Could it become illegal to criticise religion, and Islam in particular?

[cloudybay]

I will tell them that we live in a secular state, with a man made law (which we have to religously respect), where apostates are not our responsibilty. They can be, and should be conselled. Hahaha, here we go. I can see you coming from a mile off. Let's have it all out at once, I haven't got time for your sort.

 

England is not a secular state. In other words you will indoctrinate your offspring? right?

[flamingjimmy]

There is a video on youtube with him ranting against the Bible, you must have seen it I have posted it a couple of times?

 

Here it is. If these are the words of a Christian I will eat my hat.

 

 

.

 

Hello, Grahame, I'd be here all day if I tried to convince you that you he was a Christian. You just wear you hat and let those of us don't exhibit some of the worst confirmation bias known to man towards every single issue there is discuss this.

[plekhanov]

He is planning on introducing New Age religion with the help of well known media figures. It has been in the planning for years at that so-called church he attends. They have a new age religion all mapped out. You wait and see..

Right so your argument is that he's a church going "atheist with muslim sympathies" who "is planning on introducing New Age religion"

 

Does that not strike you as even the teansiest bit self contradictory? Muslims aren't exactly known for their love of 'New Age religion' now are they?

 

Nor are atheists generally known to start attending church as young adults and then to continue to do so for the rest of their lives, as Obama has done. The fact that you don't like his church and agree with it's variety of Christianity doesn't automatically stop it from being Christian.

 

Until you can demonstrate to us who or what made you the final interpreter of the bible, arbiter of what is and isn't Christianity and judge of who is and isn't a Christian your declarations about Obama remain entirely unconvincing.

[Zamo]

Islam isn't "fascist, intolerant, oppressive movement", Islam is totallu different than what you see on your tv screens, people like you are the ones who bring our society down. Your backwards, brainwashed and ignorant mentality benefits no one.

 

If that is the case then it will be easy for you to cherry pick one of the great Islamic nations so we can compare with British (secular) society. We'll be able to look at how democracy works in an Islam nation. We can compare the rights and freedoms with our own. We'll be able to see if they too have laws to protect against unfair discrimination. We can compare human rights records. Etc, etc.

 

Do you dare to play?

[EbonyBranch]

Islam isn't "fascist, intolerant, oppressive movement", Islam is totallu different than what you see on your tv screens, people like you are the ones who bring our society down. Your backwards, brainwashed and ignorant mentality benefits no one.

 

All the Abrahamic religions are inherently "fascist, intolerant and oppressive". They're based on the concept that an invisible, all-knowing, all-powerful being can read your thoughts and convict you of blasphemy for saying the wrong things, thought-crime for thinking the wrong things, apostasy for losing your faith, etc.

 

If the penalty for apostasy isn't death, then why do so many Muslims, probably the majority, believe otherwise?

[Grahame]

Right so your argument is that he's a church going "atheist with muslim sympathies" who "is planning on introducing New Age religion" <snip>

 

 

This is a short history of the church Obama used to attend. The church’s motives of uniting black with white are praiseworthy. However in order to achieve unity they began rewriting Christianity and this is where the “New Age Religion” comes in with its elements of the Black Power Movement and Malcolm X.

 

Islam has echoes of the Old Testament and if Christianity is rewritten to be acceptable to Muslims then the whole purpose of Christ’s work has been destroyed and Christianity will have been taken back to Old Testament days and is no more. For people to unite in Christianity they need to embrace it. This is why I said Obama had leanings towards Islam which is happening in the “church” he attended. His attack on the Bible but not on the Koran indicates the line he is taking to achieve this so called unity leaving Christianity disenfranchised while promoting Islam.

 

The full wikipedia article is here

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_united

 

“Obama’s church early history coincided with the American civil rights movement, subsequent death of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the turmoil that entered the movement after his death. During that tumultuous period, a great influx of radical Black Muslim groups had begun to headquarter in Chicago, and Trinty sought to recontextualize Christianity through black liberation theology so as to win back Blacks who were being taught by radical black Islamic leaders that it was impossible to be both Black and Christian.

 

Patterns of migration among both blacks and whites are an important part of the social context into which Trinity was founded. Another is the threat that radical Black nationalism and Black Islam posed to Christianity's influence among Chicago blacks, as well as blacks nationwide. As these movements gained ground among Chicago blacks, Trinity sought to turn the attention of blacks back to Christianity.

 

In the early 1930s, Nation of Islam leader Elijah Muhammad moved his embroiled religion's headquarters from Detroit to Chicago. Mixing elements of the Bible and the Qur'an, Elijah Muhammad taught that Africans were the earth's first and most important people. He prophesied that a time was coming when African Americans would be fully vindicated, released from their various oppressions, and brought into full freedom within their own geographical state. For this to actualize, however, Elijah Muhammad taught that blacks had to radically separate from all whites. In addition, he proclaimed that blacks needed to live a moral life.

