Stacey Dooley and muslims in the UK

[Dezerte]

Forbidding criticism of religion is one the most dangerous moves you can make.

When discussion is no longer an option, people will turn to violence.

[marthsk]

What a bunch of racist bastards you guys are. This is the problem with humanity, people like you and those extremists. You always look at the bad side of a religion/culture/skincolour, what a complete disgrace you are to the modern human. You are crying about muslims or other extremist organizations but never look at your own mistakes, you guys are becoming like nazi's always putting the blame on a certain folk in the society, learn to accept that this video and this discussion is only here to create hate towards a certain culture, yet all of you ''intelligent'' lads come and make such ignorant responses, also, I thought racism and disrespect towards ALL religions was going to be infracted? You guys are worse than the idiots in this video.

And what exactly are you doing right now? Looking at the "bad side of humanity" and lashing out without any consideration that there may be an actual issue underneath what you perceive as being "baseless bigotry".

Pot meet kettle? Oh wait, I shouldn't point out that you behave the same, you'll fall back on name-calling, since your self-righteousness grants you the right to call me any name you choose, and you'll still remain a better person, no matter how horrible your insults towards me will be. After all, it doesn't count if it's said to a heathen, does it?

All that, coming from a guy whose avatar says "Your Girlfriend, rated E from everyone"? Oh, it's a "joke", right? Well I'm highly offended by your sexism and mysogyny, but it pales in comparison to how utterly offended I am by your blatant display of hypocrisy.

(Nah, I'm not really offended, I was merely pointing out inconsistencies using your over-emotional approach)

Now seriously, don't throw stones if you live in a glass house, kid.

And now that I've shut every door that was opened, all that remains for you to do is to attack me personally rather than my position.

[Grimbold21]

But if you look at it from a numbers perspective, Christianity is the way to go. If we assume one of the major "religions" is correct (Judaism, Hinduism, Atheism, Christianity, Islam), then we can deduce which one is you best chance of staying out of hell. Atheism, Hinduism, and Judaism are out. They don't believe in hell, so even if you pick wrong, you're still okay. That leaves Christianity and Islam. Christianity has a lot less rules, making it a more comfortable choice. So in this scenario, Christianity wins out.

Now, if we include all religions in this, it becomes an incomprehensible cluster-fuck. At that point, you'd probably want to go with one of the old Egyptian religions, because their hell makes our hell look like disneyland.

Screw that, i wanna go to mount Olympus

[Deleted]

Forgive me if my thinking is incorrect here. I'm just theorizing one possibility. If Britain continues to just allow these radical muslims to push on, and blindly, without just cause, call someone who speaks up against what these people are doing racist, is there not a possibility that one day Shariah law might actually overtake Britain and become law itself? I honestly think in America Political correctness has become severely detrimental, but in the UK, what I'm reading from you guys it seems that what I would call "Western guilt" and "self hatred" to an extent is going from annoying to extremely dangerous very quickly. Is there not such a thing as tolerance and such a thing as turning a blind eye?

nope it wont happen. a small group of muslims tried to do such a thing a while back. so the local resident gave them all a slap and told them to fuck off

---------- Post added 2013-05-10 at 02:43 PM ----------

Forbidding criticism of religion is one the most dangerous moves you can make.

When discussion is no longer an option, people will turn to violence.

unfortunately when dealing with extremism talking about said religion get a reaction of violence just as bad.

Personally I don't like the way religion works. by all means people can have faith in whatever they want and can worship a spoon if they like, but certain religions muslims and catholics (the later not so much nowadays but go back a few hundred years to the "be catholic or I kill you times" seem to be intent on pushing people to believe in what they do.

Religion has far too much influence over far too much and its really disgusting in the current day and age

[Deleted]

No, you should convict criminals because they commit crimes.
I really see no point in this: "But that criminal was Muslim/Christian/born in UK/born in Iraq/the grandson of a guy who was born in Iraq/black/white/Hispanic/whatever.."-discussion that some people just want to have.

Like someone said earlier: 30% of all rapes are done by people with an Islamic background.
Yeah, so? 90% of all rapes are done by men. That doesn't mean all men are evil.

“Close relatives are responsible for 99 per cent of reported cases of rape,” according to National Child Protection Authority (NCPA) chairperson, Anoma Dissanayake.
Does that mean that all family members are bad?

What has that got to do with what I said? Stop trying to twist my words.

[Dezerte]

unfortunately when dealing with extremism talking about said religion get a reaction of violence just as bad.

Personally I don't like the way religion works. by all means people can have faith in whatever they want and can worship a spoon if they like, but certain religions muslims and catholics (the later not so much nowadays but go back a few hundred years to the "be catholic or I kill you times" seem to be intent on pushing people to believe in what they do.

