The Church of England, goes more insane.

Whether that is the technical definition, 'people I don't like' is the context certain among you seem to use it in. It isn't my fault if people missuse terminology.

Sorry, that was an American definition, as put out by Prinston University. Whether few Americans would agree with it is beside the point, it is what the word means so feel free to missuse it but please, try to be precise with your language.

Depends on my mood, or indeed what we are discussing.

But aside from the fact that the Soviet Union never was a 'communist society' and the lack of this stuff in any decent communist texts we can pretty much ignore your comments on this issue. Thanks.

Not really, it is a pretty massive step from the idiot at work telling you to take down a picture because he is an idiot to a massive, state run program of self criticism and behaviour control.

Firstly, do you even know who the BNP are? They are a bunch of racist lunatics with links to white supremacist groups, neo-Nazi groups and so on, they include those convicted of numerous violent crimes and terrorist acts among their 'head shed' and are frankly vile. Now, I think I am quite entitled to 'disapprove' of that, I also feel that the Church is entirely justified in saying that it will not allow it's professional members to be a part of that group.

And yes, I will gladly stick to using the actual meanings of words rather than the ones you make up to suit you.

It still enforces it, the extent is irrelevant.

Sorry, maybe you are too wrapped up in your lovely little corporate rat race to see the bigger picture. I'll leave you to it.

Right and ultimately keep people following a nice series of trends and fashions which despite the 'array of colours' are ultimately not all that different. As for your latter quote, is that not the definition of fashion?

'Appealing to the greatest number of individuals' can easily be read as 'encouraging people to conform to the standards of the greatest number.

Please then, direct me to the section in genuine Marxist Communist doctrine that indicates it? And please, do it without reference to 'fake' commie states etc.

Right, however that is not uniform throughout the entire religion is it? That is a lot like me saying 'Christian states in the x century were intolerant of Jews, Christianity is uniformly anti-semitic.'

I didn't say they were uniformly tolerant, I said they were not uniformly intolerant.

Give it 10 years and you can look at the UK, the levels of anti-Islamic sentiment are growing quite rapidly as demonstrated on this very thread. As for your religious text comment:

Luke 19:27 says: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

1 Corinthians 10:20-21 "But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils." (Basically all other religions worship the devil)

Seems pretty intolerant to me. It is of course ignoring all the homophobic and sexist stuff not to mention the old testament and the passages in both used to justify violence for over a milennium.

My point is that the issue is with the governments, not the religions. If you condemn Islam wholesale you are effectively declaring war on 1000 million people. It is clear however from the fact that there are moderate Muslims throughout the world that the religion can exist peacefully and be tolerant.

http://www.danielpipes.org/pics/new/large/308.jpg

Ankara March, Turkey, 2007. Hundreds of thousands of moderate Muslims protest against the idea of an Islamic government. There have been similar instances of this worldwide, not to mention the thousands of individuals who speak for moderation, such as Naser Khader, founder of the moderate Muslim network and Danish parliamentarian.

Do you remember a little while ago people railing about 'anti-Americanism,' various folks complaining that people blame the American people for the actions of the president and so on. Is this not the same thing? If your government does something unethical (say, sending someone to Syria to be tortured for example), is it right for me to blame you? Should criticism of US foreign policy in the press be directed at 'Americans?' Frankly no, and yet this is what you are doing to Islam. You condemn an entire religion for the governments of a few nations (quite a few of which were ultimately our fault, but there was a time when radical Islam was preferable to Communism I guess).

To be frank we are facing a problem, yes, extreme-Islam has some horrible things to account for, however either we can condemn an entire religion and turn what moderates there are into extremists or we can look to get the moderates on side and deal with the extremists on their own. You can't destroy Islam, why not help it evolve?

Sorry, so New Labour are trying to turn Britain into an Islamic state by arresting Islamic clerics and fighting extremeist Islam in the middle east, that makes sense, clearly :S

And it got kicked out of the court and they were forced to apologise! Some persecution!

