|
|
Post by sheepy on Aug 25, 2023 16:39:35 GMT
wapentake I don’t think trying to enforce respect is practical, and the concept just seems wrong anyway. But in our current society, bearing in mind the numerous divisions within it, a pragmatic approach does seem to demand that some limit has to be placed on the degree to which any group can disrespect another. And yes, rightly or wrongly, the degree to which a sector of the population is willing to, or is strong enough to protect their culture, does have to be taken into account. To stick with the current more narrow religious perspective. Think back to when the proposed changes to the Sunday trading laws were being debated. Now if there was a strong reaction, with hundreds of thousands of Christians saying ‘Sunday is Special, respect the Sabbath, this is a Christian Country’ etc etc, and they threatened to march on Parliament with flaming torches to demonstrate their strength of feeling to MPs, the legislation would have been dropped like a hot potato. In reality we knew the Churchgoers were too weak and that they’d meekly cave in. ‘Listen you geriatric old fools, British culture has changed, we worship Tesco’s special offers these days, we want Sky TV and Premier League football and churches turned into carpet warehouses and bingo halls …… we worship Mammon now, geddit ? …Sunday trading, here it comes baby !!!’ What was left of Christian Britain was never going to lift a finger to protect its culture. So practicalities play a big part, if the Christians were going to ‘kick off’ about protecting their culture, things would have been different …… we knew how far we could disrespect them and get away with it. But it’s always a case of judging where you can draw the line with your disrespect. Remember the Orangemen or is it the Apprentice Boys who liked to march through the Catholic areas of Belfast or wherever. Where to draw the line ? Is the march itself too disrespectful ? …… can they march include someone at the front holding a placard saying ‘I don’t respect the Catholic religion’ ? Maybe we say good old British free speech, we have to allow and protect that, whether the Catholics like it or not ? But what about an Orangemen march through a Catholic area, including numerous placards saying ‘The Pope is a Homosexual Paedophile !!’ …. then the need for the good old British tradition of free speech goes out the window ... .practicalities take over ….. faced with the Catholics going ape-shit, and the decision on the degree of disrespect that it’s sensible to permit has not only been reached, but exceeded. We can say a Mosque is a bloody awful building, that it’s a blot on the landscape, Boris can say that Muslim women in burkas look like letter boxes, but distributing a film that negatively portrays Mohammed, and we’ve hit the height of disrespect in the eyes of a not inconsiderable sector of Britain’s population. They’re not demanding respect, they’re saying don’t actively disrespect, particularly in a way that to them is the most offensive possible. If you create a diverse Society, the cultural dynamics change, or at least can fluctuate. Those who would have wanted to protect and respect our church-going culture, were overpowered and defeated by the followers of the newer shopping culture that has more followers and more believers …. in the power of retail therapy. The Catholics of the Falls Road had enough petrol bombs stored in their garden sheds to make sure that only a set level of disrespect towards them was tolerated. The Muslims have the numbers and the commitment to the cause to also ensure that a line is drawn as to the level of disrespect that can be shown. Britain’s culture of making satirical films can ‘carry on’ quite contentedly, it just has to observe a couple of rules regarding extreme disrespect and antagonism, and in so doing will avoid being taught a fiery lesson …… and a peaceful co-existence can be maintained for very little sacrifice in exchange. Seems a bit unfair, so everybody else can have lack of respect army as long as there is nobody willing to make sure it goes both ways. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Aug 25, 2023 17:16:03 GMT
Britain’s culture of making satirical films can ‘carry on’ quite contentedly, it just has to observe a couple of rules regarding extreme disrespect and antagonism, and in so doing will avoid being taught a fiery lesson …… and a peaceful co-existence can be maintained for very little sacrifice in exchange. I think you are kidding yourself there - we had one kid who got in the almighty shit for dropping a copy of the Koran on the floor so the chances of anyone making a film poking fun at Mo (PB UH) is a total nonstarter.. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 25, 2023 17:32:29 GMT
Perhaps people with a sense of humour need to form their own criminal mob and start issuing some violent threats of their own
"if you threaten one of our comedians, we will find out who you are. Just fuck around and find out"
If this is now a legitimate way to influence the public conversation, they might as well join in
|
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Aug 25, 2023 19:14:04 GMT
Orac
Well of course ...it would be little more than adopting the tactics that the humourless Wokeists have used so effectively.
They phone up and say 'We hear on good Authority that your pub has agreed to host Katie Hopkins for a speaking engagement,
we know where you are, and if you know what's good for you, and don't want the Brewery inundated with letters of complaint you'll cancel
her straight away'
Just as Sheffield Council in particular, and many others tried to grind Roy Chubby Browns career to a halt by deeming all venues off limits, the same for Bernard Manning in his latter years, and this month at the Edinburgh Fringe if you hope to perform any non Woke branded/approved
comedy.
And the 'mob' doesn't have to be criminal, when multinational banking conspired to target and clobber our Nige, to the extent that Farage was contemplating leaving the country because he was being non-personed by the Banking establishment, the mob fought back in sufficient numbers, that the banks decided they'd fucked around too much with the hero of Brexit and realised they didn't enjoy being on the receiving end. They could dish it out, but didn't want to take it.
Pro-activity is the way, it's no good sitting back and hoping the overwhelmingly Woke politicians will come to your rescue ....look at Shapps, he'd meekly accepted the situation, and hadn't uttered a word, it was only when Farage rallied the mob, and victory was scented, that Shapps dared to pop his head up and claim 'Me too !'
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Sept 9, 2023 19:48:51 GMT
Wapentake People felt intimidated about skinheads wearing Fred Perry T shirts, jeans, braces, and Dr.Marten boots that laced up almost to their knees, while flexing their sharpened metal combs as they walked along Southend seafront. But we didn't ban DM's or Fred Perry polo shirts .... or scary Halloween costumes from being worn on 31st October. If the French feel big and tough about themselves by picking on Muslim women, it tells us more about the French than the victims of their clothing laws .... aimed at one section of their society. Bringing in clothing laws would indicate that we DO feel intimidated ... by nothing more than a polite quiet female follower of Islam .....God forbid Britain ever stoops that low. The French feel every bit as determined to keep France French as Muslims feel the need to impose Muslim needs onto France. IIRC, the Koran says that while in a non-Muslim country, Muslims should follow the laws of that country, just as long as they keep Islam in their hearts. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Sept 9, 2023 20:21:21 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Sept 9, 2023 22:16:54 GMT
see2
Well said See2, and knowing this you would have been highly suspicious from the outset, at attempts to portray the talk referenced in the opening post as an instructional talk, with seemingly a singular purpose of informing as to the procedure to be adopted when stoning someone to death.
25 or 26 seconds clipped out and isolated from the context of the whole 45 minute talk can give a highly misleading impression, and dredging up stuff that's a couple of years old caused renewed difficulties for the Green Lane mosque..... as their spokesperson, Sister Umm Talha, explained last month:
“False stories, malicious social media attacks and the torrent of hate they invite can put our staff and congregation in real danger,” says Sister Umm Talha, a spokesperson for the mosque. “We and the police need to take these attacks very seriously because we cannot forget that ten years ago an 82-year-old man was brutally murdered in an anti-Muslim hate crime while returning home from evening prayers at Green Lane Mosque. This latest round of social media abuse and hate mail will not deter us from the extensive youth and community work we do. We are grateful to the police for their concern and support at this worrying time.”
The full 45-minute lecture that the video clip comes from was a wide-ranging theological discourse that included the recounting of events in Arabia over 1,400 years ago to provide historical context. “The imam was giving a talk on faith and forgiveness,” Sister Umm Talha further explains. “The video clip was edited and lacks context. He was reading and explaining topics from a classical theological book. When reading this material, he did not suggest that these practices have a place in UK society. Far from advocating violence, he denounced cultural practices like so-called ‘honour killings’ in his lecture. Muslim teachings are clear that it is not permissible to engage in practices that go against the laws of the land, whether in the UK or abroad.”
GLMCC promptly removed the entire video from all its online platforms over two years ago when the edited clip that has now resurfaced was first made and shared, to prevent any unintended misunderstanding. The mosque rejects violent extremism and hate crime and actively encourages respect and tolerance between communities in its extensive work with many different organisations and faith groups in the West Midlands and beyond.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Sept 15, 2023 9:56:09 GMT
wapentake I don’t think trying to enforce respect is practical, and the concept just seems wrong anyway. But in our current society, bearing in mind the numerous divisions within it, a pragmatic approach does seem to demand that some limit has to be placed on the degree to which any group can disrespect another. And yes, rightly or wrongly, the degree to which a sector of the population is willing to, or is strong enough to protect their culture, does have to be taken into account. To stick with the current more narrow religious perspective. Think back to when the proposed changes to the Sunday trading laws were being debated. Now if there was a strong reaction, with hundreds of thousands of Christians saying ‘Sunday is Special, respect the Sabbath, this is a Christian Country’ etc etc, and they threatened to march on Parliament with flaming torches to demonstrate their strength of feeling to MPs, the legislation would have been dropped like a hot potato. In reality we knew the Churchgoers were too weak and that they’d meekly cave in. ‘Listen you geriatric old fools, British culture has changed, we worship Tesco’s special offers these days, we want Sky TV and Premier League football and churches turned into carpet warehouses and bingo halls …… we worship Mammon now, geddit ? …Sunday trading, here it comes baby !!!’ What was left of Christian Britain was never going to lift a finger to protect its culture. So practicalities play a big part, if the Christians were going to ‘kick off’ about protecting their culture, things would have been different …… we knew how far we could disrespect them and get away with it. But it’s always a case of judging where you can draw the line with your disrespect. Remember the Orangemen or is it the Apprentice Boys who liked to march through the Catholic areas of Belfast or wherever. Where to draw the line ? Is the march itself too disrespectful ? …… can they march include someone at the front holding a placard saying ‘I don’t respect the Catholic religion’ ? Maybe we say good old British free speech, we have to allow and protect that, whether the Catholics like it or not ? But what about an Orangemen march through a Catholic area, including numerous placards saying ‘The Pope is a Homosexual Paedophile !!’ …. then the need for the good old British tradition of free speech goes out the window ... .practicalities take over ….. faced with the Catholics going ape-shit, and the decision on the degree of disrespect that it’s sensible to permit has not only been reached, but exceeded. We can say a Mosque is a bloody awful building, that it’s a blot on the landscape, Boris can say that Muslim women in burkas look like letter boxes, but distributing a film that negatively portrays Mohammed, and we’ve hit the height of disrespect in the eyes of a not inconsiderable sector of Britain’s population. They’re not demanding respect, they’re saying don’t actively disrespect, particularly in a way that to them is the most offensive possible. If you create a diverse Society, the cultural dynamics change, or at least can fluctuate. Those who would have wanted to protect and respect our church-going culture, were overpowered and defeated by the followers of the newer shopping culture that has more followers and more believers …. in the power of retail therapy. The Catholics of the Falls Road had enough petrol bombs stored in their garden sheds to make sure that only a set level of disrespect towards them was tolerated. The Muslims have the numbers and the commitment to the cause to also ensure that a line is drawn as to the level of disrespect that can be shown. Britain’s culture of making satirical films can ‘carry on’ quite contentedly, it just has to observe a couple of rules regarding extreme disrespect and antagonism, and in so doing will avoid being taught a fiery lesson …… and a peaceful co-existence can be maintained for very little sacrifice in exchange. So what you are saying, then, is that because the Christian Church is unwilling to perform any of the torah-prescribed punishments for breaches of god’s laws such as those described here … rationalwiki.org/wiki/Why_can%27t_I_own_a_Canadian%3F… it follows that Christianity, Christians and Christendom should be afforded a lesser degree of protection in law than Islamists, and the Caliphate, because THEY ARE…. As an aside, i note with considerable outrage the original post which for decades sat on a humanist website as a beacon of hope of those convinced of the need for a right to take the piss out of religion has been taken down. I wonder if this act of cowardice was prompted by the lawyers acting for the producers of ‘The West Wing’ who claim they wrote the script for ‘Jed Bartlett’ to make this speech to an anti abortionist or the Jewish Chronicle for suggesting the article was jew hatred. I think it must also be stated that the british government has for many decades bent over and taken it up the shitter every time the republican factions in ireland whinge about the actions of the faction opposed to extermination of the six counties, whilst coming down with a ton of bricks when they try to assert their identity and their wish not to be forced to unify with the murdering scum to the south who chose a hundred years ago to secede from the union of the United Kingdom Of Great Britain And IRELAND and used violence to do so, and yet unbelieveably have been listened to and obeyed in their objections to the nation state they seceded from with violence seceding from a larger union because a majority of its enfranchised citizens voted to do so I said when the IRA blew up chunks of Manchester, Birminghan and Newport and tried to blow up bits of Cardiff the ONLY acceotable solution was to nuke the fuckers. And this is what you get today fir not doing so. |
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Sept 15, 2023 12:41:04 GMT
johnofgwent Seen through the eyes of a modern Government, wishing to have a minimum of societal volatility as possible, it's what does and will happen, rather than necessarily what should happen. Take a strong enough lead on an issue and 'protection of law' will fall into line and follow as a matter of course. For instance, the Islamic community to a noticeable and active extent, have taken action against blasphemy. What that collection of degenerates, sodomites, and warmongers assembled in Westminster thought was incidental, 'protection in (man made) law' was irrelevant. And in an attempt to save face, as I think has been discussed, Government has acquiesced and provided an effective blasphemy law by disguising it under cover of, and within public order legislation. If your society changes to such an extent that the old legislation will cause more trouble to enforce than it will to uphold, changes will be made to reflect the new reality, just as we go down a gradual path of allowing soft drugs, only nicking the occasional dealer rather than users etc ….. as we continue on the steady journey toward legalisation. Christianity seems to have buckled under and now worships at the same LGBTQ+/Woke alter, as does the various strands of Government, so they've solved any problem of needing 'protection in law' by immersing themselves in the preachings of modern Western society, and giving up the Bible some time ago. As the Welsh Methodist chapels converted to carpet warehouses will testify to  |
|
