George Galloway, the noose awaits...

[Coiffeur_En_Flame]

Galloway is a religous idiot and friend of Islam.

Islam is a joke religion that promises eternal debauchery for a life of virtue, how twisted is that?

Why is it that Jihadists never turn up in the likes of the former Yugoslavia and face Milosevic, a man openly killing muslims? Or Nigeria?

These 'heroes' prefer to kill innocents on trains don't they? and we allow people to practise these moronic 'faiths'.

Catholicism is another joke religion that's only achievment is the abuse of millions of innocents within it's care.

Galloway believes there is a man in the sky that created him and will give him and his catholic/Muslim brothers eternal happiness.

Galloway praises Ihran, a country where gang rape and stoning of women is legal!


ANYONE that supports religion is ill-informed, uneducated and dangerous.

Your assessment both Islam and Catholicism shows how little you know about either religion. You've clearly allowed the mainstream media and certain political figures to brainwash you into thinking that all Muslims are gun-toting terrorists who are going to kill your children. "Islamic" extremists do not represent the views of the vast majority of Muslims. They manipulate minds, using religion and faith as an excuse, in order to further their political goals. These people aren't instructed by Islamic leaders. Your views on Catholics are equally misguided, focusing again on the small percentage of figures within the church who abused their position and were henceforth ejected from their posts and punished in the eyes of the law. I think millions may disagree with your statement that this was their only achievement. Normally I'd feel inclined to hurl abuse at people as blithely ignorant as you, but to be honest I just feel quite sorry that you've allowed yourself to become quite so extraordinarily deluded. Good luck with your future writing efforts, just remember to stay clear of anything vaguely intellectual, yeah?

Coiff.

 

[SouthpawGlamour]

Your assessment both Islam and Catholicism shows how little you know about either religion. You've clearly allowed the mainstream media and certain political figures to brainwash you into thinking that all Muslims are gun-toting terrorists who are going to kill your children. "Islamic" extremists do not represent the views of the vast majority of Muslims. They manipulate minds, using religion and faith as an excuse, in order to further their political goals. These people aren't instructed by Islamic leaders. Your views on Catholics are equally misguided, focusing again on the small percentage of figures within the church who abused their position and were henceforth ejected from their posts and punished in the eyes of the law. I think millions may disagree with your statement that this was their only achievement. Normally I'd feel inclined to hurl abuse at people as blithely ignorant as you, but to be honest I just feel quite sorry that you've allowed yourself to become quite so extraordinarily deluded. Good luck with your future writing efforts, just remember to stay clear of anything vaguely intellectual, yeah?

Coiff.

Religion is tribal, small minded and divisive.

I have a thorough knowledge of world religions.

If tens of 1000s of abused children is 'small numbers', I would question your morality and humanity.

If AIDS spreading like wildfire in African countries due to Catholic dogma is 'small numbers' I would question your morality and humanity.

Religion is not an 'excuse' it is a reason and motivation for horrific and evil acts throughout the world, day in day out and I for one am sick of it.

I am tired of pious little men like you, that think they are 'intellectual' despite denying the most obvious facts about life and nature and preferring to withdraw into a sick fantasy about heavens and hells and afterlife’s.

‘religion poisons everything’ Christopher Hitchens

 

[Sir Alec]

So what is your idea? Get rid of religion? Some people use religion to hurt and take advantage of others. If you take out the religion part, people will still manipulate and brainwash each other. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. If its not religion that people will use it will be politics and science. Are you going to get rid of politics and science too?

 

[SouthpawGlamour]

So what is your idea? Get rid of religion? Some people use religion to hurt and take advantage of others. If you take out the religion part, people will still manipulate and brainwash each other. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. If its not religion that people will use it will be politics and science. Are you going to get rid of politics and science too?

Some people use religion to hurt and take advantage of others=FACT

If its not religion that people will use it will be politics and science=unevidenced

 

[Coiffeur_En_Flame]

Religion is tribal, small minded and divisive.

I have a thorough knowledge of world religions.

If tens of 1000s of abused children is 'small numbers', I would question your morality and humanity.

If AIDS spreading like wildfire in African countries due to Catholic dogma is 'small numbers' I would question your morality and humanity.

Religion is not an 'excuse' it is a reason and motivation for horrific and evil acts throughout the world, day in day out and I for one am sick of it.

I am tired of pious little men like you, that think they are 'intellectual' despite denying the most obvious facts about life and nature and preferring to withdraw into a sick fantasy about heavens and hells and afterlife’s.

‘religion poisons everything’ Christopher Hitchens

All religions have evolved over the centuries, incorporating new doctrines and changing with the passing of the years. Their laws form the basis of world legal systems, so calling them "small-minded" and "tribal" is somewhat off the mark. If you read my comment, you'll see I said that the percentage of clergy found to be child-abusers was small. I was in no way stating that this made it acceptable, but you were giving people the impression that these sickos were in the majority. It is of course very wrong, but these are disturbed people who did not become paedophiles as a result of being Catholic - they would have abused anyway. As for the issue of condom use, the church does its utmost to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa (having put vast sums of money into paying for retro-viral drug programs) but they have a stance on the issue and they stick to it. I'm in the camp that believes this stance should change, but nothing's that simple. The banning of condom use is there to, amongst other things, discourage promiscuity, so I don't see the policy as a cause of the AIDS problem. You say religion is not an excuse for terrorists to cause mass murder, but if you knew as much as you claim about world religions you would surely know that what the extremists preach is a gross misinterpretation of Islam and others.

If wanting to have a debate about the issues that religion raises makes me "pious" and faux-intellectual, then so be it. I'm not denying any facts, just looking objectively at the issues. Faith helps millions of people around the world every day, and if believing in something is merely a "sick-fantasy" then it's one that I and many others are willing to accept. And I think we'll do just fine without you and Hitchens.

Coiff.

 

[SouthpawGlamour]

All religions have evolved over the centuries, incorporating new doctrines and changing with the passing of the years. Their laws form the basis of world legal systems, so calling them "small-minded" and "tribal" is somewhat off the mark. If you read my comment, you'll see I said that the percentage of clergy found to be child-abusers was small. I was in no way stating that this made it acceptable, but you were giving people the impression that these sickos were in the majority. It is of course very wrong, but these are disturbed people who did not become paedophiles as a result of being Catholic - they would have abused anyway. As for the issue of condom use, the church does its utmost to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa (having put vast sums of money into paying for retro-viral drug programs) but they have a stance on the issue and they stick to it. I'm in the camp that believes this stance should change, but nothing's that simple. The banning of condom use is there to, amongst other things, discourage promiscuity, so I don't see the policy as a cause of the AIDS problem. You say religion is not an excuse for terrorists to cause mass murder, but if you knew as much as you claim about world religions you would surely know that what the extremists preach is a gross misinterpretation of Islam and others.

If wanting to have a debate about the issues that religion raises makes me "pious" and faux-intellectual, then so be it. I'm not denying any facts, just looking objectively at the issues. Faith helps millions of people around the world every day, and if believing in something is merely a "sick-fantasy" then it's one that I and many others are willing to accept. And I think we'll do just fine without you and Hitchens.

Coiff.

"Qur’an 8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)."


Your interpretation please.

 

[SouthpawGlamour]

"Fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem." (Koran 9:5) "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you." (Koran 9:123) "When you meet the unbelievers in jihad [holy war], chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Koran, 47:4)


Your interpretation please.

 

[SouthpawGlamour]

Leviticus 20:13 states:
“ If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.


Your interpretation please.

 

[Bassist-In-A-Tutu]

I was kinf of with Coif on this one for while there, becuause I think the intellectuall approach is always the best choice. Then I read this:

"As for the issue of condom use, the church does its utmost to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa (having put vast sums of money into paying for retro-viral drug programs) but they have a stance on the issue and they stick to it. I'm in the camp that believes this stance should change, but nothing's that simple. The banning of condom use is there to, amongst other things, discourage promiscuity, so I don't see the policy as a cause of the AIDS problem."

Come on dude!

Don't wear condoms for (Whatever reason) Get AIDS, we'll help pay for the treatment. The pharmaceutical companies will make money (And we have interests there) So all is good!

Then, THEN!!!!! you use discouraging promiscuity as an argument (One which you don't uphold albeit) for not using condoms! What the Hell is it to the church if some African dude want's to have it away with his neighbour - or any other dude for that matter! My promiscuity is non of the churches business.

These are just more examples of how outdated - and as a direct result - how dangerous the church has become in the modern age. It is so firmly routes in the past that is it dammagin our futures.

I agree very much with Southpaws, erm.... dislike of religion, and join him in some of his views. However, Coiff is right when he invites us not to tar all those who practice a certain religion with the same brush. A little more tolerance and understanding is needed!

Which is funny realy, because isn't tollerance and understanding what religion is supposed to be about?

So I stand firmly (some might say bravely) with one foot in each camp!

Keep it up chaps, this is intreaguing.......

 

[SouthpawGlamour]

I was kinf of with Coif on this one for while there, becuause I think the intellectuall approach is always the best choice. Then I read this:

"As for the issue of condom use, the church does its utmost to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa (having put vast sums of money into paying for retro-viral drug programs) but they have a stance on the issue and they stick to it. I'm in the camp that believes this stance should change, but nothing's that simple. The banning of condom use is there to, amongst other things, discourage promiscuity, so I don't see the policy as a cause of the AIDS problem."

