Thanx Foxfyre. Couldn't have said it better myself! Well, actually I couldn't even say it. I couldn't think how to explain it and you certainly did! Right on, sista!
muslim1 wrote:1) When I wrote "my extreme happiness and optimal joy", I meant that I am very proud to follow the teachings of my religion. If my words caused any offence, I am sorry indeed.
no offense taken and no need to apologise. I think perhaps that I should apologise to you because of the things I have said about Islam. BUT whatever I have said is not directed at you as a human being, but at a set of ideas or beliefs which I find very difficult if not impossible to accommodate. I will not hesitate to be critical of ideas which are detrimental to the good of mankind.
Choosing a religion is not the same thing as choosing to believe. I agree completely that believers and non-believers have little choice in the matter. Were it up to me; I would choose to believe that when my time is done on earth I'll be heading off to eternal paradise. Who wouldn't? I haven't chose not to; I simply don't.
However; few men believe every word their local preacher or the pope says as Gospel. Belief in an All-mighty doesn't relieve one of the responsibility to distinguish between false prophets and true ones does it? While belief isn't really a choice at all; an individual's behavior most certainly is.
Belief in an All-Mighty doesn't require Religion nor is any religious follower entitled to force his religion on anyone else. This is a choice. A Christian chooses his life's deeds just as surely as a Muslim or Atheist does. Conditioning may play a very large roll in stifling a man's ability to choose his path for himself, but he is nonetheless responsible for the choices he makes.
nimh wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote: You can change your religion like you can change your clothes.
This, unfortunately, is just not true.
I meant CAN inthe sense possible. Not that its necessarily as easy as changing clothes.
It's easier Steve.I can change religions in the twinkling of an eye and I can't do clothes as fast as that especially when I'm sweaty.I'm off to the pub shortly and I'm debating whether to be a presbyterian or an agnostic libertine.
spendius wrote:It's easier Steve.I can change religions in the twinkling of an eye and I can't do clothes as fast as that especially when I'm sweaty.I'm off to the pub shortly and I'm debating whether to be a presbyterian or an agnostic libertine.
well see you there
I'm the agnositc in the corner wondering about the possibility of free ale.
nimh wrote:Lash wrote:So, you would let them off with no explanations, no rationale... Just let them taut a religion and cram it down your throat because daddy might cut them out of a will if they don't?
Ehm, no, I dont think that bears much relation to what I just said, no.
Lash wrote:I don't think he, or many here, would accept "because my parents told me I had to."
At least they wouldn't accept that from Christians...
I think the argument I was taking issue with there is the one I quoted. That "You can change your religion like you can change your clothes."
That was in the context of the issue of the British proposed law against religious hate speech. The argument that you can just go ahead saying whatever hateful and offensive stuff as long as its based on religion because, "hey, they could always just snap out of it right, and then they wouldnt be among those insulted anymore?" just doesnt work for me. Because it's not exactly like that, is it?
You support the proposed British law...? Is it like the "Holocaust denial" law?
[nimh=quote]
I think the argument I was taking issue with there is the one I quoted. That "You can change your religion like you can change your clothes."
That was in the context of the issue of the British proposed law against religious hate speech. The argument that you can just go ahead saying whatever hateful and offensive stuff as long as its based on religion because, "hey, they could always just snap out of it right, and then they wouldnt be among those insulted anymore?" just doesnt work for me. Because it's not exactly like that, is it?[/quote]
[lash=quote]You support the proposed British law...? Is it like the "Holocaust denial" law?[/quote]
Nimh has a point, I think. I said you could change religions like clothes. Well in theory thats true. But if you ask a little boy brought up to be a Liverpool supporter to put on a Man Utd shirt, there might be some resistance..but its possible. In fact there have been some scoucers who have had enough common sense to do exactly that. But it requires a little more than just buying the shirt and pulling it on.
However when we come to less serious matters like race or religion, clearly you can change your religion (if you dont fear the ones you left behind) but not your skin colour or genetic inheritance.
Lash the bill to outlaw "religious hatred" was a pathetic attempt by our worthy Labour government to win back the Muslim vote (traditional Labour voters) who have deserted Labour over the Iraq war and GWB's global war on terror. It made giving offense to a religious person (determined solely by that person) a criminal offense, even if what you said was true, and even if you meant no offense, punishable by up to 7 years gaol. Fortunately parliament in its infinite wisdom threw it out...and Tony Blair and the Muslim vote remain alienated.
ok ****ed up the quote thingy but you can read it
Thanks for your comment, Steve.
This phenomenon has definitely caught my attention.
Moslems can dish it out but sure can't take it.
Muslims certainly seem to have had a collective humour by pass when it comes to poking fun at Islam.
Anyone else, reading the Gadaffi parts in this little article, get the impression that the Benghazi riot wasnt exactly a spontaneous outburts of sincere public, religious outrage?
Quote:Berlusconi's ally provokes scandal
Translated from Sueddeutsche Zeitung, 4-5 March 2006, p.6
Rome (AFP) - The new ally of Italy's government chief Silvio Berlusconi, Alessandra Mussolini, provoked a scandal on Friday.
"If my grandfather hadn't been there, the Lybians would still be sitting on the backs of their camels with a turban on their head", said the granddaughter of dictator Benito Mussolini and chairwoman of the neofascist party Social Alternative (SA), in response to demands of Lybia's head of state Muammar el Gadaffi that his country should be compensated for its time as Italian colony from 1911 to 1943.
Berlusconi made an alliance with the party of Mussolini's granddaughter in mid-February. Gadaffi said that further attacks like the one on the Italian consulate in Benghazi two weeks ago can not be excluded, as long as there is no compensation for the colonial era.
my two pennys worth...
I came across this debate purely by accident, only because I too am a ppatience, but not Muslim, or a follower of any particular dogma for that matter
To me it is all very simple; Religion is the root of all evil
You only have to look at the history of the world to realize the truth in that statement.
What can you say about the Jewish faith, well it occurs to me that these poor people have been victims of just about every empire and wannabe empire throughout history, from the Egyptians right through to the Holocaust, no wonder they are so defensive of what they have managed to secure for themselves, who can blame them. And as far as the Muslims having no sense of humour is concerned, the way I look at it is the Muslim faith is going through its medieval period. From what I recall, the Christian faith did not have much of a sense of humour during its adolescence, the crusades, the inquisition, and the witch trials, to quote just a few examples
Perhaps tolerance comes with maturity, and when the Muslim faith matures, we can only hope that they can learn tolerance, this of course assumes the human race survives long enough to allow the Muslim faith to grow up. Fanaticism of any flavour is always destructive, counter productive and futile. The world religions need to stop behaving like spoiled children and start being constructive, productive, pro-active and do some good in the world, and practice what they purport to teach, love of fellow man.
They all believe in God in one form or another, so for "God's sake" or, more importantly, "Mans sake" why can't they act like adults and have constructive dialogue, if they did, then we could all get on with the business of enjoying the most precious gift that their God gave us, "LIFE".
First off, I do not believe that Mohammed was a prophet. Or, at least not a prophet of anything I would worship as God.
Secondly, I do not believe it is an insult to state accepted facts, and to evaluate these facts in terms of today's standards. For example, if it is acceptable to criticize Thomas Jefferson for having been a slave owner, then it is equally acceptable to criticize Mohammed for having been a slave owner. This is "insulting" to neither Thomas Jefferson nor to Mohammed. It is a statement of fact.
Right, Nimh, here we go again, but this time there will a lot of strong calls from Muslim leaders for tolerance.
Joe(yes, there will)Nation