Afghanistan, Pakistan, the far east, none of these are Arab lands. Most of the key figures in extreme-Islam are not Muslim, most Muslims in the west are in fact not of Arabic decent.

[qutoe]Well, just seems to me, you are prepared to use the word ignorant, when a person would hold a radically different view to yours, without you substantiating the use of such phraseology.[/quote]

Sorry, I thought I substantiated it there, you clearly are ignorant of the meaning of 'fascist,' the nature of the political parties in power and numerous other things, see previous post.

Sorry, I would have thought the series of posts attacking Islam are enough to justify calling you 'anti-Islam.'

Right, so you have a problem with the fact that the British government recognises a particular sect as representative of a particular branch of Islam. That makes sense however it does not make Rowan Williams comment the attempt to establish a Sharia state that you suggest it is. All the man said was that recognising some elements of Sharia law is inevitable, that doesn't mean turning Britain into a Sharia state and suggesting it does is just over-reacting.

Well, that doesn't make sense to start with, if Labour were trying to win the Muslim vote, why did we go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan? A few pathetic bits of 'political correctness' designed to win over Muslims would pale into insignificance rather when compared to killing hundreds of thousands.

Sorry, you just told me Labour were a fascist party, but suddenly they don't want a fascist state? They are also apparently now just like any other political party, just trying to get (legitimately) elected. Not very Fascist to me. As for your fear of an Islamofascist state and since you seem to do everything via you-tube, lets look at just how dedicated Labour and the British government are to promoting radical Islamic interests:

YouTube - US and British forces bomb Taliban Forces

So you are ignoring the fact that under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, it was already an arrestable offense to incite racial hatred, the controversy was over the amendment to include religious hatred. Moreover, whilst it would make sense that in some respects the law was designed to protect British Muslims from a backlash following 9/11, I still have yet to see any evidence that it was designed to help create an Islamic state, particularly when you consider the number of times it has been used to arrest extremist Muslims.

And yet it is all to easy to make it seem as though it is uniform.

The police broke the law and were punished for it, surely that is our criminal justice system in action. Clearly therefore it isn't as big an issue as you make out, the police made an error (though the extent to which they broke the law is debatable, they caused damage and were liable for such damages however this is not necessarily breaking the law) and were punished. It is clear then that you cannot simply persecute people for pointing out the crimes of extremeist-Islam.

That is directly contradictory, 'not trying to turn Britain into' and 'trying to help those who want to turn Britain into' are exactly opposite one another.

Right, so it is not fascist and is clearly interested in maintaining the electoral system. Make your mind up. Also, I take it that you also feel that the Lib Dems, Conservatives and all other parties are fascist for their attempts to get re-elected?

 

To a significant extent, liberal in the US is just a vague term of abuse, that is supposed to indicate a liberal philosophy on the part of who is being accused, i.e. him or her being a "liberal" and it just basically means nothing, as this liberal philosophy, ( which is being referred to by the accuser ), does not actually exist. So, I would have to largely agree with you, on that one.

BBC News | UK Politics | Ken Livingstone answers your questions

There are real Nazi lovers here: the IRA - Telegraph





YouTube - Stop Funding Saudi Arabia

Well in that case, I suggest you should be majorly annoyed with Gordon Brown and the Labour Party, since they are promoting and assisting one of the most negative and most dangerous to the West, interpretations of Islam i.e. Wahhabism.

Religion interacts with governments, but is also a separate entity in itself. If you are suggesting such events as 9/11 are absolutely nothing to Islam, but solely the fault of Governments, that is a load of bull. Furthermore, if you even feel that Governments are a major part of the problem, then why do you apparently feel so relaxed about Her Majesty's Government's ( i.e. the British Government's ) relationship with Saudi Arabia and the promotion of Wahhabism in the UK by Saudi Arabia with the defacto blessing of HM Government?

