OK, before i get shouted at, let me emphasise i'm not racist but question the number of Mosques arising (i question more since 7/7).

Everywhere i go these days there's a Mosque in the area. I'm sure it will not be long before they will out number the Church.

Is this a good thing? I'm not entirly convinced and feel there should be at least a limit. If i moved to a Muslim country (i may sound naive here!) i would not expect them to build me a Christain Church.

If we are to become a better multi-cultural society then limiting the number of Mosques will help IMO.

Now debate but please keep any racism out of this.

Here we go again . . . . 'I'm not racist but' . . . . . :suspect:

Theres ton's more churches than mosques, just because more people visit mosques because of their devotion to their faith - so what!!!!!!!

Shall we have a go at curry houses too now?

imo, so what if they may out number churches. What harm are these mosques doing to you?

I think we have more than enough of these buildings without anymore springing up .
But of course we will get more and more of them as the muslim population continues to grow,our birthrate is well below that of the immigrant communities and so its inevitable.
Seeing as we are a secular chrisitian country we dont have the same devotion to religion as the muslim community who take it far more serious than the vast majority of the white british.
Its all due to the increasing islamification of our country,get used to it or vote accordingly.

Originally posted by Lestat
Here we go again . . . . 'I'm not racist but' . . . . . :suspect:

Theres ton's more churches than mosques, just because more people visit mosques because of their devotion to their faith - so what!!!!!!!

Shall we have a go at curry houses too now?

Look, lets make this perfectly clear. I am not but your opinion is your opinion.

Sypro, they do me know harm at all. I just question why we have to have such a large number. I have no problem with a Mosque but baisng a number of Mosuqes in a predominantly Asian area discourages them from travelling and integrating into other communities.

But i can see already. bad thread!

Originally posted by youwhatref
If i moved to a Muslim country (i may sound naive here!) i would not expect them to build me a Christain Church.


I may be wrong, but I don't think that "we" are building mosques for "them" - I think that Muslims (and Sikhs, Christians, Druids etc) pay for and build their own places of worship.

Originally posted by youwhatref
I have no problem with a Mosque but baisng a number of Mosuqes in a predominantly Asian area discourages them from travelling and integrating into other communities.

What a complete and utter load of b*llocks! :gag:

Originally posted by royjames
I think we have more than enough of these buildings without anymore springing up .
But of course we will get more and more of them as the muslim population continues to grow,our birthrate is well below that of the immigrant communities and so its inevitable.
Seeing as we are a secular chrisitian country we dont have the same devotion to religion as the muslim community who take it far more serious than the vast majority of the white british.
Its all due to the increasing islamification of our country,get used to it or vote accordingly.

Roy, i will not change my vote and no (to others) i dont vote BNP!. But at least you've given me answer which makes much sense. I admire the Muslims community devotion to their faith and the way they look out for each other (as brothers) and is something we can learn from but still question the number of Mosques shooting up everywhere.

Originally posted by youwhatref
[B]OK, before i get shouted at, let me emphasise i'm not racist but question the number of Mosques arising

I can think quite a few have earmarked for 'raising' since 7/7

Should they be selling chips and kebabs from them :confused:

maybe they got them BOGOF which would explain the increase...

Or buy a Kebab takeaway, get a Mosque free! :D

Shame this has turned into a silly situation as this is a valid debate to have.

collect 3 vouchers from the Daily Mail or Express and get your free-build a mosque kit absolutely free....

offer limited to one per household...terms and conditions apply

Originally posted by royjames
Shame this has turned into a silly situation as this is a valid debate to have.


Whats silly about take-away mosques, it's dead serious mate.
A new and refreshing idea.:thumbsup:

Originally posted by royjames
Shame this has turned into a silly situation as this is a valid debate to have.

problem with this debate Roy would be once anything mildly controversal was posted it would have been locked out!

So hunour seems to be the way to go....

Originally posted by Lestat
Whats silly about take-away mosques, it's dead serious mate.
A new and refreshing idea.:thumbsup:

How do you carry a mosque home :rolleyes: now your being silly :P

Originally posted by Lestat
take-away mosques,
.:thumbsup:

At last Lestat agrees with Roy :hihi:

Should have left it well alone Roy!

on the theme , I've been thinking perhaps they should put some wheels under one and offer a mobile service -

phone-a-mosque - we can deliver whenever , wherever you want.... hourly rates available - free delivery on orders over 5 pounds...

Originally posted by Internetowl
on the theme , I've been thinking perhaps they should put some wheels under one and offer a mobile service -

phone-a-mosque - we can deliver whenever , wherever you want.... hourly rates available - free delivery on orders over 5 pounds...

The
Eskimo's have a similar service, called Seals on wheels. :P

Seals on wheels - great when you get in after a night out clubbing....

Originally posted by youwhatref
OK, before i get shouted at, let me emphasise i'm not racist but question the number of Mosques arising (i question more since 7/7).

Everywhere i go these days there's a Mosque in the area. I'm sure it will not be long before they will out number the Church.

Is this a good thing? I'm not entirly convinced and feel there should be at least a limit. If i moved to a Muslim country (i may sound naive here!) i would not expect them to build me a Christain Church.

If we are to become a better multi-cultural society then limiting the number of Mosques will help IMO.

Now debate but please keep any racism out of this.

just where are all these Mosques? There are churches everywhere but Mosques, Synagogues, Temples :confused:

You aren't racist but......you actually are.

welcome to the debate - do you want sauce or relish on the chips?

Originally posted by robbie
j

You aren't racist but......you actually are.

doesnt racism involve discriminating against people because of their race? I thought this thread was about religion, more specifically the number of places of worship available for muslms. Its no more racist than asking are there too many churches or synagogues etc.

depends.

On a Friday which is prayes day in my local McMosque I like a bit of relish. Jewish Sabbath then a bit of my sause with my jumpin Jehovah burger.

as was stated earlier - every home should have one - in years to come every home will have its own mosque it'll be great....

Originally posted by nightrider
doesnt racism involve discriminating against people because of their race? I thought this thread was about religion, more specifically the number of places of worship available for muslms. Its no more racist than asking are there too many churches or synagogues etc.

any thread that proclaims that there are Mosques everywhere imo has to be started by someone on drugs or who has a problem with Islam.

Originally posted by robbie
depends.

On a Friday which is prayes day in my local McMosque I like a bit of relish. Jewish Sabbath then a bit of my sause with my jumpin Jehovah burger.

do you want that supersized?

Super McMosque Burger with root beer?

Originally posted by robbie
any thread that proclaims that there are Mosques everywhere imo has to be started by someone on drugs or who has a problem with Islam.

and how is having a problem with islam racist?? It may well be discrimanatory against muslims, but that isnt racism. Racism would be complaining against all asians or all africans or all iraqis. But muslims come from many different areas. So having a problem with islam is no more racist than having a problem with christianity. This doesnt mean I agree with the poster, it just annoys me when people cry "racist" when it doesnt really apply.

Originally posted by Internetowl
do you want that supersized?

Super McMosque Burger with root beer?

I'm not sure about the root beer though....

