Moderators:Best First, spiderfrommars, IronHide
) I doubt religious debates on here would get very far before someone called the police. In fact Bouncelot could probably have had me arrested for suggesting that God did not, in fact, magically create some slices of bread for no particular reason.
from: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffa ... 55,00.htmlComedian Rowan Atkinson today welcomed the government's defeat over the racial and religious hatred bill, saying "everybody wins".
The Blackadder star, who urged MPs to oppose the governments' version of the bill at a meeting in the Commons on Monday, said the revised law was a good compromise.
"Those who seek to threaten religious communities will know that such behaviour has now been outlawed and those who have sought to retain the right to criticise and ridicule religious beliefs and practices now have those rights enshrined in legislation in a manner never previously achieved," he said.
"With it, it seems to me, everybody wins," he said.
I don't know if this is 100% correct, but there's a lot of danish milk (and milky products) being sold there. The company is named Arla.Best First wrote: Meanwhile som eMuslims in some Middle Eastern countries are not buying anything from Denmark because a Danish paper published some cartoons of muhammed.
Didn't some Swedish publications reprint the cartoons and now they're in the **** over this as well?Obfleur wrote:I don't know if this is 100% correct, but there's a lot of danish milk (and milky products) being sold there. The company is named Arla.
Because of the boycott the company wasnt able to open up a new factory or whatever.
But, I am not sure if this is true.
And yes; it's ******* ridiculous
They're going to have to boycott the whole of Europe soon.
I don't know...what if a religion (to pick one at random, say Islam) had, as part of that religion, a directive to its followers to destroy all human authority and replace it with Islamic authority? Would someone who preached that be protected or charged under the new law?Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:Types like that abu hamza and the BNP guy who use religon to stir up trouble and claim freddom of speech? should we not have a law in place for things like that?
But if it is enshrined in his holy book then it's a restriction of his religious freedom to prevent him from preaching that, because it's actually part of his religion. The law would have made criticism of that view illegal, not the view itself as it would be religiously protected.Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:I would have thought the law actually stops the Iman from preaching that? as it stirs up religous hatred with the very group he preaches to.
Dude, sometimes you are ****ing scary.Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:
Some faith in the law please.
What they are trying to clamp down on is not as importnat as what can be clamped down on.The government claims free expression is safeguarded in Section 29k. Apologies here for terrible legal language, but this is the key clause the government will use in tonight's debate to falsely reassure MPs unfamiliar with the detail. The clause begins "for the avoidance of doubt" and proceeds to obfuscate the right to free speech still further.
This free-speech guarantee seeks to protect "debate" and "ridiculing". However, unpick the language: a person can debate and ridicule "unless he intends to stir up religious hatred or is reckless as to whether religious hatred would be stirred up thereby", which immediately removes any extra safeguard. Lawyers say that instead it specifically draws "debate" and "ridicule" into the act's dragnet. Accept no assurances from Goggins on this. Even a senior Home Office lawyer admitted it was meaningless.
Muhammad standing on a cloud, greeting dead suicide bombers with "Stop, stop, we ran out of virgins!", an allusion to the promised reward to martyrs.
If a cartoon sparks violence, it would seem a clear signal that discussion of the issues it raises is needed.Franco Frattini, the vice-President of the European Commission, called the publication of the twelve cartoons "thoughtless and inappropriate" in a time when animosity towards Islam is on the rise.
Always easier to work people up into a frenzy when you don't feel the need to stick to facts, isn't it?When the organisation Islamic Society in Denmark toured the Middle-East to create awareness about the cartoons, they also brought 3 additional images. The first of the three additional pictures, which are of dismal quality, shows Muhammad as a pedophile demon, the second shows Muhammed with a pig snout and the third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog.
whoah! no sh**!. qwhen you said law you meant... the legal system? I didn't realise!Impactor returns 2.0 wrote:
Faith in the law - I was refering to having faith in our police and our judges to know the difference.
I was going to add some humourous cartoons of our own esteemed leader Besty, but I think I've kinda flogged that horse to death...Denyer wrote:You'd think. However, if people are capable of acting this childishly over imagery, it would seem an incredibly bad idea to set a precedent of humouring them.Metal Vendetta wrote:And all 'cause someone drew a picture. Isn't this playground stuff?
Its not? Hmm.. *puts gun away*Obfleur wrote:
The EU parlament (Commision?) in Gaza has been surrounded by these nice people.
They are demanding an apology from France, Norway and Denmark.
It also seem that they said "Hey, it's okey to shoot anybody that's from Norway, Denmark or France!"
Your time is a comin Preds..
Rob, you should really check out Holy War: The Crusades and Their Connection to Today's World by Karen Armstrong. Or anything by Karen Armstrong. Talks a lot about the initial formation of the doctrine of jihad, as well as the justifications for holy war among Christians and Jews.Metal Vendetta wrote:Weird, 'cause everything I've read in the Koran so far says "respect the Christians and the Jews, they are our brothers" etc. It's unlikely that anyone could find anything in there that says "Jews are rubbish".
Gays, women and non-believers, however, seem to be fair game for everyone. The Old Testament, for example, says it's okay to run non-believers through with a sword, slaughter their children (dash their heads open in front of them, such a nice turn of phrase) and rape their women. Presumably some of that is incorporated into modern-day Christianity and Judaism, after all, it's in the book. Islam even has a word for this kind of behaviour, Jihad. Nice.
See, I wouldn't ever say "Jews are rubbish", "Christians are rubbish" or "Muslims are rubbish", but I definitely want the right to say "Jews believe a lot of rubbish", "Christians are gullible and weak-minded and believe an equally ridiculous load of rubbish" and "Muslims are using their big fairy in the sky as an excuse for some extremely antisocial behaviour, bordering on genocide, which is, incidentally, a load of rubbish". I should respect a person's right to live unmoslested and safely but I don't have to respect their gods and I don't have to respect their faith, particularly when they are using their faith to either talk a load of rubbish or justify some abhorrent action.