You sentiment and general thrust of your ideas are correct, but from an Islamic perspective somewhat flawed. Islam can not evolve, since it is already perfect, as it is a Work of God, however man is a fallible creature and therefor man can advance to better understand Islam and whilst Islam can not change, man's understanding of Islam certainly can.

Well actually it does, for the reason that when you have Islamofascists in Britain going around calling for non-Muslims to treated as if they were cattle, i.e. bought and sold, used and slaughtered as their Muslim owner sees fit, this is embarrassing to Labour. If it was just a bunch of nutcases coming out with such remarks, that would be one thing but such ideology is rather similar to, defacto official Saudi Government policy and embarrasses the Labour Party, for that reason. Well it is likely that, Labour is not a monolith and it is likely that there are many people within it, who are genuinely committed to opposing Islamofascism and the Labour Party, has to give consideration that Britain has lots of business interests which relate to the US, which might be disadvantaged if Britain had not involved itself in Afghanistan. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein was an Iraqi Arab peasant and a secular Ba'athist Sunni, so he was no particular friend of the Princely Saudis and Wahhabism, so the Saudi regime had no particular love of him and it was actually useful to the Saudis for the US to fight Saddam's Ba'athist Iraq, as it provided a distraction from the Saudi effort to advance the cause of Islamofascism, so Britain being involved in invading Iraq, is not conflicted with Britain's support of Saudi Arabia.

Well I think, you might not have understood things correctly, the Islamofascist friendly West Midlands Police could not even cobble together a case sufficient to bring to court, because there was no evidence, because no crime had actually been committed and it was the Television company that brought the prosecution.

Some, of what you said is highly debatable, either way Islamofascism, ( aside from Shi'ite Islamofascism ), is an Arab project, for sure it is franchised out a like a burger chain but it is essentially an Arab project.

Well in my opinion, I was not attacking Islam in my criticism of Wahhabism , since in my opinion Wahhabism is not an Islamic sect but a parallel religion to Islam, and therefor my criticisms of Wahhabism, do not constitute a criticism of Islam. As for any criticism I have made or made indirectly of the interpretation of Sunni Islam, which equates in many respects to Wahhabism, there is an argument as to whether this is an authentic interpretation of Islam or not, which I believe, is impossible to resolve and therefor if you have an argument that the interpretation of Sunni Islam, which equates more or less to Wahabbi Islam is the true Islam, I would interested to hear it. However that said, if you were to go down the road of arguing that, the interpretation of Sunni Islam which equates in many respects to Wahhabi Islam is the correct interpretation of Islam, that would seem somewhat conflicted, with your apparent assertion that the majority of Muslims are both decent people and authentic Muslims ( an assertion I would agree with i.e. there are lots of decent Muslims ) in that, if the interpretation of Sunni Islam which equates more or less to Wahhabism is genuine Islam, they might be moderate people but very bad or at least very lazy Muslims or so far from proper Islamic behavior, as they could not be considered to be Muslims, as they would not be giving sufficient effort to murdering infidels. So if you want to state that the branch of Sunni Islam that is more less equivalent to Wahhabi Islam is authentically Islamic, then I would be anti-Islam in that context but then it would be arguably the case that, most moderate Muslims are not Muslim at all, so take you pick.

Well it is a bit more than that, since Wahhabism is nearly the most aggressive and nasty interpretation that there is of Islam and it is backed by the Saudi's massive oil wealth. Sunni Islam, which Wahhabism is trying to hijack, is the branch of Islam, which is adhered to by the majority of Muslims in the World. Yes he ( in relation to Dr Rowan Williams ) is conspiring ( or at best he is an utter incompetent, who hasn't Clue ) to advance Sharia in Britain, in the circumstances that the British Government has allied its itself with a foreign power i.e. Saudi Arabia, that is attempting to establish a Sharia Islamic State on the territory of Great Britain. There is nothing inevitable, about complex human actions, Communism i.e. Lenin and Nazism i.e. Hitler all made statements about what was inevitable and so has the Church of England i.e. Rowan Williams, though given the performance of Rowan Williams, with I think performance being the appropriate word, since he would be well suited to being the backend of a pantomime bull in a China shop, I suppose it is understandable, people might think that the utter disintegration of the Church of England into complete irrelevance, was inevitable.

