In the Interests of Equality

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by imom1406, Sep 18, 2006.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. So the Pope has apologised for repeating a comment made along time ago. Still in the modern and entirely non - overreactive way that certain parts of the Islamic community behave over these kind of things (cartoons of the profit, Forest Gate...etc..) like firebombing Western Interests and shooting a Nun......

    Lets have a sweepstake to see how long it would take to arrest a WASP burning an effigy of Ahmadinajad outside the Iranian consulate or chucking firebombs at the Finsbury Park Mosque ...after all demonisation of Gay's and a call for their extermination, extermination of the state of Isreal , convert or die policy towards the west....aren't they things that are worth demonstrating over.....or are we sooo scared of our own shadows now and mustn't upset ethnic minorities religious beliefs.....Is Islam realy so frail and medievel it feels it's followers should kill people , set fire to things etc..when it gets criticised!!

    Where is the reason and argument.....you say something i don't agree with, i put a firebomb through your window...

    I used to be such a "live and let live " kind of guy, i don't even mind the protest....but the inequity is the thing that annoys the hell out of me. Where is the voice of decent law abiding peoples....who are the majority.....drowned out by fanatics and not given voice by the media..

    Really P*ssed Off today....
     
  2. Concur with your last. Ignorance abounds. :(

    There is little else to add! The Pope's message was complex and required thought - something the ignorant reactionary majority of people (of any religion) do not have.

    (The real question is: Who on earth advises the Pope? What sort of reaction did they think they might get? Are they so used to being ignored that they just don't consider it?)
     
  3. Trouble is, a lot of people outside Islam are now saying to themselves .."Old Ratzy has a point"...which really won't help the Islamic cause!

    By the way, here is the excert of the speech, read it and tell me what is wrong..i can't see it myself , seems perfectly sensible..

    "In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as
    the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying:

    "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable.

    Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...""
     
  4. Reason and Argument is what all Fundamentalist versions of Religions fear, and why they resort to violence, this is because their views do not stand up to question, as this exposes their weakness and the impossible nature of their position!
     
  5. That reminds me of trying to reason with CND supporters in my local high street in the 1980s. Their eventual response was to group together and shout the slogan 'Fas-chist! Fas-chist!'. They had of course lost their argument.

    Having read the full text of the Regensburg Address I don't know why he included the quotation at all. It was quoted in isolation and not explored further. Had he done the latter he would have averted the furore over his remarks by dissociating himself from the sentiment whilst addressing the historical context of the statement and its problematic status in theological discourse. It is legitimate to debate these things, but the RCC is on shakey ground itself when it promotes intolerance towards free discourse and conduct it dislikes. It seems to be a case of pots calling kettles black, in both cases!
     
  6. I guess the point of the thread was one of Equity, I am not RC or CofE. The reaction to a religious slight is so wildly overblown. The Christian or Jewish faiths do not burn effigies of Mohammed, firebomb mosques or shoot at the faithful, just because we are termed infidels and the great satan, but mildly criticise Islam and you end up with a Fatwa!!
     
  7. Regretably Christaians and Jews do indulge in acts of violence against other faiths under various pretexts, several mosques have been firebombed in the UK in recent years for example, and to this day we burn the effigy of a Catholic who was executed for treason. Yes there is no justification for such acts but the WASPs are not as innocent as you try to suggest.

    Moving on to AACs point the Popes words were taken out of context and wholly out of the context of the argument that he was making which was a general one that violence in support of a religion is not acceptable. It would seem that the actions ot the outraged Muslims were not as we would like to believe spontaneous but in fact the result of a well orchestrated campaign by extremists within the Muslim world. Such use of the 'mob' was common in the past both in Europe and in the UK and is still common in the less developed world.

    Peter
     
  8. Since when have i suggested that WASPs are innocent.....name me one instance (outside Northern Ireland) where a slight on the Christian or Jewish faith is met with violence today (2006).....and what the hell has Guy Fawkes got to do with this, unless the point your making is that according to Islam its is 1580....

    The comments are not meant to start a wave of self (oh weren't we awful) flagellation , but to point out todays reactions to religious comment!

    And you are right, the attacks post the cartoons and Ratzy's comments were orchestrated...of course they were that is my point!
     
  9. Yes and no imom. Jewish and Christian extremists may not target people or structures of other faiths but they still target people whose actions they disapprove of. We can see this in the targetting of black people in the Southern States of the US until the 1970s or the bombings or abortion clinics and murder of abortionists. We can see this with Pentecostal churches in Britain advocating voilence even the killing of children deemed to be possessed (and gays, whom they deem to be possessed also), or the eradication of gays openly mooted by RC politicians and clergy in Poland or Orthodox politicians and clergy in Lithuania and Serbia. The Church has be quiescent about acts of violence incited by Catholic Radio Maryja in Poland against either gays or Jews.
     
