This feels very wrong, police action
Discussion
Elysium said:
Rovinghawk said:
Elysium said:
As an enlightened society we have decided that there are two other things that individuals cannot change - their sexuality and their religious beliefs.
What is an apostate?
ks. You say people can't change their religion. Me pointing out that many people have done exactly that is highly relevant to your comment.Elysium said:
Our legal system does not expect people to have to renounce their religious beliefs to escape prejudice.
I never mentioned legal systems or prejudice- my point is that some people suddenly gain religion, some decide it's a load of hooey.My point stands- individuals can & do change their religious beliefs.
blindswelledrat said:
It's okay, Winston. We can use the phrase bigoted xenophobe if it hurts you so much to accept that a 1000 year old definition of a word might have changed a little over the years.
There, now, is that better?
If you want to stop hate crime, then you should probably start by not using hate language.There, now, is that better?
don4l said:
blindswelledrat said:
It's okay, Winston. We can use the phrase bigoted xenophobe if it hurts you so much to accept that a 1000 year old definition of a word might have changed a little over the years.
There, now, is that better?
If you want to stop hate crime, then you should probably start by not using hate language.There, now, is that better?
Islamophobia or Muslimophobia : the prejudice, hatred, or bigotry directed against Islam or Muslims.
There is undoubted hatred of Islam as a religion and Muslims as people demonstrated in certain threads.
Some would feel it justified due the actions of some muslims or actions in the name of Islam (terrorism, stabbings etc) and they justify such thoughts on here.
If the cap fits then wear it.
BIANCO said:
blindswelledrat said:
Yet you can't grasp that language evolves and definitions change and that 99.9% of people would consider being anti-muslim to be 'racist' by any modern definition.
THe only people who would not accept that language evolution, it appears, are the ones who want to say whatever they like about muslims and use a 500 year old dictionary as some kind of magic shield. It's about as convincing as 'I have a black friend so I can't be racist'.
So if someone was anti scientology and criticized and ridiculed it would that make them a racist? THe only people who would not accept that language evolution, it appears, are the ones who want to say whatever they like about muslims and use a 500 year old dictionary as some kind of magic shield. It's about as convincing as 'I have a black friend so I can't be racist'.
t crazy beliefs, however? It's not to be encouraged.rscott said:
There's no proof at all of the bold - that's true. There's plenty of proof in your posting history (sadly mainly on threads which have been removed) that you seem to see an anti-Islamic link to events where most people don't.
How does kicking him out the pub 'stifle discussion of Islam'? Were he and the 17 other football fans kicked out of the same pub at the same time all having a discussion about Islam?
There's the same amount of evidence that the police did this to stifle discussion of Islam as there is that they did it to annoy convicted fraudsters.
TBF initially the rest of the Luton fans weren't mentioned & it sounded very much like tr was turfed out for being tr which (as distasteful as his views & previous actions are) is not rightHow does kicking him out the pub 'stifle discussion of Islam'? Were he and the 17 other football fans kicked out of the same pub at the same time all having a discussion about Islam?
There's the same amount of evidence that the police did this to stifle discussion of Islam as there is that they did it to annoy convicted fraudsters.
irocfan said:
rscott said:
There's no proof at all of the bold - that's true. There's plenty of proof in your posting history (sadly mainly on threads which have been removed) that you seem to see an anti-Islamic link to events where most people don't.
How does kicking him out the pub 'stifle discussion of Islam'? Were he and the 17 other football fans kicked out of the same pub at the same time all having a discussion about Islam?
There's the same amount of evidence that the police did this to stifle discussion of Islam as there is that they did it to annoy convicted fraudsters.
TBF initially the rest of the Luton fans weren't mentioned & it sounded very much like tr was turfed out for being tr which (as distasteful as his views & previous actions are) is not rightHow does kicking him out the pub 'stifle discussion of Islam'? Were he and the 17 other football fans kicked out of the same pub at the same time all having a discussion about Islam?
There's the same amount of evidence that the police did this to stifle discussion of Islam as there is that they did it to annoy convicted fraudsters.
Rovinghawk said:
Elysium said:
Rovinghawk said:
Elysium said:
As an enlightened society we have decided that there are two other things that individuals cannot change - their sexuality and their religious beliefs.
What is an apostate?ks. You say people can't change their religion. Me pointing out that many people have done exactly that is highly relevant to your comment.Elysium said:
Our legal system does not expect people to have to renounce their religious beliefs to escape prejudice.
I never mentioned legal systems or prejudice- my point is that some people suddenly gain religion, some decide it's a load of hooey.My point stands- individuals can & do change their religious beliefs.
People do change their religious preferences, but they do not decide to do this any more than a gay man decides to find other men attractive.
Did somebody claim that a person cannot change their religious beliefs i.e. their religion?
Surely not. That would be ridiculous.
I know of two counter-examples
among many millions that must exist, one an Anglican who became a Catholic, and another Anglican who became a Muslim.
Are there not famous examples? A singer, for one. Changed his name as well.
Surely not. That would be ridiculous.
I know of two counter-examples
among many millions that must exist, one an Anglican who became a Catholic, and another Anglican who became a Muslim.Are there not famous examples? A singer, for one. Changed his name as well.
turbobloke said:
Did somebody claim that a person cannot change their religious beliefs i.e. their religion?
Surely not. That would be ridiculous.
I know of two counter-examples among many millions that must exist, one an Anglican who became a Catholic, and another Anglican who became a Muslim.
Are there not famous examples? A singer, for one. Changed his name as well.
At the point that they changed their religion they did not believe in it.Surely not. That would be ridiculous.
I know of two counter-examples
among many millions that must exist, one an Anglican who became a Catholic, and another Anglican who became a Muslim.Are there not famous examples? A singer, for one. Changed his name as well.
