Angola Bans Islam

[JFKvsNixon]

Yes it is slightly different but one could easily see how it could be extended to stop people preaching that which can't be proven. Obviously we could never ban people from believing in God or praying to God, but it is possible to stop people making public claims about God that can't be proven.

 

The law is clear regarding adverts. Every claim that they make must be substantiated. It is also as clear that this law does not include preaching.

[angos]

No I couldn't easily see it actually, there'd be a revolution in this country before that happened.

 

I doubt it, how many people do you think it would affect? how many people actually try spread the word of God to others. There aren't even that many people that go to church. Most people that have a belief in God tend to keep it to themselves and it wouldn't affect them at all.

 

---------- Post added 26-11-2013 at 12:49 ----------

 

The law is clear regarding adverts. Every claim that they make must be substantiated. It is also as clear that this law does not include preaching.

 

Nothing like stating the obvious, not sure what point you think you made though.

 

An advert is a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy:

 

A notice or announcement in a public medium promoting God or the church is therefor an advert and must not be misleading in anyway, and must be provable.

[SevenRivers]

The difference is obvious. Holocaust denial involves the fabrication of evidence to excuse a racial genocide, the denial of the testimonies of thousands of survivors, their liberators and of the perpetrators. Holocaust denial is a slander against history and against the victims.

 

Whilst the history of religions may well at times be fanciful, especially from an atheist perspective, that is not the moral distinction that informs the different treatment in law. The distinction is motive.

 

Religion is not a hate inspired slander to excuse a racial genocide.

 

I'm not making a moral distinction, simply drawing a parallel that banning certain beliefs (not in the literal sense of erasing it from thought, but prohibiting all public manifestations) is not something new, since many European states do exactly that. The only difference you're drawing on here is how much you find one or the other offensive.

 

If you're able to take a step back and look at it dispassionately, what is holocaust denial other than a belief which involves continuing to believe whilst being impervious to all evidence to the contrary, just like religion.

 

Just on you last sentence - many would say it is exactly that.

[Wildcat]

I'm not making a moral distinction, simply drawing a parallel that banning certain beliefs (not in the literal sense of erasing it from thought, but prohibiting all public manifestations) is not something new, since many European states do exactly that. The only difference you're drawing on here is how much you find one or the other offensive.

 

If you're able to take a step back and look at it dispassionately, what is holocaust denial other than a belief which involves continuing to believe whilst being impervious to all evidence to the contrary, just like religion.

 

Just on you last sentence - many would say it is exactly that.

 

This "only difference" is the most important one when looking at why laws are made and enforced.

 

They are the result of value judgements, a result of moral considerations. Theft, Murder etc etc can all be looked at dispassionately.. without morality none of them would be prohibited.

 

Many as in what? ten people would say Religion is a hate inspired slander to excuse a racial genocide ? However many they are, if any they would be making their claims based on a hugely distorted view.

[Halibut]

An advert is a notice or announcement in a public medium promoting a product, service, or event or publicizing a job vacancy:

 

A notice or announcement in a public medium promoting God or the church is therefor an advert and must not be misleading in anyway, and must be provable.

 

There's no basis in law for that.

[Owethemnowt]

Good place to take a holiday then.

 

Oh, I forgot. All those Islamist terrorist extremists will now be bombing the place.

 

At least they'll be stretched a bit more having to target another part of the world where the evil infidels are to be fought.

 

May be I can stay at home or even visit London without the danger of being bombed on a London bus for being ............. what is it exactly that they wish to kill us Brits for?

 

For being a non-Muslim?

 

I'm all for leaving everyone alone and letting them get on with whatever it is they want to do. But then human rights rears its head and we Brits tend to get involved.

 

Not where heads and hands are being cut off in the name of justice. Unless the heads happen to be white, European mainly. That makes Saudi heads not our concern so we ignore the good Muslims with money and oil who chop heads, like hands off, in their public executions.

 

Besides, the Saudis never threaten to cut the oil off. They need it to keep Harrods warm and the rest of Oxford Street plus of course the 5% of America they actually own, warm.

 

It's the ones who threaten our big businesses and our rich powerful friends. Make that Dave's rich powerful friends. So Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan are the really bad countries.

