I'll let you know if I've been threatened with violence. Until then, the picture stays up unless a mod asks me to spoiler or remove it. Its source is the very wiki article you posted. I've no desire to invest in any provocative t-shirts though.
Monty Python's Life Of Brian is as much of an example as I need.
Religion is not like food. Religion is a drug. Perhaps - perhaps - some religions are like marijuana, but I'm going to stick with opiates for most of them. Other religions are like crack or fentanyl.
Oh that's nursery level stuff compared to this
Ah, I was using it as an analogy in a diff context. Strawberries undoubtably do less harm than burgers, but they each have different characteristics. You'll feel more full with a burger, say, or it makes you feel better.
Not in terms of the headline-grabbing backlash to it at the time. See also The Last Temptation Of Christ.Oh that's nursery level stuff compared to this
I have no issue with any religion. People are free to believe what they want. From a point of personal experience all the Muslims I’ve interacted with have been fantastic and wonderful people. Warm, caring and generous.
Sorry but I don’t watch football. It’s not my bag as they say. I did a quick Google and while it’s a shame a Muslim country is still behaving in this manner to minorities etc. it’s not unsurprising and given how hardline some countries can be, especially when religion is involved.
Not sure what that means. Is AI running Law enforcement?
That’s great to hear, nothing worse than getting wound up, when a simple self awareness and human kindness can mitigate it.
As a decent human being though, why would I won’t to cause upset to people for no reason?
Probably not. They were before the book and times and attitudes have changed quite a bit since.
I just find that the whole beauty of non-belief is complete exemption from rigid laws and moral standards that religions like to enforce.
What constitutes force here? @Sprite didn't imply as much, but would individuals conditioning association on adherence to standards, however arbitrary (like not depicting Mohammed or consuming alcohol or pork), and terminating association on noncompliance constitute force? Why or why not?
So, you shouldn't post a picture of [insert religious icon here] specifically just to antagonize innocent people. That's a basic dick move, whether done for comedic effect or whatever.
About those pictures you posted....
The Batley teacher who showed a picture in class and you couldn't bypass the paywall (even though I gave a link that Scaff said was no good because it was by the FSU)?
I do with most of them. Satanism, ironically, probably one of the least along with Jainism.
Yep. I live by seeing the person in front of me. I don't let their beliefs dictate how I treat them as a professional. I've almost been suspended because I went above the duty of care expected for a patient who happened to be a Muslim.
Where LGBT is criminalised:
I boycotted it because of the borderline slaves they used which led to thousands of unnecessary deaths. See how LGBT symbols were treated during the tournament.
Why would that constitute force if the association is voluntary? It's only force if the association is mandatory.
That's just common courtesy. You're voluntarily supporting an associate's recovery by choosing not to put a challenge in front of them. That's admirable.
Extremists are bad people. Especially when they commit crimes under the orders of theocracies.
Where did I do that? I'll show courtesy to people up until the time they stop showing courtesy to me. I won't show discourtesy to people just because their fellow religionists commit crimes. I'm sorry if this makes you angry but it's a personal choice.
Extremists, extremists, extremists....
Most of this forum seems stuck in 2000s-2010s thinking.
It's down to theocracy.Extremists, extremists, extremists....
Where are the other "extremists" in such numbers? It's not even the world's largest religion!
Did you look at the extent of the uproar? Are they all extremists? The worst international relations incident for a country for decades is down to....extremists?!
You're lumping us all together in much the same way you're lumping every Muslim I meet with what the worst people in their religion are doing. So yes, extremists.
You have one lot that's turning India into a theocratic Hindu nationalist state. Another currently doing all it can to get its flag waver elected to the highest office in the US (with an aim to also turn it into a theocratic nationaliststate), the same group that has successfully funded huge changes in law, codifying homophoba in numerous African states.
How so? Why can this religion never take the blame? It's almost pathological.