People don't decide to follow a religion they either have faith or they do not. That is why the law treats religious prejudice in the same way as sexual and racial prejudice.
Elysium said:
turbobloke said:
Did somebody claim that a person cannot change their religious beliefs i.e. their religion?
Surely not. That would be ridiculous.
I know of two counter-examples among many millions that must exist, one an Anglican who became a Catholic, and another Anglican who became a Muslim.
Are there not famous examples? A singer, for one. Changed his name as well.
At the point that they changed their religion they did not believe in it.Surely not. That would be ridiculous.
I know of two counter-examples
among many millions that must exist, one an Anglican who became a Catholic, and another Anglican who became a Muslim.Are there not famous examples? A singer, for one. Changed his name as well.
The idea that they didn't really believe in it in the first place is an imaginary scenario recently conjured up to wiggle off the pointy stick!
Of course some may have been going through the motions out of some sort of routine, but that subset it precisely that, a subset, which doesn't prevent the total loss of the claim that people cannot change their religious beliefs. Quite clearly, they can.
Elysium said:
At the point that they changed their religion they did not believe in it.
People don't decide to follow a religion they either have faith or they do not. That is why the law treats religious prejudice in the same way as sexual and racial prejudice.
That's purely bookkeeping temporalism and not substatively correct, whatever the law intends or does. Clearly at the point of crossover a person no longer believes one set of beliefs...precisely because they have changed their previously held set of beliefs! People don't decide to follow a religion they either have faith or they do not. That is why the law treats religious prejudice in the same way as sexual and racial prejudice.
One of the examples I gave was actually my dear mother. Both of my parents were devout CofE worshippers, my father had the role of churchwarden for many years. Both read the creed with conviction, both the Apostles' form and the Nicene form. Due to a religious experience when seriously ill (her claim) she decided to attend the local Catholic church and was (re-)baptised and (re-)confirmed as a member of the Roman Catholic Church in which she remained a particularly devout worshipper to her last breath.
There is absolutely no doubt that her religious beliefs changed, and she is not alone, far from it.
Whether anyone else considers either set of beliefs to have any basis is of course another matter, and certainly of no matter to my mother at any time.
Any belief can be changed.
Travellers - fair enough.You can't disperse people from where they 'live' so it wouldn't apply when travellers simply pitch up.
The police use somewhat older 'dispersal' powers on travellers whom trespass on land: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/sectio...
desolate said:
rambo19 said:
Its a pity the police don't use the same powers to move on amjam choudry when he spouts his racist abuse, or travellers pitching up wherever they want.
It may have escaped your notice but Choudry is now doing time.Travellers - fair enough.
The police use somewhat older 'dispersal' powers on travellers whom trespass on land: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/sectio...
turbobloke said:
Elysium said:
At the point that they changed their religion they did not believe in it.
People don't decide to follow a religion they either have faith or they do not. That is why the law treats religious prejudice in the same way as sexual and racial prejudice.
That's purely bookkeeping temporalism and not substatively correct, whatever the law intends or does. Clearly at the point of crossover a person no longer believes one set of beliefs...precisely because they have changed their previously held set of beliefs! People don't decide to follow a religion they either have faith or they do not. That is why the law treats religious prejudice in the same way as sexual and racial prejudice.
One of the examples I gave was actually my dear mother. Both of my parents were devout CofE worshippers, my father had the role of churchwarden for many years. Both read the creed with conviction, both the Apostles' form and the Nicene form. Due to a religious experience when seriously ill (her claim) she decided to attend the local Catholic church and was (re-)baptised and (re-)confirmed as a member of the Roman Catholic Church in which she remained a particularly devout worshipper to her last breath.
There is absolutely no doubt that her religious beliefs changed, and she is not alone, far from it.
Whether anyone else considers either set of beliefs to have any basis is of course another matter, and certainly of no matter to my mother at any time.
I never intended to argue that people do not change their religious beliefs. The point I tried to make is that, belief in a religion is a matter of faith rather than a conscious choice. People cannot simply decide to stop believing because it is causing them difficulty at work or because the neighbours don't like it. If your religion is (at any given time) a deeply held belief it is as unchangeable as your race or sexual orientation.
People can and do stop believing if they have lost their faith. Or, as in the case of your mother take up a different religion if they believe that to be right. I was not suggesting otherwise.
Elysium said:
turbobloke said:
Elysium said:
At the point that they changed their religion they did not believe in it.
People don't decide to follow a religion they either have faith or they do not. That is why the law treats religious prejudice in the same way as sexual and racial prejudice.
That's purely bookkeeping temporalism and not substatively correct, whatever the law intends or does. Clearly at the point of crossover a person no longer believes one set of beliefs...precisely because they have changed their previously held set of beliefs! People don't decide to follow a religion they either have faith or they do not. That is why the law treats religious prejudice in the same way as sexual and racial prejudice.
One of the examples I gave was actually my dear mother. Both of my parents were devout CofE worshippers, my father had the role of churchwarden for many years. Both read the creed with conviction, both the Apostles' form and the Nicene form. Due to a religious experience when seriously ill (her claim) she decided to attend the local Catholic church and was (re-)baptised and (re-)confirmed as a member of the Roman Catholic Church in which she remained a particularly devout worshipper to her last breath.
There is absolutely no doubt that her religious beliefs changed, and she is not alone, far from it.
Whether anyone else considers either set of beliefs to have any basis is of course another matter, and certainly of no matter to my mother at any time.
Onwards and sideways!
Elysium said:
I never intended to argue that people do not change their religious beliefs.
Elysium said:
there are two other things that individuals cannot change - their sexuality and their religious beliefs.
Those two statements seem to be contradictory.However, as TB is letting you off the hook in a spirit of bonhomie I shall do the same. Peace, brother.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff