PDA

View Full Version : Leaked Footage of UK Islamic School


PlasmaHam
September 2nd, 2016, 08:54 PM
I was browsing the Internet earlier this week and came across this video. Appartently it was recently released hidden camera footage of an Islamic school in the UK. This video consists of a teacher instructing her students on correct social conduct for Muslims. The teachings she taught were very eye opening, considering that these Muslims are likely considered moderate by most. I did considerable research into this, and I haven't found any evidence that this a fake, so it is safe to assume this is real. If you think this is not real, that's your opinion, but don't start posting that this is just a fake based on your own opinion. I am open to criticism about this video, just please have some actual evidence backing you up.
bzEm4xuBhqg
A few excepts:
"The punishment for adultery, what is the law? Stone him. If someone makes themselves like a man, a woman like a man, the punishment is kill them. Throw them from the highest place. The punishment for homosexuals is throw them from the highest point and then stone them."
"It is not befitting for a Muslim, that he should reside in the land of evil… The land of disbelievers. A Muslim should emigrate to a Muslim country."
""Lets all stay together like one big happy family and all be united as humanity." This is false, it does not work, this concept is a lie, it is a fake, it is a farce"

StoppingTom
September 2nd, 2016, 08:58 PM
I trust you did your research, and if this indeed real, then that teacher and school should be investigated and probably shut down.

Jinglebottom
September 2nd, 2016, 09:21 PM
Fuck the word lut. I have to hear it every day at school.

lliam
September 2nd, 2016, 10:07 PM
and if this indeed real, then that teacher and school should be investigated and probably shut down.


If this stuff, she's teaching, is common religious knowledge or such in the region of that school, you will probably achieve nothing in this case.

azure moonstone
September 2nd, 2016, 10:11 PM
Yikes @ that hatred, and tbh - it all seems to be such an archaic and uncivilized way of dealing with people who live a different lifestyle or have a different opinion.

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 01:57 AM
Lol the YouTube channel is called say no to Islam xD But @PlasmaHam (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=122733) don't they have the right to freedom of speech? Aren't you suggesting we crack down on their hate speech? But when crazy Christians are in trouble for hate speech then nooo that is Europe being crazy removing their freedom of speech xD

As for the video:


You say you have researched it, any evidence? Do you know the school? Any news reports? I doubt it was leaked to this YouTube channel so where did it come from?
I am sceptical because I know the reputation of racist memes and videos for not being the most truthful of information sources.
Don't claim they're not racist (no racist is ever racist) because look at these tags:https://s21.postimg.io/gtz7o0cmf/vrewgewf.png
How did you stumble across this video? XD
My gut instinct is that this video is fake, the video quality is crap, the accents sounds English, obviously there are English Muslims but I suspect ones as radical as this would have a foreign accent and that just doesn't seem like how a lesson would go down xD oh and there other videos should give you an idea of what kind of channel this is.

ITti5IpCkLUOUJNxRqrcyQ

Desynchronized
September 3rd, 2016, 04:25 AM
Fuck the word lut. I have to hear it every day at school.

what?!? :confused:
and i also got a feeling that this might be fake. Cuz look at the channel...its pretty shit. And if this is real(which is really unlikely) this should be shut down. This school is just teaching violence to kids.

rioo
September 3rd, 2016, 05:05 AM
it looks fake video. Bad teacher. Bad intlectual.

Jinglebottom
September 3rd, 2016, 07:02 AM
what?!? :confused:
and i also got a feeling that this might be fake. Cuz look at the channel...its pretty shit. And if this is real(which is really unlikely) this should be shut down. This school is just teaching violence to kids.
Lut means fag.

Vermilion
September 3rd, 2016, 07:41 AM
Fuck the word lut. I have to hear it every day at school.

Now I know what it means I agree I hate the word. Only time I think it's ok is referring to a cigarette

Vlerchan
September 3rd, 2016, 08:19 AM
But when crazy Christians are in trouble for hate speech then nooo that is Europe being crazy removing their freedom of speech xD
There's considerable difference between freedom of speech and legitimate educational practices.

No-one has ever tried to argue that mandating a curriculum is tyrannical.

---

This also wouldn't be the first time:

An investigation ordered by the government found a "sustained, co-ordinated agenda to impose segregationist attitudes and practices of a hardline, politicised strain of Sunni Islam" in several Birmingham schools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Horse#Government_report

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 08:21 AM
This also wouldn't be the first time:
An investigation ordered by the government found a "sustained, co-ordinated agenda to impose segregationist attitudes and practices of a hardline, politicised strain of Sunni Islam" in several Birmingham schools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Trojan_Horse#Government_report
I know xD

StoppingTom
September 3rd, 2016, 08:51 AM
If this stuff, she's teaching, is common religious knowledge or such in the region of that school, you will probably achieve nothing in this case.

Just because it's "common knowledge" doesn't change the fact that it is hate speech and goes against the law. As reluctant as I am to defend them, you'd never see a Catholic school or any public school (in the 21st century at least) condone straight up murder.

PlasmaHam
September 3rd, 2016, 08:55 AM
Lol the YouTube channel is called say no to Islam xD But @PlasmaHam (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=122733) don't they have the right to freedom of speech? Aren't you suggesting we crack down on their hate speech? But when crazy Christians are in trouble for hate speech then nooo that is Europe being crazy removing their freedom of speech xD

Where do you see Christian schools or churches teaching that homosexuals and trans people ought to be throw off mountains to their death. Calling for the death of adulterers? Imposing segregation and Christian only countries? Anyway, this is not about Christianity, you are committing numerous logical fallacies here.

You are doing the logical fallacy of polluting the well. What else the channel puts out doesn't matter. This isn't something they produced, it came from a site called liveleak, which is basically the youtube of body cameras and hidden cameras. We are talking about this video, and unless something directly about this video is wrong, then you have no evidence.
As for the video:

[LIST=1]
You say you have researched it, any evidence? Do you know the school? Any news reports? I doubt it was leaked to this YouTube channel so where did it come from?
I am sceptical because I know the reputation of racist memes and videos for not being the most truthful of information sources.
Don't claim they're not racist (no racist is ever racist) because look at these tags:image (https://s21.postimg.io/gtz7o0cmf/vrewgewf.png)
How did you stumble across this video? XD
My gut instinct is that this video is fake, the video quality is crap, the accents sounds English, obviously there are English Muslims but I suspect ones as radical as this would have a foreign accent and that just doesn't seem like how a lesson would go down xD

First of all, you can't be racist towards a religion. Islam is not a race, I thought you knew better.

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 09:00 AM
Where do you see Christian schools or churches teaching that homosexuals and trans people ought to be throw off mountains to their death. Calling for the death of adulterers? Imposing segregation and Christian only countries? Anyway, this is not about Christianity, you are committing numerous logical fallacies here.

You are doing the logical fallacy of polluting the well. What else the channel puts out doesn't matter. This isn't something they produced, it came from a site called liveleak, which is basically the youtube of body cameras and hidden cameras. We are talking about this video, and unless something directly about this video is wrong, then you have no evidence.


First of all, you can't be racist towards a religion. Islam is not a race, I thought you knew better.
As for the video:



You say you have researched it, any evidence? Do you know the school? Any news reports? I doubt it was leaked to this YouTube channel so where did it come from?
I am sceptical because I know the reputation of racist memes and videos for not being the most truthful of information sources.
Don't claim they're not racist (no racist is ever racist) because look at these tags:https://s21.postimg.io/gtz7o0cmf/vrewgewf.png
How did you stumble across this video? XD
My gut instinct is that this video is fake, the video quality is crap, the accents sounds English, obviously there are English Muslims but I suspect ones as radical as this would have a foreign accent and that just doesn't seem like how a lesson would go down xD oh and there other videos should give you an idea of what kind of channel this is.


ITti5IpCkLUOUJNxRqrcyQ

Just because Muslims are not a race does not make islamophobia okay.

PlasmaHam
September 3rd, 2016, 09:11 AM
As for the video:



You say you have researched it, any evidence? Do you know the school? Any news reports? I doubt it was leaked to this YouTube channel so where did it come from?
I am sceptical because I know the reputation of racist memes and videos for not being the most truthful of information sources.
Don't claim they're not racist (no racist is ever racist) because look at these tags:image (https://s21.postimg.io/gtz7o0cmf/vrewgewf.png)
How did you stumble across this video? XD
My gut instinct is that this video is fake, the video quality is crap, the accents sounds English, obviously there are English Muslims but I suspect ones as radical as this would have a foreign accent and that just doesn't seem like how a lesson would go down xD oh and there other videos should give you an idea of what kind of channel this is.
Just because Muslims are not a race does not make islamophobia okay.

I stumbled upon this checking a news site I often visit. It is pretty high end, and I have yet to find it promoting a video unless there is legit evidence behind it. I don't know the true source, but given that Muslims give death threats for simply drawing Mohammad, I doubt whoever posted it wanted to be known. I believe this channel is more of a collector of footage and less of a producer of footage. I really don't care if they are racist or not, we are not talking about the source, we are talking about the material. Don't start polluting the well again. You can believe this video is a fake, but unless you have legit evidence besides calling people racist and sterotyping, I am done debating with you.

So radical Muslims must automatically have Middle Eastern accents? That seem like stereotyping, as well as being completely wrong. It seems more like you are making excuses to not believe this video. Vlerchan did say that schools like this do exist in the UK, so I don't see how this could be so obsurd. Also, I guess you see the folly with your illogical comparison of Christianity and Islam. Good to know you actually learned something.

phuckphace
September 3rd, 2016, 10:08 AM
So radical Muslims must automatically have accents? That seem like stereotyping, as well as being completely wrong.

man I don't know, he's kinda right xD I mean think about it, all the bad people do kinda have accents! xD like Hitler had a German accent xD and Timothy McVeigh had an American accent!! XD OH and... Hisoka from Hunter x Hunter has a Japanese accent!! XD

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 10:23 AM
I stumbled upon this checking a news site I often visit. It is pretty high end, and I have yet to find it promoting a video unless there is legit evidence behind it.
What news site?

I I believe this channel is more of a collector of footage and less of a producer of footage.
I agree.
I really don't care if they are racist or not, we are not talking about the source, we are talking about the material.
Well racist groups like the EDL which this YouTuber seems to been affiliated with have a reputation for lying and making fake videos. Heck Trump retweeted a racist meme that was obviously incorrect once.

So radical Muslims must automatically have Middle Eastern accents?
Nope I did not say that. There are many British born people that have joined ISIS.
Vlerchan did say that schools like this do exist in the UK, so I don't see how this could be so obsurd.
They do exist in the UK buddy, I never claimed they didn't. My problem is that I do not believe this specific video to be real.
Also, I guess you see the folly with your illogical comparison of Christianity and Islam. Good to know you actually learned something.
Christianity and Islam are actually very similar religions. It is just off topic so I didn't continue that conversation. Again if you want buddy, VM me or make a new thread if you want to debate that.

You claimed to research it? Any evidence other than you noticing a watermark?

The structure of the lesson seems like a racist trying to recreate what they think a radical Muslim lesson would be like.

Also I don't think many people would think these people are moderate Muslims.

lliam
September 3rd, 2016, 11:37 AM
Just because it's "common knowledge" doesn't change the fact that it is hate speech and goes against the law.


right ... but it depends if it is against the law there

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 11:40 AM
right ... but it depends if it is against the law there
It is in the UK:)

lliam
September 3rd, 2016, 11:42 AM
It is in the UK:)


ok, then ... school to be closed ...

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 11:43 AM
ok, then ... school to be closed ...
If it is real that is, they leaked the video exposing the school without identifying the school...

lliam
September 3rd, 2016, 11:57 AM
If it is real that is, they leaked the video exposing the school without identifying the school...


maybe there's a whistleblower who give us a hint.



but anyway, German Islamic converts preaches those stuff in public.

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 11:59 AM
may theres es whistleblower who give us a hint.



but anyway, German Islamic converts preaches those stuff in public.
The whistle-blower is unknown and the YouTube channel is islamophobic, posting crap about how Islam will take over the world, ISIS in the Olympics and includes the EDL in their tags.

There are radicals of every religion everywhere buddy, I just don't believe this is one.

Periphery
September 3rd, 2016, 02:22 PM
They should just double check the video and if it turns out to be real don't close the school, change the teachers and general attitude of the school. Closing will just throw the kids out on the streets.

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 05:48 PM
They should just double check the video and if it turns out to be real don't close the school, change the teachers and general attitude of the school. Closing will just throw the kids out on the streets.
I'd say if that is real the children need to be de-radicalised, not punished though as they did do nothing wrong. I highly doubt it is real though :P

Jinglebottom
September 3rd, 2016, 05:57 PM
I highly doubt it is real though :P
In your opinion, do you think this is staged?

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 06:00 PM
In your opinion, do you think this is staged?
Yeah I am pretty sure it is :) The footage is may well be real but the audio I am almost certain is fake :)

Jinglebottom
September 3rd, 2016, 06:06 PM
Yeah I am pretty sure it is :) The footage is may well be real but the audio I am almost certain is fake :)
I see. For what reason do you think it was made? To paint Muslims in a negative image?

Flapjack
September 3rd, 2016, 06:09 PM
I see. For what reason do you think it was made? To paint Muslims in a negative image?
Yeahhh dude have you checked out the YouTube channel and the tags? xD

lliam
September 3rd, 2016, 07:49 PM
The whistle-blower is unknown and the YouTube channel is islamophobic, posting crap about how Islam

In that case imo not the best source that I would use just as a side note in a thread.

Porpoise101
September 3rd, 2016, 08:52 PM
I stumbled upon this checking a news site I often visit.
$10 on Breitbart. Any takers?

On a more serious tone, I do think that they should be forced to change/shut down. I understand that Muslim schools wouldn't be considered LGBT friendly (devout Muslims are conservatives of course). But, they are promoting unsafe values in their school which is bad no matter what religion. In the US I think it is better because while religious schools have their biases, people are pretty normal. Even my Syrian friend went to an Islamic School for a while, and it was alright for him.

Dalcourt
September 5th, 2016, 03:02 PM
How often do we have to discuss this irrational fears and hatred against Islam on this forum? It's really getting old.
It's just a religion like Christianity Judaism or whatever...extremists exist in every religion so why not in Islam?This doesn't mean this religion is a threat to Europe or the USA we just might make it one by hating on innocent people for their religious beliefs and so make them an easy prey for extremists in their frustration.

Paraxiom
September 5th, 2016, 03:46 PM
If this video is indeed what it appears to be, then the school deserves full necessary staff and administration overhaul.

ethan-s
September 12th, 2016, 04:17 PM
Yikes @ that hatred, and tbh - it all seems to be such an archaic and uncivilized way of dealing with people who live a different lifestyle or have a different opinion.

That's the basic definition of islam.

Periphery
September 13th, 2016, 10:54 AM
That's the basic definition of islam.

So all Muslims are evil? All of them hate the west? Because that's what you're saying here.

ethan-s
September 13th, 2016, 12:24 PM
The Special One I said islam, not Muslims. I don't care if you are a Muslim living in the west, as long as you stay away from the terroristic ideology know as islam, because it is incompatible with western values.

Flapjack
September 13th, 2016, 12:26 PM
@The Special One (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/member.php?u=105747) I said islam, not Muslims. I don't care if you are a Muslim living in the west, as long as you stay away from the terroristic ideology know as islam, because it is incompatible with western values.
Thanks for providing an excellent example of how education is needed to curve islamophobia xD

Oh and for future reference Islam is the religion, a Muslim is a person that follows that religion.

Like Christianity is a religion and Christians follow that religion.

ethan-s
September 14th, 2016, 08:03 AM
Have you ever read the Quran? Have you been educated on the dangers of islam? Would you like to convert or die or Would you want to be taxed out of existence?

Periphery
September 14th, 2016, 08:27 AM
Have you ever read the Quran? Have you been educated on the dangers of islam? Would you like to convert or die or Would you want to be taxed out of existence?

Have you read it then?

Also, Muslims = Islam =! terrorists. Have you been educated on the things that Christians have done in the past my friend?

ethan-s
September 15th, 2016, 03:00 PM
Yes I have read it. It's astounding.

Btw, the words "Christian" and "terrorist" are not compatible for obvious reasons. Where in the bible does it say to kill those who don't believe? Where does it say to rape the wives of unbelievers? It doesn't.

The people who did bad things In the name of God? Well, the bible has a little about everything in it. Look up 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 and you will see what I mean.

Periphery
September 15th, 2016, 03:12 PM
Yes I have read it. It's astounding.

Btw, the words "Christian" and "terrorist" are not compatible for obvious reasons. Where in the bible does it say to kill those who don't believe? Where does it say to rape the wives of unbelievers? It doesn't.

The people who did bad things In the name of God? Well, the bible has a little about everything in it. Look up 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 and you will see what I mean.

So does that mean Christians have a clean slate? Not sure if you know but back here in Belgium there was a time where anyone with a religion that was not Christianity would get tortured and killed. Pretty innocent isn't it?

And terrorism isn't limited to these 'Muslims' (they don't even know anything from the Quran and that's a fact). There are plenty of cases where terrorism has been seen in many different religions.

Vlerchan
September 15th, 2016, 04:40 PM
Yes I have read it. It's astounding.

Btw, the words "Christian" and "terrorist" are not compatible for obvious reasons. Where in the bible does it say to kill those who don't believe? Where does it say to rape the wives of unbelievers? It doesn't.

The people who did bad things In the name of God? Well, the bible has a little about everything in it. Look up 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 and you will see what I mean.
I believe it claims that it is fine for muslims to rape the wives of those conquered in war. The issue with selecting this and then claiming that it doesn't appear in the bible because it's a filthy Islamic occupation, is that it misses that the Qu'ran was intended as a much broader instruction than the bible and as a result it codifies practices that the Christians didn't but nevertheless participated in. Being as, up until the 19th century woman were legally held as being property and rape was, in fact, a property offence in Western society, war-rape is considered ethically inline with other behaviours legitimised during the course of war, i.e., the conquering of others riches.

To the Greeks this was also fine, and the great herald of classical humanism, Cicero, is on record claiming it's 'socially acceptable'.

That the Muslims engaged in it shouldn't be a shock to anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of the history of rape.

Though, it is also worth nothing that Islamic scholars condemned quite harshly acts of rape in war, within an act of overall terrorism.

---

I also believe, in the Old Testament it encourages the killing of those believing in other faiths, on multiple occasions (eg., Deuteronomy 17).

ThisBougieLife
September 15th, 2016, 04:55 PM
Deuteronomy 20:16-18:

"However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God."

It seems hypocritical to me to write this passage off as "historical and specific to the Israelites and no longer relevant in the modern day" but label similar passages in the Qur'an as applying today and proof that Islam is a violent religion that commands the death of non-believers. Here the Bible literally commands the death of non-believers. Why can we take the Bible in context but not the Qur'an?

Jinglebottom
September 16th, 2016, 01:34 AM
...Canaanites...
I'm offended.

Flapjack
September 16th, 2016, 01:43 AM
Yes I have read it. It's astounding.

Btw, the words "Christian" and "terrorist" are not compatible for obvious reasons. Where in the bible does it say to kill those who don't believe? Where does it say to rape the wives of unbelievers? It doesn't.

The people who did bad things In the name of God? Well, the bible has a little about everything in it. Look up 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 and you will see what I mean.
Ya know there are dark sides to the bible too... (http://reknew.org/2013/03/getting-honest-about-the-dark-side-of-the-bible/)

Also you do know ISIS is not really following the teachings of Islam as they released a guide on how to rape their slaves and rape in punishable by death in shria law (http://islam.about.com/od/crime/f/rape.htm).

Also the bible says don't eat shrimp and loads of Christians do it, has parts about allowing abortion and loads of Christian are opposed to that. Says turn the other check on one page and an eye for an eye on the other page.

The bible is a joke. It could be used to justify almost anything, including terrorism.

Does that mean Christians are terrorists? No but it is the same for Muslims.

There are around 1 billion Muslims on this planet, if they was as evil as you seem to believe we would be in real trouble.

The difference is when a Christian goes crazy and starts shooting people, you consider him crazy. When a Muslim goes crazy and starts shooting people then you say he represents Islam.

Paraxiom
September 16th, 2016, 05:01 AM
I believe it claims that it is fine for muslims to rape the wives of those conquered in war. The issue with selecting this and then claiming that it doesn't appear in the bible because it's a filthy Islamic occupation, is that it misses that the Qu'ran was intended as a much broader instruction than the bible and as a result it codifies practices that the Christians didn't but nevertheless participated in. Being as, up until the 19th century woman were legally held as being property and rape was, in fact, a property offence in Western society, war-rape is considered ethically inline with other behaviours legitimised during the course of war, i.e., the conquering of others riches.

To the Greeks this was also fine, and the great herald of classical humanism, Cicero, is on record claiming it's 'socially acceptable'.

That the Muslims engaged in it shouldn't be a shock to anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of the history of rape.

Though, it is also worth nothing that Islamic scholars condemned quite harshly acts of rape in war, within an act of overall terrorism.

---

I also believe, in the Old Testament it encourages the killing of those believing in other faiths, on multiple occasions (eg., Deuteronomy 17).

Ya know there are dark sides to the bible too... (http://reknew.org/2013/03/getting-honest-about-the-dark-side-of-the-bible/)

Also you do know ISIS is not really following the teachings of Islam as they released a guide on how to rape their slaves and rape in punishable by death in shria law (http://islam.about.com/od/crime/f/rape.htm).

Also the bible says don't eat shrimp and loads of Christians do it, has parts about allowing abortion and loads of Christian are opposed to that. Says turn the other check on one page and an eye for an eye on the other page.

The bible is a joke. It could be used to justify almost anything, including terrorism.

Does that mean Christians are terrorists? No but it is the same for Muslims.

There are around 1 billion Muslims on this planet, if they was as evil as you seem to believe we would be in real trouble.

The difference is when a Christian goes crazy and starts shooting people, you consider him crazy. When a Muslim goes crazy and starts shooting people then you say he represents Islam.

