Kulazzi
Active Member
why arab women?grag balbrady said:
Anti Islam converence lists Abbot (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Comrade nathan
- Start date
tattoodguy
Member
thats spot on.
women shoudnt be aloud to wear those head scarfs or whatever the fuck there called..and those head to toe dress things..........because there has been a few situations where they have blown them selves up and also done armed robberies.
I think its illegal to wear balaclarvas in public or something and hide ur identity or atleast the police will stop and search you or question you....................but we allow potential terrorists to walk our streets.
Our police are fucked in the head... they would rather us be blown up than be seen as being politically incorrect.
Yeah osama is a good bloke -------------but he lives over seas ..........and isnt in australia, he isnt in australia poluuting my fucking country.
women shoudnt be aloud to wear those head scarfs or whatever the fuck there called..and those head to toe dress things..........because there has been a few situations where they have blown them selves up and also done armed robberies.
I think its illegal to wear balaclarvas in public or something and hide ur identity or atleast the police will stop and search you or question you....................but we allow potential terrorists to walk our streets.
Our police are fucked in the head... they would rather us be blown up than be seen as being politically incorrect.
Yeah osama is a good bloke -------------but he lives over seas ..........and isnt in australia, he isnt in australia poluuting my fucking country.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Well i wasn't talking about you at all, i was talking about the people that are anti-christian in alot of these forums... and i don't think you're arab i was just using it as an example... and yes i know not all arabs are muslims, but alot of them are.
Spot on.Not-That-Bright said:
I'm not a very devout person, and I'll be the first to bag out the church... but some people here are really extreme. It apparently shows "liberal thinking" and "tolerance" to bag out Christianity.
Kulazzi
Active Member
actually, I was trying to point out that not all arab women wear the burqa or headscarf. Only muslim women.nekkid said:Ignore tattoodguy... waste of space.
Because they're deadly, and are capable of causing wide-spread havoc and destruction. I thought that was pretty obvious? I know a few, so trust me.
But I seriously don't think they are capable of doing all that.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Well religious tollerance is all good, but other than buddhists mosts of these people's religions don't really teach RELIGIOUS tollerance, so of course these sorts of things happen...
Islam states that there is no compulsion in religion. It would be considered a sin to force someone to become a Muslim. I'm sure many other religions do have some sort of theoretical basis to religious tolerance. But we're not talking about religions here... we're talking about people.
I do... just as I'm sure there are some Mongolian farmers, Japanese tourists and Latino breakdancers who are able to kill large amounts of people for some distorted ideology if given the chance. I'm sick of generalisation, and it's pretty damn obvious when it comes to Arabs.Kulazzi said:
Kulazzi
Active Member
*shrugs* we're all entitled to our own viewsnekkid said:
Vahl
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2005
- Messages
- 297
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2005
Spot on.Estel said:
The Christian churches encourage bigotry, hatred and disunity.
Therefore they are the antithesis to tolerance. Thus a tolerant, aware and untainted citizen would attempt to do all they could to discredit the church, which represents the opposition to their values.
BTW Liberal thinking encompasses:
Therefore opposition to the church is indeed a tenet of liberal thinking, however not that of the (un) Liberal Party of Australiadictionary.com said:
_
The church as an institution may be disrespectful to some other ideas, but I ask this: is it desirable to be tolerant of other points of view when they completely lack merit?Vahl3 said:
How does the church encourage bigotry, hatred and disunity?
By asserting that opposing the chuch is a tenet of liberal thinking, aren't you succumbing to bigotry?
Vahl
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2005
- Messages
- 297
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2005
Estel said:
I do not oppose the right of individuals to there beliefs. However it is unacceptable that the collective society should be subject to the beliefs of any group in society, no matter how large or powerful. Example: the continuing failure in Australia to recognise the legitimacy of gay relationships in law, on the basis of the views of a majority.
No, I believe that I was in truth assaulting your argument that tolerance should extend to the acceptance of tolerance. Bigotry refers to the individual who practices intolerance, therefore I am not 'succumbing to bigotry' as much as I am demonstrating the opposition of freedom and confinement. ie Spirituality vs Religion.Estel said:
What you asserted originally was that people should do all they could to discredit the church, and you couldn't be liberal if you did not support this. In order to prove this, you suggested the church represented bigotry, hatred and disunity.Vahl3 said:
Now you argue that all have rights to their beliefs, but society shouldn't be beholden to the church. That is a perfectly reasonable statment, but it doesn't support your above position. The problem is, there are examples where society is unwillingly beholden to minority groups such as homosexuals.
In regards to your example of church influence: What is the proof, that the gay relationships are not recognised in law because of the church? How do you know the majority support this opinion? What about the practicalities; that it would involve giving gay couples rights to adoption, that it would impose the doctrine of homosexuality on people who cannot choose, depriving them of opportunities to grow in normally functioning families.
Would you not agree that gay empowerment is a minority view? That feminism is a minority view? If we are going to oppose the church because it is a minority group imposing on society (incidentally it forms 70%+ of Australian society), why shouldn't we oppose the gay movement, which has done much influence already?
Bigotry: prejudice (oxford)
Isn't branding the church as you have done bigotry? The church has often fought to improve the rights of many people, improved living standards... and you choose to ignore that fact.
To assert that it is a prerequisite of liberalism that one oppose the church is akin to saying that one must oppose homosexuality to be liberal- they do, after all, wish to indoctrinate the young and withhold choice, act conspicuously to the point where the majority must suffer (Mardi Gras for example...).
SOME homosexual members suggest you're either with us or against us; there are always loonies on all sides. Saying the church should be opposed because of a few loonies is absolutely preposterous.
His grin is rather funny...
Incidentally, did anyone else think that Abbot really sneakily twist the abortion debate?
edit: incidentally, my above tirade was the first time I'd defended Christianity in how long? 3 years?
Incidentally, did anyone else think that Abbot really sneakily twist the abortion debate?
edit: incidentally, my above tirade was the first time I'd defended Christianity in how long? 3 years?
Last edited:
S
Sheehan :)
Guest
tattoodguy said:
youre country?
what about the womens right not to walk around showing off their bodies?
is this how shallow society has become?
oh and one more thing.ummmm....what was it?....oh yeah your a faggot!
joujou_84
GoOOooOONe
i wonder if tattood guy fears for his safety everytime he sees a woman wearing a scarf......im sure ud like it betta if someone walked past u half naked, but u have a problem with covererd women.....yeh i can see how that inconviences u