Originally posted by nightrider
and how is having a problem with islam racist?? It may well be discrimanatory against muslims, but that isnt racism. Racism would be complaining against all asians or all africans or all iraqis. But muslims come from many different areas. So having a problem with islam is no more racist than having a problem with christianity. This doesnt mean I agree with the poster, it just annoys me when people cry "racist" when it doesnt really apply.

ok, you are right. But answer me this. How many white people as Muslims?

go on, you know you want to ;)

Originally posted by robbie
any thread that proclaims that there are Mosques everywhere imo has to be started by someone on drugs or who has a problem with Islam.

It must be the Paracetomol i'm taking Robbie! :D

Originally posted by Internetowl
Seals on wheels - great when you get in after a night out clubbing....

Personally, I'd prefer Feels On Wheels, a visiting massage service

Originally posted by robbie
ok, you are right. But answer me this. How many white people as Muslims?

still doesnt make the comments racist. Because not all coloured people are muslims - in fact arent many africans christian related? Many africans are also muslims. So I dont see how discriminating/hating muslims is racist because it doesnt apply completely to any one ethnic group. If you hate muslims, but like christians then you hate only some fraction of africans but think the rest are ok for example. Yet they come from the same countries, are the same colour etc. So I dont think it can be racist (unless someone is ignorant and believes muslim = asian for example).

Originally posted by LordChaverly
Personally, I'd prefer Feels On Wheels, a visiting massage service

Buy the star then Chavvers old boy, there are dozens in there...allegedly ;)

Owdlad you shock me :) you really do at your age and on a pension too :)

Originally posted by royjames

Seeing as we are a secular chrisitian country.....

:huh: You can't have "a secular chrisitian {sic} country". We are either a secular country or a Christian country.

Originally posted by youwhatref

OK, before i get shouted at, let me emphasise i'm not racist but question the number of Mosques arising (i question more since 7/7).

You may not think you are racist, but let us examine what you've posted.....

1. "i'm not racist.......but". But what? If you're not racist why do you suspect anyone reading your post might think otherwise? Why the disclaimer before you've even opened up a debate?

2. Maybe it's because you then question the number of "Mosques arising", but give no adequate explanation of why you consider it a bad thing. You do, however, manage to link your question to "7/7". Why the mosque = bomber subtext in your post?

3. Next, you appear to be concerned that the number of Mosques will outnumber churches. Really? You seriously think that when you combine the number of CofE, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalist, Unitarian, and other Christian denominational churches together - then they'll be outnumbered by mosques? Do you really think this?

4. You suggest that the number of mosques be limited, in the interests of a "better multi-cultural society". But, surely, by your logic, we should also limit the number of churches? Why aren't you suggesting no new church build, or for the sake of equity, some church closures?

5. You are quite correct, if you moved to a Muslim country, you could not expect "them" (incidentally, who are "them"?) to build you a "Christain {sic} church". But then 'we' aren't building mosques for "them" are we?

Pray tell us, youwhatref - what Christian church do you attend? Have you spoken to your priest, pastor, minister or church moderator about your fears? What assurances did you receive?

You are a church-goer though aren't you, youwhatref? You surely can't have posted all these concerns about the number of mosques allegedly outnumbering churches and not be a church-going Christian. To use subterfuge like that really would be racist - wouldn't you agree youwhatref?

too serious to read all that - make mine supersized m8

Originally posted by owdlad
Buy the star then Chavvers old boy, there are dozens in there...allegedly ;)

I notice that on London road there is an emporium offering Thai massage. I wonder if anyone has been there? I am not actually interested in massage myself, but might go there on the expectation that they might offer other services (such as manicure, pedicure or chiropody).

maybe they love you long time GI :)

Originally posted by owdlad
Buy the star then Chavvers old boy, there are dozens in there...allegedly ;)

I'm suprised you noticed with that Netto back perminently stuck over your head:D

Originally posted by redrobbo
:huh:
You may not think you are racist, but let us examine what you've posted.....

1. "i'm not racist.......but". But what? If you're not racist why do you suspect anyone reading your post might think otherwise? Why the disclaimer before you've even opened up a debate?

2. Maybe it's because you then question the number of "Mosques arising", but give no adequate explanation of why you consider it a bad thing. You do, however, manage to link your question to "7/7". Why the mosque = bomber subtext in your post?

3. Next, you appear to be concerned that the number of Mosques will outnumber churches. Really? You seriously think that when you combine the number of CofE, Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Congregationalist, Unitarian, and other Christian denominational churches together - then they'll be outnumbered by mosques? Do you really think this?

4. You suggest that the number of mosques be limited, in the interests of a "better multi-cultural society". But, surely, by your logic, we should also limit the number of churches? Why aren't you suggesting no new church build, or for the sake of equity, some church closures?

5. You are quite correct, if you moved to a Muslim country, you could not expect "them" (incidentally, who are "them"?) to build you a "Christain {sic} church". But then 'we' aren't building mosques for "them" are we?

Pray tell us, youwhatref - what Christian church do you attend? Have you spoken to your priest, pastor, minister or church moderator about your fears? What assurances did you receive?

You are a church-goer though aren't you, youwhatref? You surely can't have posted all these concerns about the number of mosques allegedly outnumbering churches and not be a church-going Christian. To use subterfuge like that really would be racist - wouldn't you agree youwhatref?

1/. Probably a very naive way to open it Redrobbo, i admit that.

2/.Only beacuse it was alleged that a few of the alleged terrorists were likley to have been chosen and groomed through a Mosque. But again, probably a bad link

3/. Yes
4/. Fair point!
5./. As earlier pointed out in the post, no we are not (although it wasn't menat in this sense). I wouldn't expect them (of which ever country i was in) to permit it.

I occasionally attend a Church and no i have not asked the question. This is a forum open to debate so posted on here, although i agree now it was a bad idea and i must be a racist :D

Originally posted by youwhatref
1/. Probably a very naive way to open it Redrobbo, i admit that.

2/.Only beacuse it was alleged that a few of the alleged terrorists were likley to have been chosen and groomed through a Mosque. But again, probably a bad link

3/. Yes
4/. Fair point!
5./. As earlier pointed out in the post, no we are not (although it wasn't menat in this sense). I wouldn't expect them (of which ever country i was in) to permit it.

I occasionally attend a Church and no i have not asked the question. This is a forum open to debate so posted on here, although i agree now it was a bad idea and i must be a racist :D

I appreciate your honest relies youwhatref. Maybe on reflection, you were being more naive than racist? Apologies if my post sounded judgemental in the circumstances.

Red

Originally posted by nightrider
doesnt racism involve discriminating against people because of their race? I thought this thread was about religion, more specifically the number of places of worship available for muslms. Its no more racist than asking are there too many churches or synagogues etc.

Except that the Jews are actually a race, so complaining about synagogues could be construed as racist. But I take your point :)

there should be more built,then on fridays i could park outside them on double yellow lines,park on the pavement,double park,cause all sorts of traffic problems and go into town to do some shopping knowing that my car wil be safe from the traffic wardens,save me a fortune in parking costs

From my house can see one mosque, and about 6 churches, so are there too many ? probably not.

Originally posted by nick2
From my house can see one mosque, and about 6 churches, so are there too many ? probably not.


Dont worry in the fullness of time you will see many more.;)

Originally posted by royjames
Dont worry in the fullness of time you will see many more.;)

Cool, I like minarets, they look much better in the skyline than luxury blocks of flats.

