Thread: YES! Another victory for the united Kingdom of Islam!!...oh wait...

Hypothetical conversation time.


Yes but we have to respect the beliefs of religious people!

Why?

Because they are delicate RELIGIOUS beliefs!

So what? I may have have delicate beliefs about how to kill people, but you don't respect them.

Yes but they aren't religious.

So?

So they aren't as sensitive and personal

I'm sure Patrick Bateman is very sensitive and personal about his beliefs on killing people.

Yes but religion deserves our respect; it is the foundation for so much culture and it explains the biggest questions about the world around us!

War nd famine has been responsible for some brilliant cultural movements. It doesn't make it a good thing. Religion doesn't explain the big questions. It offers a pre-medieval explanation with no evidence.. who would believe that?

The majority of humanity


Shit.

Originally Posted by metro.co.uk

The book's creative director Anne Curtis, of Shoo-fly publishing, said she was amazed at the criticism.

She said: "We were told we were stereotyping tradesmen - alienating minority groups and offending Muslims.

'Tis called apathy. People are yearning for utter unquestioned "peace", which can never really be. Stereotypes are fine as long as they aren't taken to extremes and whatnot. They're all around us every day too and not all of them are irrational and not all of them are insulting.

But, aye, "The United Kingdom of Islam" indeed... *shudder*

Religion and government don't mix.

In Britain at least!

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

Ok so as we all know political correctness has gone a little crazy lately as to not offend religious groups, especially Muslims. However i think they've just gone off the deep end...

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article....&in_page_id=34

WHAT THE HELL!

SO basically if anything has Pigs in it it should be banned since Muslims don't like Pigs. OK butchers no advertising pork, on TV, shops where ever...

As a believing Muslim, I would just like to say that this is utter bullshit. It's forbidden to eat pigs in Islam, not tell stories about them.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

PC has gone to far! First Baa baa black sheep, now this, we are going to lose our damn identity! This is Great Britain, ahhh! This annoys me so much!

Political correctness can take a kick in the nuts. It does no good to try and sugarcoat everything. In my opinion, people need to be more blunt.

Originally Posted by cuddleyperson

Ok if they want Sharia laws passed, then lets have them passed for all citizens not just Muslims. So then we can gather together and see they are insulting our national pride and our honour, honour killings legal much? then what? Would they complain we are not allowed to follow their laws?

Wow this is soo dumb!

I put this in the religious forum is the reasons for the changes apply to Muslims, but i'd rather steer clear of insulting anyone and more discuss how Political Correctness is on the brink of ruining societies.

OK, I'm not an expert or anything on the topic of Sharia. I do believe it is the best system. Yes, it is very harsh, but a theif will think twice before stealing if his hand, and not just jail time, is on the line. I can't remember, but in the first 600 years of Islam, only 4 hands were chopped off for stealing. Either that, or 400 years and 6 hands. But Sharia has a whole procedure before dishing out punishment. It's not like they can go around killing gays and adulterers without trial. It's near impossible to prove someone is gay if they aren't announcing it to the world, as for adultery, you have to have 4 witnesses who observed the offenders having actual intercourse. Meaning they saw the dick in the pussy.
It should be noted that the purpose if Sharia is not to punish, but rather to preserve people's rights. The punishments aren't there to punish, they are there to deter people from commiting the crime in the first place. That is why they are so harsh.
Also, Islam is a religion of graduality. When Prophet Muhammad forbade alchohol, he didn't just stand up one day and say "No more drinking." That would have resulted in something like the American prohibition. He did it gradually. He forbade it during the day so people wouldn't slur their prayers, and continued restricting its use until he forbade it all together. Also, Sharia isn't something that can be done by the people. It has to be done by the Islamic state. Britain is far from ready to have Sharia law imposed, and it sure as hell isn't an Islamic state.
In Islam, when you are in the land of another people, you must abide by their laws.
I thought the Muslims were becoming better, but in an attempt to get closer to Islam they have done nothing but deviated.
*Hangs head in shame*

Originally Posted by Kushna Mufeed

OK, I'm not an expert or anything on the topic of Sharia. I do believe it is the best system. Yes, it is very harsh, but a theif will think twice before stealing if his hand, and not just jail time, is on the line. I can't remember, but in the first 600 years of Islam, only 4 hands were chopped off for stealing. Either that, or 400 years and 6 hands. But Sharia has a whole procedure before dishing out punishment. It's not like they can go around killing gays and adulterers without trial. It's near impossible to prove someone is gay if they aren't announcing it to the world, as for adultery, you have to have 4 witnesses who observed the offenders having actual intercourse. Meaning they saw the dick in the pussy.
It should be noted that the purpose if Sharia is not to punish, but rather to preserve people's rights. The punishments aren't there to punish, they are there to deter people from commiting the crime in the first place. That is why they are so harsh.

