Hello,
I just thought I would post this and see what everyones take on this is.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe...rss_topstories
Also, check out the video links in the page as well. That is primarily what I am looking for feedback on.
Printable View
Hello,
I just thought I would post this and see what everyones take on this is.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe...rss_topstories
Also, check out the video links in the page as well. That is primarily what I am looking for feedback on.
I think that some people take religion too seriously.
I think that in our ever continuing, yet pointless quest for political correctness, we give too much leeway to all religions and respect to people's beliefs. And that we allow them to thrive the way that fungus thrives in my cup of coffee when I haven't used it in a month.
I also think that this man's head is trying to escape his body.
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/WORLD/eu...ks3.afp.gi.jpg
I don't mind people taking their religion seriously, as long as hate isn't their religion.
LOL on the face thing. If her were a cartoon he would look very funny. The guy behind him looks like he is either making funny noises to a baby, or making monkey sounds. That was the first thing I thought of when I saw that pic.
Yeah, I'm all for freedom of speech. Even hate speech has it's place, in that it shows idiots up for who they are (British National Party etc.), but I draw the line at encouraging others to kill people.
His logic is (insert your own swear word) up. Nobody cares about the kids being blown up in Iraq, so that makes it okay to blow up Western kids in retaliation.... ? These people are idiots. Unfortunately, even an idiot can be very dangerous.
someone needs to let him know, nobody cares about his sick twisted beliefs ..
he isn't even a real Muslim .. LOL
This article is quite interesting in that it does make a very good point, in that Britains print media is very much sensationalist/emotive (like Fox news etc.), and as such are more than happy to give these extremists air time.
The whole article is here:Quote:
Extremists and radicals are very adept at playing the media's game. Even though they are a minority, a small number of them can gather on a corner, hold a protest or demonstration and get a massive amount of media attention and air time. That's because today's mostly tabloid media culture in the UK has sensationalized the "Muslim issue" and focuses only on the extremists, rarely finding the facts, context and texture beneath the surface.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe...our/index.html
Not very surprising, but it is nice to see the debate.
I was struck by the 13% figure. That suggests that 87% don't feel that way. Said another way, a vast majority don't feel that way. The way the thing is said is dependent on the point that is being made. 13% is pretty small.
To put it in comparison, there was a time in the US South where murdering cetain groups was deemed acceptable by a larger percentage than that. The current percentage of people who feel that murder of some group or another is justified might still be that high, it just depends on the group your interview, and who their target is.
In the end, you aren't likely to change the minds of a group. Individuals might come around to a new view, but a group will only change slowly and over time. Education is the way forward, and discussion leads to education.
The British media is quite sensationalist, and the newspapers over here are horrible. You can't get actual news; you only get news with an agenda. I'm so sick of it.
As for Britain itself....there are two Britains. There's the gentle, intelligent, tolerant, middle-class image that Britain is desperate for everyone to believe. Then there's the real Britain...racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, etc. There's a constant fight in the media between people accidentally stepping in it and making what overly-sensitive people could twist into racist comments, and the middle class getting the vapors and crying RACISM! In reality the people who are the actual racists fly under the radar, and the same middle class who pretends to be so tolerant contains some of the most openly racist people I've ever met.
Britain is facing an identity crisis as well as a crisis with its young Muslims, a small but vocal minority of whom have become radicalized to the point where they will suicide-bomb their own country, as happened in July 2005. I fear that won't be the last time this country has to face a native-born terror attack.
Here's where the UK is weird; it's almost schizophrenic. I've found the British themselves (as a whole) to be quite racist, but the government adopts mamby-pamby politically correct approaches to immigration and asylum. In my eyes a lack of political correctness does NOT constitute racism, but I think New Labour would disagree. I think this country's overly-PC approach to immigration and asylum has allowed extremist preachers into the country and has allowed them to remain here while the Home Office wrings its hands, trying to figure out how they could deport the troublemakers without looking racist when in reality there is NO WAY TO DO IT without someone accusing them of being racist. So they *****foot around the issue and don't do anything while the extremist mullahs they allowed in are radicalizing thousands of young British Muslims.
Simple, ban Islamic religious practices .. if they want to be practice that religion then there are a multitude of other countries where they can do that. :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
Wow I usually get quite irate at your anti British posts but you have hit every nail square and true on the head here. I fully agree with your take on today's Britain.Quote:
Originally Posted by disruptivehair
I wish we could be more like Australia, they have a great Prime Minister with true Patriot beliefs and is willing to state them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/6285665.stm
The link is a perfect example, Britain has been skirting round similar issues for years.