Originally posted by tslogf74
Except that the Jews are actually a race, so complaining about synagogues could be construed as racist. But I take your point :)

Are you sure?

I thought Jews were a religion - ie, they follow Judaism

Originally posted by Abdul
Are you sure?

I thought Jews were a religion - ie, they follow Judaism

Yes, Judaism is the religion, but you are not allowed to join it unless your mother is a Jew by descent. Therefore they are a race AND a religion, and as such are insepparable.

People can convert and become Jewish can't they ?

Originally posted by nick2
People can convert and become Jewish can't they ?

Hmmm, I don't know actually.....

All hands to the search engines!!!

Aha. You can indeedconvert to Judaism (http://www.convertingtojudaism.com/) , there are a host of websites dedicated to it.

Abdul, I stand corrected mate!:thumbsup:

Here endeth the intermission ....

Originally posted by Bully_Beef
Aha. You can indeedconvert to Judaism (http://www.convertingtojudaism.com/) , there are a host of websites dedicated to it.

Abdul, I stand corrected mate!:thumbsup:

Here endeth the intermission ....

Bully, I don't think things are as clear cut as that. Firstly, Judaism is not a proselytising religion in that it does not actively seek converts. Indeed, it has a biological or genealogical dimension, in that Jews are expected to be descended form other Jews (through their mothers). Given the extent of intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews though, it was inevitable that the policy of strict adherence to this biological principle would break down. However, this has caused a cleavage between Orthodox Judaism and Reform (Liberal) Judaism, with the former rejecting the idea of conversion and the latter accepting it under certain conditions. For example, orthodox Jews, I think i am right in saying, do not accept that converts are Jews, even if they live in Israel and are married to 'real' Jews. Moreover, Jews who do not practice their religion at all are still regarded as Jews by other Jews (as they were by the Nazis also)..

but will they fry chips for you? That is the key question to all religious building utilisation.... I hear the CoE are installing pizza ovens in all churches by 2007.

Mosques or churches or any other religious building are the same in my book- to be avoided at all costs. Full of nutters usually deluding themselves about entering the kingdom of heaven or how many virgins or camels they will be awarded, I feel sorry for the camels. Got no time for christians or Muslims.

Originally posted by Nimrod
Got no time for christians or Muslims.

Most religious types are very nice people indeed, I think you're missing out.

I'll go with that one Nimrod. Throughtout history, many wars are instigated by religion - just look at Northern Ireland. Quite a few priests have been exposed as paedophiles, some "mosques" have encouraged suicide bombers.

The only comment I would make is that it is perhaps an insensitive time for mosques to be built when people are reeling over the recent bombings. It is natural that many people are feeling shocked and grieved by what has happened and may feel resentment. I, myself, have mixed feelings. I am NOT racist, but am more wary.

I think as a country we are very tolerant and tend to agree that if Christians were in an Islamic country killing people, then we would not be allowed to build Christian churches, and indeed would probably not be allowed to build Churches in any event.

Originally posted by teeb

I think as a country we are very tolerant and tend to agree that if Christians were in an Islamic country killing people, then we would not be allowed to build Christian churches, and indeed would probably not be allowed to build Churches in any event.

But this isn't about building Mosques in a christian country it's about building them in a secular country.

LordC- thanks for the tips on Jewish conversion there, a lot of stuff I didn't know.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
But this isn't about building Mosques in a christian country it's about building them in a secular country.

Disco, although I agree the number of Mosques shouldn't be an issue, we are not actually a secular country. We are still a monarchy, and the monarch is also the de facto head of the Church of England, and appoints archbishops etc... As far as I am aware (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), State openings of Parliament still involve prayers, the CofE is sponsored by the State, and court hearings still involve religious oaths. That hardly makes us a secular country, though I agree that for day-to-day purposes we might as well be.

The numbers of Mosques may well be increasing in Britain, and in the lands of the West in general. I would be greatly surprised were it otherwise. Seventy per cent of the world's refugees are Muslims fleeing from countries where their religion is the official doctrine. Those refugees are fleeing in great numbers to Britain in particular, recognising few other places as able to grant the opportunities, freedoms, and personal safety that they despair of finding at home. Freedoms that Western citizens take for granted are all but unheard of in Islamic countries.

Should one be concerned about the increase in mosques? Consider this. A previous poster mentioned a liking for minarets. In Islamic cities, these point to Allah, rather like outstretched fingers, resounding with the voice of the muezzin calling believers to prayer. The mosque then is a direct link to God, and the pious believe that no building should overtop the minarets, or obscure their mastery of the skyline. The Muslim city is explicitly a city for Muslims, a place where families live in obediance to Allah, and where non-Muslims exist only on sufferance.

Because the Shari'a is a law governing only Muslims, it leaves the status of other communities undefined. These communities remain 'outside the law', and must either convert to Islam or accept the status of 'dhimma'- which means protected by treaty or covenant. Only Christians and Jews have been accorded this status., in return for the payment of taxes. 'Dhimma' grants no clear, justiciable rights apart from general rights of protection. There is no formal or legal acceptance of the non-Muslim community's right to worship in their own manner.

What will happen, if as demographers predict, certain cities become home to a Muslim majority of citizens? Will the respective societies remain 'secular'? Or will there be demands for Shari'a law in the 'interests of the majority'? As yet no Western citizens are fleeing from the West. However, if the latter scenario became reality, one envisages massive 'white flight' from certain cities.

Originally posted by Bully_Beef
LordC- thanks for the tips on Jewish conversion there, a lot of stuff I didn't know.



Disco, although I agree the number of Mosques shouldn't be an issue, we are not actually a secular country. We are still a monarchy, and the monarch is also the de facto head of the Church of England, and appoints archbishops etc... As far as I am aware (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), State openings of Parliament still involve prayers, the CofE is sponsored by the State, and court hearings still involve religious oaths. That hardly makes us a secular country, though I agree that for day-to-day purposes we might as well be.

Yes we do still have that crap, but we also have aspects of our society such as Dennis Skinners heckle during the opening of parliament and the option to swear a secular oath during court proceedings.

So we're a christian state in the same way we are not a democracy.

Originally posted by timo
A previous poster mentioned a liking for minarets. In Islamic cities, these point to Allah, rather like outstretched fingers, resounding with the voice of the muezzin calling believers to prayer. The mosque then is a direct link to God, and the pious believe that no building should overtop the minarets, or obscure their mastery of the skyline.

I'd read that too, however when you see some of the massive hotels and office blocks in even strictly muslim countries it seems they don't realy stick to this rule.

Have a look how far down the list the mosques are in the United Arab Emirates : http://www.skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?12129213

They are even proposing to build this in Mecca : http://www.skyscraperpage.com/cities/?buildingID=34622

Originally posted by timo
will there be demands for Shari'a law in the 'interests of the majority'?

But your making the assumption that all Muslims would like to live under Sharia law.

In Iraq this doesn't look like it will happen as the majority of Muslims do not want it, even some of the most radical ones:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4247505.stm


so I don't think we are under any threat in this country, because I may be wrong but doesn't Iraq have a much higher proportion of Muslims then the UK

Disco Cat,
I am not making the assumption that most Muslims would want to live under Shari'a law. I am suggesting that there would be serious impications for the cohesion of 'secular' societies in certain cities if they did. I think there is a possibility that many Muslims could be swept along with the possible future demands through fear of an aggressive, radical minority. After all, the 'moderate' majority have not done so well in curtailing the activities of what most would call 'extremists'. I think many Muslims are too frightened to challenge a very dangerous minority. The minority's aim is crystal clear-Shari'a law not just for Bradford, but for the world.

