|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 2, 2009 19:05:14 GMT
"I've got no objection to people trying to base arguments about 'christian extremism' on biblical texts." The major extremism, based on the Bible, isn't Christian. It's connected with the ongoing process of wiping Palestine off the map and replacing it with the Jewish State. ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.... In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country. ... ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLE'S COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
|
|
|
Post by evenstar on Feb 2, 2009 19:16:31 GMT
An eye for an eye, in that context, isn't part of Christian Biblical text. Perhaps according to your viewpoint, but you cannot speak for others, same as any other religious text, different people read different things and live their life accordingly. Abortion doctor killers are driven by their interpretation of the bible just as muslim fundies are driven by their own skewed believes, it think it would be fair to say currently the muslim nutters have the lead in being mental but it has not always been this way and wont always be in the future. Neither group represent anyone other them themselves.
|
|
sweet soul
New Member
Keep The Faith !
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by sweet soul on Feb 2, 2009 19:31:07 GMT
2of7 i cant post the link cos the story is from the BNP website and BNP links was banned years ago on the old msn site.
|
|
sweet soul
New Member
Keep The Faith !
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by sweet soul on Feb 2, 2009 19:32:44 GMT
If u wanna read the whole story its there to read :-)
|
|
|
Post by puffin on Feb 2, 2009 20:13:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 2, 2009 20:13:52 GMT
An eye for an eye, in that context, isn't part of Christian Biblical text. Perhaps according to your viewpoint, but you cannot speak for others, same as any other religious text, different people read different things and live their life accordingly.. I can, in actual fact, speak with absolute certainty. The principal of An Eye for an Eye is specifically forbidden to Christians. Those which claim it as a principal of practice either, have not read the Gospels or they are lying.
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Feb 2, 2009 20:46:53 GMT
I really cannot understand why this dreadful film would want to be shown in the House Of Lords! I saw a clip of it on LiveLeak out of curiosity. I didn't watch it all, what i did see was horrific. Promoting human suffering, encouraging children to kill etc. Dreadful. I don't think we want to have anything to do with the movie on this site. I'm all for freedom of speech, but surely we are all in agreement that we don't condone sick films of this nature.
|
|
|
Post by Libby on Feb 2, 2009 20:49:22 GMT
Apparently "Fitna" is Arabic for "Strife", the title says it all.
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 2, 2009 21:39:07 GMT
The author of Fitna is currently in jail for hate speech, I deleted links to his movie. New Yorker's link was to a movie about islamic hatred and not, as he claimed to CNN or Fox etc. Certainly I will err on the side of caution with direct links to films that may breach the TOS. No he is not in jail. He has been charged with it. He has not been found guilty of it. So you are now restricting links to sites which deal with - to borrow your own phrase - Islamic hatred [my italics]. I think you have a trigger happy finger. Would you similarly ban a link to undercover mosque?
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 2, 2009 21:45:33 GMT
An eye for an eye, in that context, isn't part of Christian Biblical text. Perhaps according to your viewpoint, but you cannot speak for others, same as any other religious text, different people read different things and live their life accordingly. Abortion doctor killers are driven by their interpretation of the bible just as muslim fundies are driven by their own skewed believes, it think it would be fair to say currently the muslim nutters have the lead in being mental but it has not always been this way and wont always be in the future. Neither group represent anyone other them themselves. 'Muslim fundies' are driven by their true interpretation of the Koran, as established by Islamic scholars over 1300 years. That's why it is called 'fundamentalism', it is a literal and faithful reading. How many killings of anti-abortion doctors have there been? Then compare it to people killed in the name of Islam. Then you may see how ridiculous your comparison is. Who are you to say then jihadis interpretation is skewed? What do you base that (wrong) idea on?
|
|
|
Post by bertrus2 on Feb 2, 2009 21:46:35 GMT
restricting links to sites which deal with - to borrow your own phrase - Islamic hatred That would include MEMRI, such a favourite of the anti-Muslim brigade.
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 2, 2009 21:48:41 GMT
(8:39) "So fight them until there is no more disbelief (fitnah) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone" (8:39) "And fight with them until there is no more persecution (fitnah) and religion should be only for Allah"
Fitnah means strife, but specifically it mean opposition to the Islamic project for humanity, hence the two above use of it.
|
|
|
Post by cobblers on Feb 2, 2009 21:53:06 GMT
An eye for an eye, in that context, isn't part of Christian Biblical text. Perhaps according to your viewpoint, but you cannot speak for others, same as any other religious text, different people read different things and live their life accordingly. Abortion doctor killers are driven by their interpretation of the bible just as muslim fundies are driven by their own skewed believes, it think it would be fair to say currently the muslim nutters have the lead in being mental but it has not always been this way and wont always be in the future. Neither group represent anyone other them themselves. 'Muslim fundies' are driven by their true interpretation of the Koran, as established by Islamic scholars over 1300 years. That's why it is called 'fundamentalism', it is a literal and faithful reading. How many killings of anti-abortion doctors have there been? Then compare it to people killed in the name of Islam. Then you may see how ridiculous your comparison is. Who are you to say then jihadis interpretation is skewed? What do you base that (wrong) idea on?
|
|
|
Post by vania on Feb 2, 2009 22:53:35 GMT
And your response Vania is that of a thingy. You don't bother to wonder whether the site was really a 'hate' site and you're quite happy for people to be censored. What on earth are you waffling on about? I said I wondered why New Yorker was listed as a 'guest'? After stumbling across this thread I know. This is taking your normal trick of inventing what people have said to new heights.
|
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,262
|
Post by voice on Feb 2, 2009 23:17:24 GMT
2of7 i cant post the link cos the story is from the BNP website and BNP links was banned years ago on the old msn site.