Even simpler, just arrest them. Murdering someone is illegal. People tend to forget that threatening to murder is also illegal. This is where Political correctness is overstepping it's bounds again. Prior to the WTC attacks, if someone threatened to kill someone, anyone, they would have been arrested on the spot and either sent to prison or more likley the looney bin. In the US The charge is called terroristic threats, I think. Can't remember the UK equiv. Now if you are a white christian male age 16 - 45 and said publicly that all white christian males age 16 - 45 should go to the local mosque and kill everything with two legs wearing a rag or a beanie on their head, Said person will be on their way to prison. Funny how It doesn't work the other way around. Free speach?Quote:
Originally Posted by rory
What are you talking about? In this state there is plenty of that going on, and nobody goes to prison over it. Among other things, I enforce a few laws. I don't personally do much of this, but I do get out and check fishing liscenses occasionally. In one of the parts of this state, I was told about a particular group. Basically, we were told that we can identify people by the way they reacted if we asked to see their liscence. Now, keep in mind that it is illegal not to show a uniformed officer your fishing liscense if you are fishing and if the liscense is requested. For this group, we were told just to leave if we encountered one. Did they go to prison for the threats and abuse? Nope, they weren't even charged, even though we knew they were violating the law. The fact is that you need officers willing to arrest, and they won't be willing unless they know there are AGs willing to prosecute. Since we know that some groups won't get prosecuted, we look the other way, because a ticket would be a waste of paper, and an arrest would be dangerous, expensive, and utterly futile. Welcome to America.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
good job the real cops dont see it that way .. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
(no pun intended ..)
You must be talking about American Indians fishers?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
I do not think there is much of a connection between extreme religious beliefs promoting death of opposition versus the constant battle over Native American fishing rights. Regardless, tribe officers are accountable to uphold Federal law.
Nope, it's a right-wing anti-gov group that lives in a hollow somewhere up here. Never met any of them.
Good job that Rory doesn't know real cops.
its a pitty for you that I know many.
As to the various tribes, they have a multitude of motivations, some good, some bad. They also have a multitude of influences dependent to a large degree on the strengths of their treaties in various areas. In general the tribal influence in our area is positive, and tribal members are not particularly beligerent, unless they have been mistreated, which is true of most people. However, there's more of a cultural difference there than most people realize, and the differences can cause tension, even between tribal members and tribal enforcement. The individual members, the tribal council (which sets the rules), and the tribal enforcement (which enforces the rules), are often working at cross purposes when it comes to fisheries. Therefore, the tribal enforcement has to enforce what laws they can, and will also look the other way for some groups.
Then talk to them more. The American west has numerous examples of groups living at odds with law enforcement from regional to federal, where the law enforcement simply looks the other way, because they know they can't actually enforce the laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory
Polygamy in Utah is a prime example. It isn't all that uncommon, nor is it much of a secret. However, it is clearly and explicitly illegal. So why aren't the open polygamists being arrested? Because they never lose on those grounds. The only ones that get arrested are those where a clear case of child rape can be made, and almost none of those win, either, despite marriages well below the legal age limit.
Groups like that may not be so common in the east, or on the west coast. I have never heard about them until I moved out here....except for Alpha66.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
You said:
And thats what I was replying to .. most cops, at least good cops, wont just look the other way. The ones that do, should be fired right away, and locked up.Quote:
Since we know that some groups won't get prosecuted, we look the other way
Yes, I'm 90 % sure I know of the group you're talking about. I never looked at your location before, that explains a lot of your comments in past conversations. I thought they busted all of those guys in coeurdalene? Guess they just moved house.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
They did just move house...effectively. They didn't get busted though, they just went bust. They harassed some lady and her son when her car broke down in front of the compound, and the resulting civil suit bankrupt the group. However, the group I was refering to wasn't that coeur d"Alene group. I don't even know if the group near me had an actual name or not. They were just anti-gov survivalist/militia types.
The police can only arrest people. If those people are back on the streets as soon as they are out of the car, the police learn really quickly not to arrest them. Budgets are tight at all agencies, you don't waste time on crimes where you can't get a conviction. Good cops know this. You don't arrest people if you don't have sufficient evidence for a conviction. There are certain crimes out here where the amount of evidence needed for a conviction is infinity. Since that is impossible, there are no arrests for those crimes. Fact of life. I was amazed by it also, as I used to believe as you did. Now I know better.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory
The idea of banning religions in order to prevent criminal acts being committed in their name has been attractive - and unsuccessful - throughout history.Quote:
Simple, ban Islamic religious practices .. if they want to be practice that religion then there are a multitude of other countries where they can do that.
I can only think of two regimes that have banned all religion out-right (though there are probably more): the Jacobin French and Stalin's Russia. Not much to admire there. I can think of a lot more examples of the selective criminalisation of religions: Hitler's Germany, Mary's England, Ivan the Terrible's Russia... Hmmm, still not much to admire is there?
The problem is that, when people have a bad motivation it's real easy for them to equate it with an arguably worthy cause, whether that's a religion, eugenics, freedom from persecution, the spread of democracy (yep, sorry, but some pretty bad stuff's been done in the name of that last one too), and then shout about it very loudly. That leads the rest of us to equate the bad motive with the cause and then we assume that the cause is itself bad. Religion tends to be the easiest of these causes to hang your hat on so it also tends to be the one that attracts the most nutters and therefore the most reactive criticism.
What this point of view overloks is that people will continue to murder, rape, pillage, steal, bully and generally persecute each other, whether religion exists or not. It's human nature that drives us to these acts, not religion. Indeed, Religions carry with them a moral code which tends to curb the worst human excesses. That moral code is occasionally out of whack with society, and occasionally usurped and twisted by people for their own ends but, taken in their original, uninterpreted forms, all the major religions talk alot more about loving thy neighbour than slaying infidels.
The likes of Abu Hamza exist, not because of religion, but in spite of it.
Thanks; I'm just telling it as I see it. :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by FishGuy