Tory leadership frontrunner attacks multiculturalism

[C0ckney]

it's a good thing i'm bored :/

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
My sex life, however, is completely irrelevent to this debate.

as are my religious beliefs, didn't stop you though.

Valid point - you get presented with the facts and you ignore them only to go with your own little fairytale instead.

facts, i love it



sorry could you remind us what facts you've brought to this debate? thus far you've brought an idiotic statement, which you'e backed up with things which are completely beside the point, well done etc. :/

[Provost Harrison]

Re: it's a good thing i'm bored :/

Originally posted by C0ckney


as are my religious beliefs, didn't stop you though.



facts, i love it



sorry could you remind us what facts you've brought to this debate? thus far you've brought an idiotic statement, which you'e backed up with things which are completely beside the point, well done etc. :/

Simply replying to your assertion that you, as a Christian, see Islam as dangerous. Rather rich, don't you think, considering some of the atrocities that are done in the name of God? But you don't seem to figure that out without resorting to the most pathetic ploy of attacking me personally with the one small thing you can find to attack

[C0ckney]

oh no you don't sunshine

well you might be right, except i've not once said anything about MY religious beliefs in this thread.

but since you’re so eager to discuss the issue ( ), lets discuss it. this is your ‘original’ post on the matter.

Is it just me who considers both Islam and Christianity to be an equal danger. I am no fan of religion and I certainly have no preference for one over the other...

now i think that islam is more dangerous, at the moment, over here – just to avoid any deliberate confusion…

this post i think, sums why i think your wrong.

here's a question - members of which religion recently killed more than 50 people in 4 attacks on our capital and then tried to do the self-same thing two weeks later?

and a bonus question, 25% of the members of which religion (according to a yougov survey) sympathise with the motives of the bombers and 6% of the members of the same religion said the bombings were fully justified?

answers on a postcard to 'no really, i'm not just some deluded anti-christian bigot' :/

so lets hear you back up your statement, with something relevant if you’d be so kind…

edit: formating etc.

[Bill3000]

Excuse me for a second.

There are no such thing as seperate human races, only seperate cultures

Thank you. Pet peeve of mine.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by C0ckney
ph, it's sad that you hate christians so much

I can't recall PH has ever said that he hated Christians. Just because he dispises religion doesn't mean he hate those who believe.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Bill3000
There are no such thing as seperate human races, only seperate cultures

Yes. The so called "races" is a dubious concept with no objective facts backing it up.

[Imran Siddiqui]

UR, it may be Ming's jurisdiction, but shouldn't someone say "debate the issues, not the posters", even if that has passed some .

[Urban Ranger]

Imran,

Thanks. I missed C0ckney's jab at PH the first time skimming through the thread.

[Whaleboy]

ph and whaleboy (once again), the question asked was which religion is more dangerous, that means now, in the present time, considering what's happend recently, just in case you were confused... talking about things which happened hundreds of years ago is wholly besides the point, but then both of you know that already. :/

Your use of circular logic is really quite laughable. You could boil down what you're saying to "which religion was most dangerous on 7/7 on the number 30 bus at 9 in the morning", the answer would of course be obvious but meaningless since it becomes a matter of the individual at the concluded terrorist attack you're trying to use as a premise!

Just as now it is meaningless to speak of one "dangerous religion", as opposed to dangerous terrorists, which few of us would disagree with.

The best your argument can be used for is slinging mud, but then that's the best that you're able to do anyway so perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised .

With regards to things that happened hundreds of years ago, the point being made was that no religion is inherently more dangerous than any other, in other words Christianity is just as bad as Islam, and in a wider sense religion in general is a recipe for disaster. Unless you think that the notion of organised religion has undergone some enormous seismic shift in the last few centuries that fundamentally changes its very nature (but then that would defy the point wouldn't it?), then the lesson from history still stands.

To make your argument you need to be able to show that it is mainstream Islam that is driving the terrorists as opposed to motivating them (since we can all find ourselves arbitrary motivations and warped justifications to do just about anything). It's an impossible claim to make with any religion, more so with Islam since it is so decentralised, and it makes far more sense for us to distinguish fundamentalist Islam with mainstream Islam as two separate entities.

So I repeat my point that to tar all of Islam with the same brush is a display of some brilliantly childish logic and defies the common sense that seems so uncommon in your posts.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Krill
**** it. If Davis wants every single person in this country to have the same values, I fail to see how he is any different to a suicide bomber.

1) He's still alive.

2) He talks about what he wants publicly rather than killing people randomly and issuing demands on a shadowy web site.

Not to say that he's not a pr!ck mind you.

[C0ckney]

dancing round the issue using big words - fun for the whole family

Originally posted by C0ckney
now i think that islam is more dangerous, at the moment, over here – just to avoid any deliberate confusion…

*sigh*

whaleboy, when someone asks you if it's more dangerous to cross a road from where you're standing or at the crossing 20 yards up the road, what do you say to them? do you tell them that you can't compare the two because of the inherent dangers of crossing the road and then proceed to talk about how the road was 500 years ago. or do you give them a simple answer to a simple question.

[C0ckney]

:scope:

Originally posted by Whaleboy
To make your argument you need to be able to show that it is mainstream Islam that is driving the terrorists as opposed to motivating them (since we can all find ourselves arbitrary motivations and warped justifications to do just about anything). It's an impossible claim to make with any religion, more so with Islam since it is so decentralised, and it makes far more sense for us to distinguish fundamentalist Islam with mainstream Islam as two separate entities.

being clever with words doesn't make you right

your local parish church is a world apart from the ones associated with say, american 'televangelists', they stand for very different things, but no one would argue that they are not both christians.

likewise it (should at least...) go without saying that ordinary muslims are different from the muslims who carry out bombings. but they are, at the end of the day, still all muslims and have in common the islamic faith.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Politics? There are plenty of people who disagree with their countries foreign policy, as a general rule they dont express this by blowing themselves up, a method that is not likely to be successful in this instance anyway.

No, but like the Real IRA, Mujahedin, and the INLA and the IRA and the Baader Meinhof, PFLP, PLO, Japanese Red Army, Red Brigades, ETA, PKK, et cetera et cetera, they'll happily shoot, bomb or incinerate other people to achieve their aims.

All that's really different is that the members of the more avowedly secular groups aren't usually willing to kill themselves when killing others.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Krill
**** it. If Davis wants every single person in this country to have the same values, I fail to see how he is any different to a suicide bomber.

Bit harsh to compare Davis with a suicide bomber. I think that what Davis means is the same thing that the CRE and many others have been saying.

Multiculturism should be about finding shared ground, rather than celebrating difference and the divisive "Identity Politics".

The problem with the discussion in Britain at the moment is not Islamophobia, but Islamophobiaphobia. Under these circumstances, no-one is allowed to criticise Islamism (whilst westerners are encouraged to hate themselves). It is called "divisive" to call a fascist a fascist.

I grew up in a free country where as an atheist I was free to reject and ridcule Christianity. That's my democratic right and I'm proud of my civilisation for this valuable and essential freedom. Under Islamic Law, I can get killed for being an apostate if I reject Islam.

So, I prefer to live in a western democracy, and should be entitled to say so. It seems, though, that I'm no longer in a country where secular democracy was an uncontestable value. It should still be.

People must learn the difference between gratuitously hating foreigners (racism), and essential defence of our democracy against racist, theocratic fascism (not racism).

[Datajack Franit]

Well so far in Europe Christians have killed more Christians and Muslims than Muslims have killed Christians.

Ahem, ever heard about islamic conquest of european countries?