[Closed] Boris says jihadists are w***ers

Is there a reason that they are all virgins? Is it because they will not/do not have sex with anyone?

Personally I do believe the fundamental message of Judeo-Christian religions is tolerance and forgiveness. That doesn't necessarily mean integration or mixing of communities but it does mean accepting others will have a different view. I also believe that most recognise the laws of a country are to be recognised.

EDIT : Gobchul - google Lords Spiritual - I assume this is what they meant
https://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/the-church-in-parliament/bishops-in-the-house-of-lords.aspx

We're a secular democracy

No we are not the head of our state is the head of our church...how did you miss this?They get representation in the LORDS - how did you miss that
The Church of England is the officially established religious institution of England as well - I can accept you not knowing that to be fair
WHo do we ask to save the head of our state in our national anthem ?

We are not secular IMHO we are moving towards it but we have a long way to go and it wont happen in the next 100 years

What percentage of the MPs in the Arab States are women?

In Saudi Arabia 20%. The same as us.

The vast majority of Muslims want to live in a country like that too - if they didn't, they wouldn't be here.

In Saudi Arabia 20%. The same as us.

Saudi is an absolute monarchy. It doesn't even have a real parliament as we understand it.

The fact you are trying to suggest that women in Saudi have similar influence as they do in the UK just says it all really. 🙄

Now which religion has representatives in Parliament?

I would guess all of the major ones in the Commons.

Those are elected representatives who happen to be religious. There's only one religion which has representatives in Parliament who are there as unelected representatives of their religion.

Yeah JY... having a little old lady who is a kind of figurehead to the church, and also a monarch with no constitutional power, and the odd bloke in a dog-collar occasionally falling asleep on some leather benches, is exactly the same as having an islamic state which ruthlessly enforces sharia law on gods behalf 🙄

Do you want to go and look up the word 'perspective' in the dictionary. Here you go. I'll do it for you

perspective (per·spec·tive) - The ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance:

binners - Member

All the pandering to one religion, just because they're more shouty, and beardy and potentially explodey, needs to stop

We pander more to other religions. Islam has nobody in the house of Lords, the head of state has to be a protestant. David Cameron claims we're a christian country because a minority of us are practicing christians (*). Theresa May tells us in headlines we need to take action on Jews' fear of persecution even though muslims are far more likely to be victims. And so on. The idea of muslim courts creates shock and horror but Jewish courts have operated for years. We demand that all muslims denounce terrorist acts committed by people in far off lands (but not that all christians denounce Tony Blair for invading countries, or Irish protestants and catholics for blowing people up)

So tell me again how we pander to muslims just because they're explodey.

(* Yes, a majority of people identify as christian in the census, but a substantial portion of that majority also say they don't believe in God. Go figure)

Personally I do believe the fundamental message of Judeo-Christian religions is tolerance and forgiveness.

History tells a different story.

All the pandering to one religion, just because they're more shouty, and beardy and potentially explodey, needs to stop, We're a secular democracy, start acting like one, by affirming our values properly.

Where's the pandering? In my lifetime the "West" has devoted a fair portion of its time either bombing, invading, or propping up regimes in the middle east. Its hardly pandering is it?

And then when a few of them turn up on our doorstep and get a bit shouty and explodey.

Are we not trying to impose our ways on them? I am all for the degrading of all religion, perhaps this is not the way to go about it.

Also your views are simply based on the Western belief that we are always right, you'll deny it, but you are already speaking the language.

In the end, both sides are doing the same thing, one side its called extremism, the other, foreign policy.

you are not that well informed on the religion you are criticising

Junkyard - Didn't you state there were no Muslims in Nigeria on the Paris thread? 😀

So tell me again how we pander to muslims just because they're explodey.

We've just witnessed the hand wringers, instead of denouncing violent extremism, defending their right not to be offended in the Charlie Hebdo case. Saying that we should draw a line to resepct their anti-democratic principles because they get a bit shoot if we don't. I got sick of hearing the 'we denounce violence, BUT.....' then going on to basically say if you draw a cartoon of the prophet, then you deserve everything you get

Well I'm sorry, but that isn't how liberal, secular democracies function. And if you're part of that type of society, and enjoy all the freedoms that allows you, you have to accept that, whether you like it or not!

And for the record, I wouldn't defend present foreign policy. We should never have been in Iraq or Afghanistan, and we should have learnt our lesson by now, and be staying well out of any other conflicts in the region. Its nowt to do with us!

then going on to basically say if you draw a cartoon of the prophet, then you deserve everything you get

The Pope said pretty much the same thing.

The problem isn't any religion in particular, it's any religion having power over society.

Binnner you were factually wrong in your statement and you are factually wrong to say she [ the crown] has no constitutional powers.
Oh the tragic irony that you are wrong , twice, and you ask me for perspective. You cannot argue with facts [ well you can but its pointless]

We are not a secular country and our monarch has powers hence why we are called a constitutional monarchy and not a republic

Whilst googling perspective you would have been better served googling facts.

Wait, that's "pandering to muslims"? Allowing them freedom of speech?

You're right, we need to stop pandering to muslims, from now on they can only say things Binners agrees with. And they should be thankful!

Course, we won't demand that all Jews denounce attacks on arabs in neighbouring countries, that'd be mad. Jews are alright.

We demand that all muslims denounce terrorist acts committed by people in far off lands

History tells a different story.

JY - the power that 'The Church' exerts on British government is negligible, if not completely non-existent in practice

Binnner you were factually wrong in your statement and you are factually wrong to say she [ the crown] has no constitutional powers.

He's not when you in to this "perspective" though is he?

Though the ultimate formal executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still by and through the monarch's royal prerogative, these powers may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament and, in practice, within the constraints of convention and precedent.

I think you owe him an apology. 🙂

We've just witnessed the hand wringers, instead of denouncing violent extremism, defending their right not to be offended

Are you in the pub 😯

Anyway make sure you let us all know when your daughters are getting married so we can all turn up and ruin the day with insulting pictures and words whilst reminding you and her that you have no right to be not offended as we act like ****s .

you will of course be applauding us for this wont you as you dont want to be a whining hand wringer moaning about being not offended .

EDIT:

the power that 'The Church' exerts on British government is negligible.

Oh christ on a bendybus, not your tortured 'shouting at a wedding' analogy again?

I'm out....

All three Abrahamic religions have love and tolerance at their core.

To say that Islam is inherently violent without any external factors might make it easy to understand what's happening today but it ignores history and the absolute bit of a mess we've made of the middle east in the last 20 odd years.

If killing non-muslims is a major tenant of Islam how do you explain the Jerusalem the first Crusaders encountered? One where, under muslim rule, jews, christians and muslims lived together, before ALL being slaughtered by the Crusaders (after of course they'd had a merry time crossing europe engaging in various pogroms against any Jews they found on their way).

Or that some of the most stable and wealthy jewish communities in the early middle ages existed in An Andalus, again under muslim control?

so many experts on Islam on here....frankly i'm amazed(!)

Personally I do believe the fundamental message of Judeo-Christian religions is tolerance and forgiveness.
History tells a different story.

That doesn't necessarily mean integration or mixing of communities but it does mean accepting others will have a different view.

You have just used the royal prerogative to show the royals have no power

Excellent move well played 😕

FFS Are you in the pub with Binners?

Whatever her powers are they are not

no constitutional power,

You an binners can move the goalposts as much as you wish but the statement is still factually incorrect.

Its self pwn central here today

Oh and conflating 'Jihadists' with 'Muslims' is wrong too.

You have just used the royal prerogative to show the royals have no power

Which part of "these powers may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament" do you not understand?

FFS Are you in the pub with Binners?

No but I'm going back to the Home Brew forum so I can get happily pissed cheaply in a few weeks and leave you wringing your hands.

I give up with you, you never ever admit to be even slightly wrong on anything.

not your tortured 'shouting at a wedding' analogy again?

Is this ok to do as they dont "have the right to be not offended" as you maintain?

I am leaving as well

Its getting silly.

It started silly. Boris FFS!

The Pope said pretty much the same thing.

@gonzy I was speaking about the UK, we don't have any checkpoints. Many (most?) religions do not encourage integration in the sense of allowing interfaith marriage for example, that's what I was referring to.

It started silly. Boris FFS!

[img] [/img]

Binners you're going to hell.

I'm a catholic. I was expecting to be heading there anyway 😀

If anyone's actually interested the first chapter of Karen Armstrong's brilliant book 'Holy War - The Crusades and Their Impact on Today's World' is a history of the violent births of the 'big three' religions, and is generally excellent all the way through.

We have another 40+ people killed in a mosque bombing in ****stan to add to the the 150 killed at the Peshawr school (excellent vicenews piece on that btw). I am at a loss to explain how two different branches of the same religion think they can not only justify but encourage these killings on the basis of religion.

@Lifer, I would be interested but I do think the crusades are so long ago they have no real impact today but happy to try and find that to read. What co-incidentally are the big 3 religions, I see only two Christianity and Islam with possibly Hinduism

The three main Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

[url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Holy-War-Crusades-Impact-Todays/dp/0385721404 ]Amazon link - other bookshops are available![/url]

I see only two Christianity and Islam with possibly Hinduism

is that because Judaism wants to be seen as a race and not a religion?

jambalaya - Member
@Lifer, I would be interested but I do think the crusades are so long ago they have no real impact today

as i understand it the popular view in the middle east is that the christians came slaughtered and then never left, in that context its easy to see the last 50 + years of proxy wars and desert storms as a continuation of that

palestine was a British territory until the israelis started blowing up british soldiers, until they got their own country

Here's an article written by Armstrong that is quite pertinent to this discussion:

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/-sp-karen-armstrong-religious-violence-myth-secular ]The myth of religious violence[/url]

What we call “fundamentalism” has always existed in a symbiotic relationship with a secularisation that is experienced as cruel, violent and invasive. All too often an aggressive secularism has pushed religion into a violent riposte. Every fundamentalist movement that I have studied in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is rooted in a profound fear of annihilation, convinced that the liberal or secular establishment is determined to destroy their way of life. This has been tragically apparent in the Middle East.

And although brief, gives you an idea of her style. Her 'History of God' is very heavy going, but also very good.

Got it. Interesting Judasim is counted as a major it has a relatively low global population certainly compared to Hinduism, even Sikh's are higher. From Wiki

@gonzy, it was just numbers not the race vs religion argument

Christian 31.50% (of which Roman Catholic 16.85%, Protestant 6.15%, Orthodox 3.96%, Anglican 1.26%)
Muslim 23.20% (of which Sunni 75-90%, Shia 10-20%, Ahmadi 1%)
Hindu 13.8%
Buddhist 6.77%
Sikh 0.35%,
Jewish 0.22%
Baha'i 0.11%
other religions 10.95%, non-religious 9.66%, atheists 2.01% (2010 est.).

Hope I clarified it, apologies.

as i understand it the popular view in the middle east is that the christians came slaughtered and then never left, in that context its easy to see the last 50 + years of proxy wars and desert storms as a continuation of that

palestine was a British territory until the israelis started blowing up british soldiers, until they got their own country

Palestine. Gaza was part of Egypt and the Jordanians felt the West Bank belonged to them. Palestine vs Israel gets more attention as its a starker Muslim vs Jew conflict or a proxy US vs Muslim or so the Palestinians emphasise so to garner support. If Israel didn't exist there would still be conflict over those lands.

Hope I clarified it, apologies.

I don't know my religious history but what where Muslims before AD600 and the Prophet ?
EDIT: oh my, I just read that Mohammed was Judeo-Chritian, so either Jewish or a Christian. I never knew that. EDIT2: If I've offended anyone with that statement I apologize.

It goes back further than 50 years.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25299553 ]Sykes-Picot[/url]

But there were three problems with the geo-political order that emerged from the Sykes-Picot agreement.

First, it was secret without any Arabic knowledge, and it negated the main promise that Britain had made to the Arabs in the 1910s - that if they rebelled against the Ottomans, the fall of that empire would bring them independence.

When that independence did not materialise after World War One, and as these colonial powers, in the 1920s, 30s and 40s, continued to exert immense influence over the Arab world, the thrust of Arab politics - in North Africa and in the eastern Mediterranean - gradually but decisively shifted from building liberal constitutional governance systems (as Egypt, Syria, and Iraq had witnessed in the early decades of the 20th Century) to assertive nationalism whose main objective was getting rid of the colonialists and the ruling systems that worked with them.

This was a key factor behind the rise of the militarist regimes that had come to dominate many Arab countries from the 1950s until the 2011 Arab uprisings.

Sykes-Picot intended to divide the Levant on a sectarian basis:

...

For the period from the end of the Crusades up until the arrival of the European powers in the 19th Century, and despite the region's vibrant trading culture, the different sects effectively lived separately from each other.

But the thinking behind Sykes-Picot did not translate into practice. That meant the newly created borders did not correspond to the actual sectarian, tribal, or ethnic distinctions on the ground.

What percentage of the MPs in the Arab States are women?

In Saudi Arabia 20%. The same as us.

Saudi is an absolute monarchy. It doesn't even have a real parliament as we understand it.

Ok.

Here's a few more then. See if you like these any better.

Algeria 31.6%
Iraq 25.3%
Sudan 24.3%
Tunisia 31.3%
Somalia 13.8%
UAE 17.5%
Libya 16.0%

The fact you are trying to suggest that women in Saudi have similar influence as they do in the UK just says it all really.

I'm not trying to suggest that in the slightest.

I'm trying to suggest it was a crap way to argue your point.

A clever move by Boris, he undermines the credibility of would be Islamic fighters by labelling them ****ers and turns the 3/4 of the UK population into fans overnight, brilliant.

You think they'll put a bounty on his head?

qwerty - Member
You think they'll put a bounty on his head?

Nah. It would just slide off his silky hair.

@gonzy, it was just numbers not the race vs religion argument

fair enough

what where Muslims before AD600 and the Prophet ?
EDIT: oh my, I just read that Mohammed was Judeo-Chritian, so either Jewish or a Christian. I never knew that

@gonzy, thanks. Some of my friends said he was from one of the many tribes/ethnic groups living in the area that where all broadly labelled Judeo-Christian, perhaps not correctly then. I was surprised to see some of the links with the Old Testament, for example the Angel Gabriel, this does seem to show a strong linkage.