I am not suggesting that Muslims have not spoken out against extremism and terrorism. The Muslim Council of Great Britain does so regularly. However, the same message from the community itself should be louder. What are people supposed to think when extremists can attract an audience of 7,000 Muslims in London recently? Imagine the impact of an equivalent 20,000 whites at a Nazi rally at Wembley? There is little wonder there is such foreboding about the future of 'race relations'. The decent majority of Muslims can and must do more to stem the tide of radicalism. The alternative does not bear thinking about.

Originally posted by nightrider
and how is having a problem with islam racist?? It may well be discrimanatory against muslims, but that isnt racism. Racism would be complaining against all asians or all africans or all iraqis. But muslims come from many different areas. So having a problem with islam is no more racist than having a problem with christianity. This doesnt mean I agree with the poster, it just annoys me when people cry "racist" when it doesnt really apply.

I would agree - using the term racist seems to be a style of argument often adopted when it appears necessary to attempt to bring the other debater into disrepute.

Let's see if we can debate issues on the Forum without yelling 'racist' at the first sign of disagreement with the multicultural 'party line'.

PS - posting here as an individual, not a Mod.)

Joe

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
But your making the assumption that all Muslims would like to live under Sharia law.

In Iraq this doesn't look like it will happen as the majority of Muslims do not want it, even some of the most radical ones:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4247505.stm


so I don't think we are under any threat in this country, because I may be wrong but doesn't Iraq have a much higher proportion of Muslims then the UK

On the other hand there's the case of the Sudan, where an attempt to impose Shari'a law on the non-Muslim majority in the south of the country has led to an estimated 1.5 million deaths since 1983.

Originally posted by JoeP

Let's see if we can debate issues on the Forum without yelling 'racist' at the first sign of disagreement with the multicultural 'party line'.


But I think if you look at some of people leading the campaign against Mosques being built they are in many occasions open racists http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=526296#post526296

And interestingly their is advice on a far right website this morning urging its supporters to mount campaigns against Mosque development not on issues of 'race' but to focus on issues such as car parking problems.

I can understand local people objecting Mosques being built on grounds of increased traffic and harm to businesses during construction periods, but I would expect them to raise this concerns over a church being built or any major development. When you have groups urging their members to seek out and block planning applications simply for Mosques and not urging them to block all large developments that may be of detriment, it's clear they aren't running these campaign for the good of better local planning decisions.

I don't think all people who object to new Mosques being built are racist but I think it's important that we show how some people are arguing against Mosques being built simply because they do not want any Muslims in this country or indeed anyone with a skin colour different to their own.

Originally posted by CaptainSwing
On the other hand there's the case of the Sudan, where an attempt to impose Shari'a law on the non-Muslim majority in the south of the country has led to an estimated 1.5 million deaths since 1983.

I don't know enough about the situation in Sudan but undoubtedly their are Muslims who support Shaira law, but we need to realise that these Muslims are not necessarily representative of Islam world wide let alone of Islam in this country.

Joe,
We must be telepathic! I was just about to email you re the need for posters to refrain from labelling those who dare to dissent from 'multicultural'/ egalitarian perspectives as 'racists'. Thankyou for your typically wise and fair words there.

I would like to add something too. Earlier this week I was called a 'racist' for describing Japanese atrocities of WW2 as 'barbaric', and the Army as akin to 'vast, almost medieval hordes'. The troops who fell upon Nanking DID indeed behave this way. As usual, a fellow poster whom I greatly respect, flew to my defence. After a warning from the Mod, the original poster offered a sarcastic apology. It is easy to call people names from the safety of a computer. However, accusations of 'racism' are potentially libellous. This is something that certain posters should reflect upon, and take very seriously.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
I don't know enough about the situation in Sudan but undoubtedly their are Muslims who support Shaira law, but we need to realise that these Muslims are not necessarily representative of Islam world wide let alone of Islam in this country.

By the way, I think you might be being a little over-optimistic in thinking that Shari'a law is unlikely to materialise in Iraq - "The draft constitution now states that sharia law will apply in preference to international law", as reported on Monday in a letter to the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1544745,00.html

Captain Swing,
Good point and good link. The thing is Shari'a is supposed to apply in all Muslim lands. It is the only law Muslims should recognise, according to the Koran. Obviously, the majority of Muslim citizens in Britain do not behave this way. Nevertheless, in the holy text, it is demanded of them by Allah that they do so.

Originally posted by timo
Joe,
We must be telepathic! I was just about to email you re the need for posters to refrain from labelling those who dare to dissent from 'multicultural'/ egalitarian perspectives as 'racists'. Thankyou for your typically wise and fair words there.

I would like to add something too. Earlier this week I was called a 'racist' for describing Japanese atrocities of WW2 as 'barbaric', and the Army as akin to 'vast, almost medieval hordes'. The troops who fell upon Nanking DID indeed behave this way. As usual, a fellow poster whom I greatly respect, flew to my defence. After a warning from the Mod, the original poster offered a sarcastic apology. It is easy to call people names from the safety of a computer. However, accusations of 'racism' are potentially libellous. This is something that certain posters should reflect upon, and take very seriously.

Hi Timo,

I copped for that one as well on the Hiroshima thread.

I mentioned the Nanking incident myself but I believe I was generally held as soem sort of baby eating monster by some other Forummers. :)

Joe

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
But I think if you look at some of people leading the campaign against Mosques being built they are in many occasions open racists http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=526296#post526296

And interestingly their is advice on a far right website this morning urging its supporters to mount campaigns against Mosque development not on issues of 'race' but to focus on issues such as car parking problems.

I can understand local people objecting Mosques being built on grounds of increased traffic and harm to businesses during construction periods, but I would expect them to raise this concerns over a church being built or any major development. When you have groups urging their members to seek out and block planning applications simply for Mosques and not urging them to block all large developments that may be of detriment, it's clear they aren't running these campaign for the good of better local planning decisions.

I don't think all people who object to new Mosques being built are racist but I think it's important that we show how some people are arguing against Mosques being built simply because they do not want any Muslims in this country or indeed anyone with a skin colour different to their own.

(Again, speaking as a Forum 'private citizen')

Fine. I'm sure that's true, but the perjorative use of the term racist IS applied to quite a few people on this Forum who are not racist.

Just because some people who object are racist doesn't mean that anyone who objects is. That's woolly, potentially libellous and highly offensive thinking to me.

So when people start throwing the perjoratives around, take care where you throw 'em.

Joe

Maybe racist is getting to be the new "fascist" (for those that remember the 80s).

Anyway back to topic........

This thread has gone on a bit since i last posted and i have sent a PM to redrobbo in relation to me posting the intial question.

I should have really explained a little more about my reasoning and was a little naive in not doing so. I posted shortly after driving through a mainly predominantly Asain area which appeared to have quite a few Mosques in this area. I consequently asked myself why they had to have so many, is it demand? Is it divide in the community? etc and wondered if it was such a good thing. At least Roy whose comments i often disgaree with posted something to answer the question.
Thanks to timo & JoeP who probably saw my intial naivity in the post and not jumped on the racist bandwaggon.

