Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 14:58:19 GMT
A good 95% of all "intolerance of christians" in the western world consists of people trying to stop them from imposing their views upon the rest of us. And yet a lot of the same people pander to and constantly defend Muslims and Islam which is a hundred times worse for imposing it's/their views on the rest. Go figure. Curious, I've never once known a muslim to try and impose anything on me. But I've known christians who've tried to do it. Go figure. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 15:10:36 GMT
And yet a lot of the same people pander to and constantly defend Muslims and Islam which is a hundred times worse for imposing it's/their views on the rest. Go figure. Curious, I've never once known a muslim to try and impose anything on me. But I've known christians who've tried to do it. Go figure. That's interesting. Do eloberate. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 15:19:22 GMT
Don't be a plonker all your life, Brian. The point was merely to highlight just what cowardly inconsistent agenda fuelled double standard applying clueless wastes of space so many of you liberal atheists here in the UK are. It's due to those dangerous pieces of sh!t that this country is slowing heading towards Sharia. You mean highlighting your rank hypocrisy on this matter because you want to impose your religious values on an unwilling population just as much as the Muslims want to,the difference is in some cases they're prepared to go to extreme lengths while Christians like you rant ineffectively on message boards. And this country isn't heading towards sharia law too many people would stop it,just as it's not heading towards a Christian theocracy either. You see the way to tackle Islamic fundamentalism is not to turn to Christian fundamentalism but to turn away from fundamentalism and the religions that give birth to it. Once we stop taking Muslim middle eastern refugees from third world shit holes and Christian Africans refugees from third world shit holes then religion can get back to its place in Britain and that's withering on the vine. Lol It's actually disgusting how stupid and obliviously clueless you are. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jun 16, 2017 15:28:55 GMT
You mean highlighting your rank hypocrisy on this matter because you want to impose your religious values on an unwilling population just as much as the Muslims want to,the difference is in some cases they're prepared to go to extreme lengths while Christians like you rant ineffectively on message boards. And this country isn't heading towards sharia law too many people would stop it,just as it's not heading towards a Christian theocracy either. You see the way to tackle Islamic fundamentalism is not to turn to Christian fundamentalism but to turn away from fundamentalism and the religions that give birth to it. Once we stop taking Muslim middle eastern refugees from third world shit holes and Christian Africans refugees from third world shit holes then religion can get back to its place in Britain and that's withering on the vine. Lol It's actually disgusting how stupid and obliviously clueless you are. Your failure to see past your indoctrination is amusing Cody. Like an unthinking machine with pretenses of independent thought. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 15:39:15 GMT
You mean highlighting your rank hypocrisy on this matter because you want to impose your religious values on an unwilling population just as much as the Muslims want to,the difference is in some cases they're prepared to go to extreme lengths while Christians like you rant ineffectively on message boards. And this country isn't heading towards sharia law too many people would stop it,just as it's not heading towards a Christian theocracy either. You see the way to tackle Islamic fundamentalism is not to turn to Christian fundamentalism but to turn away from fundamentalism and the religions that give birth to it. Once we stop taking Muslim middle eastern refugees from third world shit holes and Christian Africans refugees from third world shit holes then religion can get back to its place in Britain and that's withering on the vine. Lol It's actually disgusting how stupid and obliviously clueless you are. Yeah it becomes difficult when people don't fall into certain categories you've constructed for them Cody. You see this idea that the left or liberals of which I'm one always go out of their way to defend Islam and its excesses is simply not true,as evidenced by me and I'm far from the only one. You see when that stereotype can't be applied to me you flail around ineffectively because you have absolutely no rebuttal to give,because I condemn religious extremism in all forms,while you hamstrung by your Christian bias don't. Once the scales drop from people's eyes when it comes to Islam we can drive it from the position of prominence it has in peoples lives,the same thing we did to the Christian ideology decades ago. Christianity is an irrelevance in British life to the vast majority of Britain's the goal is to do the same to Islam,it will be a long a bloody struggle taking decades but rest assured secularism will triumph in the end. And if a shitload of fundamentalists be they Muslim or Christian have to get trampled on to achieve this then so be it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 16:36:47 GMT
Curious, I've never once known a muslim to try and impose anything on me. But I've known christians who've tried to do it. Go figure. That's interesting. Do eloberate. Well for example when growing up the government mandated that I attend religious services as part of school. I had to do it again when I became a teacher, too. Even today my tax money is spent on the church of England, and on religious schools. Then there are the "Lords Spiritual", 26 members of the House of Lords who have a say over every piece of legislation in this country. And of course the head of state is the head of the church. All of these things directly impact my life to one extent or another. No muslim has ever done any such thing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 17:23:59 GMT