 

Then it gets more complicated. Iraq has the oil. That's simple. But Iran doesn' like anyone - more of that serious Muslim attitude - and Afghanistan sends its young men to kill us all.

 

Don't forget Pakistan. They swing both ways. Drones in - kill who you don't like - drones are bad. Terrorists welcome - Bin Laden built a house! We hunt down the terrorists. Very complicated.

 

As long as we, along with America and parts of Europe remain strong and determined enough to fight it - we'll stay on top of the problem. For then next 50 years.

 

But if we weren't strong enough, determined enough, then we would all be be down Carpet Right for an off cut and on our knees literally but not just several times a day. It'd be permanently.

 

The extremists have the objective of a muslim world.

 

It's times like this when you think a Russian response isn't such a bad thing. A bit strong on Greenpeace but they'd be welcome when it comes to terrorists proper. The again, they got kicked in Afghanistan. So don't underestimate your enemy.

 

Free world or extremists?

 

That's why folk speak so strongly on here because basically they want a free world and put it bluntly.

 

They also put it quite rightly.

 

Fine words from Dave.

 

Plain speaking from us.

[boyfriday]

May be I can stay at home or even visit London without the danger of being bombed on a London bus for being ............. what is it exactly that they wish to kill us Brits for?

 

I can safely say you can travel on any mode of London transport and the only thing you need fear is being crushed to death by other passengers.

 

If it still concerns you I'll act as chaperone...but you'll have to wear reins

[mafya]

Good place to take a holiday then.

 

Oh, I forgot. All those Islamist terrorist extremists will now be bombing the place.

 

At least they'll be stretched a bit more having to target another part of the world where the evil infidels are to be fought.

 

May be I can stay at home or even visit London without the danger of being bombed on a London bus for being ............. what is it exactly that they wish to kill us Brits for?

 

For being a non-Muslim?

 

I'm all for leaving everyone alone and letting them get on with whatever it is they want to do. But then human rights rears its head and we Brits tend to get involved.

 

Not where heads and hands are being cut off in the name of justice. Unless the heads happen to be white, European mainly. That makes Saudi heads not our concern so we ignore the good Muslims with money and oil who chop heads, like hands off, in their public executions.

 

Besides, the Saudis never threaten to cut the oil off. They need it to keep Harrods warm and the rest of Oxford Street plus of course the 5% of America they actually own, warm.

 

It's the ones who threaten our big businesses and our rich powerful friends. Make that Dave's rich powerful friends. So Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan are the really bad countries.

 

Then it gets more complicated. Iraq has the oil. That's simple. But Iran doesn' like anyone - more of that serious Muslim attitude - and Afghanistan sends its young men to kill us all.

 

Don't forget Pakistan. They swing both ways. Drones in - kill who you don't like - drones are bad. Terrorists welcome - Bin Laden built a house! We hunt down the terrorists. Very complicated.

 

As long as we, along with America and parts of Europe remain strong and determined enough to fight it - we'll stay on top of the problem. For then next 50 years.

 

But if we weren't strong enough, determined enough, then we would all be be down Carpet Right for an off cut and on our knees literally but not just several times a day. It'd be permanently.

 

The extremists have the objective of a muslim world.

 

It's times like this when you think a Russian response isn't such a bad thing. A bit strong on Greenpeace but they'd be welcome when it comes to terrorists proper. The again, they got kicked in Afghanistan. So don't underestimate your enemy.

 

Free world or extremists?

 

That's why folk speak so strongly on here because basically they want a free world and put it bluntly.

 

They also put it quite rightly.

 

Fine words from Dave.

 

Plain speaking from us.

 

When we Muslims do achieve our objective of a Muslim world I think everyone will be given a prayer mat and cap free of charge so no need for you or others to go to carpet right for a carpet cut off.

[bookie]

Yeah, because the Soviet Union was fantastic

 

This is the shortest /best post I've seen on this thread

[Cyclone]

I can safely say you can travel on any mode of London transport and the only thing you need fear is being crushed to death by other passengers.

 

If it still concerns you I'll act as chaperone...but you'll have to wear reins

I'm puzzled by the "they" he used which you were quoting. Does he believe that Muslim extremists speak for all Muslims? Is he equally scared of the pIRA and believes that they represent all Catholics? Or that all Christians are liable to blow him up whilst near to an abortion clinic?