Anyway, i'll leave this alone now and wonder if actualy anyone will open a chippy in a Mosque! :D

Originally posted by youwhatref

Anyway, i'll leave this alone now and wonder if actualy anyone will open a chippy in a Mosque! :D

Why should they do that when the Mosques I've been to have served the best curries I've ever had.

Originally posted by JoeP

Just because some people who object are racist doesn't mean that anyone who objects is. That's woolly, potentially libellous and highly offensive thinking to me.



Isn't that what i said in my post?

Originally posted by Disco_Cat

I don't think all people who object to new Mosques being built are racist but I think it's important that we show how some people are arguing against Mosques being built simply because they do not want any Muslims in this country or indeed anyone with a skin colour different to their own.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
Why should they do that when the Mosques I've been to have served the best curries I've ever had.

Very true! :D. An Asian collegaue of mine brings me in his homemade curries and they are spot on! Not as hot or gut-aching as the take-away tripe we are served (although take-away is still tasty! lol)

Originally posted by Disco_Cat

I don't think all people who object to new Mosques being built are racist but I think it's important that we show how some people are arguing against Mosques being built simply because they do not want any Muslims in this country or indeed anyone with a skin colour different to their own.

Only just seen this DC and it wasn't what i was aiming at

Disco,
I can believe that. Compared with a nice Lamb Jal Farezi, Pilau Rice , Gobi Aloo Saag and Keema Naan, the Church of England's 'Pie and Pea Suppers' seem very third-rate and unappetising.

Originally posted by youwhatref
This thread has gone on a bit since i last posted and i have sent a PM to redrobbo in relation to me posting the intial question.

I should have really explained a little more about my reasoning and was a little naive in not doing so. I posted shortly after driving through a mainly predominantly Asain area which appeared to have quite a few Mosques in this area. I consequently asked myself why they had to have so many, is it demand? Is it divide in the community? etc and wondered if it was such a good thing. At least Roy whose comments i often disgaree with posted something to answer the question.
Thanks to timo & JoeP who probably saw my intial naivity in the post and not jumped on the racist bandwaggon.

Anyway, i'll leave this alone now and wonder if actualy anyone will open a chippy in a Mosque! :D

youwhatref, it's a shame you've let the PC brigade bully you into backing down over this. It's not the first time they've done it and I dare say it won't be the last.

Islam is going to be one hell of a problem in the future. Sharia law can have no place in a democratic, free thinking society. The views heard this week on TV about creating an Islamic state in the UK dont bear thinking about. The fewer mosques built here the better. Anybody wanting to live in an Islamic state is free to leave our country [as soon and as quickly as possible]

Originally posted by Nimrod
Islam is going to be one hell of a problem in the future. Sharia law can have no place in a democratic, free thinking society. The views heard this week on TV about creating an Islamic state in the UK dont bear thinking about. The fewer mosques built here the better. Anybody wanting to live in an Islamic state is free to leave our country [as soon and as quickly as possible]
But who is to decide what "our" country is? Everyone I know is happy with mosques being built - so perhaps you should leave instead?

Originally posted by Nimrod
. Anybody wanting to live in an Islamic state is free to leave our country [as soon and as quickly as possible]

What do you think about Turkey?

Most religious types are very nice people indeed, I think you're missing out.

Nailing people to crosses-chopping heads off-blowing people up-kneecapping-burning at the stake, seem a nice enough bunch to me.

where do we sign up.:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
What do you think about Turkey?

It's nice but i prefer chicken
:)

Originally posted by Nimrod
Islam is going to be one hell of a problem in the future. Sharia law can have no place in a democratic, free thinking society. The views heard this week on TV about creating an Islamic state in the UK dont bear thinking about. The fewer mosques built here the better. Anybody wanting to live in an Islamic state is free to leave our country [as soon and as quickly as possible]

The Islamic State in the UK argument has been around for years, and it's just a minority view from the nuttier elements of the UK Muslim community. And every sector of society has its crackpots and dreamers. Left wing politics has the Socialist Workers and communists for example, while the Right has the BNP.

As to mosque proliferation, look back a century or two and people would have been saying the same about the incredible growth of niche protestant churches that accompanied the Industrial Revolution. Since the '50s all sorts of other churches have mushroomed to acommodate immigrant communities. United Reformed for instance, Evangelical, Greek Orthodox. Right now the most actively religious group appears to be the Muslim faith, and it is deeply integrated into the communities where its faithful live.

But every dog has its day, and in 80 years or so there will be rationalisation in mosque distribution too. And many an Islamic place of worship will be converted into luxury flats just like the Methodist churches are today. Peace, brothers and sisters. Sharia law is not about to run rampant upon these verdant shores. And the more time I spend with British Muslims the more I realise this is a faith run in the main by supreme rationalists whose aim is to create harmony and peace in their flocks, so that we can all live together and make Britain an ever more diverse and interesting place to be. Anyone not wanting to live in a colourful, lively place alongside people from all over the world is free to to buy themselves an island as soon as possible.

Islam will be the undoing of this country in the future,its incompatible with the west and those who dont think it will be a problem are kidding themselves.
As to those who say the vast majority are not fanatical well maybe so but they are still muslims and as such its their duty to make those countries they live in an Islamic one.

What will undo this country in the future is precisely that which will undo America. While we the West galumph around the Arab world trying to control the flow of oil and getting all paranoid about a few overwought clerics China gets bigger, richer and more powerful. Islam is a bit-part player in the power shift that will unfold over the next half century, and UK foreign policy ignores China at its peril.

Imagine a country in which three thousand four hundred people are executed each year. A country in which the death penalty is imposed not just for murder but non violent crimes such as tax fraud, pimping and drug trafficking. Where specially designed buses equipped with execution chambers tour the courts to pick up condemned prisoners, drive them to a quiet spot and execute them with a lethal injection.

One imagines the BBC would surely mount an attack upon its representatives, activists would picket supermarkets that sold its products, and if its government tried to invest in Britain, its money would be contemptuously refused.

The country exists. Its name is China. Amnesty International estimates that the Chinese authorities executed 3400 prisoners in 2004. The number may be higher. In March 2004, a delegate at the National Party Congress claimed that 'nearly 10,000' people are executed each year.

Recently, the British Government tried to cadge money to save the Rover car plant in Longbridge from a country that parallels Nazi Germany. The Nazis pioneered the use of mobile gas chambers, used slave labour in their factories, attacked minorities and invaded neighbouring countries. All things the Communist Government of China does. Both economies were and are designed around a central autocracy that condones mass murder, but carefully leaves industrialists alone to savagely exploit its workers.

We, as a country, will probably remain silent, or effectively so, about the suffering of China's people, continue to buy its goods, fete its representatives, and invest money in it. We might just reap the same reward as we did from Hitler too.

Originally posted by royjames
Islam will be the undoing of this country in the future,its incompatible with the west and those who dont think it will be a problem are kidding themselves.

Really?

Unless I'm missing the obvious, I would have thought that the general decline in family values, coupled with an increase in crime levels and the explosion (no sick jokes please) of 'young, angry, unwanted' gutter urchins roaming the streets would have been more of a threat to society.

Yup, and while the West prefers to cock about with the Arab world China quietly gets on with pulling the balance of world economic power towards East Asia. Meanwhile the USA is, I read last November, technically bankrupt. Europe needs to have a good hard think about its future liaisons, because while China is still hungry and emergent it is capable of being dictated to on issues such as those you've just pointed out. Timo. But in a couple of decades time it will be decadent, deadly and, well, the daddy.

Originally posted by Abdul
Really?

Unless I'm missing the obvious, I would have thought that the general decline in family values, coupled with an increase in crime levels and the explosion (no sick jokes please) of 'young, angry, unwanted' gutter urchins roaming the streets would have been more of a threat to society.

Do you mean once they've been brain washed 'by dubious elements' in the local mosque? strapped up with explosives and sent to catch the local intercity connection?

:suspect: You're damn right, but it makes you wonder why the 'Community Leaders' were unable to manage to stop these 'rogue' elements from operating under their noses? You could conclude from it that they have no wish to stop them?

Abdul,
The moderate face of Islam, as perhaps represented by The Muslim Council of Great Britain, is in my view not going to prove the 'undoing' of Britain. Nor are the vast majority of Muslims. However, the dangerous, murderous minority, some of whom were at the recent 7000-strong 'extremist' rally in London recently, may well play a part in the 'undoing'. Certainly, we have problems with a marginalised, predominantly white and nominally 'Christian' underclass, but Muslim extremists willing to reinforce their beliefs with dynamite certainly do pose a very real and serious threat to British society. The Muslim community has a big responsibility to help root out such fanaticism. I feel sure that you will agree here.

Timo, he can't see it m8, he's probably one of these people that think that we blew our own trains up just to have an excuse to blame them for something?

Originally posted by timo
The country exists. Its name is China. Amnesty International estimates that the Chinese authorities executed 3400 prisoners in 2004. The number may be higher. In March 2004, a delegate at the National Party Congress claimed that 'nearly 10,000' people are executed each year.



Problem with China is British business has huge fortunes tied up with it - its easier to turn a blind eye whilst the cash flows in...

Originally posted by Internetowl
...it makes you wonder why the 'Community Leaders' were unable to manage to stop these 'rogue' elements from operating under their noses? You could conclude from it that they have no wish to stop them?

Yes, I've seen the groups of 'young, angry Muslims' outside the local Mosques, distributing literature and chanting slogans, but these were no different to the usual slogans and literature you hear on Sheffield's own Fargate every weekend:

'US / British Imperialists out of the Middle East'

'No war for oil'

However, I wouldn't have believed in a million years, that they would actually kill innocent civilians for their cause.

I will expect that most Community Leaders were taken by surprise with the London bombings, as was I.

Originally posted by Internetowl
Timo, he can't see it m8, he's probably one of these people that think that we blew our own trains up just to have an excuse to blame them for something?

Grow up.

Internetowl,
No, I disagree here. I have always found Abdul to be reasonable and open to debate. I think people are confusing his distaste for the interventions in Iraq [which I share with him] with a defensive attitude around Islam. Regarding the bombings, if Abdul will forgive me for speaking for him, I know for a fact that he blamed nobody but the terrorists. I have never had the pleasure of meeting Abdul, but I have enjoying discussion and banter with him on many occasions.

timo

Thank you for your words of support.

I'm sure the Muslim community are willing to help stop terrorist attacks, but if we don't know who the extremists are, how can we confront them?

If I was aware of any Muslims in my area plotting a bombing, I would not hesitate to contact the authorities. However, the London bombers were respected members of their community; they're the last people I'd expect to kill innocents.

Maybe people in the UK expect Muslims to know every single detail about our neighbours and those in our community. But if the immediate friends, colleagues and relatives of the London bombers didn't suspect anything, how could anyone else?

How many of you would know if people in your area were plotting something on a similar scale?

[QUOTE][. But if the immediate friends, colleagues and relatives of the London bombers didn't suspect anything, how could anyone else?

You REALLY beleive they had no idea what was going on? I think some of them did know what was going on but could not bring themselves to admit it.
We have around 1.5 million muslims here and I bet there are thousands that do sympathise with them and indeed would do the same given half the chance.
Islam is dangerous to us all,and I am sure this wont be the end of it.
As to the mosques we should tear everyone of them down,they are little more than recruting agents for the extreemists.

Originally posted by royjames
[QUOTE][. But if the immediate friends, colleagues and relatives of the London bombers didn't suspect anything, how could anyone else?

You REALLY beleive they had no idea what was going on? I think some of them did know what was going on but could not bring themselves to admit it.
We have around 1.5 million muslims here and I bet there are thousands that do sympathise with them and indeed would do the same given half the chance.
Islam is dangerous to us all,and I am sure this wont be the end of it.
As to the mosques we should tear everyone of them down,they are little more than recruting agents for the extreemists. Actual stats give the number of muslims in the UK at 1.6 million and growing each year by 2.9% which is faster than any other religion in the world today.

The whole concept of their religion is not to forsake your brother so there is no reason to believe that friends and family members did not knw that the terrorists were about to blow up anyone.

To say that islam is dangerous to us is a little nieve as other faiths that are not our own could be seen as dangerous.

To tear down any sacred place of worship would be to deny our own religion the same as we would deny others.

In all religions there are extremists who for some reason believe that their god is better than anothers god.
This has been going on since gods were first invented.

The christians with their crusades against the unbelievers.

In time, nothing has changed.....To deny another religion the right to practice only leads to our own religion being undermined.

By the way Roy! Do you go to church and are you a devout christian or Catholic?

Abdul,
Thankyou for what you have just said. I was never in any doubt whatsoever that you were a decent, honourable man. I am genuinely sorry that peaceful, law-abiding Muslims are made fearful by the actions of a warped minority.

Originally posted by Delboy3
In all religions there are extremists who for some reason believe that their god is better than anothers god.
This has been going on since gods were first invented.

The christians with their crusades against the unbelievers.



I hesitate to defend Christianity, but I'd like to think that we have moved on a little in the 1000 years or so since the crusades.

Islam, however, has changed little over the centuries and is still in the stone age when it comes to its views on most things - democracy, morality, gay issues, women, human rights and many other aspects of modern life that we in the west take for granted.

In addition, followers of Islam tend to put their religion above all else. Unlike many Christians (to whom religion is usually incidental to their lives), Muslims view their faith as paramount and many hold it to be more important than even their nationality, as we've seen in London over the last few weeks. In my view that's what makes it such a dangerous religion.

Islam, however, has changed little over the centuries and is still in the stone age when it comes to its views on most things - democracy, morality, gay issues, women, human rights and many other aspects of modern life that we in the west take for granted.

Ha! What a complete load of crock

Democracy - Attempting to suggest that democracy is either exclusive to Christian countries or that Christian countries are exclusively Democratic is a fabrication (both presently and historically).

If you are trying to suggest that Islamic countries have (mainly) been run by dictatorships over the past 60 years then perhaps that is more to do with (previous) British imperialism than their chosen religion.

Morality - How is Islam any less "moral" then Christianity? Please justify that statement. I have no idea of the exact figure's but I would be willing to place a wager that far more Muslims have died at the hands of Christians than vice versa.

I would also be willing to wager that more Christians have died at the hands of other Christians than Muslims at the hands of Muslims.

Or do you just believe that your values and beliefs are more more important than anybody elses?

