The University of Birmingham discussion board: underground, uncensored, online :: firstname.lastname@example.org
Log in to check your private messages
Request an upgrade
! 32+ Pre-installed Modifications! 3 Server Locations to choose from: USA, UK and JAPAN.
11th December 2012 - CreatephpBB: All servers are upgraded to run using SSD drive.
to report problems!
The Radish Forum Index
Post a reply
View more Emoticons
[quote="naivehottie"]If this is about me, I'm not supportive of Israel as such, I just don't think Muslims are the innocent victims people portray them as, as a group they're generally far more intolerant than other religions (although this doesn't apply to other religions) and were founded on violence, forceably converting people and turning for example the once religiously tolerant Persia (when Zoroastrianism was state religion) into one completely intolerant extremist right wing. I don't see how being a Muslim country justifies being bigoted extremist right wing like some people think it can. However, people seem to claim Muslims are discriminated against here over trivial reasons while Muslim countries treat other groups horrifically and it's not on the same scale. For example Holocaust denial and Holocaust cartoons are commonplace.[/quote]
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
If you are visually impaired or cannot otherwise read this code please contact the
Confirmation code: *
Enter the code exactly as you see it. The code is case sensitive and zero has a diagonal line through it.
All times are GMT
Select a forum
Guild and University
Sales / Wants / Lost / Found
Activism and Politics
Gigs and Parties
Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 6:28 pm
The bit where they shot a guy in the head because he looked a bit Muslim from a distance was pretty bad.
Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 2:00 pm
I'm sure there were just can't remember off the top of my head. The only one that springs to mind would have been the recent incident on monarch airlines, but i aint sure if that would qualify as human rights' abuse.
Posted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 1:34 pm
But they do victimise sections of the population, and the human rights' act isn't used!
Thats because they have created different acts especially in the recent terrorists attacks upon London and to prevent such attacks occurring the future. Now the Human Rights Act 1998 has less power in certain areas although there are still plenty of options to go through if a particular ethic minortity/sex etc feel discriminated against. They can still proceed to the European Court of Justice and appeal against the certain acts.
What sort of things do you refer to when you say that victimisation still occurs there must be a particular instance behind that comment?
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 5:32 pm
Posted: Sat Sep 02, 2006 4:37 pm
But they do victimise sections of the population, and the human rights' act isn't used!
Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 7:31 pm
Yeah everyone's bags, not just one section of the population. If you're going to have extra security, then it has to be applicable to everyone and not just for one group, as James seemed to be implying. Stop being facetious you knew very well what I meant.
To be fair if they were gona victimise one section of the population I feel the Human Rights Act 1998 would kick someones i mean its the victimisation of certain individuals that the act was put together. Just because a person is of a certain ethnic group doesn't make them a target for a greater use of powers of which to search and to "protect" others. yes there needs to be greater security but I think it needs to be done in a practical way.
Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 6:52 pm
There's a lot of truth in that. While I wouldn't call Libya, Nigeria and Sudan liberal Muslim countries I take it you mean Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt. Add the likes of Turkey, possibly Malaysia, and most Western Muslims and you do have a point. I merely meant that there is more harm caused by parts of Islam than other religions today, not to say all Muslims cause harm by any stretch of the imagination.
On proportion Islam may have a higher proportion of fundamentalists, but I do agree it's no worse than medieval Christianity (probably not as bad, but still bad).
I wouldn't class George Bush as as bad as the Iranian president, although that's not to call his policies good, but I'd certainly class a lot of the American Christian Right as being as bad (the Christian Reconstructionists supported a 'Christian' version of Sharia Law).
One of the reasons Christianity and Islam may have more of an intolerant side than say Sikhism or Buddhism is the belief that people not holding to that belief are going to spend an eternity in a lake of fire, so members will see it as justified to go to extreme lengths to convert people (In theory in Islam you can be saved through Judaism or Christianity if you do it very well and haven't converted to it from Islam, but it's considered far better to be a Muslim). With Judaism the issue caused is more nationalism, and the largest problem caused by Hinduism is probably the caste system.
