1. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    29 Nov '07 14:34
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But the poster is effectively blaming the religion for the political system in a particular part of the world. He should be pointing his finger at the particular countries political system and not at the religion in general.

    The truth is that many Christians would act in exactly the same way if given a chance.(and it has happened in the past).
    And there you go taking a jab at Christianity. Why? I'm atheist, that doesn't prove any point. If someone attacks Christianity, would you bring up extreme examples of Islam? I doubt it.

    The political system isn't independent of religion. The political organization of certain Islamic leaders is extremely active. The problem isn't the utopian conception of Islam, nor the fact that many Muslims would disagree with such entrenchment.

    The fact remains that we cannot point the finger at that political system without pointing the finger at such interpretations of Islam. Religious freedom requires a system that is religiously tolerant.
  2. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    29 Nov '07 14:56
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Religious freedom requires a system that is religiously tolerant.
    Why?
  3. PenTesting
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    247831
    29 Nov '07 15:07
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Why?
    Maybe there is a connection between freedom and tolerance?
  4. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    29 Nov '07 15:21
    Originally posted by Starrman
    Why?
    That's pretty obvious. If you live within a system that is religiously intolerant, then you don't have freedom of religion. Even if the system is partial towards your denomination, the inability to change religion without any setbacks imposes limits on your religious freedom.
  5. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    29 Nov '07 15:59
    Originally posted by Palynka
    That's pretty obvious. If you live within a system that is religiously intolerant, then you don't have freedom of religion. Even if the system is partial towards your denomination, the inability to change religion without any setbacks imposes limits on your religious freedom.
    Your inconsistency on such matters is breathtaking. I thought you supported the suppression of "hate speech"? The charges against her are "insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs." Don't you agree that "inciting hatred" should be a crime?
  6. Standard memberknightmeister
    knightmeister
    Uk
    Joined
    21 Jan '06
    Moves
    443
    29 Nov '07 16:11
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    But the poster is effectively blaming the religion for the political system in a particular part of the world. He should be pointing his finger at the particular countries political system and not at the religion in general.

    The truth is that many Christians would act in exactly the same way if given a chance.(and it has happened in the past).
    The truth is that many Christians would act in exactly the same way if given a chance -whitey---------

    But the vast majority wouldn't .

    The difference between Christianity and Islam is that non-violence is at the heart of Christ's example to us , whereas in Mohammed it appears not to be so. So although Christians have acted badly in the past (and today) they are following a distorted Jesus. I can't see how Jesus would have sanctioned 40 lashes for something like this (or for anything)
  7. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    29 Nov '07 16:16
    Originally posted by knightmeister
    The truth is that many Christians would act in exactly the same way if given a chance -whitey---------

    But the vast majority wouldn't .

    The difference between Christianity and Islam is that non-violence is at the heart of Christ's example to us , whereas in Mohammed it appears not to be so. So although Christians have acted badly in the past (an ...[text shortened]... can't see how Jesus would have sanctioned 40 lashes for something like this (or for anything)
    Jesus was in favor of abandoning all punishments for any violation of the criminal law?
  8. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    29 Nov '07 16:25
    Originally posted by Palynka
    That's pretty obvious. If you live within a system that is religiously intolerant, then you don't have freedom of religion. Even if the system is partial towards your denomination, the inability to change religion without any setbacks imposes limits on your religious freedom.
    But religion is full of fake freedoms already, threat of force (hell), lack of free will, denomination by cultural/parental osmosis etc. Religion is institutionally intolerant of freedoms, why should it require a tolerant system?
  9. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    29 Nov '07 18:00
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Your inconsistency on such matters is breathtaking. I thought you supported the suppression of "hate speech"? The charges against her are "insulting religion, [b]inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs." Don't you agree that "inciting hatred" should be a crime?[/b]
    She wasn't inciting hatred. Simple.

    As usual, you miss the plot.
  10. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    29 Nov '07 18:05
    Originally posted by Starrman
    But religion is full of fake freedoms already, threat of force (hell), lack of free will, denomination by cultural/parental osmosis etc. Religion is institutionally intolerant of freedoms, why should it require a tolerant system?
    Do you wish to argue that ALL forms of religion are intolerant? If not, your argument is void.
  11. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    29 Nov '07 19:32
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Do you wish to argue that ALL forms of religion are intolerant? If not, your argument is void.
    How so? My argument can apply to the three major religions alone, given that I'm generalising only towards the vast majority of the religious world community. An argument for marginal cases is hardly very damaging.
  12. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    29 Nov '07 20:40
    Originally posted by Starrman
    How so? My argument can apply to the three major religions alone, given that I'm generalising only towards the vast majority of the religious world community. An argument for marginal cases is hardly very damaging.
    You were questioning my abstract point.

    If you wish to argue my point, is one thing. If you wish to argue that these three religions fall into the intolerant category (and therefore do not respect religious freedom) then I still don't see why my point is not valid.
  13. Subscriberjosephw
    Owner
    Scoffer Mocker
    Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9958
    29 Nov '07 23:51
    Originally posted by Rajk999
    You can, without facing 6 mths in jail and 40 lashes.
    Whats your point?
    Intolerance of Islam.
  14. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    30 Nov '07 14:253 edits
    Originally posted by Palynka
    She wasn't inciting hatred. Simple.

    As usual, you miss the plot.
    Neither was Irving, but he went to jail.

    I'm glad that you are able to ascertain all the facts of a case and come to a conclusion while hearing only one side. Most impressive.

    You may consider the following facts (but you probably won't):

    1. She was a teacher of Sudanese children of mostly upper class backgrounds. These parents obviously weren't Muslim fundamentalists or they woulddn't have allowed an English women to teach their kids.

    2. The people who initially complained about the incident weren't the clerics, but the parents of those children. They apparently felt that the teachers actions were an incitement and one they didn't want their children exposed to (how "intolerant" of them!).

    3. The school disavowed any foreknowledge of the teacher's little "project" and fired her based on the parents' complaints BEFORE any legal action was taken.

    I know from past experience that you won't address these facts in any detail and will only response with snotty, cryptic statements that mean nothing. But your inconsistency in these matters remains mind-boggling; according to you someone on these forums who uses a word that MIGHT offend somebody deserves punishment, but if a teacher does something that offends the religious sensibilities of the parents (who were paying her salary) of the children she is teaching, they have no right to demand that it be corrected.

    EDIT: Where have I heard this before?:

    “She got a very light punishment,” said Rabie A. Atti, a government spokesman. “Actually, it’s not much of a punishment at all. It should be considered a warning that such acts should not be repeated.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/world/africa/30sudan.html?em&ex=1196571600&en=a34103a9bb6c2a52&ei=5087%0A
  15. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    30 Nov '07 14:34
    She was found guilty of "insulting religion" and got 15 days in jail and will be deported.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7119399.stm


    The "mountain out of a mole hill" crowd when it concerns Islam may now continue screeching. While jail seems a bit harsh, she obviously shouldn't have been teaching Muslim kids in an Islamic country if she was so ignorant of what actions were acceptable in that position.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree