unthinkable. We have a duty to uphold what is right and true to our beliefs. That's the language of the extremist, hyperbole and absolutes. Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
If people are offended by our attitudes then they should not choose to live in the West. They're British Citizens. They belong here as much as anyone else, its their country and their attitudes. Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
We the people are not responsible for radicalising Muslims. Politicians are the ones who have throw out the welcome mat to Muslims and at the same time have been involved in very questionable military action in predominantly Muslim countries. If any one is to blame for helping radicalise it is them. The vast majority of people in the West cannot compromise their belief systems to pander to a small minority because of the actions of their governments. They created this situation and they need to sort it out by all means necessary bar appeasement. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (19 Jul 2016 10.53am) Well first of all. We're a democracy, so we the people are responsible for those politicians being in power in the first place, and politicians are supposedly accountable to us, the people. They're also the people as well. Its not about compromising a belief system. Its about incorporating some people into their own society where possible. We the people, includes all of us, every single person with British Citizenship, irrespective of age, colour, religion, gender etc. Also, its worth noting that there was no trouble with Islamic militants in the UK until very recently in history. Most Muslims in the UK are third generation, and until 2005, not a single incident of suicide bombing etc.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 19 Jul 16 5.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by kingdowieonthewall
what do I know Stuk mate.
horrible times we are living in. Its always been a bit like that.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 19 Jul 16 5.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Well yes, but then if it wasn't defined as a picture of Mohammed, it wouldn't be illegal. We have stupid rules for a bloke who died 1300 years before that, that prevent say Gay people getting married in church, or women for having jobs as his spokesman etc. We could live with a few rules that prevent people needlessly provoking British citizens. Sikh's can carry knives and not wear crash helmets, Catholic nurses and Doctors can refuse any association to work related to abortion and the UK even allows for religious polygamy, provide marriage occurred outside the UK and so on and so forth. But I understand that making similar exceptions for Muslims would bring down all of western civilisation. Personally, I think the question isn't whether you have the freedom to do something, but why your doing it. If all you can achieve with freedom of speech is deliberately antagonising people, then its wasted on those people. I means sure, you could create a picture of a nun sucking a donkey with a crucifix up her arse, and stick it on a magazine cover - but there's only one reason your doing it, to court controversy and upset people. We can probably get by with legislating that publishing pictures or images of the prophet Mohammed should only be accepted where artistic merit can be established.
I obviously get your point of view as seen earlier in the thread, and I still believe that if one of mine was murdered outside Charlie Ebdo, I wouldn't be Je Suis Charlie, but I am far from best pleased Charlie. The difference between the Sikhs, Catholics, Hindus, Chinese, anybody, is that these Islamic fundamentalists hate us and our way of life, and when one allowance is made for them, it won't be the last, so I can see why people don't want to budge on any laws at all. But it was good to get some decent responses, started by Sterlingsays after a few apoplectic 1 line posts.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 19 Jul 16 5.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Well yes, but then if it wasn't defined as a picture of Mohammed, it wouldn't be illegal. We have stupid rules for a bloke who died 1300 years before that, that prevent say Gay people getting married in church, or women for having jobs as his spokesman etc. We could live with a few rules that prevent people needlessly provoking British citizens. Sikh's can carry knives and not wear crash helmets, Catholic nurses and Doctors can refuse any association to work related to abortion and the UK even allows for religious polygamy, provide marriage occurred outside the UK and so on and so forth. But I understand that making similar exceptions for Muslims would bring down all of western civilisation. Personally, I think the question isn't whether you have the freedom to do something, but why your doing it. If all you can achieve with freedom of speech is deliberately antagonising people, then its wasted on those people. I means sure, you could create a picture of a nun sucking a donkey with a crucifix up her arse, and stick it on a magazine cover - but there's only one reason your doing it, to court controversy and upset people. We can probably get by with legislating that publishing pictures or images of the prophet Mohammed should only be accepted where artistic merit can be established.
