A MILITANT evangelical Christian group plans to target pregnant women and medical staff at abortion clinics as it steps up its campaign against what it calls a tidal wave of filth.

Link to the full story (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1501029,00.html)

The group 'believes that the Ten Commandments justify murder to prevent the death of unborn children'. It's gonna be difficult to stop people who believe in such a warped interpretation of the old testament.

I'm all for freedom of expression and opinion but not when it stops others doing something which is legal through violence and intimidation. Women who make this choice do not do so lightly.

(Having said that though....huntingdon, fox hunting? But would get off topic...)

They also intmidated a cancer charity into refusing to accept a donation from the cast of the Jerry Springer opera. This is another frightening example of the kind of Americanisation of UK religious nutters that I was talking about just the other day (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=307928#post307928).

If I understand it correctly a 'christian' should try and be as 'christ' like as posssible in thought and word and deed. These religious fanatics seem to of forgotten this and so to label them as 'christians' or 'followers of Christ' is exceedingly stupid. If Stephen Green had been around in the days of Jesus he'd of probably been condemming him for spending time in the company of prostittutes and down and outs. I'm not in the least surprised that the main line christian groups distance themselves from 'Christian Voice' and it's misguided followers.

Originally posted by WallBuilder
If I understand it correctly a 'christian' should try and be as 'christ' like as posssible in thought and word and deed.

As H.L Mencken said: "If we assume that man actually does resemble God, then we are forced into the impossible theory that God is a coward, an idiot and a bounder."

Unfortunately every religion seems to attract an extremist fringe. We've had lots of threads recently worrying about extremem muslims which, while they occur, are hardly common or unique to that religion.

I have no problem with people having their own religious / political / philosophical beliefs the problems seem to occur when people believe they know the one true way and people must be made to understand (by force if neccessary) "for their own good".

Originally posted by evildrneil
Unfortunately every religion seems to attract an extremist fringe. We've had lots of threads recently worrying about extremem muslims which, while they occur, are hardly common or unique to that religion.

I have no problem with people having their own religious / oplitical / philosophical beliefs the problems seem to occur when people believe they know the one true way and people must be made to understand (by force if neccessary) "for their own good".

That's what I wanted to say! It's similar with politics; the extremes are always the most frightening!

K x

As Yeats said
"The worst are full of passionate intensity while the best lack all conviction"

"I have been astonished that men could die martyrs for religion - I have shuddered at it. I shudder no more - I could be martyred for my religion - Love is my religion - I could die for that. "

Originally posted by Snook
"I have been astonished that men could die martyrs for religion - I have shuddered at it. I shudder no more - I could be martyred for my religion - Love is my religion - I could die for that. "

Where's that from Snook?

K x

Originally posted by evildrneil
We've had lots of threads recently worrying about extremem muslims which, while they occur, are hardly common...


I think the victims/relatives of the 9/11 attacks, the endless suicide bombings, the beheading of innocent civilians etc etc might take issue with you there

Originally posted by Kristian
Where's that from Snook?

K x

It's Keats.

Originally posted by Snook
It's Keats.

It's beautiful. You're quite well read for a soup-lover! :P

K x

Originally posted by mojoworking
I think the victims/relatives of the 9/11 attacks, the endless suicide bombings, the beheading of innocent civilians etc etc might take issue with you there

This of course nicely illustrates one of the main dangers of extremist groups and their portayal in the media. The world wide muslim population is estimated at around one billion which makes the terrorist/extremist set a tiny fraction. Unfortunately the 'hard of thinking' are prepared to take this as their one frame of reference and tar a whole religious group with the brush of this tiny minority. This then leads to the formation of counter-extremist groups set up 'for protection' and so the cycle continues.

The fact ramains that extremist groups occur in all religions, philosophies and ideologies but are, typically, a miniscule proportion of those groups and tarring an entire group with the actions of the tiny minority is rarely a helpfull thing to do...

Originally posted by mojoworking
I think the victims/relatives of the 9/11 attacks, the endless suicide bombings, the beheading of innocent civilians etc etc might take issue with you there
Very true, and that is absolutely no different in principle to the +100k dead that have resulted from George Bush's own version of Christian fundamentalism.

Originally posted by evildrneil
This of course nicely illustrates one of the main dangers of extremist groups and their portayal in the media. The world wide muslim population is estimated at around one billion which makes the terrorist/extremist set a tiny fraction. Unfortunately the 'hard of thinking' are prepared to take this as their one frame of reference and tar a whole religious group with the brush of this tiny minority. This then leads to the formation of counter-extremist groups set up 'for protection' and so the cycle continues.

The fact ramains that extremist groups occur in all religions, philosophies and ideologies but are, typically, a miniscule proportion of those groups and tarring an entire group with the actions of the tiny minority is rarely a helpfull thing to do...

Granted it's only a tiny proportion of Muslim extremists who are actively involved in terrorism. But that tiny proportion seems to cause more mayhem, death and destruction than any other religious extremist group on earth.

Sikhs picketing a play in Birmingham or Christian nutters protesting outside abortion clinics is hardly in the same league

You are absolutely right mojo. - the Christians outside the abortion clinic are a whole lot more dangerous than the Sikhs judging by their intent.

Its not about who's 'more dangerous' though is it? Shouldn't the rest of us, with moderate religious beliefs or none at all, gang up on the extremists together, be they muslim christian seikh jewish or martian?

I feel like I've got more in common with a moderate muslim (and yes before you start I know heaps of them) than one of these nutters!

Originally posted by mojoworking
Granted it's only a tiny proportion of Muslim extremists who are actively involved in terrorism. But that tiny proportion seems to cause more mayhem, death and destruction than any other religious extremist group on earth.

Sikhs picketing a play in Birmingham or Christian nutters protesting outside abortion clinics is hardly in the same league

How about "Christian Nutters" blowing up and/or shooting doctors that perform abortions? Or "Christian Identity" the (not very) religious group that unites many of the white supremacist groups in the US?? Or the IRA and UDA who would quite happily shoot and blow up people with a (again not very) christian motivation??? Or the Israeli government - hardly noted for its tolerence and peacable nature???? Or even arguably the entire Fascist movement which was heavilly influenced by a papal edict?????

Are they in the same league?

ALL religious groups have their share of extremist, violent individuals but they represent well extremist violent individuals not religions...

Originally posted by evildrneil
How about "Christian Nutters" blowing up and/or shooting doctors that perform abortions? Or "Christian Identity" the (not very) religious group that unites many of the white supremacist groups in the US?? Or the IRA and UDA who would quite happily shoot and blow up people with a (again not very) christian motivation??? Or the Israeli government - hardly noted for its tolerence and peacable nature???? Or even arguably the entire Fascist movement which was heavilly influenced by a papal edict?????

Are they in the same league?

ALL religious groups have their share of extremist, violent individuals but they represent well extremist violent individuals not religions...

All religious extremists are dangerous in their own way, but with over 100 people killed this very day by a suicide bomber near Baghdad, I'd say the Muslim extremists get the vote as by far the most dangerous and murderous group of recent years.

Originally posted by mojoworking
All religious extremists are dangerous in their own way, but with over 100 people killed this very day by a suicide bomber near Baghdad, I'd say the Muslim extremists get the vote as by far the most dangerous and murderous group of recent years.

That rather pales into insignifance with the 5-10 thousand killed in what was in essence a fundamentalist christian action in Iraq?

Anyway this is rather getting of topic - you can make a case for every religion being the worst when it comes to fanatical extremist actions but that doesn't adress the point that the fanatics don't represent the religion but instead represent the fanatics. Talking about a fanatical group even as part of a religion is to an extent misleading - in much the same way as it would be if you talked about the nazis as part of the Conservative party because they are both right wing groups...

Yeah i think we must not loose site of the good religions do (i know it's easy for me to do). But at the end of the day, it's up to the Catholics to refuse to finance law suits to protect peadophiles (which they didn't). It's up to Christians to see where their donations are being spent and demand they are not put in to arms companies or other immoral companies, which they have not. The Church of England revisited it's rule on investments but still invests in companies that make 25% or less of it's profits from offensive weapons. What kind of an moral impovement is that? And what made them think in the first place that the arsm trade was a moral investment?

I think when we have a group of people proclaiming superiority (i am going to heaven and you are not, i have the moral high ground you do not), then they MUST keep their own house in order and unfortunatly they are not.

But there are millions of good Christians, Muslims, Jews, Catholics who do lots off good work in the community. But indirectly they are doing bad things, some of which they may not even know about. Increasingly the charity work is, within their own community, so you will get helped if you convert. At this stage they become an advocacy group and their tax excempt status should be removed. Poverty, hardship and death are not recruiting drives, they are opertunities to help, unconditionally. Somebody mentioned this before in regard to America, and i have first had experiance of it.

Lets also forget there are many good people who are athiests as well. I spend up to 20% of my time doing work for charity. Good moral and ethical work is not just the realm of people of faith.

Personally i think that is where we are at. It's time to remove their tax exempt status, if they want to become politically active. When you become politically active you become less of a moral guide and more of an lobby group. Religions these days are just big corporations, who invest, and have regular income for doing very little.