Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Enraged SJ? Nope, just chortling at it - I genuienely love all you smug, hypocrtical, liberal metropiltans. Nothing unites you like having your easy prejudices and 'safe ground' positions questioned. But you're becoming a too easy target - maybe I'll go an pick on the Scientologists. With my anger and wrath..oh and persecution complex :))
Quids, how is it "prejudiced" to criticise the large-scale cover up of child abuse? I just don't get it. Would it make you happier if there were parallel threads criticising honour killings, forced marriages, genital mutilation, stoning of rape victims, etc?

I'm like: maybe describing religion as ridiculous mumbo jumbo is more offensive (and patronising, which as we all know is the worst thing you can be on the EDF) to the faithful than condemning those who have abused that faith and trust.


(But then I don't really give a toss about the abuse, it's just a convenient pretext for me to give free reign to my existing anti-Papist prejudices.


Not too keen on the Jews either, natch, which is why you won't find me starting threads about those power-mad c*nts who recruit young girls and boys, strap explosives to them and detonate them in shopping malls. Or who lift young boys away from poor families in rural Pakistan, indoctrinate them in so-called maddrassahs, abuse them, and send them to die half way up a mountain fighting an enemy they can't see.


^I've sent Nick Cohen the cheque for this bit^)

@ Jeremy


Please don't lend some sort of legitimacy to the barbaric and utterly selfish acts of filicide in the muslim community by pre-fixing killing with honour. However percieved, there's no 'honour' in it at all. It's murder, plain and simple. Nothing against you persoanlly, it's just that I can't tolerate the air of justification carried by the word honour when used to describe murderous acts at the behest of their chauvinsistic, Stone Age culture.

"Honour" in terms of organised religion is shorthand for the continued assertion of male power, despite mealy mouthed shitehawks claiming otherwise - women are still chattels to most religions, to be bought and sold as required.


If there is a God, then he should hopefully be waiting for these fuckers to come along and meet him so he can smite their parochial, narrow minded posteriors before sending them on the down elevator to meet Satan.

Jelly, it's certainly not my idea of "honour", that's just how it tends to be referred to in the media. Barbaric, stone-age culture? Yes, I would agree.


But is it not also true that the catholic church is chauvinistic (albeit to a lesser extent)?

Catholisism is more about Mary than the baby Jebus - the virgin mother fetishised by repressed men who have no experience of dealing with the opposite sex in real life - its logical to conclude that real women are second class when measured against this yardstick.

jelly Wrote:

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

> ...their chauvinsistic, Stone Age

> culture.


Entirely agree about the twisted use of 'honour', but talking of being careful with words, it's perhaps not helpful to use 'Stone Age' in a derogatory way. It's likely that pre-farming hunter-gathering tribes were more often than not highly egalitarian, non-chauvinistic and given to sharing. Post-Stone Age agriculture and urban development, however, gave rise to notions of wealth, status and honour of which extreme chauvinism and murderous family violence are cruel descendents.

a parting word - I have no issue with personal belief. As long as it doesnt affect me or my life, then I have no problem with anyone beleiving whatever they want. I know a few people with strong belief and I can honestly say, they are decent, caring and straight folk, who contribute much more to society than I will ever do.


This is not a rant at you or your faith.



/thread killed

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

    • The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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