But I don;t want to live by rules designed to appease religious claptrap. That is a massive backward step. We are having this forced upon us by stealth. First it was allowing Muslims here in there thousands. Anyone who objected Enoch Powell style by saying there would be trouble was branded a racist. Now surprise surprise, there is trouble and now we have, let's just cave in to some of their totally unreasonable demands and they will be good citizens approach. What stealth tactic would you like next? Their own quietly created Islamic republic inside the UK perhaps? I will not vote for any government who panders to medievalism. Some of these religious loons are murdering and attacking Westerners on almost a daily basis and your answer is to be make new laws to pander to the kind of lunacy that they draw inspiration from. I'm lost for words.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 19 Jul 16 5.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by EverybodyDannsNow
No surprise to see you not actually make a point and throw insults around - the signature of you and your right wing boy band on here. Please explain to me what the 'splendid analogy' sums up, if you can. I think the point is tolerance.... Easy really,and you are the one throwing insults about. I suppose you will call me racist now,that's what your lot usually do.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 19 Jul 16 6.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Well first of all. We're a democracy, so we the people are responsible for those politicians being in power in the first place, and politicians are supposedly accountable to us, the people. They're also the people as well. Its not about compromising a belief system. Its about incorporating some people into their own society where possible. We the people, includes all of us, every single person with British Citizenship, irrespective of age, colour, religion, gender etc. Also, its worth noting that there was no trouble with Islamic militants in the UK until very recently in history. Most Muslims in the UK are third generation, and until 2005, not a single incident of suicide bombing etc. I'm sorry but we are in 2016 and what has gone before is not important. Things have changed across Europe. The irony of your position is that you say that nothing is sacred in terms of our principles as a Western nation and that claiming so is extremism and dealing in absolutes and then in the next breath you say that we can change our laws to pander to someone else's sacred beliefs. Yes a few million Britons are Muslim and most are just getting on with life but they are in a Western country and in a tiny minority. Why on earth should we change our laws simply because the extremist branch of their religion are systematically attacking our citizens? That would be appeasement plain and simple. That, however well intentioned, would be a very grave error and one that the vast majority of British people would reject. They would see such a move for what it is. We must think about the future of Britain and how our decisions now will impact on it. We failed to do so in the past. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (19 Jul 2016 7.00pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 19 Jul 16 7.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Well yes, but then if it wasn't defined as a picture of Mohammed, it wouldn't be illegal. We have stupid rules for a bloke who died 1300 years before that, that prevent say Gay people getting married in church, or women for having jobs as his spokesman etc. We could live with a few rules that prevent people needlessly provoking British citizens. Sikh's can carry knives and not wear crash helmets, Catholic nurses and Doctors can refuse any association to work related to abortion and the UK even allows for religious polygamy, provide marriage occurred outside the UK and so on and so forth. But I understand that making similar exceptions for Muslims would bring down all of western civilisation. Personally, I think the question isn't whether you have the freedom to do something, but why your doing it. If all you can achieve with freedom of speech is deliberately antagonising people, then its wasted on those people. I means sure, you could create a picture of a nun sucking a donkey with a crucifix up her arse, and stick it on a magazine cover - but there's only one reason your doing it, to court controversy and upset people. We can probably get by with legislating that publishing pictures or images of the prophet Mohammed should only be accepted where artistic merit can be established.
I'd happily see the end of all religious nonsense and I'd make them pay taxes in the meantime. The churches have had to adapt to modern life in regard to gay marriage and women clergy, not that either of those issues have led to mass murder in recent years. A Sikh couldn't get on a plane with their dagger and the exemption from head protection rules is absurd. Especially as they don't have to wear a turban, just cover their hair and head. See Monty Panesar in cricket.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Sportyteacher London 19 Jul 16 7.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
I'd happily see the end of all religious nonsense and I'd make them pay taxes in the meantime. The churches have had to adapt to modern life in regard to gay marriage and women clergy, not that either of those issues have led to mass murder in recent years. A Sikh couldn't get on a plane with their dagger and the exemption from head protection rules is absurd. Especially as they don't have to wear a turban, just cover their hair and head. See Monty Panesar in cricket. This isn't about religion - this is about how people CHOOSE to b******ise religion and then have gullible followers jump onto the band wagon, primarily through social media that cannot be adequately policed.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.