On point, I like it.


I had an image come up in my head many months ago of three people standing together in a room, one representing Christianity, another Judaism, and the third Islam. All have done malevolent acts in the past, but both the Christianity and Judaism vocally attack Islam for its supposed worst aspects, along with Christianity being great friends with Judaism and vice-versa, also secretly admiring themselves as great people by being innocent of anything similar to Islam in the past.

PlasmaHam
September 16th, 2016, 07:27 AM
On point, I like it.


I had an image come up in my head many months ago of three people standing together in a room, one representing Christianity, another Judaism, and the third Islam. All have done malevolent acts in the past, but both the Christianity and Judaism vocally attack Islam for its supposed worst aspects, along with Christianity being great friends with Judaism and vice-versa, also secretly admiring themselves as great people by being innocent of anything similar to Islam in the past.

May I ask why Islam gets the constant negative criticism? We are talking about today, every cultural, ethnic, or religious group has done something negative in the past. I will say that you don't seem to understand the context of religion, and that not all religions support similar moral codes.

Flapjack
September 16th, 2016, 08:25 AM
May I ask why Islam gets the constant negative criticism? We are talking about today, every cultural, ethnic, or religious group has done something negative in the past. I will say that you don't seem to understand the context of religion, and that not all religions support similar moral codes.
Because they are a scapegoat just like how the jews were in WW2 and because of islamophobia and xenophobia.

Christianity is also getting constant negative criticism. Powerful figures in the church raping kids, terrorism and discrimination to name just a few.

Vlerchan
September 16th, 2016, 08:59 AM
Also you do know ISIS is not really following the teachings of Islam as they released a guide on how to rape their slaves and rape in punishable by death in shria law.
You can be quite sure that the restrictions on rape under Sharia law exclude the rape of slaves, who were the property of Muslim men, and who he was legally allowed to enjoy intercourse with under Islamic law. The Qu'ran documents the encouragement of sexual intercourse with recent-captives, who'd just had their husbands killed in war, which can only imply rape, if we're approaching this with any reason at all (eg., Sunan Abi Dawud 2155 (http://sunnah.com/abudawud/12/110), Sahih Muslim 1438 a (http://sunnah.com/muslim/16/147)).

This shouldn't shock people since it's a millennia-old socio-political doctrine - an animal of its times* - and the mental aerobics used to defend specifically Islamic patriarchy is something I have never been able to wrap my head around.

---

* It actually encourages better treatment of slaves than the societies of antiquity did, so it's reformist in a sense.

Flapjack
September 16th, 2016, 09:13 AM
You can be quite sure that the restrictions on rape under Sharia law exclude the rape of slaves, who were the property of Muslim men, and who he was legally allowed to enjoy intercourse with under Islamic law. The Qu'ran documents the encouragement of sexual intercourse with recent-captives, who'd just had their husbands killed in war, which can only imply rape, if we're approaching this with any reason at all (eg., Sunan Abi Dawud 2155 (http://sunnah.com/abudawud/12/110), Sahih Muslim 1438 a (http://sunnah.com/muslim/16/147)).

This shouldn't shock people since it's a millennia-old socio-political doctrine - an animal of its times* - and the mental aerobics used to defend specifically Islamic patriarchy is something I have never been able to wrap my head around.

---

* It actually encourages better treatment of slaves than the societies of antiquity did, so it's reformist in a sense.
I stand corrected then buddy but my I still stand by my original point, the old texts of all the religions can be used to justify violence. Every religion has it.

Heck even Buddhists have done violent and terrible things!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/buddhism-in-myanmar-extremism-galore/5396471

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22356306

You can use the bible to promote peace or war, the same with Islamic texts.

Vlerchan
September 16th, 2016, 09:23 AM
I stand corrected then buddy but my I still stand by my original point, the old texts of all the religions can be used to justify violence. Every religion has it.
Sure, but Muslims, and Buddhists, are still the only major world religions to wage religious wars on any sort of consequential scale (there are sects of African Christianity that engage in the same, but it's a much smaller scale).

Heck even Buddhists have done violent and terrible things!
I love how people use the phrase 'even Buddhists' when Buddhists have been pretty vicious towards ethnic minorities in recent history, which I was aware of before you linked the articles.

That BBC article is also weird for its concentration of Tamil (the primarily Hindu-minority population's) attacks against Islamic minorities and not the Sinhalese Buddhists oppression of the Tamil.

I didn't open the globalresearch one because I'm not going to give them the advertising revenue.

Flapjack
September 16th, 2016, 09:43 AM
Sure, but Muslims, and Buddhists, are still the only major world religions to wage religious wars on any sort of consequential scale (there are sects of African Christianity that engage in the same, but it's a much smaller scale).
Do you mean the current day or throughout history?

I am not pro war buddy but what I don't like is people discriminating against normal Muslims and over-simplifying ISIS. Yes ISIS say they are fighting for religion but there are many other factors, such as the people's resentment towards the USA or the fighters that need the money.

I love how people use the phrase 'even Buddhists' when Buddhists have been pretty vicious towards ethnic minorities in recent history, which I was aware of before you linked the articles.
I think that is because the vast majority of Buddhists in the west are focused on being kind, selfless and helpful etc etc. The Buddhist text preaches it a lot and is very anti violence and war.


I didn't open the globalresearch one because I'm not going to give them the advertising revenue.
Why? I don't know who they are so sorry if they're a bad organisation.

Vlerchan
September 16th, 2016, 09:52 AM
Do you mean the current day or throughout history?
The current days. Christians, of course, had a set of religious wars so bad we actually refer to them as the wars of religion.

Yes ISIS say they are fighting for religion but there are many other factors, such as the people's resentment towards the USA or the fighters that need the money.
Sure. But that doesn't mean it is not ultimately driven by ideological Barbarism.

Why? I don't know who they are so sorry if they're a bad organisation.
It regularly hosts conspiricist viewpoints and a significant number of their articles can be summed up by replace the term 'the Jews' with 'the West' in every far right theory you've ever heard.

Cadanance00
September 16th, 2016, 12:18 PM
You haven't seen any evidence that it's a fake, but have you seen any evidence that it's real?

Flapjack
September 16th, 2016, 01:46 PM
You haven't seen any evidence that it's a fake, but have you seen any evidence that it's real?
Nope aside from the OP's 'research'.

Also look here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3428878&postcount=6)

ethan-s
September 17th, 2016, 07:55 AM
I believe it claims that it is fine for muslims to rape the wives of those conquered in war. The issue with selecting this and then claiming that it doesn't appear in the bible because it's a filthy Islamic occupation, is that it misses that the Qu'ran was intended as a much broader instruction than the bible and as a result it codifies practices that the Christians didn't but nevertheless participated in. Being as, up until the 19th century woman were legally held as being property and rape was, in fact, a property offence in Western society, war-rape is considered ethically inline with other behaviours legitimised during the course of war, i.e., the conquering of others riches.

To the Greeks this was also fine, and the great herald of classical humanism, Cicero, is on record claiming it's 'socially acceptable'.

That the Muslims engaged in it shouldn't be a shock to anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of the history of rape.

Though, it is also worth nothing that Islamic scholars condemned quite harshly acts of rape in war, within an act of overall terrorism.

---

I also believe, in the Old Testament it encourages the killing of those believing in other faiths, on multiple occasions (eg., Deuteronomy 17).
Where in the bible does it say to go out and rape the wives of other people?

The thing you have to understand is the old testament is the way Gods people (the Jews)were supposed to live. That law changed when Jesus came down and did his thing.

Flapjack
September 17th, 2016, 01:46 PM
Where in the bible does it say to go out and rape the wives of other people?

The thing you have to understand is the old testament is the way Gods people (the Jews)were supposed to live. That law changed when Jesus came down and did his thing.
Are we really arguing about fictional characters? How about you stop caring which skygod is wrong and discriminating against people and live your life how you want to.

PlasmaHam
September 17th, 2016, 02:14 PM
Are we really arguing about fictional characters? How about you stop caring which skygod is wrong and discriminating against people and live your life how you want to.

That's classy. He has a reasonable response, you can't answer it, so you dismiss it under insults and unsupported assumptions. How about you stop caring about your so called skygods and stop posting on the religious threads.

Flapjack
September 17th, 2016, 02:25 PM
That's classy. He has a reasonable response, you can't answer it, so you dismiss it under insults and unsupported assumptions. How about you stop caring about your so called skygods and stop posting on the religious threads.
His response wasn't reasonable at all, he clearly believes his skygod is the best and is discriminating against others. Oh and in the Bible it does encourage rape. (http://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-home-page/rape-in-the-bible/)

These religions can be used to justify either war or peace. Discriminating against Muslims shows you're islamophobic and ignorant.

I don't see many Christians abstaining from shrimp?

I don't see many Christians throwing out the people making money off of the church?

I don't see many Christians pro abortion? Actually I do, but not the fruit loops that use religion as an argument.