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=dkLsdQhZsw0

I explained before the rationale for Iraq and Afghanistan and where did Her Majesty's Armed forces kill "hundreds of thousands of Muslims"?

Well just as fascist or as not fascist, as those people in Germany who supported Hitler and where disinterested in what sort of society he was setting out to create as long as their short term selfish interest was catered to.

In actual fact, you have illustrated my case perfectly of the reality of the threat, that once Sharia is introduced, it will creep and infiltrate to control the entire British legal system, in the way you have sought to hijack the appropriate and proper anti-racial incitement legislation, to try and justify a banning criticism of Islam legislation.

What backlash following 9/11? The only major backlash following 9/11 I know of, was when Islamofascists murdered British people on a London Bus and on the tube, under the theory of "Not Enough". So, the only backlash I can see, was Islamofascists lamenting that, not enough innocent people had been murdered on 9/11 and trying to do something positive about it. Frankly do you not think, it is somewhat hypocritical of the British Government to be introducing legislation, supposedly to curb hatred of Muslims, whilst encouraging the hate of Muslims through HM Government's relationship with Saudi Arabia. The incitement of racial hatred is a completely different, since it it is things like the colour of a person skin which are a factor there, which are entirely separate to political issues, if somebody is verbally attacking somebody because of their race that is racism and stands outside politics, whereas Islam even in its so called moderate form is intensely political and that makes the protection of Islam in a similar manner to racial issues completely different. The logic of your argument as I see it is, if a Muslim Imam stood stood outside a Mosque in London and started shouting that all non Muslims should be exterminated and Islam commands all Muslims to start killing the non-Muslims now and somebody went to the police and told them, what they seen and heard and added they were pretty disgusted with Islam, the Police could and should arrest the person for inciting hatred against Muslims, on the grounds they had made the comment that they were pretty disgusted with Islam.

Equally true as you previously made statement in your previous posting but equally non applicable, since in a covert policy of insurrection, one is never going to get a nice neat uniformity, so your criticism is simply fantastical. One might as well say that there was not an attempt by the USSR to engage in spying operations in the Continental USA worthy of note, on the basis that some US organizations were heavily and successfully spied against it and others probably were not.

Last I heard, making defamatory untrue statements against named individuals is against the Law. How come if the Police did not break the law, Channel 4 were apparently awarded a substantial cash sum. Was the judge was a fan of Brookside or something and decided the Court case on that?

No they are not opposites and not contradictory, they are entirely symbiotic.

Who said Labour was clearly interested in maintaining a parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom, I didn't. All I am saying is that Labour is seeking to be re-elected, I don't think they have bothered to consider, what would be the long term consequences of their actions. Well, my understanding is that the Conservatives have announced at their conference that they are opposing Sharia law, so that seems a good start as to the possibility they are going to take a proactive approach in defending Britain from Islamofascism. And whilst I had thought the Lib Dems were a thundering disgrace, they apparently were robust in attacking Labour's "protection of Islamic Fascism from criticism" bill, so I might have to revise my opinion there.

Best and Warm
Adrian Wainer

 

As you said, it is a variable number and constantly changing as members continue to post on each thread. It's impossible for an individual to keep up to date considering the number of threads involved in the equation. In fact, if you are working on posting a response that is lengthy, the situation might easily change between the time you begin the response and the time you actually post the message.

I suggest that if you don't want members posting to a particular thread, that you close that thread so there is no ambiguity to deal with.

 

Well, it is difficult to summon up any enthusiasm for the moronic programs of many of those described as "liberals", however, that is neither the context, nor the meaning of the term as sued by most Americans. It not my fault that "liberals" just happen to be illogical and emotionally driven, and you erroneously conclude that they are disliked because of that.

