Are they sure this person is from Labour?

[phykell]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

This paragraph carries an assumption that you know anything about the prevalence of people you are talking about. Several times you have criticised me for treating people as a large bloc, although now you feel free to comment on the attitude of hundreds of millions of people. It seems that you are not against prejudice, merely against any estimate that don't serve a prejudice you'd prefer to believe.

Wrong and here's my reasoning. I think it's a perfectly valid assumption that so many Muslims regard Islam as a religion of peace. I daresay hundreds of millions of Christians think the same about their religion too. Of course, if you'd care to find any significant number of Muslims who would claim their religion was not one of peace, I'd be *very* surprised indeed.

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

I can see your point although I think the fact that you're willing to volunteer this information demonstrates exactly why I am more quiet about other religions - other people are usually willing to say it in my place and are already aware of it. I only speak when I have something to say and in the past I have spoken about the negative aspects of Christianity and Scientology (but what about all the good scientologists, surely we shouldn't hate Tom Cruise he was in Top Gun)

The fact is that your first entry into this thread was to remark on the fact the guy in question was a Muslim. You then stated further on that you were "anti-Islam" - that's quite a statement to make TBH and quite unfortunate because it colours any subsequent debate you contribute to with regards to any claim of being objective.

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

The idea that extremism is the sophistic at best and serves only to direct deserved distaste away from a population that believe in a anti-social ideology. I hear no-one else use the 'extremism versus moderate' ideology to anything else. Is it okay to be just a little homophobic/racist etc. etc. are there grades of racist? "It's okay, he's a good racist..." "Yes, I called you a nigger, but you know... positive, it was positive..."

I imagine there are plenty of dyed-in-the-wool racists and homophobes out there who would draw the line well before bombing innocent men, women and children. The comparison you're making doesn't really stand up TBH.

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

You'd have to look at the religion to know whether the religion was at fault. You need to look at the religion. I've said this several times, and it gets repetitively ignored because its harder to think really nice thoughts about Islam when most accepted interpretations involve killing homosexuals. How exactly does one excuse killing of homosexuals, when you are a liberal? You can't, so ignore it. Produce some contextless rhetoric about the idea that a tiny group of amorphous 'extremists' are responsible for all the bad things that anyone with half a brain are turned off by, and point the moral finger at anyone who is willing to point out the problem.

Shall I tell you what *you're* ignoring? The fact that religion can be *interpreted*. Put it this way, if Islam was so simple in its definition that its words could not be misinterpreted, they wouldn't need Islamic scholars. It's similar for the Christian religion - I'm sure the Malleus Maleficarum was written in reasonably good faith no matter how many - probably innocent - tens of thousands died as a result over the many years that followed.

I would suggest that you don't know enough about Islam to comprehensively condemn it and you certainly have no right to dismiss everybody else's opinion as blithely as you do. Some of us might just have more of an insight into Islam than you give us credit for.

[Slinwagh]

Would it not be fair to say that issue with any religion is not the faith itself but the interpretation of a religion by it's followers?

Back on topic the issue for me here is a peer that will return to the House of Lords. It is very possible that this Lord in the future could find himself debating and voting on the very piece of legislation, that being the Road Traffic Act that he was convicted under.

[Garp]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

1) I made one comment. I'm not the driving force behind this - if you don't want the discussion to go this way then don't make a contribution to taking it there.

It's called "the straw that broke the camel's back".

2) The rest of what you've said has been explained.

That doesn't make it any less worth pointing out, particularly as my post would have made no sense without the context. The purpose of my post was to point out in no uncertain terms that it really is getting pathetic and boring. It's great that you love debating, but when it seems that all you ever do is bring debates that's when it gets boring; particularly if you never take anything away from the debate. If you've ever wondered why people have stopped replying to you in other places and on here it's not because you've "won" or any such thing it's because they've realised that it is pointless ever talking to you about such subjects.

3) I have no reason to insult you because I actually have confidence in the accuracy of what I have said. I have no habit of accusing others of bigotry, I believe others have inaccurate opinions and selective attention but I don't believe bigotry is the most appropriate word to describe their motivations (whatever they may be). I do not tread an easy moral high ground, my opinion is the lesser of two evils and it is clearly a controversial one - but as controversial as it is I also believe it to be the fairest to all and the most honest.

big⋅ot /ˈbɪgət/
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

How would you describe someone who continually attacks one specific religion? Racist is the wrong word though your approach to muslims seems rather similar to how people used to treat blacks, "theist" means something totally different, religionist isn't right; both those latter two would imply it's because you were devoutly . Maybe we should define a new word here? "Creedist"?

4) This has become about me very quickly, which is a convenient way not to address the points that I've raised.

That again does not detract from the value of my points. To be honest I really don't care about the original article. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, straw, camel & back.

[Tiggy]

I think like CBS said, it's high time this thread was locked

[Matblack]

I see no reason to lock this thread it seems to be quite a reasonable discussion. I might move it to the 'serious business' sub forum though.

MB

[AboveTheSalt]

Originally Posted by Matblack

I see no reason to lock this thread it seems to be quite a reasonable discussion. I might move it to the 'serious business' sub forum though.

