|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
benelsmore wrote:afromanGT wrote:notorganic wrote:I see this will now be the anti-islam thread. FTFY Can the mods lock it, lest this whole website be portrayed as complete bigots? I love this post. This is why islamaphobia is the way it is. Remember kids, it's not bigotry if muslims are involved. Then it's totally correct and deserved.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:benelsmore wrote:afromanGT wrote:notorganic wrote:I see this will now be the anti-islam thread. FTFY Can the mods lock it, lest this whole website be portrayed as complete bigots? I love this post. This is why islamaphobia is the way it is. Remember kids, it's not bigotry if muslims are involved. Then it's totally correct and deserved. What are you smoking? I think the use of the word bigotry is over-zealous.
|
|
|
|
|
KenGooner_GCU
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Didn't Ugandans pass a law condemning gays to death in the name of Christian law? Something I heard, don't quote me on that but the point still stands. People who are condemning Islamists for wanting Sharia law should also be condemning Christian lobby groups. The law cannot step in on either occasion. What it can do though, is impose the law it has already and that is why these whippings will be punished by law irrespective of religion. What really ballsed up science in the Islamic world was this idea that scripture was sacred and therefore the printing press was "unislamic".
Hello
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
KenGooner_GCU wrote:Didn't Ugandans pass a law condemning gays to death in the name of Christian law? Something I heard, don't quote me on that but the point still stands. People who are condemning Islamists for wanting Sharia law should also be condemning Christian lobby groups. The law cannot step in on either occasion. What it can do though, is impose the law it has already and that is why these whippings will be punished by law irrespective of religion.
What really ballsed up science in the Islamic world was this idea that scripture was sacred and therefore the printing press was "unislamic". I think you're right. Its a problem with RADICAL religionists and the societies that allow them to multiply. GENERAL NOTE: NOTE THE BOLD BEFORE SOMEONE HAS A CRY AT ME ATTACKING RELIGION AND CALLS ME A BIGOT :roll: Edited by benelsmore: 28/2/2013 04:36:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
melbournefanatic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 892,
Visits: 0
|
Bigot is thrown around too easily these days.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
melbournefanatic wrote:Bigot is thrown around too easily these days. It's probably due to its prolificy from people making sweeping generalisations about things they have no understanding of.
|
|
|
|
|
KenGooner_GCU
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
benelsmore wrote:KenGooner_GCU wrote:Didn't Ugandans pass a law condemning gays to death in the name of Christian law? Something I heard, don't quote me on that but the point still stands. People who are condemning Islamists for wanting Sharia law should also be condemning Christian lobby groups. The law cannot step in on either occasion. What it can do though, is impose the law it has already and that is why these whippings will be punished by law irrespective of religion.
What really ballsed up science in the Islamic world was this idea that scripture was sacred and therefore the printing press was "unislamic". I think you're right. Its a problem with RADICAL religionists and the societies that allow them to multiply. GENERAL NOTE: NOTE THE BOLD BEFORE SOMEONE HAS A CRY AT ME ATTACKING RELIGION AND CALLS ME A BIGOT :roll: Edited by benelsmore: 28/2/2013 04:36:05 PM Who gave you the right to determine what was orthodox in politics? What I have a problem with is vigilantes who don't care about the law we have in place now.
Hello
|
|
|
|
|
melbournefanatic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 892,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:melbournefanatic wrote:Bigot is thrown around too easily these days. It's probably due to its prolificy from people making sweeping generalisations about things they have no understanding of. They don't make sweeping generalisations about all people of one faith, they make generalisations about religious radicals that are immune to insult. Anyone who casts negative assertions about this minority is seen as casting aspersions at the majority. Thus called bigots.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
melbournefanatic wrote:afromanGT wrote:melbournefanatic wrote:Bigot is thrown around too easily these days. It's probably due to its prolificy from people making sweeping generalisations about things they have no understanding of. They don't make sweeping generalisations about all people of one faith, they make generalisations about religious radicals that are immune to insult. Anyone who casts negative assertions about this minority is seen as casting aspersions at the majority. Thus called bigots. More often than not, the negative assertions cast over the radicals are carried on to the entire community. See the opinions of Polemides, TrueAnglo, et al.
|
|
|
|
|
melbournefanatic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 892,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:melbournefanatic wrote:afromanGT wrote:melbournefanatic wrote:Bigot is thrown around too easily these days. It's probably due to its prolificy from people making sweeping generalisations about things they have no understanding of. They don't make sweeping generalisations about all people of one faith, they make generalisations about religious radicals that are immune to insult. Anyone who casts negative assertions about this minority is seen as casting aspersions at the majority. Thus called bigots. More often than not, the negative assertions cast over the radicals are carried on to the entire community. See the opinions of Polemides, TrueAnglo, et al. They're just assholes with an agenda. People like you or me who critise radicals are often called bigots by the majority though, put in the same pile as Polemides and TrueAnglo. Kind of reverse-bigotry if you will.
