Jump to content

Recommended Posts

You can name you kids after MH as its a sign of respect - akin to latinos calling their Kids Jesus - you are not actually saying that yer kid is a prophet


naming a teddy after MH could be viewed ( in a suinty way by some ) to be attempting to create an effigy of a prophet for fetishment purposes and thats against the rules, cos its Idolatry and thats expressly forbidden



It gets complicated here, but its all to do with images or recreations of living things mocking rather than glorifying AL, cos hes made them and any attempt to copy his work is sort of koran copyright and a big sin ( depending on how you interpret it of course )

our government and Royal Family were browning nosing King Fahd of Saudi Arabia


In fact, the Queen et al were just doing as they were told. I am sure they are not that enamoured with the Saudi regime, nor with that of the Chinese etc. It's very unlikely the Queen would say 'I'm not going to shake that man's hand/break bread with him/put him up in the palace'. Nero

Ladygooner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think a worse story than this is the woman in

> Saudi Arabia who was out in a car with someone she

> wasn't related to. They were attacked by a gang

> of men who raped both of them. The woman is now

> in prison awaiting 200 lashes for breaking the law

> by going out with her boyfriend.


But one has to be embracing of all cultures surely.


Even if they endorse the oppression of women and rape?


Well apparently yes, according to that lobotomising, barbiturate of an interpretation of modern liberalism that is so popular.


(Apologies for my causticity but growing up in Africa gives one a slightly jaded view point on these things.)

IT depends on what subject is being discussed



If its got Gods backing, then you cant critisise


Example of belief held :


BNP = extreme views, but NO god given authority , thefore you can slag them off & gag them


Radical Islam ( or hard line Catholisism or US Born Again Christinaity ) = extreme views, but HAVE god Given permission to do it, so you should be carful not to offend


MY opinion ? - Let them all speak and debate in public if they want to hold such views and broadcast them, bu that might leave them exposed to some unfortunate questions that they will not be able to dodge

IMO religion is just another word for hypocrisy.


Take the CofE for instance. Wants to be exempt from the law regarding discrimination of gays yet in the same breath they tell us only god can judge. The only religion that's ever made any sense to me is Budhism, partly because god b*ll*cks not included.

Any religion that professes to know right from wrong, while preaching intolerance and hatred, is just plain wrong. If they have a human written book as your source of divine rules, then tell me they ain't human rules. Add to that how much interpretation can change in a moment (blessed are the cheesemakers) leave alone in the course of a century or two (they don't refer to cheesemakers literally but makers of all dairy products), throw in some stuffy councils 500 years and 800 years and 1500 years after the facts, or learned interpretations 1400 years later, and well, you end up with nice teachers jailed for playing with teddy bears.


Regards Snorky's final point, I'm with you. All this inciting-hatred law stuff is counter-productive. You can't kill ideas by imprisoning the progenitors and preachers of those ideas. You have to allow open discourse else all you serve to do is create martyrs and glorify those ideas.

Agreed.


I was reading that thing about Fred Phelpes, and was surprised to hear about the good work he did as a lawer for black rights, and started to think where did it all go wrong, but then you read about why he was disbarred, and it becomes clear that the man is obviously a nasty nasty psycho!


I remember Louis Theroux getting a few minutes with him, and you could see the anger and hate in his eyes at being questioned!

Its stone age isnt it .


Apart from the specific shooting bit, the sentiments are positively troglodytic.


but we have to rewpect it cos its a belief you see - god told them it was OK to do this


Anyone fancy Joining the Church of Everlasting Snorky ( ED branch ) ? - where we basically disregard all licencing, smoking & soft drug laws and get ripped to the gills every Friday nights with complete impunity - cos its our belief - God told us to do this as part of the weekly worship.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I recently had a utility room built, next to the kitchen. Dean Richards and his team carried out the works, they did a fantastic job. Thorough, with attention to every detail.  If you are considering an extension, refurbishment or renovation, Dean comes highly recommended.  Dean Richards  07888 651798  
    • Thanks to all for the comments and advice.  I have now reported the incident to the police.
    • Thanks everyone for your comments, all of which I’ve taken something from. I originally posted to warn and help others learn from my experience – hence the title, first and last words of the post. However, the process of posting and reading your comments has helped me better make sense of what felt ‘off’ about the incident, why and what I’d do differently next time. I hadn’t expected this outcome, so thank you.  It’s also yielded several ‘golden nugget’ insights, one of which I share here for others. For context, I’m a longtime SE22 resident, who lives on a street with a primary school, so am used to scooting, cycling, walking with buggies, small children, pets etc. I like where I live and have never been struck on a pavement by anyone, on wheels or otherwise. I’ve been fortunate. When walking down Carlton Avenue towards Dulwich Village yesterday, I was on the left-hand side of the pavement but – ‘golden nugget’ approaching – not as close to people’s front garden walls as I could have been. The cyclist came from behind and overtook on the inside i.e. passed between me and the wall. The gap was too narrow and he hit my leg. For clarity, my original post was about the lack of adult supervision of a child. There’s been much comment here about the cyclist’s age. I didn’t know he was 4, until his father told me. I felt that this was a tactic – along with telling me I was over-reacting, talking about intent, apologising undercut with ‘but’ and laughing – to downplay and avoid taking responsibility for his part in the situation. But I accept that is my perception, readers weren’t there and may think differently. What also felt ‘off’ is that the father didn’t see what happened or ask any questions to find out. What happened? Where did he hit you? How hard? Are you alright? Is my son alright? Is everyone alright? This sounds obvious but wasn’t to me until last night. Back to age. Is the age of the cyclist important? If you consider it from the perspective of a four-year-old, it might be. He’s on his bike, helmet on, speeding along, sees a gap and thinks he can get through it. He doesn’t know and/or may never have been told about the risks (to himself and others) of undertaking on the left. Hits pedestrian. I was not expecting to be hit from behind or the undertaking. But had I walked closer to the wall – and not left a potentially inviting gap – this probably wouldn’t have happened. This is just one ‘golden nugget’ I will take away. It’s something I can easily do, doesn’t depend on anyone else doing anything differently, and could contribute towards keeping myself and others safe. All in all, posting here has been unexpectedly useful for me. I hope for others, too. I feel able to move forward with learnings, so thank you guys.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...