Come on dude!

Don't wear condoms for (Whatever reason) Get AIDS, we'll help pay for the treatment. The pharmaceutical companies will make money (And we have interests there) So all is good!

Then, THEN!!!!! you use discouraging promiscuity as an argument (One which you don't uphold albeit) for not using condoms! What the Hell is it to the church if some African dude want's to have it away with his neighbour - or any other dude for that matter! My promiscuity is non of the churches business.

These are just more examples of how outdated - and as a direct result - how dangerous the church has become in the modern age. It is so firmly routes in the past that is it dammagin our futures.

I agree very much with Southpaws, erm.... dislike of religion, and join him in some of his views. However, Coiff is right when he invites us not to tar all those who practice a certain religion with the same brush. A little more tolerance and understanding is needed!

Which is funny realy, because isn't tollerance and understanding what religion is supposed to be about?

So I stand firmly (some might say bravely) with one foot in each camp!

Keep it up chaps, this is intreaguing.......

I would love to hear about all the wonderful things religious people do! Whatever it is, It has been bettered by non-religous people 1million fold.

 

[Bassist-In-A-Tutu]

I would love to hear about all the wonderful things religious people do! Whatever it is, It has been bettered by non-religous people 1million fold.

My Aunt and Unkle are very religous - Born again Christians. Any way - Uncle invited dad (Who was a carpenter many many years ago) to travel to Indonesia to help build homes as part of the tsunami releif effort. All well and good, Dad was happy to help with funding and his time. This is just the sort of good work which religous groups at the grass roots level get up to, after all.

He disovered a few months later that they had gone without him, and a little while after that, that they had bult a church, not homes. I very strongly susspect that my uncle knew as well as I do that my father would have never agreed to go and build a church in a disaster area, surrounded by homeless locals.

He is still angry about the whole episode. As I am.

I know this is an isolated case, and it IS true that at the grass roots most people who follow most religions are good, honest, hard working, decent people.

Just thoght I would share this story. Not sure where it fits in, it made sense when I started LOL

 

[Uncleskinny]

I didn't want to stick my oar in, having got into arguments I now regret in the past, but I'd like to say...

Religious people believe they're OK.
Atheists (of which I am one) believe they're OK.

There's no point one trying to tell the other they're wrong, because you can't tell someone that something they believe in their head is wrong. However we may disagree, everyone has a right to their own beliefs.

I used to be a real militant atheist in my younger days, but my way of thinking now is to tolerate others and respect their belief systems. I do realise that the belief systems of some factions impact on others in a way that they didn't ask for (and that's putting it mildly in some cases) but I have always said to myself, and my children, that doing the right thing, whatever that may be at the moment or situation, is very important. They may grow up and change their minds - that's fine, just as I don't force my vegetarianism on them, they will make their own choice in good time.

In short - can't we all just get on?


Peter

 

[SouthpawGlamour]

I didn't want to stick my oar in, having got into arguments I now regret in the past, but I'd like to say...

Religious people believe they're OK.
Atheists (of which I am one) believe they're OK.

There's no point one trying to tell the other they're wrong, because you can't tell someone that something they believe in their head is wrong. However we may disagree, everyone has a right to their own beliefs.

I used to be a real militant atheist in my younger days, but my way of thinking now is to tolerate others and respect their belief systems. I do realise that the belief systems of some factions impact on others in a way that they didn't ask for (and that's putting it mildly in some cases) but I have always said to myself, and my children, that doing the right thing, whatever that may be at the moment or situation, is very important. They may grow up and change their minds - that's fine, just as I don't force my vegetarianism on them, they will make their own choice in good time.

In short - can't we all just get on?


Peter

Apathy is not the answer.

 

[Uncleskinny]

Apathy is not the answer.

It's not apathy, far from it. I despise intolerance whether it be political, religion, sexual, or whatever. Vive La Difference. Can't we all get along?

Peter

 

[Bassist-In-A-Tutu]

Apathy is not the answer.

One mans apathy is another mans tollerance.

 

[Morrissey the 23rd]

Religion is tribal, small minded and divisive.

I have a thorough knowledge of world religions.

If tens of 1000s of abused children is 'small numbers', I would question your morality and humanity.

If AIDS spreading like wildfire in African countries due to Catholic dogma is 'small numbers' I would question your morality and humanity.

Religion is not an 'excuse' it is a reason and motivation for horrific and evil acts throughout the world, day in day out and I for one am sick of it.

I am tired of pious little men like you, that think they are 'intellectual' despite denying the most obvious facts about life and nature and preferring to withdraw into a sick fantasy about heavens and hells and afterlife’s.

‘religion poisons everything’ Christopher Hitchens

My views on religion are similar.

