Well that is an intersting point TS, given that being with Pig so to speak makes you unclean. Accordingly, as Swine Flu is supposed to have in fact come from pigs in Mexico, I guess that if you contract it and you are Muslim or Jewish, then I guess you are by association unclean too. However, as good Christians/Atheists etc you need not worry my son, whilst your shit will certainly be liquid it shall not smell 8)

1 – 1:8 billion people i.e. individuals : Each church = one organisation

I don’t believe that makes me a generalist, in fact my whole point in respect of tyger is I have no real issue with the individual, its the collective that I have a problem with. Specifically in relation to the fact that Homophobia is part of the structure of the institution, child abuse likewise, as is thieving, lying and cheating, that in essence is what they teach.

Regarding Islam and Sharia Law, I think you’ll find my approach is consistent, in that what I was saying is that you can’t make sweeping assumptions about the religion, because of the abuses by individuals and not, the overall organisation, i.e. its the interpretation of individuals and sects, not the organisation per se.

Try to grasp that subtle difference.

No, strangely I quite respect where tyger is coming from and if that works for him its fine. Really I’m just empahasising that people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. The Muslims believe what they believe, and the Christians their particular flavour. Not my right to judge them for that, but hey that takes us right back to the start of the thread. If they beleive that Sharia Law is right for them, in the context its being applied in the UK, well thats as reasonable as tygers position on faith surely? No one really has the right to object to it.

The major problem is is that the likes of Denis MacEoin and the Daily Mail are rable rousing and causing hatred toward Islam with the slant they are putting on Sharia Law, and then gullible people are taking it on board from a position of ignorance and believing the piffle they are being fed.

Our legal systemn developed from Sharia Law, as did most legal systems in the world, to write off the whole concept becuase of the interpretations and excesses of a few is therefore no different to writing off our legal system becuase the Yanks still have the death penalty,

PS : If the depression is linked to the job, then you still have a case, as in occupational hazard kind of thing. If not fraid not.

Teeshirt Wearer here.

All of the above is good advice.

It is a long dark tunnel when you enter it, but the light at the end will get closer if you can bring yourself to take positive steps like the guys have said, but don’t beat yourself up if you can’t. Speaking personally 10 years on I’m happier than I ever have been, and now genuinely only concern myself with what I’ve got rather than what I haven’t. So there is an outcome.

Also you are quite right to post on here, I’ve never yet seen a thread of this nature which isn’t wholly supportive, and the best bit is that you immediately realise that you are not some sort of weirdo, in fact you are quite likely to be in the majority who have suffered in this way.

If its any help at all, very happy to offer a shoulder to cry on etc., I think my email address is in the profile. Feel free to use it.

G

Now thats fair : Accolade accepted 😆

Poxy forum

Grumm : Halfwit is only an insult if its untrue, otherwise its decriptive.

RE hypocrisy, I’ll take it that you can’t back that up then?

MT :

G Perhaps Tyger is signed up to the underlying principles of his faith not it’s corrupted manifestations.

So why sign up to it then? As I think hes already alluded to, your belief system is a personal matter surely. No reason to be in a big outfit to be Christian if thats what you chose to do. Surely if you sign up to an outfit you are doing so with warts and all, or did we hang all those Nazi’s at Nuremberg wrongly, and they were after all only believing the goods bits?

Grumm : Halfwit is only an insult if its untrue, otherwise its decriptive.

RE : Hypocrisy, so you can’t support that one then?

mt – Member
G Perhaps Tyger is signed up to the underlying principles of his faith not it’s corrupted manifestations

So why sign up to it. There is little or no need to, and as he has already aluuded to, your belief system is a personal matter, and its perfectly possible to be a GB on your own, in fact its strongly arguable that its preferable.

Halfwit is only an insult if its untrue.

So in fact you can’t support the hypocrisy accusation then?

equating Catholics with paedos.

Again I don’t think I did specifically

And I was being accused of name calling. 🙄

So come on then examples of my hypocrisy please.

Wow, I actually can’t believe you have spent the last however many hours defending Islam and claiming anyone who expresses any kind of disquiet about any aspect of it is a racist bigot. Irony?

