Capt_Jack_Doicy post=18.71605.742720 said:
I doubt you could because your ignorance will defeat you.
My ignorance has often defeated me, but it required the minds of smarter people than you.
Capt_Jack_Doicy said:
So the numerous death threats film makers like Martin Scorese and Kevin Smith recieved for there films dealing with christianity don't count? is ok when american christians do it.
Emphasis added for an important distinction. Also, I'd love to hear of a truly powerful and influential Christian leader and head of state who made not just a death threat but a death
warrant for either of these men. I'm not talking Reverend Yokel of the Southern Ecclesiastical Loony Congregational Anarcho-Syndicalist Church, either. But while we're talking about actually respected Muslim leaders/heads of state who do and have: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah_Khomeini#Rushdie_fatwa
There will always be loonies in any movement. The only difference is that Christian loonies can be called bonkers without their critics having to watch their backs.
Capt_Jack_Doicy said:
Saskwach post=18.71605.734602 said:
and without the greater culture condoning such a deed and actually influential religious leaders sanctioning it
Monty Python's life of Brian is still illegal in Glasgow.
Glasgow is the greater culture? Glasgow is, or has, "actually influential religious leaders" sanctioning it? I note also, that your quote left out the "it" to which I was referring: a rabid intolerance for dissent so strong that it would lead many to kill, leaders to condone it and the mainstream to stay quiet or quietly support it. That's telling; The Life of Brian being banned in Glasgow is not a man being killed at the behest of a head of state because he didn't like the movie. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)]
Capt_Jack_Doicy said:
Perhaps you should tell that to all the journalist who've been murdered because of what they have written, about either side in the troubles some possible by the British government, or to David Kelly who was probably murdered by the government for revealing the all the evidence on which the iraq war was based was a complete fabrication. Or tell it all those Pro Choice americans Oh no you can't because there no longer alive. At least President Bush was talk out of bombing al jazeera for that dissent they were spreading.
It's interesting that you kept the actual incidents deliberately vague and failed to explain the facts or even the exact incidents you're talking about. When you do we'll talk about the validity of:
A)The incidents in question, and your interpretations of them.
B)Who was actually responsible (not some very loose implications).
C)Whether there were any mitigating circumstances - like, for example, a war being on.
Until then, you're just spouting bull. I've read about David Kelly's death, though, and whether he was murdered is under debate - let alone who killed him.
Capt_Jack_Doicy said:
Saskwach post=18.71605.734602 said:
this doesn't mean agreeing and complying with them, though - a key point. If you don't believe me, make a movie [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)] criticising Islam, or write a book [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_controversy] about Mohammed, and we'll see how long before a fatwa [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa] decrees your death.
Its funny i could do any of those about Islam but until earlier this year i would of been breaking the law to do so if i had made such a film about Christianity in this country, but then no doubt the BBFC would censor it. Then even if i got it that far if were deemed to be religiously hateful then it would be impounded and i would be tried as many times as the CPS wanted then Imprisoned.
"Until earlier this year"? You mean something got better? Perhaps Britain can also listen to, and be persuaded by, honest disagreement. I've seen enough blatantly anti-Christian books and movies to know you're cherry-picking, exaggerating and misrepresenting. Christopher Hitchens has equated Catholic preachers with child molesters; Richard Dawkins is unafraid to admit he hates all religions and even wants them destroyed.
Capt_Jack_Doicy said:
You given me to horrific examples of the extremes of Islamic culture so let me counter with two horrific one's of British. Jean Charles De Menezes shot for looking muslim, despite the officers admitting the shooting, ballistics and CCTV the CPS didn't proscute as they felt it lacked evidence, only the HSE had the courage to take the MET to task, and the MET in an attempt to cover its shame spread lies about their victim. Jody Dobrowski a young man beaten to death for being gay, his attackers said it wasn't murder because being gay makes him an animal.
But why don't you think on this, Despite being born and raised, a full and proud citizen of my country could never be its Prime Minister by virtue of the religion i was born into.
I know about Menezes. What happened was a tragedy, no doubt about it - what the police did was disgusting. It should be noted though, that the tragedy came directly after a terror attack: it's not an excuse, but I'm not surprised when scared men with guns don't act like saint, whether they're British, Mauritanian, Christian, Zoroastrian, or Muslim. It also needs to be said that this killing was not widely supported by the British public and was not, to repeat myself endlessly, sanctioned by a head of state. There has been a miscarriage of justice here but justice is not a perfect system in any country, and there are those striving for justice in this case
without fearing for their lives
Re: Jody Dobrowski. A man was killed for being gay. His attackers were sentenced to life imprisonment. Something unambiguously wrong was done and that act was punished - that's what the justice system is for.
I'm assuming that the religion you were 'born into' is Islam - if not, my argument is unchanged. That's sad; leaders should be chosen based on merit and nothing else. I never said the West, or Britain, was perfect, though; that was never part of my argument.
Besides, there's nothing inherently wrong with people voting for those they think are like them: voters want people in power who they believe want the same things and one marker of of beliefs is faith. Being Christian - or at least growing up in a society long affected by Christianity - comes with baggage that people can immediately grasp on to and understand, just like being 'left', or being working class. People from the left will mostly vote with left politicians, and working class voters, and voters with working class sympathies, will be attracted to a candidate who came from the poor and downtrodden. What is inherently unfair in Christians or Christian sympathisers voting with their own? I don't condemn Muslims for voting with a Muslim candidate. The only difference is numbers.
While we're on the topic of religious persecution, though, we should consider that even the idea of a Christian even having the same fundamental rights in most Muslim countries is a radical one. This isn't even arguable; it's fact. While conditions vary from country to country, if you were to tell a Christian living in a majority Muslim country that he could never lead his country of birth he'd probably laugh - that's the least of his worries.
And the times, they
are a'changin': http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/muslim.elect/
Something Cheeze_Pavilion said needs to be repeated. No one here is arguing that Muslims are inherently worse people than Christians or Westerners, or even that Islamic societies has always been worse than Christian ones. We're simply saying that, as things are today, the West has an imperfect but unarguably strong and growing tradition of accepting difference. Islam as it is today does not.