GG is not to blame for religion.

Want to talk to GG on his radio programme? I'm sure it would be intertaining.

 

[SouthpawGlamour]

Look like the religious sorts have bottled it, when confronted with arguments, yet again. It’s just a shame they can't use violence and murder to shut dissenters up as they used to and Islam does to this day.

 

[Coiffeur_En_Flame]

Look like the religious sorts have bottled it, when confronted with arguments, yet again. It’s just a shame they can't use violence and murder to shut dissenters up as they used to and Islam does to this day.

Aha, good to see you've resurrected (see what I did there?) this thread, I'd completely forgotten about it and not "bottled it when confronted with arguments." Clearly you have a large emotional investment in proving this point on an internet forum, which I guess says quite a lot about you.

You've quoted a few excerpts from the Bible and the Quran. I was going to make a joke about how these were obviously garnered from Google, Wikipedia et al, but when I remembered how much of an expert you are in this field, realised this would be foolish. You're not telling me anything I don't already know or shocking me into submission. You want to know what else the Bible says? It says you could sell your kids into slavery if you wanted. What's a good price for your son or daughter? It says if I work on the Sabbath, I should be put to death, should I report myself to the police? I know a farmer who plants different crops side by side, should I organise a village uprising and go stone him to death? I have several gay friends, should I do the same for them? We're talking about laws and principles written 2000 years ago, when these things were relevant. Today they're not and everyone with more than one brain cell knows that. But that doesn't make religion irrelevant. It still says so much about our lives and the world we live in, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. So don't think quoting arcane Bible passages proves your point and makes Christians look stupid, because it really doesn't.

Coiff.

 

[SouthpawGlamour]

Aha, good to see you've resurrected (see what I did there?) this thread, I'd completely forgotten about it and not "bottled it when confronted with arguments." Clearly you have a large emotional investment in proving this point on an internet forum, which I guess says quite a lot about you.

You've quoted a few excerpts from the Bible and the Quran. I was going to make a joke about how these were obviously garnered from Google, Wikipedia et al, but when I remembered how much of an expert you are in this field, realised this would be foolish. You're not telling me anything I don't already know or shocking me into submission. You want to know what else the Bible says? It says you could sell your kids into slavery if you wanted. What's a good price for your son or daughter? It says if I work on the Sabbath, I should be put to death, should I report myself to the police? I know a farmer who plants different crops side by side, should I organise a village uprising and go stone him to death? I have several gay friends, should I do the same for them? We're talking about laws and principles written 2000 years ago, when these things were relevant. Today they're not and everyone with more than one brain cell knows that. But that doesn't make religion irrelevant. It still says so much about our lives and the world we live in, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. So don't think quoting arcane Bible passages proves your point and makes Christians look stupid, because it really doesn't.

Coiff.

Oh dear, resorting to the 'you are emotional, I am a logical thinker and terribly clever routine' already! tut-tut.

Good, you accept your bible is not the word of god in accepting that much of it is irrelevant or perhaps you think that god has changed his views?

It is astonishing that you find no fault with the passages I presented to you and think it's OK because they were relevant then , but not now. So it was OK to kill gays then, but not now? Why not now?

I never said I was an expert, I said I had a thorough knowledge. Lets test YOU.

The story of the woman brought before Jesus when he says 'Let he who is without sin..' is not found in earlier versions of John, why not?. Who is the narrator when the crowd disperses leaving Jesus and the woman alone?

When you have answered that, tell us all about 'assumption'.

Case closed, Thank you.

 

[drunken goldfish]

You've quoted a few excerpts from the Bible and the Quran. I was going to make a joke about how these were obviously garnered from Google, Wikipedia et al, but when I remembered how much of an expert you are in this field, realised this would be foolish. You're not telling me anything I don't already know or shocking me into submission. You want to know what else the Bible says? It says you could sell your kids into slavery if you wanted. What's a good price for your son or daughter? It says if I work on the Sabbath, I should be put to death, should I report myself to the police? I know a farmer who plants different crops side by side, should I organise a village uprising and go stone him to death? I have several gay friends, should I do the same for them? We're talking about laws and principles written 2000 years ago, when these things were relevant. Today they're not and everyone with more than one brain cell knows that. But that doesn't make religion irrelevant. It still says so much about our lives and the world we live in, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. So don't think quoting arcane Bible passages proves your point and makes Christians look stupid, because it really doesn't.

Coiff.

Hey,
I disagree with a lot of what Southpaw says, especially blaming religion for everything that's wrong with the world, and claiming religious organizations do more harm than good. However, I think the reason he mentioned those passages is because they are relevant today for many people, with very unfortunate results. Also, I guess quoting Aaron Sorkin is better than quoting Wikipedia?