I don’t think you find that I did, what I actually said was that information being used to discuss the matter was flawed, and that the underlying principles of Sahria Law are in fact sound and not the rabble rousing stonings and floggings that people in this country associate with it. In fact much in the same way that the underlying principles of Christianity are sound, merely corrupted by the “organisers and interpeters”. But then you never did bother to either read or understand what I was saying so why should I expect anything else from you

TS : Nope, pretty much the whole lot.

Really?

So signing up to a homophobic, child molesting, lying, thieving, cherating organisation is a good thing?? (I am assuming from his posts that he has chosen one of the institutionalised God Bothering frauds to join up to)

<Stifles a snigger>

Ahhh, now your hitting on the point, its a personal belief, and its up to how you interprete it as an individual, and thereby hangs the whole tale of this thread. Sharia Law is somwhat like your faith, and the desire to lead a good life. However, its application is by mere mortals, who strangely, seem to be able to interprete things to suit their own ends. So ultimately what we get down to, is that to ostracise the whole deal because of the actions of a few is probably an over reaction to the underlying sound principles.

For what its worth, my religious views are not dissimilar to yours, except that I prefer the other interpretation, and therefore I am spending my life trying to take part in as many of the pleasures of the flesh as possible, and let me tell you the Devils “loving” also has its breathtaking moments! 😉

“The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.”

Alternative view

The greatest trick God ever pulled was convincing the God botherers that he exists

tyger: what if you’re wrong and in fact the devil is a **** smarter than you think and has actually convinced your lot thats hes God, and all the time the bacanailian lot were right, and in fact your heaven is going to involve lots of floggings with birch twigs and manky old birds with long tits making you do unspeakable things, while in the meantime the rest of us are on milk, honey and virgins, with the odd sherbert thrown in? I have similar evidence to yours that this is how it really is!

😯 …… oh heck! tygers a god botherer and Ernies turned down free stuff WTF?

Any chance of a separate forum for conspiracy theories ??

PMSL at tanky…

Actually just read down the comments on that Times article, and there it is encapsulated, all the predjudice, all the knee jerks, all the lack of knowledge demonstrated there in spades.

Is that from the same place as your definition of racism?

Did you ever answer the question I put specifically for you regarding anti-semitism?… No? thought not

Think we should stick to accepted definitions as oppose to making up our own.

I would, but I feel obliged to try to get it to a level that you might understand. Admittedly a spectacular failure to date.

So there you go thats me answering you, so how about you reciprocating occasionally??

Grumm: To be totally fair I didn’t, wasn’t 100% sure so I took it from checking it against 3 online dictionairies. Where did you get yours from?

then ignoring the fact that there are seemingly a substantial number of muslims who share others concerns about sharia law.

So what precisely does that mean???

Please try reading a little bit about Sharia from an unbiased source, include in that the meaning of the words Islam, Fatwa and Sharia and then ask yourself if you can see the flaws in your position. A clue is that you should not base a view of 1 – 1.8 billion people on the actions of a very small number of extremists.

Again well put Mr A.

I think the problem is that they are not grasping what Sharia law means in reality, as opposed to in Daily Fail Terrorvision. The excellent article posted by Tanky says it quite well, but again they only pick out bits out of context

Interesting how Grumm for instance failed to select all of this above :-

On International Women’s Day, in March, there was a huge demonstration in London, backed by feminists, supporters of gay rights and others – including a substantial number of Muslims – who marched under a banner saying: “No sharia and faith-based laws – one law for all.” They claimed that the supposedly voluntary nature of the courts is a sham, because many Muslim women are pressured into accepting their rulings, and that sharia courts dispense cheap injustice. Denis MacEoin, author of the Civitas report, argues: “Women are not equal in sharia law, and sharia contains no specific commitment to the best interests of the child that is fundamental to family law in the UK. Under sharia, a male child belongs to the father after the age of seven, regardless of circumstances.” The Muslim Council of Britain says that this talk is “scaremongering”

Presumably becuase that last sentence from the extremely moderate Muslim Council does rather support what I’ve been saying all along.

LOL

grumm – Member

On International Women’s Day, in March, there was a huge demonstration in London, backed by feminists, supporters of gay rights and others – including a substantial number of Muslims – who marched under a banner saying: “No sharia and faith-based laws – one law for all.” They claimed that the supposedly voluntary nature of the courts is a sham, because many Muslim women are pressured into accepting their rulings, and that sharia courts dispense cheap injustice.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-big-question-how-do-britains-sharia-courts-work-and-are-they-a-good-thing-1724486.html

Racists.

