Makkun,you have the patience of a saint.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Sifu wrote:
[…] I have family who are police over there, I can guarantee you they are government employees. The Crown part of the Crown Prosecution Service refers to The Queen who is the head of state. The CPS is the government department responsible for prosecutions agianst those carged with criminal offenses.
Following that logic every public servant in the UK is ‘working for the government’. Hm, that would include me…
Let’s clarify: the 43 UK police forces are controlled by Police Authorities, normally made up of:
- 9 local councillors appointed by the local council
- 5 independent members selected following local advertisements
- 3 magistrates from the local area
The defining criteria here is local. The Home Office funds policing and oversees quality of delivery, but the system is set up to be as independent from political influence as possible.
http://www.apa.police.uk/APA/About+Police+Authorities/
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/about/
The Human Rights Act gets maligned because it is full of half baked ideas that go too far. Which is typical over there, they come up with laws but never think them through. They never ask can this law cause problems?
It was the human rights act that prevented the British from deporting Bin Laden’s man in Europe back to his country of origin because he may get mistreated there. So instead they have to let a known Alqaeda organiser walk free and pay him $100,000 a year in benefits.
Qatada is on bail. His restrictions include: He must wear an electronic tag and must not attend a mosque or lead prayers or religious instruction.
Abu Qatada must also stay in his west London home for at least 22 hours a day, and cannot attend any kind of meeting. He is also forbidden from using mobile phones, computers or the internet.
Police have special permission to enter and search his home while Abu Qatada is banned from having guests other than family and solicitors.
[/quote]
He is an Alqaeda organiser. Alqaeda is responsible for murdering hundreds of British subjects. If the British don’t want him in their country they should be able to rid themselves of him. People back in his country of origin want to hurt him because of the same reason why the British don’t want him living in their country.
[quote]
How luxurious. The human rights act did exactly what it should - protect anyone (however vile) from being subjected to torture or unfair legal process. You can’t have it both ways - freedom of speech thought and human rights go for all, not only the people you like. [/quote]
Some people don’t deserve protecting. He’s not a British subject he entered the country illegally, he is a member of a group that has murdered British subjects and wants to overthrow the government. He’s only a guest and his guest priviledges should be revoked. He is a member of Alqaeda an organisation that has and is murdering British subjects. His membership in Alqaeda is why he faces the fate he faces in his homeland. Too bad for him. I don’t see why my family has to pay a hundred thousand dollars a year to support him.
The inability to eject murderers is a serious problem caused by the human rights act. What would happen if it turned out that Bin Laden had been living on a council estate for the last few years and someone at the dole office finally recognized him? The British wouldn’t be able to turn him over to the US for fear of abusing his human rights.
[quote]
It is also the human rights act which guarantees the right to a family, which is why they could not deport Learco Chindamo to Italy after he served his sentence for the gang related murder of an innocent school teacher.
See above - Chindamo is a EU citizen, and with that come rights. Once he has served his time, he has a right to be released. The adequate complaint would be to ask for longer imprisonment. [/quote]
Yes a longer sentence would have been appropriate considering the crime and the aggravating circumstances. Italy is an EU country, I would not consider it a hardship to have to live there after doing time for a gang related murder. Instead Chindamo gets to return to the streets of London after earning his stripes by murdering someone.
When a person commits murder or is part of a group that seeks to commit murder on a massive scale it is not unreasonable for them to be ejected from society. The human rights act makes no distinction between people who deserve protecting and those who don’t.
[quote]
It is also the right to a family that prevents the government from limiting the number of immigrants. If they let one person in they have the right to bring in their whole family who in turn have the right to bring in all their family.
Funny, but as usual contrary to the evidence: there has been quite a comprehensive analysis EU-wide analysis of migrant integration.
Migrant rights in UK criticised
If you want to go into the analysis, have a look here:
http://www.integrationindex.eu/
You can chose to analyse specific features of rights to family reunion, and you’ll see how the UK is most reluctant to grant what you bemoan. [/quote]
Britain is the country of choice for migrants. It is why asylum seekers will travel through other EU countries to get there. The rule is asylum seekers are supposed to request asylum in the first EU country they enter not travel across Europe to a refugee center in France to wait until a smuggler can get them across to Britain.
I see you chart doesn’t rank the level of welfare benefits that new arrivals are entitled to. In America we have a saying “money talks bullshit walks”. That analysis is bullshit because it doesn’t take into account all the welfare benefits that are lavished upon newly arrived unemployed immigrants by the British government.
[quote]
[…]
I can’t remember exactly when I saw him say it but it wasn’t more than three years ago.
Then he must have changed his mind again - I’m sure the Daily Mail would have picked up on that. Oh no, but they haven’t. I think you may have gotten the time scale mixed up - I surely couldn’t find anything on it; but I’ll be happy to discuss it if you do. [/quote]
I didn’t have Cspan 2 years and 7 months ago.
[quote]
[…] It hasn’t gone anywhere yet. But it wasn’t soundly rebuked either. That is cause for concern. Europeans don’t think things through. They will be all happy to give the government a dangerous weapon because it will be used on a handful of bad guys like the nazis, but they don’t stop to think about how this same weapon could also be turned upon themselves.