That's interesting. Do eloberate. Well for example when growing up the government mandated that I attend religious services as part of school. I had to do it again when I became a teacher, too. Even today my tax money is spent on the church of England, and on religious schools. Then there are the "Lords Spiritual", 26 members of the House of Lords who have a say over every piece of legislation in this country. And of course the head of state is the head of the church. All of these things directly impact my life to one extent or another. No muslim has ever done any such thing. Sounds awful. You poor oppressed little snowflake you. Attending religious services as a child? what a traumatic experience that must have been you poor thing. No wonder your posts ooze bitterness towards the church. |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 16, 2017 17:32:16 GMT
tpfkar Well you certainly seal in the preposterous entitlement and nastiness! 
Women shouldn't be presidents, prime ministers or chancellors. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2017 17:41:01 GMT
Well for example when growing up the government mandated that I attend religious services as part of school. I had to do it again when I became a teacher, too. Even today my tax money is spent on the church of England, and on religious schools. Then there are the "Lords Spiritual", 26 members of the House of Lords who have a say over every piece of legislation in this country. And of course the head of state is the head of the church. All of these things directly impact my life to one extent or another. No muslim has ever done any such thing. Sounds awful. You poor oppressed little snowflake you. Attending religious services as a child? what a traumatic experience that must have been you poor thing. No wonder your posts ooze bitterness towards the church. ^^^ Asks for examples. Gets them. Throws a little sulk. You think it's not that big a deal? So do I. But I never claimed it was a big deal, only that it was more than muslims have ever tried to do. Meanwhile we both know that if the government tried to force the muslim equivalent of these things on American christians, they - and you - would throw daily tantrums. Because as usual, it's a case of no discrimination by christians matters at all, but any trace of criticism of christians is treated like Armageddon. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 19, 2017 9:34:36 GMT
Looks like Cody Jarrett has left us. Perhaps his god had a quiet word in his ear.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 19, 2017 13:01:58 GMT
I would say a few things in Farron's favour. One is he's one of the more left-leaning Lib Dems economically (in fact that was largely how he became leader as the Lib Dems wanted to regain their lefty credentials after Nicholas Clegg took them into a coalition with the Tories). The second is whatever his deeply held religious beliefs, he has never used them as an excuse to go against the party line when it came to gay rights.
It would be interesting to see who replaces him as leader. The favourite was Jo Swinson but she has announced she's not running though will stand for deputy leader. She leans a lot more towards the right than Farron did. Other potential candidates are Norman Lamb, Ed Davey and Vince Cable, all of whom would also be to the right of Farron. With Farron's lukewarm performance as leader and so many to the right of him in a high position in the party, it wouldn't surprise me if the party itself did some pushing to get him to resign.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 13:22:00 GMT
I would say a few things in Farron's favour. One is he's one of the more left-leaning Lib Dems economically (in fact that was largely how he became leader as the Lib Dems wanted to regain their lefty credentials after Nicholas Clegg took them into a coalition with the Tories). The second is whatever his deeply held religious beliefs, he has never used them as an excuse to go against the party line when it came to gay rights. That is indeed in his favour. But it's not a free pass. If a politician was strongly racist or anti-semetic, he or she wouldn't really get a free pass if they said "Well yes, I do think black people are inferior to whites and that jews are subhuman scum - but that's just my personal view, I don't intend to enact it as party policy." |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 19, 2017 13:55:00 GMT
I would say a few things in Farron's favour. One is he's one of the more left-leaning Lib Dems economically (in fact that was largely how he became leader as the Lib Dems wanted to regain their lefty credentials after Nicholas Clegg took them into a coalition with the Tories). The second is whatever his deeply held religious beliefs, he has never used them as an excuse to go against the party line when it came to gay rights. That is indeed in his favour. But it's not a free pass. If a politician was strongly racist or anti-semetic, he or she wouldn't really get a free pass if they said "Well yes, I do think black people are inferior to whites and that jews are subhuman scum - but that's just my personal view, I don't intend to enact it as party policy." Well with Farron it would be more equivalent to a person who was in a member of a group with some well-known racist members being asked if s/he had racist views and then dodging the question for some time before saying that s/he doesn't.