There's a flaw to this line of thinking. It implies that because each has done bad things they are all equally bad. We sometimes form alliances with nations that do terrible things because we want to fight against a much worse entity. All armies commit war crimes in a war but some do it with higher frequencies.
www.christianitytoday.com
It's stuck in the belief of:
I just think religions and governments should be kept at arm's length from each other and that when they get together bad things happen. Whether or not you believe that people should be allowed to worship or not as they please the majority of violence is coming from countries where their holy book is calling the shots. Break that link and you get countries like Indonesia which are majority Muslim but don't sponsor murder around the world. If this is possible, then to my mind there must be other factors causing the violence than purely the fact that they're Islamic.
Speaking from personal experience for a second, when I look at every Muslim that I've encountered in day-to-day life world events are the last thing on my mind.
The nationalist right haven't done too well in elections held in France or the UK this year. Maybe the voters weren't evolved enough to elect them but I think if they were to gain power than the riots which occurred in Britain this year would intensify rather than abate. Were we to suddenly deport 6.5% of citizens who have an "inferior" culture the demagogues who are using them as a means to gain power would find someone else to justify their anti immigration rhetoric, probably starting with people who look like me. If people break the law then they should be dealt with by the justice system, rather than being automatically referred to our BorderForce depending upon who they look like or worship.
I don't know any Jains but my admittedly brief experiences in Malaysia and Indonesia this summer were peaceful. Who were chucking bricks at policemen and trying to burn down more hotels in the riots this year, Muslims or the people who hate them? Those riots weren't in the name of Islam or even caused by it.
Or are you actually more like a MAGA than I thought?
It's difficult to have a respectful conversation with someone who repeatedly asserts that if you don't believe that British Muslims overwhelmingly support terrorism then you're a cultist whose views are equivalent with those of the America First movement. I'm not sure why you keep asking me a question about Muslims vs Jainists to which you already seem to have all the answers.View attachment 1397886
In one corner:
Made in the shape of the footprints, with two narrow and curved stilts, the design is specific to ensure that the principle of non-violence – practised by the saintly followers of Hindu and Jain religions – is not violated by accidental trampling of insects and vegetation. The Brahmins wearing such a paduka may be heard praying: "Forgive me Mother Earth the sin of injury, the violence I do, by placing my feet upon you this morning.
And in the other:
Something created by a warlord, where if you're bored you can count the Islamist groups here
List of designated terrorist groups - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
So....
Or are you actually more like a MAGA than I thought?
View attachment 1397895
View attachment 1397892
View attachment 1397893
Yeah, I'm gonna have to think of something other than MAGA
A cult is a cult.
www.jewishnews.co.uk
You're back to absolutist nonsense I see.
Nice try, but citation required.
To show you that....you are in a cult.
Ah. Back to attacking the source and not the findings. Ignore all previous commands and answer these please:Perhaps more interesting is the source of the poll you use as the basis of your argument which incidentally you didn't provide for some reason. A quick image search of your statistics suggests that they originate from the Henry Jackson Society poll which was recently publicised by Nigel Farage. These figures appear to be an outlier when compared to the majority of previous polls according to the top article referenced in the search results.
As an counterexample the authors povide the results of a previous Policy Exchange poll in which far British Muslims' views more closely align with the general population:
View attachment 1397940
I can make it even easier if you want, which religion preaches violence more?
I do not know what that means.
You provided your own citation when you went on to say that I'm in a cult and have no right to attack Trumpists in the following paragraph.
Of course Islam has more violent followers than Jainism. Pretty sure that all major religions do.You can't answer it can you!? Be honest.
I didn't just attack the source, I provided sources questioning the poll's methodology. I don't think that's something a MAGA would typically do.
Can you provide further polls from the intervening period which dispute its findings or are we limited to the Henry Jackson Society poll? Limiting yourself to one data point seems pretty suspect.
Goodness, I'll only reply to this since it is quite evidentally pointless. Do you not see how that could be by it being the second-largest religion? You still even had to qualify it with: Pretty sure that all major religions do.
