Childline - racist bullying on the up.

[Halibut]

That is because Catholicism is pretty much dead in the Western world.

 

It most certainly isn't.

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2014 at 23:50 ----------

 

I guarantee if a white woman was walking down the street and her scarf was pulled off, this wouldn't be seen as racist, if the attacker was a Muslim.

 

Wearing scarves and other head coverings isn't a feature of white British culture, so no it probably wouldn't - unless accompanied by racist abuse.

 

I appreciate there is some religious aspect to the scarf, but did the lad know that?

 

Of course he did, unless he was a total halfwit.

[charmer]

It most certainly isn't.

 

It is. Although Church attendance is higher than most people think, very few people actually follow the religious teaching.

 

How many Catholics eat meat on fridays? Or get drunk? Or have sex before marriage? Or eat Pork (yes my Muslim friends, pork is a no no for Catholics too)?

 

People today say they are Catholic, because they want a sense of Identity, to belong to something. But they do not observe the rules of the group they claim allegiance to.

[cgksheff]

So to clarify, do you think pulling off a Muslim womans headscarf and shouting racial abuse isn't assault?

 

Do you think such acts should be tolerated rather than prosecuted?

 

I think he said that if shouting racial abuse was involved, then it is wrong.

 

Whether pulling off a ladies headscarf represented assault? ... I would look first at the age of the culprits.

 

---------- Post added 11-01-2014 at 00:04 ----------

 

 

Wearing scarves and other head coverings isn't a feature of white British culture, ...........

 

We are not dead yet.

 

 

Use may be declining but I, the late Ena Sharples and many others would disagree with you.

[Halibut]

I think he said that if shouting racial abuse was involved, then it is wrong.

 

Whether pulling off a ladies headscarf represented assault? ... I would look first at the age of the culprits.

 

In the example we're referring to - given by Mafya - the assailant was a 14 year old schoolboy and the victim was a teaching assistant at his school.

 

In that context I'd say it's clearly assault.

[Pessimistic1]

My bold=

Back that up with proof or retract it ?

As for the boy incident well if you don't believe me that is up to you, I have no need to lie or post under different usernames.

Just looked back in post history and yes you are lying.

You are lying because this is how I replied to your question and you asked about Muslim women in a relationship with a white person/non Muslim and didn't say Pakistani to which I replied that Muslim women come in white too= http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10235856#post10235856

I have proved that you are making things up and just for the record I say it how it is and don't need to lie.

 

Why? you've just said you don't mind Pakistani women marrying a white Muslim. What about a white none Muslim, say a Christian, or Jew? I don't mind who white Christians marry. That's the difference, I'm not a racist, but you are.

 

Its easy to resolve, just state it. You won't, for obvious reasons.

[ricgem2002]

Wearing scarves and other head coverings isn't a feature of white British culture, so no it probably wouldn't - unless accompanied by racist abuse.

 

 

 

Of course he did, unless he was a total halfwit.

did you not see white women going out in headscarves in the 70s:roll: what racist abuse would that be then

[charmer]

So to clarify, do you think pulling off a Muslim womans headscarf and shouting racial abuse isn't assault?

 

Do you think such acts should be tolerated rather than prosecuted?

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2014 at 23:56 ----------

 

 

Utter nonsense. Which wingnut website told you that?

 

---------- Post added 10-01-2014 at 23:57 ----------

 

 

Since when were you the arbiter of whether a person belongs to a particular faith or not?

 

 

Errmm not a website, the Bible. Off the top of my head it is in Dueteronomy. It is a common misconception that Christians are not bound by the Old Testament. Even if they were, a passage in Acts supports the not eating Pork rule.

 

Here is a bit of advice my friend. Before calling out someone as wrong, double check your facts. This is especially if you are going to be as abrupt as saying "utter nonsense", it makes you look silly.

 

I am not claiming to be the arbiter (good word, one of my favourites), I just feel that for someone to belong to any organisation, one should follow its rules, whether that be a religious based group or not. There is no doubt that the power of the Catholic Church is dwindling in the developed world, but growing in Africa and South America. The Catholic Synod itself admits this, I would consider the Catholic Synod to be a more trustworthy source of the state of the Church than either yourself or I.

[Pessimistic1]

In the example we're referring to - given by Mafya - the assailant was a 14 year old schoolboy and the victim was a teaching assistant at his school.

 

In that context I'd say it's clearly assault.

 

It depends. If it was violently dragged off, pulling the ladies hair, or perhaps pulling her over, then yes I'd agree.

 

I wouldn't believe Mafya's version though. I'd like to hear both sides before making my mind up.

[cgksheff]

............. It is a common misconception that Christians are not bound by the Old Testament. Even if they were, a passage in Acts supports the not eating Pork rule.

 

.............

 

Utter nonsense!

 

---------- Post added 11-01-2014 at 00:15 ----------

 

In the example we're referring to - given by Mafya - the assailant was a 14 year old schoolboy and the victim was a teaching assistant at his school.

 

In that context I'd say it's clearly assault.

 

Yes.

 

Not necessarily racial abuse.

 

Possibly religious abuse.

 

Most likely just pupil/adult abuse.

[Halibut]

Errmm not a website, the Bible. Off the top of my head it is in Dueteronomy. It is a common misconception that Christians are not bound by the Old Testament. Even if they were, a passage in Acts supports the not eating Pork rule.

 

Here is a bit of advice my friend. Before calling out someone as wrong, double check your facts. This is especially if you are going to be as abrupt as saying "utter nonsense", it makes you look silly.

 

I am not claiming to be the arbiter (good word, one of my favourites), I just feel that for someone to belong to any organisation, one should follow its rules, whether that be a religious based group or not. There is no doubt that the power of the Catholic Church is dwindling in the developed world, but growing in Africa and South America. The Catholic Synod itself admits this, I would consider the Catholic Synod to be a more trustworthy source of the state of the Church than either yourself or I.

 

You are and it's both supremely arrogant and absurd for you to try and hold up some false standard to a faith which you don't subscribe to, using the Bible, which you probably don't believe in.

 

I repeat, your assertion that ''Pork is a no no for Catholics too'' is utter nonsense, in that most Catholics do not regard it as a no no.

 

From the Catechism - The Old Law was fulfilled by Jesus. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) explains, “The Law has not been abolished, but rather man is invited to rediscover it in the person of his Master who is its perfect fulfillment.” (CCC 2053).

 

For example, rediscovery of the dietary law (including eating pork), is explained: “Jesus perfects the dietary law, so important in Jewish daily life, by revealing its pedagogical meaning through a divine interpretation: ‘Whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him . . .’ (Thus he declared all foods clean.) What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts. . . ." (CCC 582)