Religion has far too much influence over far too much and its really disgusting in the current day and age

I'd rather take my chances and discuss and hope to resolve the conflict peacefully, than ensure a violent outcome by protecting these beliefs.

[marthsk]

No, you should convict criminals because they commit crimes.
I really see no point in this: "But that criminal was Muslim/Christian/born in UK/born in Iraq/the grandson of a guy who was born in Iraq/black/white/Hispanic/whatever.."-discussion that some people just want to have.

It's not that black and white (incoming accusations of racism, I know). When said offenses pertain to, say... religion for example (as it is the case with that minority of muslims attempting to bring Sharia Law in), it is relevant to provide the background of those involved. If you can't recognize something as simplistic as this, and if you're ready to dismiss this as bigotry when that matter is at the core of the topic at hand, then you're much more close-minded that you accuse us to be.

Like someone said earlier: 30% of all rapes are done by people with an Islamic background.
Yeah, so? 90% of all rapes are done by men. That doesn't mean all men are evil.

“Close relatives are responsible for 99 per cent of reported cases of rape,” according to National Child Protection Authority (NCPA) chairperson, Anoma Dissanayake.
Does that mean that all family members are bad?

Now you're just playing tetris with statistics.

[Dillon]

And what is wrong with that?

The western world is essentially without exception non-theocratic.

If you can't see a problem with enforcing religious law in a secular government, then you can't be helped.

[marthsk]

And what is wrong with that?

Excuse me? I don't follow that religion! Why should I accept to be subjected to its laws?!?

[Dezerte]

It's important to highlight the fact that Muslims are more likely to rape. That isn't the same as saying all Muslims are rapists, but it's indicative of a problem specific to Muslims (otherwise the rape statistics would be equal across the board). So it therefore makes sense, in addition to combating rape across the board, to specifically address this problem because something obviously is different and causing Muslims to be over-represented in rape.

I'm not calling for mass-deportations or anything like that, I want to solve the core of the problem not ship it away and let someone else deal with it. It appears to be a mix of their culture & their religion which turns people into rapists. I want to solve that problem by discussing religion, educating people and so on. This goes both ways by the way, if we are not willing to give them a chance then they'll only feel more cornered into their beliefs.

And just as a final clarification: I'm not generalizing Muslims, I'm highlighting a problem which seems more prevalent in Muslims than in our culture.

[Holas]

As an Israeli i think it is shameful the British police occupy the Islamic terretories around luton (it is an muslim land if you did not know that), harass and MASS MURDER hundreds of muslims every day!

What did you think? that you will do all these crimes and no one will notice? Yes, you should burn in hell like the protests claim. The world should stop all academic collaborations with you infadels. Stephen hawking should boycott and not visit your institutes (which i guess is hard as he is British himself).

On a more serious note - have fun with these innocent "freedom fighters" that will try to kick you out of your own country and claim it was theirs to begin with.

[marthsk]

It's important to highlight the fact that Muslims are more likely to rape. That isn't the same as saying all Muslims are rapists, but it's indicative of a problem specific to Muslims (otherwise the rape statistics would be equal across the board). So it therefore makes sense, in addition to combating rape across the board, to specifically address this problem because something obviously is different and causing Muslims to be over-represented in rape.

I'm not calling for mass-deportations or anything like that, I want to solve the core of the problem not ship it away and let someone else deal with it. It appears to be a mix of their culture & their religion which turns people into rapists. I want to solve that problem by discussing religion, educating people and so on. This goes both ways by the way, if we are not willing to give them a chance then they'll only feel more cornered into their beliefs.

And just as a final clarification: I'm not generalizing Muslims, I'm highlighting a problem which seems more prevalent in Muslims than in other cultures.

You wasted your breath, dude. The guy sees nothing wrong with imposing religious legislation to non-believers of his own faith.

I wouldn't be surprised if that guy and http://bit.ly/12lsJz1 are related. And no, that's not a potshot at muslims, that's a potshot at Kangodo as an individual. I know too well that all muslims are not the same, and that this extremism is the work of a minority of INDIVIDUALS. But that, Kangodo won't even acknowledge I said that.

---------- Post added 2013-05-10 at 10:13 AM ----------

Which would work if the majority of the Muslims acted in the same way.
If most Muslims would commit crimes because "their religion says so" than we'd see it as a criminal organization or a cult.
Fact is: Most Muslims condemn these acts. Most Muslims who are pro-Sharia condemn the violent parts from it.

The Quran has as much promotion of violence as any other religious book.
The reason: It's ancient. It comes from a time where stuff like that was normal.