"Sanctimonious" - Feigning piety or righteousness, enough said.

Claiming that any religion is any more "moral" than another is elitist crap. One of religions greatest myths is that morality is somehow exclusive to ones religion (regardless of the religion). Throughout history the greatest crimes against humanity (of all races and religions) have been committed in the name of religion.

Gay Issues - That would be the same Christian church that only views marriage as valid between "one woman and one man"? The same Christian church that has suppressed homosexual issues for fear of being tarnished as homophobic? The same Christian church that has historically viewed homosexual practice as morally wrong?

Women - Witch hunts, figures range from 40,000 to 9,000,000 killed (depending who you believe). Often called the "women's Holocaust".

"Women not forced to walk around in vieled clothes as Christians" you say? Try visiting a nunnery. Are they any more or less "forced" than Muslim women?

Human Rights - Strange, I would say some of the most authoritarian states have been Christian rather than Islamic.

I'm sure some Muslim countries could have taught Mussolini & Hitler some lessons in human rights.

Some could possibly even teach George Bush some lessons. (America is 4th in the world for state executions per capita, ahead of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Egypt, Yemen, etc). Infact the only Muslim country above them is Iran.

Incidentally, I'm aethiest, white and English before everyone jumps on me accusing me of being of the wrong colour/race/religion.

The most sensible post I've read in this thread was Nimrod

Mosques or churches or any other religious building are the same in my book- to be avoided at all costs. Full of nutters usually deluding themselves about entering the kingdom of heaven or how many virgins or camels they will be awarded, I feel sorry for the camels. Got no time for christians or Muslims.


As the old time Hallam FM presenter Scotty Mcclue would say... "me and you are singing from the same hymn sheet".

Yawn... same old tired lefty, PC propaganda. Get your facts right, or give it a rest mate :D

BTW, you appear to be under the impression I was in some way defending Christianity in general. If you read my post again, you'll see that, apart from one small detail, that was not the case.

I forgot to comment on the last line you posted. So here goes....

In addition, followers of Islam tend to put their religion above all else. Unlike many Christians (to whom religion is usually incidental to their lives), Muslims view their faith as paramount and many hold it to be more important than even their nationality, as we've seen in London over the last few weeks. In my view that's what makes it such a dangerous religion.

Although it can be put down to more than relgion the IRA cuased 3600 deaths in london through terrorist activity. Some would say (me included), had it not been for religious brainwashing/conflict many of these deaths would have been avoided.

Certainly far more than have so far been killed by muslims in london.

The IRA are far from the only terrorist organistation hiding behind Christianity. Pick pretty much any "three-letter-acronym" terrorist organisation from the past hundred years and they probably have roots somewhere in Christianity.

Trying to find this exact quote I read it appears this may be an urban myth but the sentimentality behind it cannot be denied even if it was...

"Boxing champ Muhammad Ali visited the site of the collapse of the World Trade Center.
He was asked how he felt about the fact that the terrorists responsible for the attack shared his Moslem faith.
He allegedly replied, "How do you feel about Hitler sharing yours?""

Yawn... same old tired lefty, PC propaganda. Get your facts right, or give it a rest mate

Please provide evidence/links of which facts I have got wrong.

Simply stating I should get my "facts right" is not productive without stating which facts I got wrong and backing them up with confirmed statistics.

Originally posted by punk
Please provide evidence/links of which facts I have got wrong.

Simply stating I should get my "facts right" is not productive without stating which facts I got wrong and backing them up with confirmed statistics.

Pretty much everything you said is open to debate in one way or another. You have made no serious factual points at all.

All you've done is simply trotted out the usual bleeding heart, lefty PC mantra, most of which reads like a Socialist Workers Party pamphlet

All you've done is simply trotted out the usual bleeding heart, lefty PC mantra, most of which reads like a Social Workers Party pamphlet

Interesting. First time I've ever been called either lefty or a Socialist by anybody (ever).

You still didn't answer the question so I'll repeat it..

"How is Islam any less "moral" then Christianity?"

Originally posted by punk
Interesting. First time I've ever been called either lefty or a Socialist by anybody (ever).

You still didn't answer the question so I'll repeat it..

"How is Islam any less "moral" then Christianity?"

You've misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't say that at all - quite the opposite, in fact.

Just so you understand, I too am an atheist and dismiss all religions (more or less) equally. So there's no mileage for you in pointing out the failings of Christianity. You'll get no argument from me on that score. Except to point out that in our democracy we are free to openly criticise religion, I dare say the same wouldn't be true if we lived in a Muslim country.

You've misunderstood what I wrote. I didn't say that at all - quite the opposite, in fact.

I quote...

I hesitate to defend Christianity, but I'd like to think that we have moved on a little in the 1000 years or so since the crusades.

Islam, however, has changed little over the centuries and is still in the stone age when it comes to its views on most things - democracy, morality, gay issues, women, human rights and many other aspects of modern life that we in the west take for granted.

Excuse me for reading between the lines here but you seem to be distinctly saying that Christian values in the areas of "democracy, morality, gay issues, women, human rights and many other aspects of modern life" have somehow surpassed those of Islamic Values.

Lets not beat around the bush. If I said "The quality of cars produced by Honda have "moved on a little in the past" 10 years whilst the production quality of Rover is "stuck in the stone age"" that comment would be construed as meaning that Honda cars are somehow superior to Rover.

So please don't try to backtrack on your earlier comment. I ask again for you to clarify why Christain values are more "moral" than Islamic values?

Originally posted by punk
I quote...



Excuse me for reading between the lines here but you seem to be distinctly saying that Christian values in the areas of "democracy, morality, gay issues, women, human rights and many other aspects of modern life" have somehow surpassed those of Islamic Values.

Lets not beat around the bush. If I said "The quality of cars produced by Honda have "moved on a little in the past" 10 years whilst the production quality of Rover is "stuck in the stone age"" that comment would be construed as meaning that Honda cars are somehow superior to Rover.

So please don't try to backtrack on your earlier comment. I ask again for you to clarify why Christain values are more "moral" than Islamic values?

er, I'm not backtracking. You obviously still can't understand what I wrote.

Since you seem to understand the car analogy, how about if I said "When cars were first introduced, all countries used to have a 10mph speed limit. These days most modernised countries have increased the limit to 70mph, but some backward countries are still enforcing a draconian 15mph limit"

Got it now?

er, I'm not backtracking. You obviously still can't understand what I wrote.

Since you seem to understand the car analogy, how about if I said "When cars were first introduced, all countries used to have a 10mph speed limit. These days most modernised countries have increased the limit to 70mph, but some backward countries are still enforcing a draconian 15mph limit"

Got it now?

So you're saying all Islamic countries are "backward"?

Originally posted by punk


The IRA are far from the only terrorist organistation hiding behind Christianity. Pick pretty much any "three-letter-acronym" terrorist organisation from the past hundred years and they probably have roots somewhere in Christianity.


Please get your facts right!

The IRA did not hide behind religion and in my eye's they were not terrorists.
The Irish were persecuted by the British for hundreds of years because they were Catholic.
They were treated as lowlife and had no human rights.
The IRA was formed to fight for freedom from British Rule and had nothing to do with religion.

The only reason that religion was mentioned is that the Irish are Catholic and the British/ British patriots are predominently Protestant thus instead of people saying The war was between the British and the Irish, they made it out to be Catholic against protestant.

