BS: Christian Persecution

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:07 AM

1000 posts eh?

Just think. Half way to having as many posts as there have been years that minority persecution has been branded Christian persecution.

Has anybody thought about why Christians have to be a special case yet?

The idea of there being more than any other group is not an answer. That would be acknowledging that burgers give you heart disease but McDonald's must be worse for you than others on the basis they sell more globally.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:09 AM

"In a discussion like this the only loyalty we have should be to what we believe to be the truth. Getting all adversarial about it, identifying enemies and friends, staying silent when someone "on our side" says something wrong, and always seeking to interpret what the enemy says in the worst possible light... That's not about loyalty to the truth, it's about trying to win a war."

There speaks the voice of truth and reason. One of the few in this thread (Joe qualifies also, of course).

The Usual Suspects - you need to READ AND LEARN.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:15 AM

Musket, was I wrong yesterday to report an example of a Muslim minority possibly persecuted (Aung San Suu Kyi disputed it and I am an admirer)?

Should I have just said minority and not Muslim?
Why did you not pick me up on it as you do everything else?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:47 AM

"Fake quote. I actually stated repeatedly that it was nothing to do with religion."
Fake claim
Your persistent attempts to denigrate the entire Pakistani Muslim population of Britain by equating their behaviour with the worst aspects of Islamic fundamentalism, coupled with your recent 'born again Christian' status indicates otherwise - that yours is a truely 'Holy War'.
Forgot to thank you for "praying for me" by the way - will be of great comfort in the darkest hours!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 05:07 AM

Because my observations are based on your agenda not your honest mistakes. It would have been churlish to do so.

Just remember, whilst onlookers speak of entrenched positions and other tosh, some of the usual suspects start the ball rolling and others merely respond.

To not respond is seen by the more shallow posters as acceptance of sometimes preposterous positions. Negativity thrives when reason can no longer be arsed to argue.

I may be busy but can always find the 5 mins distraction to challenge.

Pip Pip

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 05:54 AM

Fake quote, true claim Jim.
Produce the quote or simisar if true.
You can not because you are just lying again.

Would you like the true quotes again?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: bobad
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 07:32 AM

Well said McGofH but somehow the words pearls and swine come to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 02:28 PM

""somehow the words pearls and swine come to mind.""

I thought it was supposed to be the other side doing the name calling>

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 03:32 PM

"Pearls before swine" is a allusion, not name calling.

I am going on my honeymoon in the morning.
Away for a week or so.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Elmore
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:11 PM

I'll fill in for Keith while he's away, just to keep this swill ....er swell thread going. By the way, How many angels dance on the head of a pin?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:21 PM

I am going on my honeymoon in the morning. Away for a week or so.

THANK YOU JESUS, THANK YOU LORD!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:41 PM

"The other side"!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 05:47 PM

Congratulations, Keith, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 08:20 PM

Can't say I have any desire to participate in this thread. It got nasty long ago. But still, I got a certain satisfaction out of claiming the 1000th post...

Whenever somebody is persecuted for whatever minority he/she belongs to, it's injustice. Is there anything more to say?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Elmore
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 08:54 PM

Thanks, Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 10:19 PM

Precisely, Joe - the Millennium Man. And the daft thing is, everybody who has been arguing so ferociously about it clearly agrees with that ( leaving aside one who later said he didn't mean to be taken seriously).

But that's the Mudcat for you. We could have an impassioned debate about whether   Humpty Dumpty was free range or not, and what the implications of that might be the the global economy and the future of Morris dancing.

And I half expect to find I've ignited such a debate by saying that...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 03:16 AM

I think you will find we dispensed with the sinister attributes of Morris dancing in this very thread.

Don't you know. .......

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 05:49 AM

""Whenever somebody is persecuted for whatever minority he/she belongs to, it's injustice. Is there anything more to say?""

Nothing whatever Joe!

But some will still be putting their own agenda first for another 1000 posts.

It's a shame that the human race is prevented from achieving tolerance and compassion for all by those who see one religion, culture, nationality, or skin colour as more worthy than others.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 08:07 AM

But in fact nobody actually claimed that to be the case. It was a case of "Whatever you say now, I know what you really think and denounce you."

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 08:38 AM

Keith, the OP, in his thread title, was addressing the situation of a specified demographic. That was what he intended the thread to deal with. Hardly his fault that it was hijacked by a mob of usual·suspect "Well·wot·about"-niks, who should be ashamed of self-righteously screaming their own agendas on someone else's thread because of some inaccurately perceived history on the part of the originator, instead of making their points in their own threads.

But will they be? In a pig's bumhole they will!