But yeah, I agree. I don't blame people for being turned off by Farron's unconvincing denial of having homophobic beliefs, and I'm no huge fan of his, even aside from views on homosexuality. I do wonder though if he might be replaced by someone worse in most respects even if they do say the right things about homosexuality.
But I suppose it doesn't matter overly, the Lib Dems seem to be pretty much finished as a serious political force.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2017 14:03:13 GMT
The fact is that if he had no problem with gays then when he was first asked he would have just said so. Engaging in the usual politician "saying something acceptable whilst not answering the question" is a strong indicator that there was a problem there. Dodging it subsequently for all that time reinforced that. And yes, he said he had no problem with gays - and then resigned, citing as his reason that he couldn't support party policy given his personal beliefs.
Which really comes as close as you're ever likely to get to proving that he was lying when he said he had no problem with gays.
So no, he really doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on this one.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Jun 19, 2017 14:17:41 GMT
The fact is that if he had no problem with gays then when he was first asked he would have just said so. Engaging in the usual politician "saying something acceptable whilst not answering the question" is a strong indicator that there was a problem there. Dodging it subsequently for all that time reinforced that. And yes, he said he had no problem with gays - and then resigned, citing as his reason that he couldn't support party policy given his personal beliefs. Which really comes as close as you're ever likely to get to proving that he was lying when he said he had no problem with gays. So no, he really doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on this one. Oh yeah I agree, he clearly does have issues with homosexuality although the extent of those issues is unknown. Still it's probably worse to openly express disgust at a group rather than to try to keep that to yourself which is why I made the distinction. A public denouncement of homosexuals by a prominent political figure would I think be worse for gay rights than what Farron did as those who are anti-gay rights would use it to justify their views.
That said, Farron's cries of witch hunt don't exactly help matters either.
|
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jun 19, 2017 15:24:06 GMT
No. Tim Farron was targeted specifically. Religion has not been a fixture of UK politics for decades, but suddenly left wing agitators sought to make an issue. 175 MP's have worse records on LGBT rights than Farron, who has constantly voted in favour of gay equality. Which of them were hounded to give moral pronouncements? What about Sadiq Khan? He voted for same sex marriage, he is religious, has he been pressed for moral judgments on gays?
Farrons personal beliefs are his own and his voting record shows he is capable of differentiating between what he believes is right and his public duty. I personally believe his faith is wrong, but wouldn't vote to ban Christians from marriage because I don't like their lifestyle.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 19, 2017 15:30:02 GMT
To me, this shold be simple to figure out.
Did the dude vote with his party or not?
If so, it doesn't matter one flying fig what the guy thought of gay people from a religious standpoint.
|
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jun 19, 2017 15:37:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 19, 2017 15:49:53 GMT
That settles it.
It becomes pretty retarded to get mad at the guy for leaving politics to reconcile with his faith when no harm was caused
|
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Jun 19, 2017 15:52:50 GMT
Tat settles it.
It becomes pretty retarded to et mad at the guy for leaving politics to reconcile with his faith when no harm was caused
Its the politics of outrage at work. Owen Jones is a socialist twat who agitated against Farron for not saying whether he considered homosexuality sinful or not. No other politician has to justify their religious beliefs. The Labour Party has a number of Muslim MP's, none of them were quizzed on what the Qur an says about gays...Pure triablism |
|
