 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Christian Persecution
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: GUEST,Musket curious Date: 03 Oct 13 - 09:09 PM Ok. What's on the quick and dirty BBC news app today. . A Catholic school sends two Muslim teenage boys home for refusing to shave their beards. Something about uniform policy and promoting pride in appearance. Pride and prejudice indeed. Keith. Don't be a prat today, have a day off eh? I acknowledged that local interpretation of Saudi law can be an issue. Having a drink can lead to problems. Unlike here, you cannot ensure a court tests the legislative wording of the law. It is a brutal state but saying westerners would be subject to sharia law is bollocks. It fails the first test of agreeing to be bound by arbitration, which effectively is what sharia is all about and secondly, as sharia uses the q'ran as the guide, non Muslims cannot agree to be bound by values they are not "worthy" of understanding the value of. So the secular courts deal with you. Guided by Islam funnily enough. ...... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: bobad Date: 03 Oct 13 - 09:31 PM "A Catholic school sends two Muslim teenage boys home for refusing to shave their beards" Yes definitely on the same scale of persecution as the 81 Christians killed by a suicide bomber in Peshawar simply because of their religion. Thank you for pointing this out to us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Oct 13 - 01:15 AM Musket, it was not me being a prat. You picked me up for this statement. "Greg, non-Muslims living or working in Saudi are expected to live by the Sharia like everyone else. That is not persecution." It is true. I did not specify what kind of court you would be dragged to, but thank you for clarifying that bit of trivia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Oct 13 - 01:18 AM There was actually a big scandal not that many years ago, 20-30 maybe, when a woman, Penelope something-or-other, of the British community employed on some of the work British firms used to do for the Saudi government, was sentenced to be caned for drinking at a party. It was apparently a widespread custom to which something of a blind-eye was turned [tho it struck me as filthy manners ~~ if you can't do without your alcohol-fix, then don't take lucrative work in places where it's illegal and opposed to their lifestyle, I thought; talk about wanting everything on your own terms!]; but she drew attention to herself with untoward behaviour while drunk. IIRC the consulate got her out of it, & she came home to UK where she fell foul of the law & was prosecuted here for something or other. Clearly not a v nice woman at all... Sorry my recollections a bit vague ~~ anyone recall any more of the detail? ~~ but it does emphasise that, as said above, insisting on importing our alcohol-dependent ways into a Muslim country can carry some risks. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Oct 13 - 03:24 AM "Isn't it a boring game?" Like Keith with his permanent "thread drifts" attempts at censorship - please mind your own business if you have no intentions in commenting on what is being said and leave us to deal with our own shortcomings in literary skills as best we can. "A Catholic school sends two Muslim teenage boys home for refusing to shave their beards." I attended a school which served two distinct communities of pupils; those of us who lived on the large Liverpool overspill council housing estate and a tiny handful of somewhat better off kids from Speke Village who hadn't made it to Grammar School. My Secondary Modern school ruled that every boy who didn't wear a (somewhat expensive) school tie – should be sent home for part of the day, and if it happened three times we were caned. When we entered the second form, we all were forced to wear school blazers (also expensive – out of reach for my parents). It was a constant battle between the school authorities and the poorer parents, including my own, who genuinely couldn't afford one. They never resorted to caning for failure, but the constant humiliation we were subjected to (particularly by the gangs of better off boys) often made caning a preferred alternative. Friends at the nearest Catholic school were automatically beaten for being late for morning Mass. Repeated failure to be on time led to them being hauled up before the entire assembly and publicly and extensively berated by the priest, then publicly caned by him (some of them no doubt taking extreme pleasure from it, given their now revealed history). Severe beatings and humiliation were a natural way of life in Irish schools and English Catholic schools, likewise the response described towards tardiness and failure to attend religious assemblies, right up to fairly recently - The Christian Brothers are legendary for their brutality, even today – occasionally pipped at the post by some equally legendary orders of Nuns. None of this measured up to being "beheaded with a rusty sword" - merely messing about with childrens' minds by beating discipline and religion into them, often causing lifelong and sometimes severe damage, so I don't know where this registers on your 'sliding scale' exactly Mike. Parental and educationally administered physical punishment was made illegal in Britain some time ago, by fairly stringent and strongly, often bitterly opposed laws yet there are still those who publicly yearn for the 'good old days' when "we and the teachers were allowed to keep our own children in line without the interference of the "Nanny State" (just like good ol' Capital punishment). The battle has yet to be won in Ireland - corporal punishment was banned in 1994, parental physical punishment is still under "periodic review" according to the politicians. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Oct 13 - 03:46 AM "None of this measured up to being "beheaded with a rusty sword" - merely messing about with childrens' minds by beating discipline and religion into them, often causing lifelong and sometimes severe damage, so I don't know where this registers on your 'sliding scale' exactly Mike." .,,. I'm not even trying to establish a precise "scale", Jim, "sliding" or otherwise; but I much deplore the instances you adduce, far more than having to travel a bit for a termination, say: & am glad to read your first clause above, registering for the first time, in contradiction to your previous assertion that "persecution is persecution", so no distinctions as to gravity should be permitted, which appeared to be your attitude before, that there might indeed be distinctions to be made [tho if you are ref'ing a previous post of mine, which cited a report from Tripoli, it was a blunt knife, not a rusty sword, which it reported as having been used. Never forget: Accuracy Matters!] Re my last post: thinking back, it was only the fact that this Penny Whoever was a woman that made it newsworthy IIRC. There were so many reports at the time of British men working for development companies in Saudi, Yemen, &c, being caned for importing & drinking alcohol that they were hardly news - used to appear in News In Brief columns. The attitude seemed to be that it was worth the risk of a caning to earn the sort of money they could get for this sort of work. Never seemed to occur to them how exploitative & ill-mannered it was to go to someone else's country but feel you had the right to import your own [in their eyes, illegal] lifestyle with you. Hope the canings hurt! Serve them right! Don't know if this still goes on. Maybe the market for imported developers isn't what it was. Anyone heard of any such instances more recently? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Oct 13 - 03:47 AM My Secondary Modern school ruled that every boy who didn't wear a (somewhat expensive) school tie – should be sent home for part of the day, and if it happened three times we were caned. When we entered the second form, we all were forced to wear school blazers (also expensive – out of reach for my parents). It was a constant battle between the school authorities and the poorer parents, including my own, who genuinely couldn't afford one. They never resorted to caning for failure, but the constant humiliation we were subjected to (particularly by the gangs of better off boys) often made caning a preferred alternative. Most schools were like that. No-one had to attend a Catholic school. You had the choice. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Oct 13 - 04:40 AM "You had the choice." I did not attend a Catholic school - I am an atheist - my father's church made sure of that by excommunicating him for his anti-fascist behaviour Catholics who do not send their children to school in England run the inevitable consequence of humiliation, harassment even to the extent of ostractition A condition of a Catholic marrying outside the faith was that they agreed to children being brought up and educated as Catholics Today, if I wised to have my children in a non denominational school I would have to transport them forty five miles daily, the nearest non-denominational Portacabin, 20 miles away being permanently oversubscribed. "Most schools were like that." Yes they most certainly were - a form of persecution until the aw and parental pressure stopped it - what's your point? NO CATHOLIC WISHING TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION HAS A MODICUM OF CHOICE IN THESE MATTERS - WHAT WORLD DO YOU OCCUPY??? "I'm not even trying to establish a precise "scale", Jim" Of course you aren't, you are merely trying to present only one brand of atrocities by downgrading all others - par for the course by people like you and Keith. So far you have totally ignored the threat that all religions poses to society should the desire or right circumstances arise. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Oct 13 - 04:54 AM Today, if I wised to have my children in a non denominational school I would have to transport them forty five miles daily, the nearest non-denominational Portacabin, 20 miles away being permanently oversubscribe Why choose to live there then? Is it not because you prefer the culture of where you are. The culture that chooses to live under all those laws that you (and I) find so unreasonable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Oct 13 - 04:56 AM Just like those people Michael spoke about, who wanted the Saudi salaries but wanted to import their own morality. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Oct 13 - 05:23 AM "Why choose to live there then?" Will you and your friends stop interfereing in where I chose to life IT IS NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS AND IT IN NO WAY INVAIDAYTES A SINGLE WORD I HAVE TO SAY AS YOU HAVE PERSISTENTLY SUGGESTED IT HAS - FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME BACK OFF I wans't gong to bother with this, but your constant harrasment of my choice of home forces me into a position of explaining in full why I choose to live - I shouldn't ever have been put in this position on an open forum but your jackbooting behaviour leancves me no alternative - will do so shortly Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Oct 13 - 05:25 AM "...you are merely trying to present only one brand of atrocities by downgrading all others" sez Jim in his customary assertive but not-adducing-any-examples mode. Just show me one instance of where I have done this, Jim. I went to great pains above to try to get anyone to produce any occasion NOW, not 500 years, or even 10 years, ago, where Xtns were perpetrating the sort of persecution which they are suffering to such a degree in so much of the world today. The best you could come up with were nasty things that priests in Ireland did to some children, how many years ago was it -- could you please give me a precise date when the priest told the girl to 'embrace her martyrdom'? Then get hold of a copy of the new [out today] Spectator & read about what is happening THIS MOMENT in much of the world in The War On Christians by John L. Allen Jr. Then no doubt you will think of yet another smartarse & abusive getout. Why does your tone always have to be so bloody unpleasant? Do you think we are all impressed by the extreme commitment you are showing? All it shows is what an unregenerate yobbo you take pride in being. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Oct 13 - 05:47 AM Try to keep it short then Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Oct 13 - 05:58 AM "Try to keep it short then Jim." How dare you - you arrogant little twat Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Oct 13 - 07:02 AM The war on Christians The global persecution of Christians is the unreported catastrophe of our time John L. Allen Jr. 5 October 2013 http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9041841/the-war-on-christians/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Oct 13 - 07:03 AM The war on Christians The global persecution of Christians is the unreported catastrophe of our time John L. Allen Jr. 5 October 2013 http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9041841/the-war-on-christians/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Oct 13 - 07:13 AM "Because the bulk of the globe's 2.3 billion Christians today are impoverished and live in the developing world, and because they are often members of ethnic, cultural and linguistic minorities, experts regard their treatment as a reliable indicator of a society's broader record on human rights and dignity. Just as one didn't have to be Jewish in the 1970s to care about dissident Jews in the Soviet Union, nor black in the 1980s to be outraged by the Apartheid regime in South Africa, one doesn't have to be Christian today to see the defence of persecuted Christians as a towering priority." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Oct 13 - 07:16 AM I apologise in advance for this, Keith's latest comment has led me to decide to deal with it in full so hopefully it will never be used as a form of censorship by him and his 'Little Britain' friends in an attempt to silence my opinions. For several years on this forum I have been subjected to ongoing harassment by Keith and his buddies because of our choice to spend the rest of our lives in Ireland, rather than my birthplace and home for nearly sixty years. This has been described as desertion and "hatred of "US" (Britons) and has been constantly used as a method of undermining what I have to say. I have requested constantly that this stop – it is both inaccurate and extremely anti-democratic to me and anybody on this forum who doesn't live 'within pissing distance of Banbury Cross'. As can be seen from Keith's latest forays into fascist suppression (terminating in his demands that I "keep it short"), these requests have been totally ignored and I see no end to them in the future unless they are stopped by others. Here goes. In 1973 my wife Pat and I embarked on a project of collecting traditional songs, stories, music, lore and contextual information from members of the older generation. This included England and Scotland, but our main work was centred on Irish people, here in West Clare, in London, mainly with musicians and most enjoyably and fruitfully with Irish Travellers. In thirty years we amassed a large collection of this information and made it as accessible as we were able. In 1998 we were lucky enough to be able to retire and work on our collection, digitising, annotating, documenting and archiving it in order to pass it on for further use, as we had promised all those whose generosity enabled us to gather what we did. We decided that the best place to top-and-tail our work was where the vast majority of them called "home", Ireland, particularly here in Miltown Malbay, where the bulk of our collection was recorded. This has enabled us to put our collection into some sort of social context (sorely lacking in our overall understanding of the folk traditions). Our move here