The really bad part is when a leader who is also a lawyer says he supports such a law. A lawyer should understand very well the implications of such a law in setting legal precedent.
It’s getting hard to find a politician who isn’t a lawyer these days. But again - the law hasn’t been put in place, and it doesn’t look like they will, so the discussion is a bit moot. I can’t really comment on whether ‘Europeans’ think things through - I try to work with facts and evidence, not platitudes. [/quote]
The American founding fathers were mostly lawyers too. Sure they don’t. The human rights act not allowing terrorists to be deported is a good example. All they needed to do is put in a process by which special cases like Qatada could be handled. ie They could have given the head of state the authority to order someone like him deported.
[quote]
[…]
It is hard to know what the full extent of support is in Germany because of the laws there. They haven’t eliminated the nazis but they have driven them underground. That is the problem with making laws that restrict what people can say. You don’t get rid of the ideology as much as take it out of the public view.
Well, voting is still free, equal and secret - while there is no national socialist party (as it indeed is forbidden), the NPD and the DVU offer the (just about) legal alternative. And yes, look at election results and you do get an idea of how right wing people are - especially the ones within impoverished areas of post-socialist East Germany. Real nazi organisations belong underground and prosecuted by law as the German basic law (our constitution) bans organisations whose aim it is to destroy the democratic state. That’s something I can live with, as it enables the state to protect itself and its citizens. [/quote]
Given the problem the nazis caused Germany it seems reasonable that they try to keep them under control. But it doesn’t make sense for every country. Keeping them underground though doesn’t make them go away. You should study up on a journalist named Yaron Svoray who did an undercover investigation of German nazi groups. They are still a threat. After the Berlin wall fell there were West German nazis who went over to East Germany, got onto army bases and stole a lot of weaponry. All they need is a break down of the government.
[quote]
[…]
My point is not crazy at all. The unanimity rule is in article 48 of the treaty on European Union. This is a procedural rule that was put into the treaty to prevent the large states like Germany from steamrolling over small states like Ireland. The Irish rejected the Lisbon Treaty/EU constitution by a democratic vote. The EU has decided to break it’s own rules of procedure and is trying to continue trying to inflict this unwanted constitution on everyone. Implementing the constitution through illegal means is what is crazy.
Let’s have a look at Article 48. Here is the currently valid text (from 2003, including amendments by the Treaty of Nice). The last line is important in this context, I have therefore abridged the text and emphasised it:
“The government of any Member State or the Commission may submit to the Council proposals for the amendment of the Treaties on which the Union is founded.[…]
The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.”
http://europa.eu/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2002/c_325/c_32520021224en00010184.pdf
Ok, this would basically mean that formally all member states would have to go through the process. The Irish referendum can and has stopped the treaty from coming into force, but it cannot take the right away from (perhaps all) other members to ratify. There’s no breach of procedure. As detailed in my earlier post, the EU has a number of options. [/quote]
The rule is all states must agree to the constitution or it isn’t adopted. Continuining to ratify a constitution that cannot be legally ratified is bullying. It demonstrates a disregard for the rules of procedure and the democratic vote.
[quote]
Oh, and on another note, the German President has halted ratificaton as well until the Constitutional Court has decided about a few legal challenges to it. I doubt that that helps with the alleged bullying. [/quote]
You see even in Germany there are problems with the EU constitution. In Austria is has now broken up the ruling alliance. The people want a vote.
[quote]
The countries who are eager to gain membership are poor countries who want to gain economically by getting handouts from the EU. They can also export large numbers of their unemployed who will go to the wealthy countries get jobs and send back money.
Like the Irish or the British did - to their great advantage. Yes, the EU seems to be quite successful in stabilising economies and improving standards of life. I can live with that. [/quote]
The British haven’t gained any advantage. They pay billions of pounds into the EU while getting flooded with the excess population of poor member states. Britain has over three million unemployed and over three million immigrants who entered in the last three years. The
EU is threatening to standardize banking laws across Europe which would end Londons status as the worlds most important banking center. That is the most important industry Britain still has left.
If the British and Irish were smart they would pull out of the EU and join NAFTA instead. The Irish ecoonmy has done well because Ireland has low corporate taxes. Also America has over 40 million Irish Americans and Dublin is the first major European city when you cross the Atlantic. It is very popular for American companies to setup European offices there because of that.
Valerie Giscard D’estang who was the author of the constitution said the Lisbon treaty was the same document, it was only changed superficially. Which raises another point that EU constitution supporters don’t discuss, any changes made to make the treaty different from the constitution can be added back in. The flag and anthem were added back in two days before the signing of the Lisbon treaty. So it was rejected by three countries and would be rejected by the British also if they were given the referendum they were promised by the labour party in their last election manifesto.
[quote]
The EU moves with the speed of its democratically elected parliaments. There are plenty of challenges and legal complications and they are being addressed as part of due process. That’s the fun of it. [/quote]
There is nothing fun about this. This is serious business, because the EU is dictatorial and doesn’t respond to democratic processes.
[quote]
[…] The current options being looked at are ignoring the rules. The unanimity rule makes the Irish vote the end. Carrying on like the Irish don’t matter is bullying.