Originally posted by punk
So you're saying all Islamic countries are "backward"?

I'm saying that Islamic views are very different to Western views on those issues. That being so, many people find those views oppressive, outdated and, yes, backward

The only reason that religion was mentioned is that the Irish are Catholic and the British/ British patriots are predominently Protestant thus instead of people saying The war was between the British and the Irish, they made it out to be Catholic against protestant.

In my defence I did say "although it could be put down to more than religion". Reading back it does seem I put it down to purely catholic activities which is obviously not the case, in my comments about the "three-letter-acronym" groups I hoped to convey that I also meant the Protestant UDA/UFF/ETC/ETC/ETC. I wasn't trying to blame anything soley on one group so I'm sorry if my post read like I was trying to do that.

However I disagree with you that alot of the bloodshed in both NI and the Britain hasn't been because of religion. It seems to me to be the segregating factor between the communities.

I'm saying that Islamic views are very different to Western views on those issues. That being so, many people find those views oppressive, outdated and, yes, backward

I don't disagree with you on that point. But I also find that Christian beliefs are equally as oppressive, outdated and backward.

Originally posted by punk
In my defence I did say "although it could be put down to more than religion". Reading back it does seem I put it down to purely catholic activities which is obviously not the case, in my comments about the "three-letter-acronym" groups I hoped to convey that I also meant the Protestant UDA/UFF/ETC/ETC/ETC. I wasn't trying to blame anything soley on one group so I'm sorry if my post read like I was trying to do that.

However I disagree with you that alot of the bloodshed in both NI and the UK hasn't been because of religion. It seems to me to be the segregating factor between the communities. Seems to me that everyone blames religion for something or other.
People fighting for their god has been the norm in most wars with god believed to be on the side of the victor.

Problem with this is that wars are started more through greed and power than religion.
Looking at the British army, There are people from all religions and nationalities willing to fight for their country as opposed to fighting for religion.

Seems to me that everyone blames religion for something or other.
People fighting for their god has been the norm in most wars with god believed to be on the side of the victor.

Problem with this is that wars are started more through greed and power than religion.
Looking at the British army, There are people from all religions and nationalities willing to fight for their country as opposed to fighting for religion.

How many protestants were fighting for the IRA?

Originally posted by punk
I don't disagree with you on that point. But I also find that Christian beliefs are equally as oppressive, outdated and backward.

That may be true in theory, but generally it's not true in most western countries where (as I said in my original post) religion is not an important part of most peoples' lives.


The beliefs are not the same as the practice and thankfully, most of us don't allow religion to enter our lives.

The beliefs are not the same as the practice and thankfully, most of us don't allow religion to enter our lives.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Not many of "us" practice religion to the extent that muslims do. (just to clarify, by "us" I mean people living in Christian countries not "us" Christians)

Every muslim I have ever met has been devout. The last time most "Christians" went to church was for a funeral or wedding.

Problem with this is that wars are started more through greed and power than religion.

I believe most religions are started more through greed and power than spirituality btw :)

Originally posted by mojoworking
I hesitate to defend Christianity, but I'd like to think that we have moved on a little in the 1000 years or so since the crusades.

Islam, however, has changed little over the centuries and is still in the stone age when it comes to its views on most things - democracy, morality, gay issues, women, human rights and many other aspects of modern life that we in the west take for granted.

Interesting post again, mojo.

Yes, Islam has changed little - why should it? It's the religion given to us by God, who we worship in the same way that Muslims did 1400 years ago.

Certainly, Christianity has changed over the years. What with the inclusion of homosexual and women priests, Christianity is beginning to look less like the original Abrahamic faith it was. Why? Does it need to appeal to secular modernists. or feel the need to move with the times?

Oh yes, I was utterly unsurprised to see you had nothing to offer to the debate than to criticise your opponents as lefty-dogooders, and bring up your own continual prejudices about Islam in general.

Welcome back to the forum :thumbsup:

Originally posted by royjames
[QUOTE]You REALLY beleive they had no idea what was going on? I think some of them did know what was going on but could not bring themselves to admit it.

Yes, I believe the families and friends had no idea.

Wasn't one of the bombers married, either a pregnant wife, or a young child? Do you really think his family would have allowed him to blow up a bus at such a crucial stage in his life?

Originally posted by royjames
[QUOTE]As to the mosques we should tear everyone of them down,they are little more than recruting agents for the extreemists.

Have you ever been to a Mosque, Roy? I'm happy to take you to the one I frequent this weekend. It's full of quiet, old men worshipping their Lord.

Originally posted by Abdul
Yes, Islam has changed little - why should it? It's the religion given to us by God, who we worship in the same way that Muslims did 1400 years ago.

Certainly, Christianity has changed over the years. What with the inclusion of homosexual and women priests, Christianity is beginning to look less like the original Abrahamic faith it was. Why? Does it need to appeal to secular modernists. or feel the need to move with the times?


Careful Abdul, your Islamic homophobia is starting to show :thumbsup:

Surely all religions, as long as they are enmeshed in politics as they are, have to evolve as time goes on? Underlying them all is a looking towards a higher energy or authority, which of course is a structure imitated in various ways by government itself. The political landscape has to shift as various influences come to bear on nations - diaspora for instance, the discovery of oil and the motor car, for a couple more - so since religious structures are enmeshed in countries' governments (even in the UK, where Anglican bishops get to sit in the House of Lords and prayers are said in parliament, and the chief governess - the Queen - is also the head of the Church of England), it's naive and downright unpleasant of any religion to claim that since God set it out in stone some millennia ago its outlook and groundrules need never change.

This isn't a huge dig at Islam in particular. The recent daft C of E fudge on gay vicars is another example of how religions need to perform an organic rather than dogmatic role in helping society along. Equally, the plainly bonkers division of women from men in both Jewish and Islamic worship needs a good working over.

Joyphil,
In this age of 'cultural relativism' there are many calls, like yours, for the 'working over' and 're-vamping' of religious faiths of ancient pedigree. The Koran is believed to be the unalterable, absolute, intrinsic truth by believers. Literally, the word of God. How can the 'truth' be repackaged, revamped, worked over, redesigned etc? There are certainly different interpretations of Islam, but they seem [at least to me] to represent how much one group is willing to pay attention to particular sections of the Koran, and how much another group is willing to effectively ignore other sections of the Holy Book which clash with cultural norms and values. Ultimately, the book is accepted as the truth by all believers, who 'surrender' to Islam. There can never be a 'working over' of what is perceived to be the eternal truth, and attempts to re-write the Koran to fit in with the left/liberal consensus in a secular Western society would be considered gravely sinful to say the least.

If we interpreted the Bible literally [as we are entreated to do at several points in the Holy Book], our society would not resemble anything like the so-called, humane, liberal culture it is. Holy Books and religions which are founded on perceived absolute truths cannot be revamped. Islam and Christianity are both at odds with Western, capitalist, democracy. Social cohesion seems to depend upon how much the followers of both are prepared to compromise. We have in our midst, Muslims [they may well be a minority] who are not willing to compromise an inch of their faith, and they will reinforce that commitment with dynamite. This is the most important issue of the age, aside from [and we both agree on this!] the little matter of an emerging autocratic super power called China.