has proved enormously successful in all this and has also enabled us to go on gathering information. As far as making what we have gathered accessible, the media and arts groups have been extremely co-operative in what we are doing. We have participated in numerous radio programmes, including a magnificent three-part series on our work with Travellers by a local broadcaster – this was for national radio – Lyric FM. Thanks to our friendship with the National Archive I.T.M.A, not only have some of our recordings been put on the web, but their co-operation has enabled us to issue two double CDs of our work. A high point will have been reached in the next couple of months when our Clare County Library puts our entire collection of Clare songs on their web for public access. A n extremely generous grant from the Arts Council has enabled us to musically annotate many of our songs, bringing the publication of two books within our grasp. None of this would have been vaguely possible had we remained in Britain. In the early 1980s we donated what we had then collected to The National Sound Archive, now housed at the British Library. Despite the fact that our donation led to their expanding their then holdings into an official traditional archive, due to financial consideration our collection has never seen the light of day. There you have it – my "hatred of Britain" in a nutshell. Keith has used our move as a means of undermining my democratic rights on this forum – he continues to do so. If he does so gain I will request that any such postings be removed – if he persists I will request that he be removed as I believe his increasingly eccentric fanatical and extremist behaviour has, for some time now been a threat to this forum. Apologies again – particularly to Keith, in reference to his command that I keep it short – I trust I will not be forced to raise the matter again. Jim Carroll By the way – one of Keith's 'weapons' in suppressing has been an opinion I once passed on racism in Britain, based on my experiences in having lived in three of our major cities. I notice that a fairly recent survey carried out among British people and published in a British newspaper, found that one third of those questioned admitted to holding and openly expressing racist views. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: bobad Date: 04 Oct 13 - 07:27 AM "According to the International Society for Human Rights, a secular observatory based in Frankfurt, Germany, 80 per cent of all acts of religious discrimination in the world today are directed at Christians. Statistically speaking, that makes Christians by far the most persecuted religious body on the planet. According to the Pew Forum, between 2006 and 2010 Christians faced some form of discrimination, either de jure or de facto, in a staggering total of 139 nations, which is almost three-quarters of all the countries on earth. According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, an average of 100,000 Christians have been killed in what the centre calls a 'situation of witness' each year for the past decade. That works out to 11 Christians killed somewhere in the world every hour, seven days a week and 365 days a year, for reasons related to their faith." But but a Catholic school sent two Muslim teenage boys home for refusing to shave their beards - imagine that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 04 Oct 13 - 07:32 AM Jim, I admire your work, but not your making up all that shit about me. The subject is still religious persecution. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Oct 13 - 07:52 AM Can I take this that you see no wrong in your behaviour and intend to continue as you have done for several years now? If so, I may as well attempt to put an end to it officially now and save having to raise it again? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim McLean Date: 04 Oct 13 - 10:27 AM "A fig for those by law protected, Liberty's a glorious feast. Courts for cowards were erected, Churches built to please the priests". Robert Burns circa 1780 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Oct 13 - 11:33 AM Catholics who do not send their children to school in England run the inevitable consequence of humiliation, harassment even to the extent of ostractition That just isn't the case Jim, in my experience. ( I assume you meant not send their children to Catholic school - anyone who doesn't send their children to school as such faces all kinds of problems from the law, nothing to do with religion.) As for Muslims in Catholic schools, our local one has a pretty high proportion of Muslims - in fact some Muslim friends of ours who wante to send their daughters there had to get a note from the Imam confirming that they were Muslims in order to get in. I don't know what the rules on beards ar, probably the same as Disneyland, no facial hair. A bit daft maybe, but very few boys are able to grow a sensible beard till well after they've left school anyway. The idea that growing a beard is a religious obligation on Muslim boys is rubbish anyway. It's no more so than wearing a kilt is obligatory for Scottish boys. You missed my point Jim on my last post. The reason I'd see anti-Muslim posts as out of place in a thread about persecution of Muslim minorities isn't because I object to thread drift, but because in that context they would amount to Islamophbia, and I object to that. In a different context discussion and criticism might be fair enough, nothing is above criticism. And I see the same as applying in the case of criticism of other religions, the context is important. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 04 Oct 13 - 12:06 PM "That just isn't the case Jim, in my experience." Sorry Mac - you are of course right I should have clarified that in my experience, parents who don't send their children to Catholic schools face problems from the church - I know this from bitter experience. Because my father was forced to spend so much time away from home, my mother brought my sister and I up alone She was at the receiving end of a great deal of abuse from visiting clergymen for not sending us to the local Catholic School. "because in that context they would amount to Islamophbia" Not sure I entirely agree I see no harm in discussions about abuses of any religion anywhere; what I do object to are threads being taken over by Islamophobe fanatics whenever the opportunity arises, often couched in language that would be subject to incitement to race hatred laws outside the safety of the web - ie - using this forum as a race-hate platform on any subject under the sun. The same people are the first to attempt to deprive us of our say, using every shitty little little trick in the boo to do so. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: MGM·Lion Date: 04 Oct 13 - 02:00 PM "using every shitty little little trick in the boo to do so." .,. Surely you mean "every shitty little trick in the loo"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: bobad Date: 04 Oct 13 - 05:18 PM From: akenaton - PM Date: 18 Dec 11 - 04:20 PM The Arab spring? more like a dangerous swamp. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 October 2013 "Ennahda, the Tunisian Islamist party affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood, has been forced from power by an overwhelming secular opposition. And get this: now that Ennahda is out, not a single post-Arab Spring country is ruled by Islamists. All of them are secular now." World Affairs |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Oct 13 - 05:39 PM So we're agreed on the principle involved, Jim. But I don't think it just applies in the case where a thread about attacks on Muslims in the real world is used as an occasion for further attacks on Muslims, but online. Other religious groups can get the same treatment, and I think it's wrong to go along with it, or share in it. Either in the real world or online. And I think it's not necessarily true that there is "no harm in discussions about abuses of any religion anywhere". The context can make a great deal of difference, turning discussions about abuses into something quite else. It's a process that happens in a whole range of topics - gender, race, class...harm in discussions about abuses of any religion anywhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: GUEST,Musket between courses Date: 04 Oct 13 - 08:04 PM Yeah yeah. Christian persecution is worse than any other type etc. Is that okay censor person? Zzzzzzz |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Oct 13 - 02:34 AM Mac "And I think it's not necessarily true that there is "no harm in discussions about abuses of any religion anywhere"." I think it depends on whether it is discussed in context - in this case, whether Muslim persecution of Christians can be placed alongside Christian persecution of others - the inbuilt tendency of any religion to spread its gospel by any means. I participated in a thread which started with the question "has hatred of Muslims become an acceptable form of racism?" It was transformed virtually singlehandedly by one individual into a diatribe of hate directed at all Muslims, describing all British ones as 'implanted potential perverts' - one of the longest and most distasteful discussions I've ever taken part in. People will use forums like these as platforms for such ideas; the only way to counter them is to challenge them all openly and put them in context, and not to pretend that persecution doesn't happen in Islam, but is an essential part of what all religion is - a definitive and uncompromising statement of our origins. "Christian persecution is worse" Can't remember anybody saying the Muskie - make your point or go back to sleep. "every shitty little trick in the loo" Thanks Mike - much nearer to what I intended to say. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Oct 13 - 02:46 AM directed at all Muslims, describing all British ones as 'implanted potential perverts' If you had a case you would not have to lie. I said, explicitly and often, that the crime was NOT linked to Islam. I have since given some of those quotes to you in reply to that accusation you now repeat. There was a crime in which one demographic group was over-represented. No hatred. No Islamophobia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Oct 13 - 02:53 AM Sorry Mac - didn't finish my sentence "but is an essential part of what all religion is - a definitive and uncompromising statement of our origins." - and how everbody who disagrees with us is wrong - A SINNER. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Oct 13 - 04:02 AM everbody who disagrees with us is wrong - A SINNER. That is not a Christian belief. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly Date: 05 Oct 13 - 07:43 AM Fook me Carroll. You could start an argument in an empty pub. I know I usually dismiss you as a ranting idiot with weird takes on life and occasionally music, but if you hadn't noticed, on this subject I am closer to you than the wannabe vicars. My post above was, as should be obvious, a complaint that a post of mine upset a mudelf and was deleted. My post above was sarcasm aimed at them. The original post was, Clapton forbid, supportive to something you said earlier and ripping the piss out of one of your detractors. Mind you, some of what you are putting on this thread is bollocks. Even to me, who sees hi lighting Christian persecution as opposed to any other as being agenda driven and distasteful. Toodle pip. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: bobad Date: 05 Oct 13 - 08:15 AM "....hi lighting Christian persecution as opposed to any other ..." Well we could discuss Muslim persecution I suppose but unfortunately the vast majority of it is perpetrated by fellow Muslims and that would have the usual mob screaming Islamophobia. The same mob which has no problem "hi lighting" [sic] Israeli "atrocities" as opposed to any other. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Oct 13 - 10:32 AM Even to me, who sees hi lighting Christian persecution as opposed to any other as being agenda driven and distasteful. Not doing that Musket. Just reporting that it is more prevalent by far. Is that wrong? Distasteful? Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Elmore Date: 05 Oct 13 - 11:42 AM Never have so many argued so passionately, so articulately, over a problem which may or may not have a solution. Not my place to tell anybody to give it up. Just sayin'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Oct 13 - 11:43 AM Even to me, who sees hi lighting Christian persecution as opposed to any other as being agenda driven and distasteful" Look a bit closer Musk I am not highlighting Christian persecution above, below equal to.... any other religion, just placing it alongside, where I believe it belongs. Any set of beliefs that are based on pure faith and come with no evidence, but carry instructions such as "thou shalt worship no other God but me" come with certain risks, especially when they are hammered into everybody who the various churches get their hands on as "indisputable to the risk of eternal damnation" Get sent a package like that and any sensible person like that would call out the bomb squad. You want people who have "driven agendas" - seek, and ye shall find - not me bro. Jim Carroll Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Oct 13 - 11:51 AM By the way, usually need at least one other person, though at a pinch, the pub cat'll do! Won't bother signing, signed the last one twice |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 05 Oct 13 - 08:01 PM Oh FFS! Ask those who lost the fight in Rwanda, Darfur and a hundred other places around the world. You can spend the next ten years arguing for individual cases, and the only result will be an excess of hot air. A much better response would be to aim your opprobrium at those who are responsible, and therefore in a position to end the persecution. The Jim and Keith show is getting very old, very boring and ultimately unproductive. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Oct 13 - 03:57 AM It was never meant to be entertaining Don. I am not highlighting Christian persecution above, below equal to.... any other religion, just placing it alongside, where I believe it belongs. Me too, but I am also saying that Christian persecution far exceeds the rest, and have put up some evidence of that. I do not understand why that is at all contentious. A much better response would be to aim your opprobrium at those who are responsible, and therefore in a position to end the persecution. An excellent suggestion Don. Perhaps you could start us off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Oct 13 - 03:59 AM "The Jim and Keith show is getting very old, very boring and ultimately unproductive." Not getting Don - it has been for a very long time and probably from the outset, but I suspect it will bounce along the bottom for some time yet while Keith is determined to infest these threads with the bigotry, hatred and occasionally self-confessed ignorance with which he hd dominated these threads with over and over again. I would hope that his latest performances have put a brake on his domineering and censorial behaviour, but I fear there's a little life left in the old - whatever - yet. I have taken some steps to prevent him from interfering with my membership rights on this forum - the rest of you may make up your own minds. I quite enjoy the gift of being able to express my opinions openly on a public forum and learn to those of others who share my interests without being told what I can and cannot discuss, and I am prepared to put a little effort into retaining that privilege. Sorry if that gets up any noses - but that's me! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Oct 13 - 04:27 AM Cross-posted "Perhaps you could start us off." Hate saying it, but I told you so! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 06 Oct 13 - 06:02 AM I know your heart is in the right place Jim, though your presentation often obscures that fact. However, you might like to consider following my lead and ignoring one whose opinions you wil never alter. I do not and will not respond to him any more, and I feel much better for having made that decision. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Oct 13 - 07:30 AM I think presentation limitations are something we are all saddled with - few of us are professional writers, tacticians, diplomats or child-care experts, so we do the best we can. Ignoring is not a long-term option with someone who takes a proprietorial and censorial approach to many of the subjects that interest me and which I consider important, especially with someone who invariably insists on having the last word. Wars of attrition are just as censorial as being told that you are not allowed to discuss certain aspects of a subject There has to be a limit to how many subjects you are prepared to leave in the hands of such people - I have now reached mine. Anybody familiar with the 'Thousand and One Nights' story of 'Sinbad and the Old Man of the Sea' will know how I am left feeling after a prolonged session with one of these individuals - see 'Homs Horror', 'Muslim Prejudice' 'Irish Famine' and 'No Traveller Signs' threads for examples. Sorry to disagree. Best Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Oct 13 - 07:41 AM Don, ignoring one whose opinions you wil never alter. My only opinion here is that Christians are being very badly persecuted. Do you disagree? Are you with those who object to such an opinion even being expressed? Do you support Jim's demand to discuss something else instead? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: MGM·Lion Date: 06 Oct 13 - 08:23 AM As to the correctness of the location of Jim's ♥: we have had this conversation before IIRC. I am afraid that I cannot 100% so regard anyone who turns so nasty when he is getting the worst of an argument: see my posts of 1 Oct 1235pm, 3 Oct 0115pm, 4 Oct 0525am; in the first of these, I wrote "It's all your usual MO ~~ you give the impression of wanting to argue intelligently till anyone asks you to question one of your fatuous OK shibboleths; then you turn illogical; when this is pointed out, you turn nasty." I think this a fair summary of Jim's argumentative system [if it can be graced with such a designation]. I don't think such goings-on at all the mark of good-heartedness. Nor is his insistence that, if I ever take Keith's part against his blustering bullying & censoriousness, then I must be either K's 'Fairy Godmother' or his 'poodle'. I'm not worried about his fatuous animadversions; but can't help being reminded of Julian Fellowes' brilliant summary of a disagreeable character in his novel 'Snobs': "He was the sort of person who insults you and then says 'Can't you take a joke?'." ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Oct 13 - 08:27 AM "Do you support Jim's demand to discuss something else instead?" Thank you for a perfect example of something I missed out from my list - your constant distortion of what your opponents' positions are. I might have added "hatred of Britain", living 'somewhere else' and 'support for Al Qaeda, the IRA and other terrorist groups. We'll bring this to an all-round successful conclusion for everybody, yourself included, if you keep on going in the direction you are. Thank you again Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: MGM·Lion Date: 06 Oct 13 - 09:35 AM Jim also represents in ♠♠♠ that peculiar left·wing conviction, peculiar in my experience to those of that particular political orientation, that any who do not share their views cannot possibly be motivated by any sort of ethical belief or genuine principle, but must be evil people driven to their views by a combination of selfishness & ill-will. IMO the ill-will ~~ often positive vindictiveness indeed ~~ is much more exemplified in Jim's attitudes and expressions that any posted by others of us of who occupy more moderate, less doctrinaire & agenda-driven, positions. The idea of living and letting live, accepting that some opinions different from one's own might nevertheless be held disinterestedly because genuinely viewed by their holders as correct and true, does not enter the thinking of such as those whom he represents so vehemently. When he meets someone intelligent who will nevertheless not accept all his shibboleths (& remember he has more than once aggressively denounced me for being 'educated'!), his entire security & raison d'être appear threatened. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: Stringsinger Date: 06 Oct 13 - 10:05 AM It seems to me that Jim is making perfect sense. I applaud his history and knowledge in folk music. I understand his need to move to Ireland to continue his studies. He would have the same trouble in America as in Britain. Most people in the US wouldn't understand what he is talking about or be interested in his pursuit. I think that it's important. Labeling him as a "leftie" smacks of contemporary McCarthyism. Every religion in the world is both persecuted and a persecutor. It's a tribal identification that culminates in violence and warfare. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution From: bobad Date: 06 Oct 13 - 10:07 AM Mike nails it as usual. |