Which part of ‘the Irish referendum has stopped the treaty from getting into force’ did you not get? This is starting to get really tiring. [/quote]
All members had to ratify or the treaty is not supposed to go into effect. The Irish have rejected the treaty, just like the French and Danish rejected the constitution.
[quote]
When Britain signed up for the common market it was only supposed to be a trade agreement. The electorate was told that it would never be a federal state that would take over as their government. Right from the start the EU has been built upon lies and deciet.
The UK has not opted out - it can at any point. It hasn’t. Especially the UK has been very successful in securing exceptions defending its own national interests. [/quote]
Yes the British can opt out but rules are that the other member states have to agree that they will let the British out. The exceptions the British have been able to get may be challenged in the EU high court as breaking EU rules. So those guarantees aren’t worth a damn.
[quote]
It was your German Riechschancellor Merkel who said that the EU treaty was too important to be decided democratically because the people can’t be trusted to give the correct vote. You Germans still have little regard for demcracy. And the Deutscheland Uber Alles mentality is still there. You Germans still want to see all the countries of Europe under the iron fist of a German dominated superstate that doesn’t follow the rules governing it and doesn’t respect democracy. It might be offensive to point it out, but Merkel is acting like a nazi by forcing Germany’s will on everyone else.
Well, that ends the discussion for me. Too bad, I liked the discussion while it was based on evidence and fair debating.
Makkun[/quote]
Just because Merkel isn’t pushing the racial purity ideology of the nazis doesn’t mean she isn’t behaving like them in other areas. Germany and France want to dominate the rest of Europe. This why their governments are pushing to get the Lisbon treaty ratified while they can. There is a real lack of respect for the democratic process.
Here is the law that critics of Islam can be convicted of breaking.
The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (citation 2006 c. 1) which creates an offence of inciting (or ‘stirring up’) hatred against a person on the grounds of their religion. The Act was the Labour Government’s third attempt to bring in this offence: provisions were originally included as part of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill in 2001, but were dropped after objections from the House of Lords. The measure was again brought forward as part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill in 2004-5, but was again dropped in order to get the body of that Bill passed before the 2005 general election.
The Act is notable because two amendments made in the House of Lords failed to be overturned by the Government in the House of Commons.
Most of the act came into force on 1 October 2007
[edit] Previous attempts at legislation
After the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, the Government in Britain brought forward the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill. Clause 38 of that Bill would have had the effect of amending Part 3 of the Public Order Act 1986 to extend the existing provisions on incitement to racial hatred to cover incitement to religious hatred. When the Bill reached the House of Lords, an amendment to remove the clause was passed by 240 votes to 141. The Commons reinstated the clause, but the Lords again removed it. Finally, the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, accepted that the Commons had to accede to the Lords’ insistence that the clause be left out of the Bill.
On 8 January 2002, a Private Member’s Bill was brought before the House of Lords by Lord Avebury, who sought in his Religious Offences Bill to amend the Public Order Act 1986 to include religious hatred offences, in exactly the same manner as the Government’s 2001 Bill. Although the reaction to the Bill itself was not favourable, the House did appoint a Select Committee to look into the whole law relating to religious offences, including the possibility of repealing the law relating to blasphemy. There were no specific recommendations from the Committee, and in a debate on its conclusions on 22 April 2004, the Government confirmed that it intended to press ahead with the creation of an incitement to religious hatred offence.
The Government brought the proposal back before Parliament in the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill in the Session leading up to the general election in May 2005. During the Lords debate on the relevant section of the Bill, on 5 April 2005 (the day on which the general election was called), the provision was removed. When the Bill returned to the Commons on 7 April, the Government announced that it was dropping the measure so as to secure the passage of the Bill as a whole before the Dissolution of Parliament.
At the general election, the Labour Party confirmed that, were it to be re-elected, it would bring in a Bill to outlaw incitement to religious hatred: “It remains our firm intention to give people of all faiths the same protection against incitement to hatred on the basis of their religion. We will legislate to outlaw it and will continue the dialogue we have started with faith groups from all backgrounds about how best to balance protection, tolerance and free speech” (Labour Party manifesto, ‘Forward not back’ (2005), p111-112).
Controversy
The bill contains wording to amend the Public Order Act 1986:
Section 29A
Meaning of “religious hatred”
In this Part “religious hatred” means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.
Section 29B:
(1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
Critics of the Bill (before the amendments noted below, adding the requirement for the intention of stirring up hatred) claimed that the Act would make major religious works such as the Bible and the Qur’an illegal in their current form in the UK. Comedians and satirists also feared prosecution for their work. While sympathising with those who promoted the legislation, in particular British Muslims, actor and comedian Rowan Atkinson said: “I appreciate that this measure is an attempt to provide comfort and protection to them but unfortunately it is a wholly inappropriate response far more likely to promote tension between communities than tolerance.”[2] Leaders of major religions and race groups, as well as non-religious groups such as the National Secular Society and English PEN spoke out against the Bill.
Supporters of the Bill responded that all UK legislation has to be interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees freedom of religion and expression, and so denied that an Act of Parliament is capable making any religious text illegal.
The House of Lords passed amendments to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to “A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening… if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred”. This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention - and not just the possibility - of stirring up religious hatred.
