Pastors reject apology order over Koran comments (1 Viewer)

[soha]

So having a woman stoned to death because she was raped was ok?

She may have been technically committing a crime according to the Koran, but it was not her choice, she should not be punished.

being raped is not a crime in the koran
your a victim..

 

[Sepulchres]

Its funny how when a Muslim is the subject, the media is perfectly apt in their integrity however they are "ludicrously" flawed otherwise. We get the picture, you dont like Muslims.

However, "Generator" is immune from this notion of bias as he doesnt necessarily sway toward the anti-muslim perspective (maybe on a few occassions).

 

[Sepulchres]

I've read enough of the Koran to know that it does do such things...

Heh. No you havnt. If you did, then by now you would;ve learnt how to spell it properly.

 

[Generator]

Generator is not immune to bias. He's as biased as any human you'll ever meet. He just goes to considerable lengths to put up the facade that he does not take sides.

And if Generator feels it necessary to resort to condescension and sanctimony, that's fine. It doesn't convince anybody he's correct, though.

Hah yes, OK. I try and take what I consider to be a measured approach, and as for the second point I was merely returning the sentiment (and I still stand by my comment that you're stance concerning the media, as suggested in this thread, is childish).

Edit: If I have misread anything, I apologise.

 

[hiphophorray123]

um..yeah you get stoned to death when you commit certain crimes..and so what?..i dont have a problem with it

but you have a problem with interest over 2.5% HAHAHAH

and yes men are allowed to marry 4 wives..but its deeper then that

oh really? please explain

 

[shady_03]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ lol

 

[Seraph]

The leader of that Chrsitian radical group sounds like a telemarketer.

 

[tempco]

but you have a problem with interest over 2.5% HAHAHAH

oh really? please explain

what's the point of explaining it to you?

and it's all interest, not just over 2.5%.

 

[soha]

but you have a problem with interest over 2.5% HAHAHAH





oh really? please explain

ive explained it over and over to people
and u dont really care..if u did u would do some research for urself instad of relying on someone like me to tell you then u can feel cool and totally diss me and my beliefs and make fun of it..swear about it
go on about it..so i dont think im gonna bother this time

 

[mr_shittles]

The leader of that Chrsitian radical group sounds like a telemarketer.

LOL. Wouldn't buy anything from him though!

 

[withoutaface]

So if interest is outlawed I guess welfare is too? Because you're gaining money without working for it right?

 

[soha]

So if interest is outlawed I guess welfare is too? Because you're gaining money without working for it right?

interesting point
i will have to look into that
i think its different because welfare is like money to help you
with the exception of people who cheat the system
we are allowed to borrow money
and be given money and lend money just not charge interest on it
neways im a look it up

 

[Minai]

religion is such a flaw to humankind...

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

science hasnt provided me with much.... ..
wat do u call it if u dun have faith in either?

 

[withoutaface]

"Stupid"?

C'mon, at least with religion or science, you ARE attempting to explain the world. Neither? Good luck with that!

I'm sure there are atheist philosophers...

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Blasphemy laws should be repealed (most have).

However, there is a need for religious vilification laws, and the approach should be one of balance.

If you think that acting in a hateful way towards someone because of their gender, sexuality or race is wrong, there is strong reason to support religious vilification laws. As a society it is not a good thing for people to be inciting violence and hatred.

Our Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and rightfully so. Part of this freedom, in my opinion, extends to being able to freely practice one's religion without the threat of violence or severely hateful behaviour. This has to be balanced with existing laws of the nation however. A religion that says it is okay to kill people cannot obviously afford the same level of protection.

Of course, free speech is also important. Criticising a religion is not the same as vilifying it. Reasonably attacking or expressing an opinion about the merits of a religion is not vilifying it. As Generator mentioned, there can sometimes be a fine line. I think the approach should be one of balance, but one that is very liberal and lenient towards discourse about religion. However, when you reach a high enough threshold to be actually inciting violence -- that's where the law needs to step in.

With regards to the people charged and saying that the Koran promotes violence and terrorism, I think evidence needs to be examined as to whether it was a reasonable opinion. If it was an opinion roughly based on facts then I think a very liberal interpretation should be given to exonerate the critics.

While I myself am very antagonistic towards almost all religious institutions, and I don't believe that society should prevent people from having critical discussions of religion, we do want to give enough freedom to people practicing religion to do so in safety and as much peace as is feasible.

 

[soha]

in reguards to this topic
remember these laws dont only apply to muslims
its if anyone says anything about any otehr religon
some people said when muslim countrys have this law then we should have it
but why muslim countrys?..its representing every religon etc

 

[soha]

And i might like to add, that on this forum, i have seen someone with an image in their signature, that quite clearly supports terrorists. Something along the lines of "I support the palestinian's right to fight their oppressors" and beside it is "i support the right of Iraqi's to fight their oppressors".

Now, he is aloud to keep that, no on has a complaint. However, if i created and image in my signature which was from a "white mans perspective", how long do you think it would be before someone would have a whinge?

i wont whinge
i dont care..if thats what you think so be it
um...his sig doesnt support terrorist
he is supporting their right to fight back..their opressers
just because a guy blows himself up in a bus...
whats the difference ..why is that worse then an israeli army dude blowing up innocent civilians homes
one is seen as terrorism and the otehr is o.k..because he is wearing a uniform..?..
its bullshit

 

[soha]

You sort of jarred yourself didn't you. So you're saying that acts of terrorism against "the oppressors" is ok?

In my eyes, it is just un-needed bloodshed. The arabs are never going to win, other than if the "oppressors" make concessions by their own freewill. It's quite clear that they arent going to be forced to do anything with violence. This is in any conflict. Be it Iraq or Palestine. Going out and killing someone is just making alot of pain and suffering, with no purpose to it at all; what does it achieve?

It is the same as if a pile of red-indians in the US started killing their oppressors the whites.. It wouldn't do anything. Attacking ultimately won't achieve anything. If someone wants to exploit white people, make them feel guilty, because that seems to make whites cave in like a tonne of bricks.

so your saying that they should just give in..give up and let isreaelis and americans attack them..destroy their lives..demolish their houses..kill their families
leave them with nothing
thats ok
but to fight back with the only thing they have...aka suicide bombers..thats unneeded blood shed?
you get what you give..and thats the way it works..i feel for the innocent losses from both sides
but such is life

 

[soha]

In my eyes, it is just un-needed bloodshed. The arabs are never going to win,

i believe the arabs will win
in time..