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
KenGooner_GCU wrote:benelsmore wrote:KenGooner_GCU wrote:Didn't Ugandans pass a law condemning gays to death in the name of Christian law? Something I heard, don't quote me on that but the point still stands. People who are condemning Islamists for wanting Sharia law should also be condemning Christian lobby groups. The law cannot step in on either occasion. What it can do though, is impose the law it has already and that is why these whippings will be punished by law irrespective of religion.
What really ballsed up science in the Islamic world was this idea that scripture was sacred and therefore the printing press was "unislamic". I think you're right. Its a problem with RADICAL religionists and the societies that allow them to multiply. GENERAL NOTE: NOTE THE BOLD BEFORE SOMEONE HAS A CRY AT ME ATTACKING RELIGION AND CALLS ME A BIGOT :roll: Edited by benelsmore: 28/2/2013 04:36:05 PM Who gave you the right to determine what was orthodox in politics? What I have a problem with is vigilantes who don't care about the law we have in place now. I have no idea what you're on about there sorry Ken. Please can you explain further?
|
|
|
|
|
KenGooner_GCU
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Freedom of speech. Societies that allow them to multiply? What law are you going to put in place to stop people talking about radical law? My point was in the earlier post that religious law is wanted by both sides, Islamists who want Sharia and Christian lobbys influenced by biblical laws. Who gave people the right to say that one side is orthodox and the other not? I think they're both nutters.
Hello
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
KenGooner_GCU wrote:Freedom of speech. Societies that allow them to multiply? What law are you going to put in place to stop people talking about radical law?
My point was in the earlier post that religious law is wanted by both sides, Islamists who want Sharia and Christian lobbys influenced by biblical laws. Who gave people the right to say that one side is orthodox and the other not? I think they're both nutters. Oh I understand now, thanks. I completely agree. I'm all for the separation of church(es) and state. The problem politics will always face is politicians separating their own beliefs when making decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:I completely agree. I'm all for the separation of church(es) and state. The problem politics will always face is politicians separating their own beliefs when making decisions. The other problem is that religious people vote...
|
|
|
|
|
BETHFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:Quote:I completely agree. I'm all for the separation of church(es) and state. The problem politics will always face is politicians separating their own beliefs when making decisions. The other problem is that religious people vote... Of course. Good point. I think we get to see a lot of bigotry every time the homosexual union (marriage if you will) bill get thrown down, especially in the USA where each state has its own laws regarding the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:melbournefanatic wrote:Bigot is thrown around too easily these days. It's probably due to its prolificy from people making sweeping generalisations about things they have no understanding of. I agree. You really should stop using it.
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:afromanGT wrote:melbournefanatic wrote:Bigot is thrown around too easily these days. It's probably due to its prolificy from people making sweeping generalisations about things they have no understanding of. I agree. You really should stop using it. You're so desperate to get a shot off that you'll have a go at me for something you're equally as guilty off =d> =d> nice one.
|
|
|
|
|
TrueAnglo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 343,
Visits: 0
|
Gillard and Conroy and their attempts to control the news Quote:I would never tolerate a boss or politician telling me what editorial line to take on the radio. The only time I was told what to say was in the AWU Scandal on 2UE and I resigned over it. I think that people relate to people more than they relate to corporate brands. The Australian newspaper is today reporting this Stephen Conroy's pitch to control the news BY: DAVID CROWE, NATIONAL AFFAIRS EDITOR From:The Australian February 28, 2013 12:00AM CABINET ministers have canvassed a startling intervention in news and current affairs to prevent television networks from striking partnerships with other media companies in a sign of last-minute changes to reforms due within weeks. Communications Minister Stephen Conroy is understood to have put the proposals to Julia Gillard on Monday night in an attempt to stop the Ten Network from working with News Limited to produce a Sunday current affairs program. I don't think the danger in our media market come from proprietors. I think the dangers come from governments. Like here: Free-to-air TV reaps licence fee bonanza BY: DARREN DAVIDSON From:The Australian December 01, 2012 12:00AM THE commercial free-to-air television networks are set to benefit from a $100 million-plus licence fee rebate in a series of regulatory measures introduced by the Gillard government. and here http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2823983.htmand here http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/am-call-that-put-pms-old-news-on-front-page/story-fn59niix-1226128513341Find people you trust, names you know, question them, hold them accountable. And let's not tolerate crap like the bribes and bullying we're getting now instead of leadership from our government. http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/2013/02/gillard-and-conroy-and-their-attempts-to-control-the-news.html
|
|
|
|