The Government attempted to overturn these changes, but lost the House of Commons votes on 31st January 2006.
[edit] History
11 July 2005 - the bill was passed by the House of Commons and was passed up to the House of Lords.
11 October 2005 - The bill was read by the House of Lords as a 300-strong group of protestors demonstrated in Hyde Park. Forty-seven Lords spoke in the debate, of whom nine came out in support of the bill. [1]
31 January 2006 - The Commons supported an amendment from the House of Lords by 288 to 278, contrary to the position of the Government. A second Lords amendment was approved by 283 votes to 282 in the absence of Prime Minister Tony Blair, who had apparently underestimated support for the amendment. This made the bill the Labour government’s second defeat since the 2005 election. [2]
16 February 2006 - The Bill received Royal Assent to become the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 c. 1.
1 October 2007 - The act came partially into force with the publication of a Statutory Instrument. Remaining provisions awaiting commencement are the insertion of sections 29B(3), 29H(2), 29I(2)(b) and 29I(4) into the Public Order Act 1986:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Makkun,you have the patience of a saint.[/quote]
Thanks, but as you can see it’s not without limits. 
Makkun
Here is a good example of the mentality that Nazir Ali is up against with trying to maintain Britains culture. The liberals can’t do enough to sell out their own people.
All state pupils may be taught Islamic traditions as part of compulsory citizenship lessons
State school pupils are set to be taught Islamic traditions and values in compulsory citizenship lessons.
The move - part of a package of initiatives announced by Communities Secretary Hazel Blears yesterday - is designed to curb extremism.
Education campaigners warned however against giving Islam a privileged position over other faiths.
Other plans announced by Miss Blears also drew criticism - including a state-funded panel of Islamic scholars and theologians to provide community leadership.
Prominent Muslims said this scheme was naive because Government endorsement would erode the credibility of those taking part, especially among the young and disaffected.
Another measure will see Muslim children being taught citizenship lessons by imams in mosque schools - in the hope that they will be better equipped to resist extremist messages.
Many Muslim youngsters in the UK attend evening classes at madrassah schools attached to mosques, where imams give instruction in the Koran and Islamic history.
Ministers want imams to stress that the Koran places a duty on all Muslims to be good neighbours, carry out voluntary work and play an active part in civic society
Pilot schemes will begin in October in London, Leicester, Birmingham, Oldham, Rochdale, and Bradford.
The Department for Communities and Local Government has tasked the Islam & Citizenship Education group with producing the teaching materials for mosques.
The organisation, however, wants to extend its remit to mainstream state schools by ‘teaching Islamic traditions and values in the school citizenship curriculum’.
David Conway, senior research fellow at the Civitas think-tank, said: 'Some will see this as another sign of a creeping process of Islamisation - an insidious process which plays down the Christian basis of our culture and encourages children to learn more and more about Islam’s contribution.
'Muslims are still a relatively small minority in Britain and, while I have nothing against children in our multi-religious society learning about each other’s faiths, for one particular faith to be privileged in mainstream schools seems to me pointless, and won’t make for greater harmony.
‘I fear it will play into the hands of the small minority who want to see the Islamisation of Europe, and believe they will triumph through sheer numbers.’
Unlike religious education classes, citizenship lessons, which do not cover issues of belief, are compulsory.
Nick Seaton, chairman of the Campaign for Real Education, said: 'We should not single out one particular faith. Citizenship is supposed to be secular.
'Children can learn about particular religious values in religious education lessons. That’s why parents have the right to withdraw. It’s a very different matter to promote a particular faith’s values as part of compulsory citizenship lessons.
‘It seems to me dangerous to single out the one faith which is probably linked to the most problems with terrorism at the moment for special treatment.’
Khalid Mahmood, project manager of Islam & Citizenship Education, stressed that the project was at a very early stage.
He said: ‘The material is being developed for the madrassahs but we are putting it together so that people in mainstream schools would also be able to use it.’
Miss Blears announced details of the panel of 20 leading Muslim experts which will have £100,000 in state funding.
Based at Cambridge University, the experts will be expected to compile reports on key issues in the lives of British Muslims, such as the wearing of Islamic veils by women.
Miss Blears insisted the new panel would be independent, adding: ‘It is not for Government to dictate on matters of faith or religious teaching.’
Dr Azzam Tamimi, of the Institute of Islamic Political Thought in London, said the scheme was doomed to failure.
He said: 'This is a naive initiative. This not how Muslim education or awareness works.
‘When a Muslim individual seeks advice or knowledge he or she would usually go to a person they consider to be credible or an authority, and usually Muslims are suspicious of government-sponsored or organised commissions.’
Dr Tamimi told BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme ministers were trying to dictate to Muslims over religious awareness and education.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Here is a good example of the mentality that Nazir Ali is up against with trying to maintain Britains culture. The liberals can’t do enough to sell out their own people.
…
[/quote]
yes, because we all know that one form of extremism can only be met with another. We all also know that fundamentalist Christianity is the only only other cultural or moral option when faced with radical Islam and it’s appeasers. Who would be silly enough to think that one might try to take a rational, unbiased approach to issues?
The left in Britain is trying to replace Christianity with Islam as the state religion. Personally I think that there shouldn’t be any state religion. But given a choice between seeing my family living in a Christian country or an islamist one I would much rather see them living in a Christian one.
Stokedporcupine you are woefully lacking in a really important philosophical concept which is, not everybody thinks like you. It is not everyone who is going to spends days at a time reading classical philosphy and contemplating really deep philosophical concepts.
It also is not everyone who can fulfill their spiritual needs by studying philosophy. When people feel the need for spirituality they do turn to religion. So Nazir Ali has a valid point that the Christian church in Britain should not be afraid to promote itself. Otherwise there is a real danger that people who turn to religion will turn to the one that is the most promoted which right now is Islam.
The left in Britain is proposing making studying islam part of the compulsary citizenship course that school children have to study from ages 11-16. Plus it isn’t going to be a full view of islam instead it is going to be a PC spin doctered view. If later in life these kids turn to religion they are going to turn to the one they know.
Believe it or not religions are based upon philosophy. Philosophy which comes from their founder. The big problem that atheists have in understanding and dealing with religion is they lose sight of that fact. Atheists just dismiss it all as a bunch of brainwashed idiots believing fairy tales. So they lose sight of the fact that there is a philosophy involved and different religions do have different philosphies of how people should behave and the role that religion should play in a persons life.
Christianity and Islam have some major philosphical differences especially when you go back to the fundamentals of the religions. ie this passage from the bible
They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, “The Roman emperor’s people demand taxes from us.” He said to them, “Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine.”
There is a philosophy in that passage that says the government and god are not the same they are seperate. That the temple can’t use instruments of the state to sell access to god. There is a seperation of church and state in that philosophy. Then there is the crucifixtion of Jesus to show the kind of evil acts that can be perpetrated when the temple can call upon the state to enforce religious orthodoxy.
In Islam on the other hand there is sharia. Which is based upon a philosophy that the mosque and the government should be combined, so that the government can claim its authority comes from god and the mosque can use the power of the state to enforce it’s doctrines upon the governed.
My last point regards your remark about extremism. Trying to get Muslims to convert to Christianity is not as extreme as getting them to become atheists and take up reading Aristotle or Ayn Rand.
Also Christian extremism is different from Muslim extremism. ie Jesus strongly advocated thou shalt not kill. The Ebionites who were Jesus’ first followers took that to the extreme that they became vegetarians.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Stokedporcupine you are woefully lacking in a really important philosophical concept which is, not everybody thinks like you. It is not everyone who is going to spends days at a time reading classical philosphy and contemplating really deep philosophical concepts.
[/quote]
oh please, give me more credit then that… i do not expect everyone to drop their religious beliefs and to pick up secular philosophy. i do though expect people to think critically, to be rational, and to at least attempt to see past their biases when it comes to social issues. is this to much to ask?
ditto what i said before. there is no need to apologize for the bishop, or to try and soften his words. he speaks well for himself.
i always enjoy being told about philosophy. anyway, religions are by and large not based on philosophy, unless you are using philosophy in some very empty sense. philosophy has always been a tradition that focused on reason and argument. one of the marks of philosophy is that it matters little who is giving the arguments, only if the arguments are sound and valid. religion, as opposed to this, is not about the arguments. Even a causal reading of religious texts verse philosophical texts shows this difference… you get developed arguments in philosophy, and prophets and holy men in religion.
you are sorely misusing the term “philosophy”.
ditto
i never suggested this. again, you seem to have a tendency to polarize everything and view things as black and white. my suggestion that combating Muslim extremism with Christian extremism wasn’t the only answer didn’t mean i thought it would be combated with atheistic extremism. Rather, instead of working towards the promotion of a single religion at the exclusion and bias against all others, why not work towards social tolerance and cooperation? public schools should be fair and balanced. promoting any one ideology isn’t the answer.
different times and different people… you must remember that Christian history is one of violence also. just as Christianity has had both violent and peaceful extremists, so has Islam.
Just like when Jesus and his 12 led the armies of Christians out of Palestine circa 30 AD conquering and pillaging as they went.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
different times and different people… you must remember that Christian history is one of violence also. just as Christianity has had both violent and peaceful extremists, so has Islam.
Just like when Jesus and his 12 led the armies of Christians out of Palestine circa 30 AD conquering and pillaging as they went. [/quote]
you cannot negate an existentially quantified statement by showing the negation of another existentially quantified statement to be true.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Stokedporcupine you are woefully lacking in a really important philosophical concept which is, not everybody thinks like you. It is not everyone who is going to spends days at a time reading classical philosphy and contemplating really deep philosophical concepts.
oh please, give me more credit then that… i do not expect everyone to drop their religious beliefs and to pick up secular philosophy. i do though expect people to think critically, to be rational, and to at least attempt to see past their biases when it comes to social issues. is this to much to ask? [/quote]
Yes. For a lot of people when it comes to religion critical thinking is taboo. In Islam the penalty for critical thinking is death. And there are other religious groups that aren’t any better.
[quote]
It also is not everyone who can fulfill their spiritual needs by studying philosophy. When people feel the need for spirituality they do turn to religion. So Nazir Ali has a valid point that the Christian church in Britain should not be afraid to promote itself.
Otherwise there is a real danger that people who turn to religion will turn to the one that is the most promoted which right now is Islam.
ditto what i said before. there is no need to apologize for the bishop, or to try and soften his words. he speaks well for himself.
Believe it or not religions are based upon philosophy. Philosophy which comes from their founder. The big problem that atheists have in understanding and dealing with religion is they lose sight of that fact. Atheists just dismiss it all as a bunch of brainwashed idiots believing fairy tales.
So they lose sight of the fact that there is a philosophy involved and different religions do have different philosphies of how people should behave and the role that religion should play in a persons life.
i always enjoy being told about philosophy. anyway, religions are by and large not based on philosophy, unless you are using philosophy in some very empty sense. philosophy has always been a tradition that focused on reason and argument.
one of the marks of philosophy is that it matters little who is giving the arguments, only if the arguments are sound and valid. religion, as opposed to this, is not about the arguments. Even a causal reading of religious texts verse philosophical texts shows this difference… you get developed arguments in philosophy, and prophets and holy men in religion. [/quote]
phi·los·o·phy (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
- Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
- Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
- A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
- The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
- The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
- The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
- A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
- A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
[quote]
Christianity and Islam have some major philosphical differences especially when you go back to the fundamentals of the religions. ie this passage from the bible
They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, “The Roman emperor’s people demand taxes from us.” He said to them, “Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine.”
There is a philosophy in that passage that says the government and god are not the same they are seperate. That the temple can’t use instruments of the state to sell access to god. There is a seperation of church and state in that philosophy. Then there is the crucifixtion of Jesus to show the kind of evil acts that can be perpetrated when the temple can call upon the state to enforce religious orthodoxy.
you are sorely misusing the term “philosophy”. [/quote]
- A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
- A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
[quote]
In Islam on the other hand there is sharia. Which is based upon a philosophy that the mosque and the government should be combined, so that the government can claim its authority comes from god and the mosque can use the power of the state to enforce it’s doctrines upon the governed.
ditto [/quote]
- A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
- A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
[quote]
My last point regards your remark about extremism. Trying to get Muslims to convert to Christianity is not as extreme as getting them to become atheists and take up reading Aristotle or Ayn Rand.
i never suggested this. again, you seem to have a tendency to polarize everything and view things as black and white. my suggestion that combating Muslim extremism with Christian extremism wasn’t the only answer didn’t mean i thought it would be combated with atheistic extremism.
Rather, instead of working towards the promotion of a single religion at the exclusion and bias against all others, why not work towards social tolerance and cooperation? public schools should be fair and balanced. promoting any one ideology isn’t the answer. [/quote]
I don’t see things in exclusively black or white at all. But sometimes there are stark contrasts and it doesn’t do any good to beat around the bush. Tolerance is a great idea but there are those who would use our tolerance against us so they could eventually impose intolerance. We need to protect our values.
This is a common arguement that takes a very superficial look at the history and throws out important eras in order to try and spin doctor the religions as equal.
For the first three hundred years the religion was nonviolent. Then right before a big battle where the odds were against them the Roman emporer Constantine had his soldiers paint crosses on their shields. They won the battle so Constantine decided to take over the Christian religion and make it Roman. All the violence came after that.
This is what the Christians have behaved badly too arguement totally ignores. There was nothing in the religions ideology that came from Jesus that allowed for violence. Constantine on the other hand had uses for violence.
So the flaw in your arguement is Jesus was nonviolent and there is nothing in the example he set that can be used to justify violence. When Christians rsort to violence they aren’t acting like Jesus.
Mohammad on the other hand was going around killing anyone who crossed him. He gave plenty of justifications for violence. The muslim extremists are only acting like mohammad.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
different times and different people… you must remember that Christian history is one of violence also. just as Christianity has had both violent and peaceful extremists, so has Islam.
Just like when Jesus and his 12 led the armies of Christians out of Palestine circa 30 AD conquering and pillaging as they went.
you cannot negate an existentially quantified statement by showing the negation of another existentially quantified statement to be true. [/quote]
This coming from the guy who hasn’t quantified anything.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
different times and different people… you must remember that Christian history is one of violence also. just as Christianity has had both violent and peaceful extremists, so has Islam.
Just like when Jesus and his 12 led the armies of Christians out of Palestine circa 30 AD conquering and pillaging as they went.
you cannot negate an existentially quantified statement by showing the negation of another existentially quantified statement to be true.
This coming from the guy who hasn’t quantified anything. [/quote]
the quantifies are implicit. it is not my fault that you cannot pick out implicit quantifies… do you even know what i mean when i use the word?
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Also Christian extremism is different from Muslim extremism. ie Jesus strongly advocated thou shalt not kill. The Ebionites who were Jesus’ first followers took that to the extreme that they became vegetarians.
different times and different people… you must remember that Christian history is one of violence also. just as Christianity has had both violent and peaceful extremists, so has Islam.
This is a common arguement that takes a very superficial look at the history and throws out important eras in order to try and spin doctor the religions as equal.
For the first three hundred years the religion was nonviolent. Then right before a big battle where the odds were against them the Roman emporer Constantine had his soldiers paint crosses on their shields. They won the battle so Constantine decided to take over the Christian religion and make it Roman. All the violence came after that.