But the moment that you blame their religion for their acts, you do two things:
-You take away the personal responsibility of the criminal.
-You attack the majority of followers from that religion who have done nothing wrong.

You misconstrued my position and attacked that misconstruction rather than my actual position. Typical.

There's a difference between blaming a religion and addressing it as background of people involved.

And finally, as I said, I don't see why I should be subjected to the laws of your faith if I'm an "infidel".

But it's true.

But it's false. In my view. Who wins?

[marthsk]

You do know that most laws around here are introduced a thousand years ago because some religious guy said we had to follow them?

That's irrelevant. And that doesn't answer my question. Why should I be subjected to the laws of your faith if I'm not a follower? Why not the opposite? Why don't I impose my faith on you, because, after all, laws were placed by people who forced religion onto others.

Why would it be you that forces his faith onto me, rather than me that forces it onto you? You really believe you're THAT superior to me?

Excuse me while I go laugh for the next five hours.

Sorry to break it to you, but you definitely are NOT superior to me. In no way possibly imaginable.

[Deleted]

Like someone said earlier: 30% of all rapes are done by people with an Islamic background.
Yeah, so? 90% of all rapes are done by men. That doesn't mean all men are evil.

When they make up such a small amount of the population in Finland as they do, 1% and they stand for 33% of the rapes in the country then that shows a rather serious problem in my opinion. It's the same in Sweden, people from those regions, middle east and north africa where islam is strong are heavily overrepresented, as much as as some of the men from some of the country being overrepresented by a factor as high as 23(!!!!!!!). That is a problem whether you choose to ignore it or not.

So it therefore makes sense, in addition to combating rape across the board, to specifically address this problem because something obviously is different and causing Muslims to be over-represented in rape.

Was a gang of young muslims in central Sweden I believe who were interviewed about rapes. They said it wasn't as serious to rape a swedish woman(Because she supposedly "gets help afterwards") vs raping a muslim woman(Because she gets "problems with her family").

[zorkuus]

If a majority of people want a certain law to be introduced, then we do so.

Some countries have constitutions that prevent a tyranny of the majority.

[marthsk]

1. It's not my faith.
2. People are allowed to WANT to introduce laws.
3. If enough people want a specific law, democracy can make sure that we get the law.
4. The background/source of a law is irrelevant.

1. It is, you've made that VERY clear.
2. You clearly don't understand separation of law and church
3. See point #2.
4. But it is. I can play the "it is / it isn't" game all day.
5. You're not superior to me. Stop acting as if you were.


EDIT: become you come out and say I invented things, I'll say one thing: yes, I buttered it up a lot. Just like you did. You seem keen on saying "It is / it isn't" and leaving it at that. Until you choose to actually discuss and not being utterly sneaky in your argumentation tactics, I'll play by your rules just to showcase how senseless it is.

[Dezerte]

You do know that most laws around here are introduced a thousand years ago because some religious guy said we had to follow them?

False. Most laws of today have been introduced because the people have had an common interest in protecting itself from certain actions. Religion was just one of man's first attempts of creating a universal law book (so to speak)

It's called democracy.
If a majority of people want a certain law to be introduced, then we do so.
It doesn't matter where that law came from, be it from religion or from some other ideology.
Most countries have parties with a religious basis.

Democracy doesn't really work like that. Ideas are very rarely put to a public vote.

Why is it false?
It's wrong to say that men are bad because most rapists are men.
But it is right to say that Islam is bad because many rapists are Muslim.

Do you see where the hypocritical part jumps in?

I dislike Islam (including most other religions) because of what it is. That doesn't mean I dislike all religious people.

[zorkuus]

It doesn't mean that we cannot introduce laws if they have any background in religion.

You can't if those laws infringe the rights of other people and still want to call yourself a secular nation.

[marthsk]

1. It's not. I am pretty sure that I know better what my religion is than some random guy on a forum.
2. I do understand it: It means that the Pope has no political influence. It doesn't mean that we cannot introduce laws if they have any background in religion.
3. See point two to understand why you are wrong.
4. Then link me a law that had enough votes to be applied but got refused because it was religious.
5. I don't have to act, at least I know what secularity means.

1. It is. Again, just playing your game. And you're just as random as I am. You're not Allah; you just believe in him. Please don't get depressed over that, though.
2. You don't. But this time, I won't be content with just playing your game, I'll elaborate. The pope has NOTHING to do with it. Separation of law and church means that no law shall be based upon religious motives. Period. And Sharia Law is nothing BUT religious.
3. See #2
4. No. You don't link? Why should I?
5. What did you just do now? You acted superior again, while not having a shred of a clue as to what secular means.

[Deleted]

The people defending these people are even worse.