Possibly the reason for different interpretations being more common in Christianity today (besides liberalisation) is the fact that the Bible has many authors and thus contains more contradictions, and also makes no claim to be inerrant or the word of God (try telling that to a fundy though); whereas the Qu'ran whilst certainly having contradictions primarily has them in side issues, not very often in doctrine, due to having one author and clearly claims to be the word of Allah.
Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:05 pm
If you look at history (as I often do being a historian and all), then it is only relatively recently that Christianity has become a little more liberal (or its interpetors have become more liberal). Look at the late medieval and early modern period and you can hardly put a cigerette paper between the level of illiberalism of Islam and Christianity. The crusades, the inquisition, witch-hunts, the persecution of people such as copernicus and galileo.
And even today I don't think George Bush is really that much better than the Iranian President in their interpretations of their respective religions. They are both social conservatives, scary people in my view. All religions have "good" and "bad" interpetors and interpretations. If you want liberal muslims James, then how about those in western countries, or those in African countries such as Tunisia, who are nothing like you're Islamic Fundamentalist. Also it is worth noting, as far as I am aware, Islam has not had a reformation, unlike Christianity, so there are bound to be some differences in how people interpret the religion, however these are not to the extent that is being made out.
Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:17 pm
It's a tough balance with Muslim countries. Bombing's not the answer, but on the other hand the evil oppressive regimes need getting rid of/changing somehow.
Regimes that go around killing innocents are pretty shit, aren't they? Good job only Muslims do that.
It's a had situation to handle, as Islam does encourage terrorism, mercy killings and the evil Sharia Law like no other religion does these days (clearly not always been the case, Islamic countries now are similar to Europe maybe 300 years ago in this respect). In this country a lot of Muslims are becoming a lot more liberal, but there's still problems like this.
I'd disagree with the point earlier that Islam's no worse than any other religion, but I'd change it to say Muslims are no worse people than members of any other religion.
I would go as far as to admit that the Koran seems to have a lot more illeberal interpretors than possibly any other holy book at this time in history, and a worrying number of those illiberals seem to be in power in their countries. But to insist that Islam and the Koran are objectively worse than most other religions? I'm gonna need a lot more convincing. The Old Testament in particular is hideously bloodthirsty, but I think we know that I'd be considered a lunatic if I claimed that therefore Judaism encourages indiscriminate violence. There are ideologies, like Fascism, that I would have no argument with being called inherently 'bad' ideologies, regardless of how they were interpreted, but I have yet to see much compelling evidence that Islam is one of these.
However, if we're going to assume that some religions can be 'better' than others, I'd be fairly happy to say that Buddhism is better than Christianity.
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:19 am
Oh dear, my I remind everybody these forums are for intelligent discussion, not boosting Josh's ego. His head's big enough already!
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:54 am
I can still submit things to GC and if I get it right I can make them things they have to read out too!
HAHA the power
Posted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 12:46 am
ahhh the uni term is starting soon and it looks like the radish is coming out of its slumber!!!
Teapotboy you cant stop posting now that you are absent, we would be lost without you!!! You cant piss about in GC anymore but you can still wind people up on these hallowed forums!!
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:18 pm
Oh very funny Si, I would hope airlines (and passangers) aren't THAT stupid, although I don't know, wouldn't put it past them!
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:53 pm
...that plane incident the other day where passangers forced the pilot to chuck to asian looking men off a plane, cos the passengers thought they were speaking arabic.
Could have been worse - the plane could have been in the air at the time.
Posted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:29 pm
Says me, you wanna victimise sections of the population and piss em off even more then go right ahead. If I am honest I often question the need for extra security and the level of terror threat anyway, not all the time, but often.
© 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Igloo Theme Version 1.0 :: Created By: