Current Affairs Liverpool Womens Hospital

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

She's just got hitched mate to the seventeenth poor bloke. She must have a bomb Bay like a lancaster bomber by now

@ForeverBlue92's Katie love knows no bounds mate

 

[Kev50]

OK, just a silly hypothetical for you.

Somebody shouts the name of Dixie Dean while blowing something up or just doing something less bad. Does that straight away mean that the whole of Everton Football Club from top to bottom needs reform, needs to change on the back of this individual act.

Now, I know that this is a bit ridiculous but for me this hypothetical shows that you cannot just jump on something and claim it to be true when it is far, far, far more complex than simply attributing a religion, that is practiced in so many different ways across so many different countries, to acts made by individual people. If an atheist killed people using Darwins name, would that mean that Atheism had to reform as a whole, does science need to look at itself in a simplistic way and say that we need to change the whole belief system in science and medicine. No, in all these scenarios you look at the individual, you look at what caused 'them' to do this. If it happens to be religion then it still their own interpretation of the said religion, it does not mean that all people within that religion believe the same thing. Religious text is just a book, at the end of the day and like all books different people perceive the text in different ways. Unfortunately, some people have not evolved enough and still see the text in the same way as it was 1500 years ago. That is on them, not the religion.

The other bold part is a strange one. You say that the religiousness of the person is irrelevant yet here you are bringing up your opinions about the assumed (and now proven to be wrong) religion on a thread on this very subject. Do you not read/hear what you are saying, it is all over the place.

no, it it was one person killing themselves in the name of DD then it would be yesterday's news in no time. But it's not one person is it. When thousands of people are prepared to kill themselves and everyone else in the name of the religion, then it's time to start looking very carefully at whats' going on. the religion of this particular person is irrelevant to the debate that needs to happen. If Sunday had never happened, the debate would still be needed, given the last twenty years.

 

[Kev50]

Can we have stats to back this up please? Regional, national and international? Comparison between religions / causes would be lovely too.

I'm hoping this goes as well as your reading summary provision.

you are such an idiot.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

you are such an idiot.

That's very kind, but those stats mate?

 

[Kev50]

They aren’t all like that though, and there are also very many non-Islamic societies (two of which are in the news nightly) that you can say exactly the same thing about.

Also as people have repeatedly pointed out to you (so I won’t hold my breath now) the fraction of attacks carried out by Islamists compared to the number of Muslims worldwide is minuscule, and the majority of those victims are other Muslims.

what difference does it make who the victims are?
ok, give me. a list of the reasonable ones. The ones were jews and gays could live in safety, and where women share equal rights with men. And where youre not taking your life in your hands if you criticise the religion.

 

[tsubaki]

what difference does it make who the victims are?
ok, give me. a list of the reasonable ones. The ones were jews and gays could live in safety, and where women share equal rights with men. And where youre not taking your life in your hands if you criticise the religion.

… and round and round we go.

The definition you have now changed to is one that doesn’t really exist anywhere at the country level - in the Muslim or the non-Muslim world. In almost all of the world (certainly here and in the US) even the notion of having that tolerance is a relatively new concept.

 

[Kev50]

… and round and round we go.

The definition you have now changed to is one that doesn’t really exist anywhere at the country level - in the Muslim or the non-Muslim world. In almost all of the world (certainly here and in the US) even the notion of having that tolerance is a relatively new concept.

the point I am trying to make is that the religion if it is adhered to in its current state by definition causes repression, is anti democratic, hampers reform. Ergo, the religion has to be looked at, examined, criticised held up to the light for discussion. Not protected, hidden from view by a barrage of cries of 'bigot' and 'racist' whenever concerns are raised.

 

[tsubaki]

the point I am trying to make is that the religion if it is adhered to in its current state by definition causes repression, is anti democratic, hampers reform. Ergo, the religion has to be looked at, examined, criticised held up to the light for discussion. Not protected, hidden from view by a barrage of cries of 'bigot' and 'racist' whenever concerns are raised.

Your point is wrong though, and if you don’t want to be called a bigot then I can only recommend you educate yourself on this topic, rather than just regurgitating all the talking points of people who often are racists, bigots or associates of the same.

 

[Kev50]

Your point is wrong though, and if you don’t want to be called a bigot then I can only recommend you educate yourself on this topic, rather than just regurgitating all the talking points of people who often are racists, bigots or associates of the same.

Educate myself to the point where I understand that every Islamic society might to western eyes be repressive, but that that repression has nothing to do with the precepts laid down under islamic law. I'm sorry. but that just won't wash. I don't need to be a practising Muslim to understand that the societies created through adherence to the religion are ones which no 'progressive' would want to live in. And the real problem is the reluctance to change. Or even to engage. Criticism of the religion is an offence potentially punishable by death. How is a society ever going to rid itself of its appalling attitudes to women gays jews democracy and freedom of speech if you can be under a death sentence just for raising the subject.

 

[tsubaki]

Educate myself to the point where I understand that every Islamic society might to western eyes be repressive, but that that repression has nothing to do with the precepts laid down under islamic law. I'm sorry. but that just won't wash. I don't need to be a practising Muslim to understand that the societies created through adherence to the religion are ones which no 'progressive' would want to live in. And the real problem is the reluctance to change. Or even to engage. Criticism of the religion is an offence potentially punishable by death. How is a society ever going to rid itself of its appalling attitudes to women gays jews democracy and freedom of speech if you can be under a death sentence just for raising the subject.

No, I mean educate yourself to the extent that you don’t post ignorant rubbish of the sort you have been.

 

[mill]

Educate myself to the point where I understand that every Islamic society might to western eyes be repressive, but that that repression has nothing to do with the precepts laid down under islamic law. I'm sorry. but that just won't wash. I don't need to be a practising Muslim to understand that the societies created through adherence to the religion are ones which no 'progressive' would want to live in. And the real problem is the reluctance to change. Or even to engage. Criticism of the religion is an offence potentially punishable by death. How is a society ever going to rid itself of its appalling attitudes to women gays jews democracy and freedom of speech if you can be under a death sentence just for raising the subject.

Do you think a society created with strict adherence to Christianity would be open and progressive?

My point being that the idea of society created with religious ideology in mind being the problem rather than faith per se.

Strict adherence to religion set into law is the key issue.

There’s plenty wrong with Catholicism for instance that if set to law, wouldn’t exactly be open and inclusive.

You only have to look at places like Texas to see that.

 

[Ghost Rider]

If you want a simple answer to why extremists in Islam exist and why terrorism occurs on our soil.

Just ask yourself why do they want to kill innocent people here.

The issue isn't about religion, it's about how many innocent people are killed on their country at our hands

 

[mill]

If you want a simple answer to why extremists in Islam exist and why terrorism occurs on our soil.

Just ask yourself why do they want to kill innocent people here.

The issue isn't about religion, it's about how many innocent people are killed on their country at our hands

To exclude western foreign policy from the conversation is silly, yes.

 

[Kev50]

No, I mean educate yourself to the extent that you don’t post ignorant rubbish of the sort you have been.

You're the one defending a religion which subjugates women, persecutes gays won't allow Jews to live anywhere, disdains democracy and tramples over the right to free speech so you may want to think also about the plank in your own eye

 

[Jimishorts]

If we lived in a Islamic system/culture how many wives would you have lad?

That‘s one for the Al Rayyan thread. Just ask my Wednesday wife.