Oh, sod off Carroll, Don, the whole stinking holier-than-thou boiling of you. You make me absolutely sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 10:27 AM

The Usual Suspects scream like banshees about one person's perceived 'agenda', whilst their own agenda(s) are perfectly plain for anyone who's 'normal' and 'rational' to see. And then the daft buggers wonder why those of us who are normal and rational won't join in their silly, hysterical, childish game. Not fuckin' likely - I've actually got a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Elmore
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 11:23 AM

I wonder where Keith went on his honeymoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 12:06 PM

Does six posts since this thread was revived count as refusing to join in, Backwoodsman?

I distrust it when people about "agendas". All too often it's what I was referring to "Whatever you say now, I know what you really think and denounce you." Witchfinder General stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket sans knackers
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 12:41 PM

Wow..

Disagree and you have an agenda.

Begin a thread with a not very well disguised agenda and you are a saint.

Smell a twat in the ether and you are boorish.

No matter Musket. Just think.. There may be one in every village but this thread appears to have a commune of the buggers.

So once more. Why is the concern about the word Christian rather than the word persecution?

There's a word to describe it, although you get shouted down by shallow apologists for using it...









Agenda

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 12:47 PM

Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 03:26 PM

Gro-o-o-a-nnnnnnn!

OK, I'm obviously not getting the point over (although I'm persuaded that Bograt, as a self-confessed piss-taker and winder-up of "those twats on Mudcat", knows full well what the point is, and is simply indulging his delight in perverse, insulting role-playing), let's pose a hypothetical question.........

Q. How does persecution of one group by another, on the basis of nothing more than their religious beliefs, begin?

A. Purely hypothetically, let's suppose that one or two people who hold different beliefs, or perhaps no beliefs at all (let's call them group G) start to sneer at and take the piss out of those who have different beliefs (let's call the, for want of a better name, Group J). No problem, just a wind-up, a bit of innocent, harmless fun, eh? After a while, quite a few more people have joined G and got into the fun of all the sneering and piss-taking, and the suggestion is mooted that the people in J are somehow deficient mentally - not 'normal' or 'rational' like the 'clever', 'superior' people in G. With me so far? Recognise the scenario, in it's historical manifestations and, more recently on a certain Internet forum?

After a while, and group G has grown even further, an idea forms amongst a few of the more ambitious and outspoken G-ites that the fact that the country's economic fortunes are at a low ebb, lots of people out of work, businesses going bust etc, is all down to those fucking abnormal, irrational J-ites, whose mental deficiencies already established are so severe as to render them 'sub-human'. So, what shall us 'normal', 'rational' G-ites do about those sub-human bastards.............??

No need to go further, it couldn't happen here...........could it?

Perhaps The Usual Suspects need to read back through the stuff they've posted and think about some of the subliminal messages they give out? Whether, in their words, or the way they present their arguments, they are guilty of allowing themselves to slip into group J?

Telling people who believe in a Deity that they are somehow part of a class whose members are judged deficient by virtue of being abnormal or irrational, or holding grudges against, and calling for the forced dissolution of a whole church because of the criminal acts of a small minority of its members, sounds like the first steps down the road to persecution.

Anyone for tennis?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 03:51 PM

"Whether, in their words, or the way they present their arguments, they are guilty of allowing themselves to slip into group J?"

group G!

Bloody iPad!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 09:06 PM

The word agenda is almost always used in this kind of context as a way of blurring precisely what the person it's aimed at is being accused of. That's why I dislike it. Very rarely do people use it about themselves. That's why I said "aimed at", because tyat is generally how it is used.

And it always seems to "you have an agenda" rather than "this is what your agenda is". It's such an amorphous word, because in a sense in anything anybody ever does they have something that could be called "an agenda".   When you boil an egg you have an agenda, to have an egg you can eat.

Much better to say "this is what I think you (or they) are trying to do, and I am against it". Or for it maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 02:39 AM

Persecution in Iran

A court in Iran has sentenced four Christians to 80 lashes each for drinking wine during Communion. Mervyn Thomas, of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, said that the sentences "effectively criminalise the Christian sacrament of sharing in the Lord's Supper" in Iran.

The Times, 26 October 2013

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket getting his tuppence worth
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 03:55 AM

Two words. Christian and persecution.

If this thread is to note how the age old practice of scapegoating large minorities in order to find blame for your society's failings, then the thread has merit.

If people note that history and demographics leads to communities with large Christian identity being the largest group being persecuted, then again, interesting topic, although cold consideration of any pogrom activity isn't as much fun as discussing England's chances in Rio.

However, the op, or Keith as he is known, has in many posts let his true colours fly. There is a word for it. Agenda. He makes it clear he speaks as a Christian. The significance being his wish to highlight what happens to Christians, not what happens to minorities anyway. His declared support for UKIP puts him in a good position to blame minorities for the ills of society. Look up the thread if you can be arsed, see his comparison of Christians leaving their homelands versus Muslims "coming over here. "

If otherwise objective people wish to support that and find ways of ridiculing those who point it out, shame on them.