  10. Yes and no imom. Jewish and Christian extremists may not target people or structures of other faiths but they still target people whose actions they disapprove of. We can see this in the targetting of black people in the Southern States of the US until the 1970s or the bombings or abortion clinics and murder of abortionists. We can see this with Pentecostal churches in Britain advocating voilence even the killing of children deemed to be possessed (and gays, whom they deem to be possessed also), or the eradication of gays openly mooted by RC politicians and clergy in Poland or Orthodox politicians and clergy in Lithuania and Serbia. The Church has be quiescent about acts of violence incited by Catholic Radio Maryja in Poland against either gays or Jews.[/quote]

    I love history as much as the next man, but i am talking specifically about religion today. Religious acceptance of Gay's is a whole different kettle of fish worth it's own thread.

    I can criticise the Christian or Jewish faiths without some Christian or Jewish nut believing i can be killed for what i say.....and before anyone says "in the old days you'd be a heretic" yes i know, but i don't live in the Old Days, supposedly i live in an enlightened age!?!
     
  11. A correction

    Current Islamic Year = 1417
    Gunpowder plot = 1605

    Apologies for the use of artistic licence to make a point.
     

  12. So attacks on Muslims are OK if they are not a part of an orchestrated Christian or Jewish campaign. Does a persons religion realy matter if the attack some one or thing because they or it represent a religion or culture they do not like.

    Equally is it OK for a nation to think very high levels of collateral damage are acceptable because those people are of a different religion or culture, I am thinking of the women, children and UN observers who died in Israels recent cock up in Lebanon.

    Peter
     
  13. Hang on and wind your neck in attacks of any sort are unacceptable.

    Lebanon is an entirely different situation, They didn't attack lebanon because Hesbollah said something unpleasant about King David or Moses. i also have my reservations about that whole episode.

    "Does a persons religion realy matter if the attack some one or thing because they or it represent a religion or culture they do not like."

    Yes if religious belief is the excuse being used by the attackers!

    For clarity....I am not advocating all non-Muslims take up molotov cocktails and throw them at your local Hal al butcher or mosque...equally in the same breath i am saying, what gives people under the flag of protecting islam the right to shoot a nun and firebomb churches etc...? Is the religion so fragile it cannot stand up to criticism.....
     
  14. And I am saying nothing gives any one the right to do such acts for what ever reasons. And at the same time we should not ignore our own deficiencies in that area. Racial/religious attacks are not that uncommon in the UK. People in North America take a dislike to their work/school mates and let fly with firearms.

    I would suggest that any one who acts in a way which suggests that life of some other group is in some way less valuable than his own is himself less than human.

    For most of us the 'high moral ground' is in fact the top of a very slippery slope, that leads to a heap of sh*t.

    Peter
     
  15. Absolutely agree!
     
  16. I think that there are those in Islam who have deliberately misquoted or misinterpreted the Great Bead Jiggler's ramblings and presented it as "The Pope says Islam is evil" to their uneducated and unwashed minions in order to stir up trouble and strife.

    Then there's the likes of the Pakistani government minister saying things like "Those who say Islam is not a peaceful religion invite violence" or summat like that. Has that bloke had an irony bypass?

    To defend your religion against allegations of violence by shooting nuns and blowing up churches seems ever so slightly contradictory don't you think?
     
  17. There is something taught on MBA courses called "Equity Theory" basically one of the biggest sources of discontent in companies is when people do not feel that they all live by the same rules. This also applies in the wider world...I think that is where a lot of anger comes from in the UK and indeed in the liberal west, we have seen it with reaction to an English Parliament, EU members not sticking to the rules when the UK does and percieved inequities and licence given to excuse behaiuours seen in recent protests.

    There you go that was the whole point of the thread!
     
  18. So what has happened here? Was the Pope's address so complex in meaning, that the person in the street could not understand it and it was therefore assumed he was belittling Islam?
     
  19. There are extremists who would kill you were you to make statements they considered offensive on their patch, though they do not appear to typically target Muslims, but again we are talking about the real extremists here.
     
  20. Equity theory is fine and I support the concept, but to work it has to bring both sides together and that almost always means compromise.

    Yes there are angry people in the West, but there are also a lot of angry Muslims, and I suspect you telling that they should buck up and conform to our model of life will just make them evem more angry. Dialogue and reconciliation may bring a solution where they can see our point of view in a less hostile way, and perhaps we can also see their point of view in a way that makes us less angry to.


    At the moment you seem to be on the very slippery moral high ground.

    Peter
     

Share This Page