Posted 9 minutes ago # Report-Post
surfer – Member
Ah but the Independent printed an incorrect answer to its crossword in 2004! We have to dismiss it as a source of information

Now these are ad hom…. couldn’t have timed it better myself, thanks lads. 😆

acracer, thats not what I’m saying at all. What I am saying is that because of those issues, most of which are accepted on here you should discount what has been written, that is not the same as saying its wrong, what it is saying is that at the very least you should acknowledge a bias, and at worst ignore what is said, as its not possible to fathom out the right from the wrong, especially as the guy has fabricated supporting evidence in the past.

My defintion of Ad Hominem is an argument where an author or similars views are rejected in an argument by some irrelevant fact being introduced to undermine the veracity of that individual. I do not think that these are irrelevant, in fact they are at the very core of what has been written, so to quote myself earlier in the thread …. Ad Hom, My Arse!! 😉

G is coming across all needy and arguing with himself because after ignoring peoples arguments and calling people names nobody will join in.

I dont have time to follow this interesting thread much today

Bit of pot calling the kettle something there Surfer if you don’t mind me saying so

Anyway, up I was responding to acracers point regarding ad hom. I would understand if you thought that was talking to myself, but honestly it wasn’t.

Regarding calling people names, I don’t think I did to be fair, that would be saying things like Knob Jockey, Big Girls Blouse, Tossy Toss Pot and the like, and although sometimes I’ll admit that the temptation overwhelms me I try hard not to do that.

Assuming of course that criticism of Denis MacEoin is a slur as opposed to a fact. If you read through the thread I think you will find that his veracity as an expert is generally accepted as being dubious given a) His self professed relationship with Israel, distaste for Islam, and alongside that the fact that he is strongly suspected of forging research.

Given that and the fact that each of these assertions are easily checked is it reasonable to accept the research, and or word of this individual, or a report commissioned by the Policy Exchange of which he was the author, as being anything other than slanted in a particular way?

I put it to you that it is not.

TS: Nah not really

OK Ok you asked for it, I am getting bored with this but just for you …

Grumm is correct we do attempt to stop this however eluding to examples where it is not achieved does not make the argument for the introduction of faith based law any stronger.
Murdoch has incredible influence however it does not match the level of indoctrination practiced in some Muslim countries that restrict education and study unless it is religious.

And your point is ?? I’ve already explained mine above, which is that his assertion that we try to stop people exerting undue influence is patently incorrect. With the exception of disputing another of his sweeping statements it has no relevance to Sharia Law, much as his original and obviously incorrect comment didn’t.

Big of you to admit that, perhaps, just perhaps I was wrong about you.

😉

Do you have to take special courses in order to be as patronising as you, or does it just come naturally

Its entirely natural, but I have honed it to a fine edge over the years by sharpening it up on the surfers of this world. Actually, its a great hobby you should try it some time. Much better than sarcasm, and the best bit is that they genuinely don’t get it, as you can clearly see from his post above.

I thank you 8)

You seem to be stressed.

And I’m tempted to paraphrase the famous Churchill to Lady Astor exchange, but you probably wouldn’t get it.

Dear God……

Surfer, Grumm makes the point that we in this country try to stop people who exert undue influence on others.

In response to that I have pointed out that that patently isn’t the case by citing the most blatant architect of mass manipulation that there is probably in the world outside of religion.

Grumm has then chosen to ignore that point and tried to score points with sarcasm, which once again does his case little credit, somewhat like your minor foray into that discipline in your own post.

Is that what you are reduced to now? Is that the only comment or challenge you wish to make after my post?

Nope, but responding as I really would like to would get the thread closed and me barred, so I felt it best to ignore it in the main. Happy to give you a detailed breakdown of my views on you and yours if you would like it though. Point me at your email address and its yours in a heartbeat.

Even a basic understanding of Sharia law exposes it for what it is and I have made my thoughts clear on that

Well that certainly cleared that up for me ….. phew!

Grumm I’m typing this slowly for you again, try to grasp it.

Mr Agreeable :

People are subject to all sorts of pressures from their parents, peer group or the people they worship with.

Grumm:

Yes and generally in this country we try to educate people to think for themselves, and try to stop people who exert undue pressure on others – except where religion is concerned it seems.

G:

In the exerting pressure on people department, may I suggest that you read up on Rupert Murdochs influence and the ongoing manipulation of our electoral processes on his part.

Grumm :

And yeah, so because Rupert Murdoch controls lots of the press, sharia courts that discriminate against women are ok. Nice logic there – you are sounding increasingly incoherent and silly

Blimey you realy aren’t putting it on are you? 😯

Oh heck look whats crawled out from under its stone..

Freedom : Oh right, so one morning Mr and Mrs Lardy woke up and decided that today we are going to feed kids utter shite and lead them toward an early death? Thats not how it works Hora and well you know it.

Regarding Fat Muslims, in my travels I have found that generally its only in the West and Westernised countries, and please don’t waste your time on finding a picture of some fat bastard somewhere. Its about the broader <sic> picture obviously.

Yes and generally in this country we try to educate people to think for themselves, and try to stop people who exert undue pressure on others – except where religion is concerned it seems.

Oh really? What like thinking its a good idea to eat crap and become obese, or to sit on your lardy arse and watch chewing gum for the mind on the box for example? In my experience, threads like this would not have existed in the past, simply because people did think for themselves and were able to think issues through intelligently. Personally, I see precious little of it nowadays. But thats fine, you believe what you like, obviously the educational system at the moment is an absolute shining beacon of excellence in a sea of ignorance.

In the exerting pressure on people department, may I suggest that you read up on Rupert Murdochs influence and the ongoing manipulation of our electoral processes on his part.

Actually, no the principles of Sahria law are not the same throughout the world. They are in fact very different and totally down to local interpretation. Surely that is self evident by the way that even in this country not every Muslim adheres to the same set of rules.

Grumm : Perhaps you have some better source of information on the views of British Muslims?

Clearly I’m not getting my point across, and I honestly don’t know how to make it clearer. Try to think of it like a rope across a ravine. The fact that the rope is only frayed in one place and therefore unlikely to break anywhere else does not automatically make it safe to use that rope. Flawed information is a bit like that. If you know some of it is flawed, you can’t then assume that its safe to use some of it and ignore some. There is clearly an underlying and inherant danger in that assumption.

What you are failing to realise (again, read the Jason Burke book) is that the most dynamic, fast-growing strain of Islam is a fairly extreme Saudi version of it

And what you sir fail to realise is that by giving credance to Denis MacEoins drivel, you are in fact encouraging that growth. Besides, “fast growing strain”…. compared to what precisely? Thats just alarmist crap suggesting in the very words chosen that it is some sort of insidious bacteria about to affect the entire planet. Is it really significant when compared to the estimated 1 – 1.8 billion practising Muslims in the world? I suspect that you will find if you look into it that this extremist sect is exactly that…on the extreme, and in overall terms no more representative of Islam, than the IRA was of Catholocism.

Can’t you see that FFS????

tyger : If I may, that is arguing the general against the specific. Obviously, given that Islam is one of the most predominate religions in the world, you will always be able to find sects that prove a point one way or the other. There is no point in the question.

Try to grasp the concept that Islam is a coverall term for a huge range of beliefs, some weird, some wacky. Some followers are arseholes, most aren’t.

So whats your point?

And quite a few who are very bravely expressing their point of view openly at great personal risk on the streets within that country.

Grumm : The “I work with a few muslims” etc comment is on a par with, “I’m not a racist but”. It seeks to justify the unjustifiable, and again not aimed at you, but it is often used in blatantly racist conversations.

Re your report posting, yes I did and yes I have and thats the foundation for my anger on the matter, it is blatantly flawed and blatantly biased. I have already explained several times over why flawed sources should not be given credence. You seem intent on acknowledging the flaws and then accepting the content, and frankly that does not do you credit.

Regarding the Gays thing, I presume therefore that you will be starting one about both the Catholic church and the C of E which are very blatantly institutionally Homo-phobic, as opposed to Islam where the concept has in fact been embraced (admittedly mainly behind closed doors) for millenium, except by a very limited number of extremists.

Try to remember that Islam encapsualtes as many variations as you can think of religions, including Christianity, which they tend to view as a kind of sub category of Islam, with Jesus being one of their prophets. Its for this reason that the sweeping generalisations are so ridculous and blatantly stupid.