Taking the piss appears to be getting rather sophisticated. ......

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 04:29 AM

Bograt, it would be helpful if you made it clear who your diatribes are directed at.

If me, I'll repeat - I am not an 'apologist'. At no time have I expressed support for KoH or what you and a couple of others perceive as his 'agenda', in fact I have expressed condemnation of it if it does, indeed, exist.

But I cannot and will not accept the practice, by those who claim to be champions of the persecuted and oppressed, of themselves using the tactics of the persecutor and oppressor.

When you stop belittling and denigrating those whose beliefs and faiths differ from yours, and when Jim stops calling for punishment of an entire group, by dissolution of their established church, for the sins of a small minority of that group, I'll butt out and leave you to get your fun by kicking KoH's perceived agenda-driven arguments to death.

'He who comes to equity must do so with clean hands'. And not just in the courts.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 05:20 AM

Stop getting touchy. If the cap fits and all that, but I hadn't really considered you when trying to prick the bubble of pomposity. You do tend to take sides rather than be objective, but that's just an observation. I have faults too.

Me? I can't belittle faiths other than my own, on account of being bottom of the table. Only managed a draw against bloody Barnsley yesterday for Clapton's sake.... Mind you, when any sanctimonious sod, of which there are a few here, say that "As a Christian" etc it just reinforces my point. As a wanker, my right arm is stronger than my left. Just as valid and just as pertinent to the point being made.

Anyway, nice to be in a thread and not take the exact opposite view of Jim Carroll. I did say he could start an argument in an empty room, but to be fair to him, Keith misrepresents his points more than he takes Keith's out of context. A plague on both their houses. With the proviso that the abortion context of Eire is one of the best reasons I can think of for civilised countries pushing religions to the fringes and not letting them interfere with reality. If you don't, you end up with the poor buggers in USA seeing how Dumbfuckistan is crippling their government.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 05:24 AM

If Keith were running for office, it would make sense to try to unravel 'his true colours". But in a discussion it makes a lot more sense to focus on the actual topic.

The significance being his wish to highlight what happens to Christians, not what happens to minorities anyway.

Clearly so, that's pretty clearly signposted in the thread title. If I started a thread about Romanian Folk Music it'd be because I wished to "highlight" Romanian Folk Music, not because I wanted to pour derision on the folk music of other countries, or other types of Romanian music.

Of course a thread can quite properly range into wider issues, but that wasn't what happened here. It wasn't about comparing the situation of other persecuted minorities, but rather about marginalising the scale and significance of the persecution of Christians in many countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:17 AM

Fine. Ok. Right you are.

Pointing out Christians suffering from persecution is abhorrent as it is divisive and elitist, saying, not inferring but actually bloody saying... That the life of a Christian is more important than the life of anyone without that particular imaginary friend.

It is also in line with a concerted effort by the Anglican movement to highlight reasons for society in general to take them more seriously, as they complain of losing influence. Losing influence, described as persecution by one ex Archbishop of Canterbury.

Keith seems to be doing his bit. Pillocks like us are then expected to fall for it.

Your next point?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,keith
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 10:33 AM

Thanks for the kind wishes McGrath.

My faith has not been an issue here.
We are all against persecution unless greg meant what he said.
If one group is bearing the brunt of oppression in recent years, it can not be wrong to point that out.

His declared support for UKIP

Made up.
I have never expressed such support, and don't.

Look up the thread if you can be arsed, see his comparison of Christians leaving their homelands versus Muslims "coming over here. "

Also made up.
I have never made any such comparison.
In reply to Don claiming Muslims are persecuted in Britain I pointed out that Christians are being forced to leave their homelands while Muslims choose to migrate into UK.
That is evidence against their persecution here.
That is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 11:10 AM

You have made that mistake before Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 13 - 08:54 AM

"we have to my knowledge at least one regular mudcatter who claims to be a member, has been posting on other thread yet misses the opportunity to put us all right."
Who Musket?
You made a comment on another thread as if you thought I was one.
I do not know why.



Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans reality check
Date: 05 May 13 - 09:08 AM

Use of the word "we". Dead giveaway.





Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 13 - 03:05 PM

Musket, one of us has made a mistake.
I do not think it was me.
Not a big issue, but you should be more careful about jumping to conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 06 May 13 - 08:52 AM

In which case Keith I would humbly apologise. Your posts on the subject previously have been of the possessive use of words though, hence my attitude to some of your posts. My opinion of UKIP is not a positive one.


Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 13 - 02:00 PM

Musket, I do not believe I have used the possessive with ref to any party.
You are mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 12:45 PM

I take it you're back then.