So basicly SS, its a made up piece of crapy propaganda put out by a bunch of neonazi f*cknuggets and exsists as a story no where in the real world. I and by the looks of it have looked extensivley in the news media and can find not one thing that backs the c.r.a.p you posted saying Lord A was about to incite a riot if the film was shown
|
|
limeylily
New Member
I can be as daft as anyone ... I just have to try harder.
Posts: 308
|
Post by limeylily on Feb 2, 2009 23:51:30 GMT
The major extremism, based on the Bible, isn't Christian. It's connected with the ongoing process of wiping Palestine off the map and replacing it with the Jewish State. - Bertrus
How could the Jews wipe Palestine off the map Berty, when 80% of the Palestine region was taken over and renamed Jordan by the Hashemites from Arabia?
|
|
limeylily
New Member
I can be as daft as anyone ... I just have to try harder.
Posts: 308
|
Post by limeylily on Feb 3, 2009 0:13:08 GMT
2of7 i cant post the link cos the story is from the BNP website and BNP links was banned years ago on the old msn site.So basicly SS, its a made up piece of crapy propaganda put out by a bunch of neonazi f*cknuggets and exsists as a story no where in the real world. I and by the looks of it have looked extensivley in the news media and can find not one thing that backs the c.r.a.p you posted saying Lord A was about to incite a riot if the film was shown I wonder why everyone experienced such difficulty in finding the story and more importantly why it appears to have been ignored by the British press, except on the newsboards of a couple of newspapers. I found the story with no difficulty in a publication called The Brussels Journal which mentioned that Lord Ahmed lost no time in informing the Pakistani press of his "victory for the Muslim Community", which appears to be true (links below). As The Brussels Journal might not be considered a suitable source of information for this forum, I have not included their link. www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\01\24\story_24-1-2009_pg7_44 www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65842&Itemid=2
|
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,262
|
Post by voice on Feb 3, 2009 0:22:57 GMT
I gotta question the validity of a publication that might not get past the hate site filter as a sourse of acurate information, perhaps the mainstream media passed this by cos its a bunch of the usual far right lies maskerading as 'news' If even the Daily wail didnt even publish it you gotta wonder at the truthfullness of the whole thing
|
|
limeylily
New Member
I can be as daft as anyone ... I just have to try harder.
Posts: 308
|
Post by limeylily on Feb 3, 2009 0:33:21 GMT
I gotta question the validity of a publication that might not get past the hate site filter as a sourse of acurate information, perhaps the mainstream media passed this by cos its a bunch of the usual far right lies maskerading as 'news' If even the Daily wail didnt even publish it you gotta wonder at the truthfullness of the whole thing If you choose to brand the Associated Press of Pakistan a bunch of liars, that's your prerogative. I didn't post the link as I've already had two links branded as "hate sites" and deleted today and, as I hadn't heard of The Brussels Journal I though it better not to chance it. However, the article from the Associated Press of Pakistan, which calls itself "Pakistan's Premier News Agency", is sufficiently clear for any Doubting Thomas. www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=65842&Itemid=2British Parliament calls off screening of controversial film LONDON, Jan 23 (APP)‑The British Parliament has cancelled the showing of a controversial film “Fitna” by the right‑win Dutch MP Geert Wilders following vociferous protest by the Muslim community. The screening was to take place on January 29 at the House of Lords. The decision to cancel the showing was taken on Friday when Lord Nazir Ahmed had a meeting with the Government Chief Whip of the House of Lords and Leader of the House of Lords, together with representatives from the Muslim Council of Britain, British Muslim Forum and other representatives from the British Muslim community. The film has created huge controversy around the world, especially in Europe. The decision by the Amsterdam Appeals Court, the second‑highest legal authority in the country, overturns an earlier ruling by the Dutch Prosecution Service, which last June dismissed hundreds of complaints against Wilders on the grounds that his utterances had been made “in the context of public debate”, a position that was endorsed by the Dutch Prime Minister, Jan Peter Balkenende, a Christian Democrat. But on Thursday, the appeals court argued that the criminal prosecution did not conflict with Wilders’ right to freedom of expression and said it based its decision on the standards set by the European Court of Human Rights. The Far‑right Dutch politician will now be put on trial for his public statements against Islam. As a result of the meeting at the House of Lords not going ahead, all protests and demonstrations have now been cancelled Lord Ahmed termed the decision as “a victory for the Muslim community.”
|
|
|
Post by puffin on Feb 3, 2009 0:44:56 GMT
So ... basically Lord Ahmed didn't threaten the Lords with thousands of Muslims. He, and some Muslim representatives, had a meeting with the Chief Whip and the Leader of the house, told them about the protests being organised and the offence the film caused in their community and they decided that it would make sense to cancel the proposed showing.
Trust the BNP to make it sound as if Lord A had gone in, guns blazing, threatening the Lords with bloody riots. Typical.
|
|