This is what the Christians have behaved badly too arguement totally ignores. There was nothing in the religions ideology that came from Jesus that allowed for violence. Constantine on the other hand had uses for violence.
So the flaw in your arguement is Jesus was nonviolent and there is nothing in the example he set that can be used to justify violence. When Christians rsort to violence they aren’t acting like Jesus.
Mohammad on the other hand was going around killing anyone who crossed him. He gave plenty of justifications for violence. The muslim extremists are only acting like mohammad. [/quote]
you cannot negate an existentially quantified statement by showing the negation of another existentially quantified statement to be true.
if by “Christian extremism” you mean a tendency to follow the bible literally, there is plenty of biblical basis for violence, just read the old testament. i realize Jesus was non-violent. Jesus isn’t the whole cannon.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
phi·los·o·phy (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
- Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
- Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
- A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
- The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
- The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
- The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
- A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
- A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
[/quote]
dictionary definitions are empty and shallow… they merely attempt to capture the common usage of the word. and hence like i said, your re fences to “philosophy” only make sense if taken in this empty and shallow way.
also, note that even in this dictionary definition, you have to appeal to the 7th and 8th entries to find support for your use… the first 2 entries, the primary ones, do not fit your use.
lastly, wouldn’t a much better way to analyze the word philosophy and compare its relationship with religion be by actually looking at philosophical texts, and religious texts, and comparing them? isn’t this what i specifically made reference to? a comparison between the two types of texts?
[/quote]
[quote]Sifu wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Stokedporcupine you are woefully lacking in a really important philosophical concept which is, not everybody thinks like you. It is not everyone who is going to spends days at a time reading classical philosphy and contemplating really deep philosophical concepts.
oh please, give me more credit then that… i do not expect everyone to drop their religious beliefs and to pick up secular philosophy. i do though expect people to think critically, to be rational, and to at least attempt to see past their biases when it comes to social issues. is this to much to ask?
Yes. For a lot of people when it comes to religion critical thinking is taboo. In Islam the penalty for critical thinking is death. And there are other religious groups that aren’t any better.
[/quote]
as it is in Christianity also. (though of course, in this modern time the penalty is not death. it was not that long ago though). those who attempt to critically assess christian positions before they accept them are reprimanded and socially shunned. it is of course socially acceptable to accept the positions unconditionally first, and then afterwards attempt to justify them, which is the christian apologetics movement.
but anyway, do you realize how absurd this sounds? i realize that it is in fact the truth (which makes it very sad), but it is nevertheless a ridiculous position to hold.
it should not be to much to ask of anyone to thoughtfully and rationally consider the beliefs and positions that they hold. (again, i realize that the truth is that most people, including the non-religious, do not do this. it nevertheless is very sad)
call me an idealist… but who would have ever thought that expecting rational thought out of an animal that Aristotle once defined by the very term would be to much.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Also Christian extremism is different from Muslim extremism. ie Jesus strongly advocated thou shalt not kill. The Ebionites who were Jesus’ first followers took that to the extreme that they became vegetarians.
different times and different people… you must remember that Christian history is one of violence also. just as Christianity has had both violent and peaceful extremists, so has Islam.
This is a common arguement that takes a very superficial look at the history and throws out important eras in order to try and spin doctor the religions as equal.
For the first three hundred years the religion was nonviolent. Then right before a big battle where the odds were against them the Roman emporer Constantine had his soldiers paint crosses on their shields. They won the battle so Constantine decided to take over the Christian religion and make it Roman. All the violence came after that.
This is what the Christians have behaved badly too arguement totally ignores. There was nothing in the religions ideology that came from Jesus that allowed for violence. Constantine on the other hand had uses for violence.
So the flaw in your arguement is Jesus was nonviolent and there is nothing in the example he set that can be used to justify violence. When Christians rsort to violence they aren’t acting like Jesus.
Mohammad on the other hand was going around killing anyone who crossed him. He gave plenty of justifications for violence. The muslim extremists are only acting like mohammad.
you cannot negate an existentially quantified statement by showing the negation of another existentially quantified statement to be true. [/quote]
Quit fronting. I might not be the brightest fellow on this board but I do know that I am far from the dumbest. Thanks to my English Mum and Dad I speak the Queens English fairly well. Despite that I have a hard time following your posts. Your posts remind me of the saying that goes “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, blind them with bullshit”. You need to redact your posts for purposes of elucidation.
I’ve met your type before. You aren’t as bright as you like to think you are, so you try to hide it by talking over peoples heads. You think that if you can parrot sentences that themselves are hard to follow are hard to follow while talking about abstract concepts we will all say wow he’s really smart. With people of average or below average intelligence you may get away with it, but we aren’t all idiots here.
People who genuinely have a high intellect can talk about very complex abstract subjects in terms that even a person who isn’t terribly bright can follow along with. Einstein could do this, Professor Hawkings can do this. You don’t. [quote]
if by “Christian extremism” you mean a tendency to follow the bible literally, there is plenty of biblical basis for violence, just read the old testament. i realize Jesus was non-violent. Jesus isn’t the whole cannon. [/quote]
Ah! The old testament. You got me! I don’t believe it! Maybe you are smarter than me! I forgot all about all the times in the old testament where Jesus calls upon the faithful to kill. Help me out Stoked I am having a hard time remembering but I know what you are talking about, Jesus’ teachings in the old testament were totally contradictory to his teaching in the new testament. 