If I did make a mistake with the possessive use of "we" I am wrong. At this point, I don't believe that to be the case. It was in the UKIP thread I'm sure but could have been another. Im not dreaming, I was shocked that someone who on many subjects can come over as rational, clear headed and informative could subscribe to such shallow nonsense.

I'll save the idea of apologies for now, in case your obsessive trawling brings it up. I of course trust you to be objective and say if it is there. Funny that I have used it in debate often yet your rebuttals are few and cleverly worded.

I admitted I had an old Bay City Rollers album but because it is there in the history of posts, I'd look an idiot denying it now. Despite wishing I'd kept it "up there. "

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 01:29 PM

"We" there would appear pretty clearly to mean "we on the Mudcat " rather than "we in UKIP".   

Personal pronouns can indeed trap people into misunderstandings. "He said he was angry" - is that the same he the second time or someone else, and if so, whom?

I thought this thread had expired. Perhaps it should...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 01:52 PM

Musket how clear a rebuttal do you need than that I just dredged up?
You DID "dream" that I said any such thing.
I have never said "we" in reference to ANY party.

I do eventually give up denying the same old false accusations.
That does not make them true!

I get so sick of you and others making up your mind about me with no justification for your prejudices, and claiming I have some agenda or other.
I have none.
Respond to what I say instead of endlessly making up dark motives for my saying it.
Of course, that would be a bit harder.
Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 02:10 PM

I thought this thread had expired. Perhaps it should...

Better that it hadn't been started in the first instance since its premise is largely bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 05:10 PM

When assessing the agenda of a poster, one only has to look at his reactions to similar events involving different groupings, and his comments about those groups, whether positive or negative, along with general tendency to apply either the same, or different values depending on the particular groups.

The denied agenda will appear with inconvenient clarity from such research.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 05:30 PM

As the previous poster himself has amply illustrated.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: bobad
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 06:47 PM

The previous GUEST post was mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Elmore
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 08:43 PM

Damn! Thought I had outlived this dreadful divisive thread. I'm not sure that I will now.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 08:44 PM

So which was "the previous poster"?

But as for When assessing the agenda of a poster, one only has to look at his reactions to similar events involving different groupings, and his comments about those groups, whether positive or negative, along with general tendency to apply either the same, or different values depending on the particular groups. Do people actually do that kind of thing? Or is Don testing out his irony muscles.

I do wish we could have a ironic typeface available to us here...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Elmore
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 09:48 PM

Did you hear about the horse who walked into a bar? Bartender says "Why the long face?"

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 02:49 AM

Why do you need to "assess the agenda" Don.
Why not just refute what I say?
Too hard right?
You think that if you "assess" that I have an "agenda" you are absolved from addressing what I actually say.
Useful if you are unable to address what I actually say!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Peter
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 04:07 AM

Let us all take one step back guys. Yes we would all like to see harmony and a multicultural society, but I fear it is never going to happen. Britain has become a powder keg over the past decade. Extremists on both sides are using the issues of immigration and the right to practice their faith for their own agenda.

No one seems to want to face the truth about what is happening in the UK today. UKIP seem to be making remarkable advances in any region they stand, which is a reflection of feeling. The current coalition government are responding by hijacking UKIP polices.

Britain is in a mess, hospitals and schools simply can't cope with the numbers coming in from Eastern European countries let alone anywhere else. Bulgarian and Romanian newspapers are currently advising people what benefits to claim for once they arrive in the UK in 2014.

We can't bury our heads in the sand, immigration is a problem in the UK and will continue to be so until the government face up to the problem and introduce stringent measures such as not allowing immigrants the right to claim benefits and blocking them from obtaining housing benefit.

Did you ever watch an old Black and white British film set in the 1940's, a time of pride in our culture, heritage and tradition, not you are also afraid to mention your pride to be British in case some old hippy or radical accuses you of being racist or xenophobic, oh how the love these words.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 04:19 AM

This thread was about religious persecution.
The discussion has run its course.
I only posted to refute some false statements made about me personally (again!).

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Nov 13 - 05:49 AM

""I do wish we could have a ironic typeface available to us here...""

No irony McGrath! Would you say that there is no sign of an agenda, when somebody whines about the persecution of a minority which happens to be a group of which he considers himself a member, yet sees no persecution in confining another group in an open prison camp, because he doesn't consider their lives to be as important as those of his own persuasion?

I realise that the poster in question is considered one of the good guys by many here, which means that nobody will take the trouble to examine the basic attitudes displayed.

I am not inclined to put together a large number of illustrative posts which you can easily find for yourselves, but I assure you they are there.

Beating one's head against the wall is all very well, but I've had enough, so I'm out of this thread.

If you care about putting the bits together, RTFM.

Don T.