I hope you're kidding. We don't want this barbaric anti-human nonsense in Western culture. Sharia law is as stupid as you would expect a set of laws to be that was created some thousand years ago in a desert. Sharian law is the epitome of intolerance, violence, hatred, injustice and ignorance. I seriously hope you're kidding.

Also, if you think that homosexuality and adultery should be punished, you have my utmost contempt.

Also, Islam is a religion of graduality. When Prophet Muhammad forbade alchohol, he didn't just stand up one day and say "No more drinking." That would have resulted in something like the American prohibition. He did it gradually. He forbade it during the day so people wouldn't slur their prayers, and continued restricting its use until he forbade it all together. Also, Sharia isn't something that can be done by the people. It has to be done by the Islamic state. Britain is far from ready to have Sharia law imposed, and it sure as hell isn't an Islamic state.

Far from ready? Where's your head? Sharia law doesn't belong anywhere near any government whatsoever. It would bring us back to far before the middle ages.

We don't believe in capital punishment in Britain. There's no way Muslims in the UK will ever be allowed to kill their own to honour Sharia law.

I don't see what the big deal is. If Muslims want to shit their pants every time they get "offended" then let them do so. That'll make it easier for me when I spark a sweeping movement worldwide as bring their pansy Desert-Dwelling asses into reality.

Now that is religious intolerance (see post above)

It isn't the Muslims getting offended, it is the judges believing that Muslims could potentially be offended, and eliminating the story that they think offends as a result.

Kushna Mufeed didn't seem to care!

^ But now you're being intolerant to my philosophy which demands religious intolerance!

I'm gonna SUE!

People being offended is of zero significance. I don't care.

Yes, but dont you see that is a self defeating proposal. As your philosophy promotes intolerance, therefore, I should be rewarded for calling it intolerant.




Korritke I wasn't talking to you, if thats what you think. Your post wasn't explicitly intolerant.

I still felt compelled to reply.
Religious intolerance doesn't make any more sense than cosmological intolerance, philosophical intolerance, chemical intolerance or sociological intolerance.

does racism come under sociological intolerance?

Originally Posted by psychology student

does racism come under sociological intolerance?

No.

The one difference that makes gender/race/age/sexuality intolerance non-legit and religious intolerance legit is responsibility and intellectual honesty. You are neither responsible for gender/race/age/sexuality nor can or should you change it. Obviously religion doesn't fall into that category.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Yes, but dont you see that is a self defeating proposal. As your philosophy promotes intolerance, therefore, I should be rewarded for calling it intolerant.

No, because you were being intolerant to my intolerance. Which is intolerable.

Seismosaur :Now your being deliberately intolerant to logic and sense

Korritke:
Haven't we had this debate before? In some circumstances, religion is virtually as innate as the things you listed.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Seismosaur :Now your being deliberately intolerant to logic and sense

1. Prove it.
2. This is the same argument I have against religion.

You obviously didn't get that.

If the British were moving to Muslim lands en masse and demanding that the natives conform to them and give them special rights, it would be called colonization, not immigration.

Ok, you said that you have a philosophy of intolerance to religion.
And then you accused me of intolerance to the philosophy when I accused you of intolerance to Islam.
You, being an athiest obviously have a belief in science, thus I deduce that any of your philosophies also are rooted in Science. Science is built on universal general rules. Therefore, your philosophy encouraging intolerance to religion, implies (because of the latter) intolerance to everything (universal rules).

Therefore, my intolerance to you is a good thing, in the name of your philosophy as it comes under the universal banner of intolerance.

However, you said otherwise, that my intolerance was intolerable by your philosophy, which contradicts the above logic I have shown. Therefore when you said: "No, because you were being intolerant to my intolerance. Which is intolerable", you were being "deliberately intolerant to logic and sense". As shown above.




Stevehattan: That is an interesting way to look at it! It implies double standards.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Ok, you said that you have a philosophy of intolerance to religion.
And then you accused me of intolerance to the philosophy when I accused you of intolerance to Islam.
You, being an athiest obviously have a belief in science, thus I deduce that any of your philosophies also are rooted in Science. Science is built on universal general rules. Therefore, your philosophy encouraging intolerance to religion, implies (because of the latter) intolerance to everything (universal rules).

Therefore, my intolerance to you is a good thing, in the name of your philosophy as it comes under the universal banner of intolerance.

However, you said otherwise, that my intolerance was intolerable by your philosophy, which contradicts the above logic I have shown. Therefore when you said: "No, because you were being intolerant to my intolerance. Which is intolerable", you were being "deliberately intolerant to logic and sense". As shown above.

And you seriously can't see the connection or the fact that that was a hypothetical philosophy?

Which brings us back to your initial intolerance. Tell me more about that.

See what we mean?

No, I don't. Maybe my faith has made me permenantly blind.