Ah, linguistic precision is your concern, is it? Well, then we have a problem with the time frame you have chosen to (mis)represent your definition. Language, as you know, changes, and your definition seems to be a bit dated, steming from the 1980's. See: Urban Dictionary: political correctness

Or perhaps you just suffer from a short attention span?

Well, it's obvious that you feel free to ignore most logical arguments, so why not? If you want to discuss the finer points of "communism" versus Marxist-Leninist political theory, I'm afraid you would be even further "in over your head". Suffice it to say, both "communism" and the derivative Marxist-Leninist political system utilized similar self-criticism techniques to control thought and behavior. And any in-depth discussion of either system will reveal that fact. Sorry, but just saying it ain't so doesn't cut it.

Is that your considered opinion as an experienced psychologist? actually, it is only a matter of degree, and the self-criticism dynamic that permeates communism/socialism/Marxist-Leninism, is, and was not, a "massive state run program", but a tenet of thought abd behavior control that is an inherent part of the theory of those systems.

It matters not to me what the BNP represents. The party is apparently a legitimate political party under British law. The fact that you dislike their agenda and methods is irrelevalent. The Church of England can make whatever pronouncements it likes regarding their professional members. All that I am saying is that it is political correctness for any organization to make pronouncements prohibiting someone from choosing to become affiliated with a legitimate political party.

Oh yes, I realize that. Even when the definition you choose to use is unrepresentative of the common usuage of the term in question. Any argument is fair to you, who cares if it is actually deceptive and misleanding?

No, you haven't ben paying attention; capitalism is an economic concept, not a political system. It does not enforce conformity, rather just the opposite. Didn't we sttle that when you advanced your absurd notion regarding how everyone wears the same "conformist" clothing?

I am cognizant of the fact that you are completely resistant to any idea that contradicts your preconceived notion of the evils of capitalism. Terms like "corpoarte rat race" which are descriptive of nothing concrete but your fears and insecurities are telling. It's useless to debate the matter with you any further.

Though it's clear to any objective observer that Political Correctness is directly related to the communist/socialist/Marxist-Leninist technique of self-citicism and used for the same purpose, you of course resort to meaningless semantic hair-splitting to confuse the issue. It's pathetic really, Stefan.

 

Any takers?

 

A skit about the Church of England with lego. lol

YouTube - Eddie Izzard-Cake or Death

 

The same could have been said about Christianity for quite a while, as with Christianity there are moderate Muslims who do see the potential to evolve and are tolerant and understanding.

Sorry, 'moderate Muslims are not Muslims' well, I think if you asked them they would disagree. It is also a very confusing post, Wahhabism isn't Islam now? So it is the Wahhabists who are out doing this and yet you constantly go on about Islam, so which is it that you are complaining about?

Quite a few have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Part of the justification for the act was to head off an anticipated backlash (though the wave of rampant anti-Islamic feeling and paranoia might justify that).

No, they are exact opposites, 'trying to help' and 'not trying to help' are directly opposite.

That definition was published in 2006 by a university. However, if you want to rely on 'urban dictionary' I will take it into account when I read your future posts.

Could be that. Who knows eh?

Firstly you cannot write off the ideas a party represent as irrelevant, the fact that the BNP is a racist organisation is the very reason numerous professional and government bodies will not allow their employees to be a part of it. If the people who represent the Church or the Police (for example) are members of the BNP, it puts the entire organisation into disrepute, the organisation is therefore justified in saying it doesn't want it's representatives being members.

Sorry, if you are unable to use words correctly that is hardly my fault. Urban dictionary?

The same can be said of any political system, be it functioning in a socialist or capitalist society. It is just a matter of degrees as you put it earlier.

Sorry, I forgot how objective you are, my bad. It's fine though, you can blame communists, lefties and the 'red under the bed' for everything bad in the world.