When the Christian bible was being assembled there was a school of thought that said the old testament had no place in the Christian bible and didn’t want it included. The role the old testament does play in the Christian bible is it gives context to Jesus ministry, it shows what Jesus was up against.
Jesus was crucified for making a break with the old testament. The people who had him crucified were the Pharacees. There are people who call themselves Christians who have much more in common with the Pharacees than Jesus. I see them on TV all the time. If Jesus were to return today I don’t think these people would not want to hear what he would have to say. I think they would be looking for some wood and some nails.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said love thy neighbor but also love thy enemy. Perhaps you could explain how the Sermon on the Mount taken to the extreme could lead to killing.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
Sifu wrote:
phi·los·o·phy (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
- Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
- Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
- A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
- The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
- The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
- The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
- A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
- A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.
dictionary definitions are empty and shallow… they merely attempt to capture the common usage of the word. and hence like i said, your re fences to “philosophy” only make sense if taken in this empty and shallow way. [/quote]
How is it empty and shallow? That definition has eight entries.
[quote]
also, note that even in this dictionary definition, you have to appeal to the 7th and 8th entries to find support for your use… the first 2 entries, the primary ones, do not fit your use. [/quote]
The love and pursuit of intellectual wisdom and moral self discipline can’t be done through religion? Do you believe that there is no wisdom that can be gained from religion?
Or how about the second entry? Are you saying that one cannot derive logical values from religion? Are you saying that one cannot derive an understanding of reality based upon intellectual reasoning, that one can only understand reality through empirical means such as observation? If that was the case physics never would have gone anywhere. It certainly wouldn’t be developed to the point where the lines between physics and metaphysics are starting to blur.
I think you must first know what the term philosophy means. Otherwise how are you going to understand when you are reading something that is philosophical in nature? It would be pointless to make comparisons because you would not know what you were looking at.
Years ago back in the MM2K days, TC interviewed Mike Mentzer, Mike went off on a rant about philosophy. I sort of knew what philosophy was but when I looked up the word in the dictionary Mikes rant made a lot more sense.
As a side note I would like to say that Mike Mentzer interview was the best damn thing I ever got out of MM2K. When I got that tape I was at real low point in my life. My karate teachers had made me feel like I was the most worthless piece of shit on planet Earth. Mike gave me a whole new outlook on life. I played that tape a few times, I still have it somewhere.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
Sifu wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Stokedporcupine you are woefully lacking in a really important philosophical concept which is, not everybody thinks like you. It is not everyone who is going to spends days at a time reading classical philosphy and contemplating really deep philosophical concepts.
oh please, give me more credit then that… i do not expect everyone to drop their religious beliefs and to pick up secular philosophy. i do though expect people to think critically, to be rational, and to at least attempt to see past their biases when it comes to social issues. is this to much to ask?
Yes. For a lot of people when it comes to religion critical thinking is taboo. In Islam the penalty for critical thinking is death. And there are other religious groups that aren’t any better.
as it is in Christianity also. (though of course, in this modern time the penalty is not death. it was not that long ago though). those who attempt to critically assess christian positions before they accept them are reprimanded and socially shunned. it is of course socially acceptable to accept the positions unconditionally first, and then afterwards attempt to justify them, which is the christian apologetics movement. [/quote]
Really? Jesus said to kill people for apostacy? You will have to show me where he said that. I think you have that one wrong.
I know Christianity has it’s own version of the Pharasees. But I would like to point out that Jesus did not get along with the Pharasees, and it was the Pharasees who got the Romans to crucify Jesus for blasphemy. I would say that questioning orthodoxy is a most Christian act, because that is what Jesus was crucified for.
This is the world we live in. There are not a lot of original free thinkers. It is why Jesus’ ideas were popular but it is also why he was crucified.
[quote]stokedporcupine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
stokedporcupine wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
different times and different people… you must remember that Christian history is one of violence also. just as Christianity has had both violent and peaceful extremists, so has Islam.
Just like when Jesus and his 12 led the armies of Christians out of Palestine circa 30 AD conquering and pillaging as they went.
you cannot negate an existentially quantified statement by showing the negation of another existentially quantified statement to be true.
This coming from the guy who hasn’t quantified anything.
the quantifies are implicit. it is not my fault that you cannot pick out implicit quantifies… do you even know what i mean when i use the word? [/quote]
I think I’ve figured out your game.
- Use language specific to your field to demonstrate how smart you are and how stupid we are.
- Deride lay people for not understanding it.
- Marginalize anyone who suggests you actually understand a different point of view.
- Praise yourself mentally for how smart you are.
I bet you’re great at parties.
I’ll tell you what, why don’t you give me some data? You’re talking about quantities, so why don’t you give us a body count from the respective religions, since the truth claims of the respective religions don’t matter to you, the philosophy major who spends his time studying various philosophical truth claims. Put some hard numbers to the suffering caused by the two religions in discussion if you’re claim is that both cause equal harm, otherwise your claim is unsubstantiated.