 

By the 1940s, the Nation of Islam's radical message had drawn in thousands of Chicago's blacks, many who had converted from one of the forms of Christianity their forebearers brought southward to Chicago.

 

Meanwhile, by 1960, the Nation of Islam national spokesperson Malcolm X had founded Mr. Muhammad Speaks in Chicago to help the continued spread of the Nation of Islam message. The newspaper achieved a circulation of over 600,000, making it one of the most prominent black American newspapers of the time. By this time, Nation of Islam ideology held a quite significant sway over Chicago blacks.

 

It was within the above social context that Trinity came into being. Trinity marks its beginning on December 3, 1961, when twelve middle-class black families, most who were descendants of migrants to Chicago during The Great Migration of African Americans, met for worship in a Chicago elementary school gymnasium. Prior to the recent migration of whites to the suburbs, blacks had found it extremely difficult to move into middle-class surroundings in Chicago due to segregated housing patterns and homeownership discrimination (also see Racial steering). At the time of the 3 December meeting, Chicago's Halsted Street marked "the color line".

 

Wright was keenly aware of the challenges that this deeply racialized context presented to Trinity. During graduate school Wright, argued strenuously against radical black Islamic groups who had been drawing blacks away from Christianity by asserting that the religion was inherently racist and only for whites. To recontextualize the Christian message for the new context and time in which Wright perceived the church itself in,

 

Wright anticipated that he would need to co-opt the positive elements of the Black Power message, while rejecting its philosophies of separation and black superiority—an idea around which a larger Christian theological movement had been forming, as evidenced by a full-page New York Times ad entitled "Black Power."

 

 

 

.

[Grahame]

All the Abrahamic religions are inherently "fascist, intolerant and oppressive". They're based on the concept that an invisible, all-knowing, all-powerful being can read your thoughts and convict you of blasphemy for saying the wrong things, thought-crime for thinking the wrong things, apostasy for losing your faith, etc.

 

If the penalty for apostasy isn't death, then why do so many Muslims, probably the majority, believe otherwise?

 

Are you saying it is OK to be thinking about your next adulterous affair and at the same time condemning the Bible that encourages us to live a life that is not hurtful to other people?

[EbonyBranch]

Well-l-l...Leviticus is pretty clear about exactly who should be killed for what minor sin, and as I understand it 'thou shalt not murder' is underscored by the concept that even to think ill of someone counts as breaking the commandment. Plus, if the onlu way to salvation is through Jesus, then anyone who thinks otherwise is damned, so yes, thought-crime. Not sure where you get the incest thing from, unless...wait a minute..Grahame! Are you deliberately trying to offend? I thought you were against that kind of thing!

Frankly, I'm shocked!

[Grahame]

Well-l-l...Leviticus is pretty clear about exactly who should be killed for what minor sin, and as I understand it 'thou shalt not murder' is underscored by the concept that even to think ill of someone counts as breaking the commandment. Plus, if the onlu way to salvation is through Jesus, then anyone who thinks otherwise is damned, so yes, thought-crime. Not sure where you get the incest thing from, unless...wait a minute..Grahame! Are you deliberately trying to offend? I thought you were against that kind of thing!

Frankly, I'm shocked!

 

I meant to say adulterous affair, and no I was not trying to offend.

 

One thing at a time. I asked you a simple question.

 

"Are you saying it is OK to be thinking about your next adulterous affair and do you condemn the Bible on the grounds that it encourages us to live a life that is not hurtful to other people and failure to do so may result in some form of punishment?"

 

.

[EbonyBranch]

I meant to say adulterous affair, and no I was not trying to offend.

 

One thing at a time. I asked you a simple question.

 

"Are you saying it is OK to be thinking about your next adulterous affair and do you condemn the Bible on the grounds that it encourages us to live a life that is not hurtful to other people and failure to do so may result in some form of punishment?"

 

.

 

I wouldn't necessarily say i condemn the bible, any more than i condemn the odyssey or mort d'arthur. I think parts of it are beautiful, much of it is interesting, some may even be useful, but little or none of it is actually true. I wouldn't see it banned, and i think its influence on our culture and language should be more widely acknowledged. I don't think that, on balance, the bible is a force for good. It is possible to cherrypick a selection of the more humane parts, such as the golden rule or the parable of the good samaritan, but if you made the honest attempt to live according to Leviticus etc. you'd be locked up. As i understand it, Jesus represents the fulfilment of the ritual laws of the old testament, which is why xtians don't routinely circumcise their young any more and are generally happy to eat pork, but does not challenge the moral laws, such as stoning disobedient children, and so on.

 

The 'thinking about your next adulterous affair' question is rather a glib, cheap shot. However, yes i do think it's ok for someone to think about their next affair. It may be hurtful, unkind, selfish and immoral to be adulterous, but the proscription of, and punishment for, thought is, axiomatically fascistic and totalitarian.