MB

I'm not quite clear why you feel the thread shouldn't be closed. It began with an uninformed comment on the sentence passed on Lord Ahmed and then forked off into criticism of a particular obsession of an Islamophobic attention seeker who seems to have an unhealthy fascination with serial killers and sex offenders.

I suggest that the sentence passed on Lord Ahmed has been adequately explained although the Times Online article does give further details.

As to the rest, why not split it off into a thread of its own?

[Matblack]

Originally Posted by AboveTheSalt

I'm not quite clear why you feel the thread shouldn't be closed. It began with an uninformed comment on the sentence passed on Lord Ahmed and then forked off into criticism of a particular obsession of an Islamophobic attention seeker who seems to have an unhealthy fascination with serial killers and sex offenders.

I suggest that the sentence passed on Lord Ahmed has been adequately explained.

As to the rest, why not split it off into a thread of its own?

CBS hasn't asked for the thread to be closed and seems quite happy to defend himself, its a reasonable discussion about peoples prejudice and the vilification of Islam over other faiths, as such its OK in my eyes. I agree the original question has been answered but if we closed every discussion as soon as the original question had been answered then life would be pretty boring

MB

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by phykell

The fact is that your first entry into this thread was to remark on the fact the guy in question was a Muslim. You then stated further on that you were "anti-Islam" - that's quite a statement to make TBH and quite unfortunate because it colours any subsequent debate you contribute to with regards to any claim of being objective.

If there was no existing controversy amongst others, my incidental comment on him would have passed much as my other incidental comments on him had. As I said, I have a negative opinion on Islam that is based on my understanding of the objective facts of the religion.

Shall I tell you what *you're* ignoring? The fact that religion can be *interpreted*. Put it this way, if Islam was so simple in its definition that its words could not be misinterpreted, they wouldn't need Islamic scholars. It's similar for the Christian religion - I'm sure the Malleus Maleficarum was written in reasonably good faith no matter how many - probably innocent - tens of thousands died as a result over the many years that followed.

I would suggest that you don't know enough about Islam to comprehensively condemn it and you certainly have no right to dismiss everybody else's opinion as blithely as you do. Some of us might just have more of an insight into Islam than you give us credit for.

This is an aspect that deserves more discussion. I believe that you're attempting to make the argument that the religion itself is not inherently negative and that it has been corrupted. It is true that the Koran and hadiths themselves have been altered both by a Caliph who sought to make a standardised copy and more recently it is believed that the original text was wrongly translated on the basis that it was mistaken for a similar script.
If that were the case, which are we to believe is the 'true' religion? Since you like latin, do you not think it is fair to say vox populi, vox dei suggests that what we currently see of Islam, IS the authentic Islam. As far as disagreement within different schools of Islam are concerned, there are different interpretations although it is unfortunate that most of the accepted versions still involve gender inequalities, practices and beliefs we would consider human rights violations and punishments we would consider cruel and unusual.

The problem as I see it, is not that such practices exist, because we have a similar history. The problem is that the West is giving far too much credence to an ideology without solid reasoning that holds beliefs that we abandoned as primitive and unfair a long time ago. If we have confidence in our own ways, surely we can help others by correcting their mistakes rather than excusing and ignoring them.

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by Garp

That doesn't make it any less worth pointing out, particularly as my post would have made no sense without the context. The purpose of my post was to point out in no uncertain terms that it really is getting pathetic and boring. It's great that you love debating, but when it seems that all you ever do is bring debates that's when it gets boring; particularly if you never take anything away from the debate. If you've ever wondered why people have stopped replying to you in other places and on here it's not because you've "won" or any such thing it's because they've realised that it is pointless ever talking to you about such subjects.

I'd disagree strongly with that, simply because people are not debating. I am putting forward a case, and questioning their points and I find retorts like the above that I've highlighted in bold. I understand what you are trying to impart, but it is of no use to me as I wish to discuss fact and principle rather than your unexplained feelings.

How would you describe someone who continually attacks one specific religion? Racist is the wrong word though your approach to muslims seems rather similar to how people used to treat blacks, "theist" means something totally different, religionist isn't right; both those latter two would imply it's because you were devoutly . Maybe we should define a new word here? "Creedist"?

You could find words for it, or you could just examine the points I am making.

That again does not detract from the value of my points. To be honest I really don't care about the original article. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, straw, camel & back.

In other words, your replies in this thread are about ME rather than the issue we are discussing. Use the PM system.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

If there was no existing controversy amongst others, my incidental comment on him would have passed much as my other incidental comments on him had. As I said, I have a negative opinion on Islam that is based on my understanding of the objective facts of the religion.

Originally Posted by cleanbluesky

In other words, your replies in this thread are about ME rather than the issue we are discussing. Use the PM system.

Reality dawns? Perhaps I might suggest that the vast majority of comments since your post in this thread concern your attitude towards the issue rather than the issue itself.

What has become the issue here is why you saw fit to bring religion into this thread at all - especially given your insistence that it was merely incidental. Had it been just a one-off then I'm sure even then it would have passed by without remark (or with minimal remark), but these sorts of religious comments appear to have become habitual.

What you may think in private is your own business, but if it's controversial enough and you express it in public often enough then you can expect it to get noticed and commented upon, as has happened.