Vlerchan
September 18th, 2016, 06:34 AM
Where in the bible does it say to go out and rape the wives of other people?
Please note in the response I made I never claimed that was the case. The argument I made is that comparing the instructions of the Qu'ran and the instructions of the Bible is comparing apples and oranges. One was intended to be a broader instruction.

The thing you have to understand is the old testament is the way Gods people (the Jews)were supposed to live. That law changed when Jesus came down and did his thing.
I'd agree with this interpretation of the Bible (believe in Christ and it will be fine) - though I also feel it places the one who wishes to denounce same set relations on a pretty perilous platform.

Nonetheless the authors of the Bible where no stranger to the idea that the act in question was some great injustice.

Mars
September 18th, 2016, 08:04 AM
VT Daily :arrow: ROTW seeing as you guys can turn anything into an argument.

Just a reminder, stay open minded and do not bash or insult others beliefs, and keep this thread on topic. Thank you.

ethan-s
September 18th, 2016, 01:52 PM
Please note in the response I made I never claimed that was the case. The argument I made is that comparing the instructions of the Qu'ran and the instructions of the Bible is comparing apples and oranges. One was intended to be a broader instruction.


So what exactly is your point?

QUOTE=Flapjack;3436015]Are we really arguing about fictional characters? How about you stop caring which skygod is wrong and discriminating against people and live your life how you want to.[/QUOTE]

Ill stop discriminating and singling people out when other people do the same. In other words, when muzzies top killing Christians, and gays stop singling out Christians, and people stop throwing Christians under the bus on everything, ill stop (or at least slow down) on the criticism.

Why are people so christophobic?

Flapjack
September 18th, 2016, 02:31 PM
Ill stop discriminating and singling people out when other people do the same.
But do you not see it is not every Muslim that is killing Christians, the same as it is not every Christian that is killing Muslims.

Wouldn't it be better to be at peace and worship whatever skygod you like? Does the Christian religion not preach tolerance?

As for the christophobia, it is not as big a issue as people make it out to be, at least in Western countries. The Starbucks xmas cup was not a war on Christmas or Christianity for example.

Anyone discriminating against a person for being Christian is as bad as a person discriminating against a Muslim for being Muslim.

Ill stop discriminating and singling people out when other people do the same.
So you accept you are discriminating against them and you are Islamophobic? You do this simply because you are offended that some followers of the religion have done bad things to people that follow your religion?

Vlerchan
September 18th, 2016, 03:14 PM
So what exactly is your point?
Your argument is redundant.

Paraxiom
September 18th, 2016, 08:17 PM
VT Daily :arrow: ROTW seeing as you guys can turn anything into an argument.

It sure keeps a lot of threads here going for that reason. :rolleyes:

Mars
September 18th, 2016, 08:24 PM
It sure keeps a lot of threads here going for that reason. :rolleyes:

Not really in a good way lol

Paraxiom
September 18th, 2016, 08:24 PM
May I ask why Islam gets the constant negative criticism? We are talking about today, every cultural, ethnic, or religious group has done something negative in the past. I will say that you don't seem to understand the context of religion, and that not all religions support similar moral codes.

Oh, I understand the context.

Islam gets constant negative criticism because of what I guess to be the much more apparent prevalence of attacks on people done by extremist Muslims.

An example of otherwise is arguably the indirect but powerful support of many Evangelical/Pentecostal Christians in the US, for the invasion of Iraq. Arguably those Christians are extremist as well.


Not really in a good way lol

Of course, but I guess that is how the ROTW cookie crumbles. :D

ethan-s
September 19th, 2016, 05:31 PM
Please note in the response I made I never claimed that was the case. The argument I made is that comparing the instructions of the Qu'ran and the instructions of the Bible is comparing apples and oranges. One was intended to be a broader instruction.


Wadda you mean, ONE is a broader instruction?


Your argument is redundant.
Again, what's your point? See above.

But do you not see it is not every Muslim that is killing Christians, the same as it is not every Christian that is killing Muslims.

Wouldn't it be better to be at peace and worship whatever skygod you like? Does the Christian religion not preach tolerance?

As for the christophobia, it is not as big a issue as people make it out to be, at least in Western countries. The Starbucks xmas cup was not a war on Christmas or Christianity for example.

Anyone discriminating against a person for being Christian is as bad as a person discriminating against a Muslim for being Muslim.


That would be fine, I really don't care what God you worship. While the Christian religion does preach tolerance, it also tells us to spread the word, to gossip the gospel.

"
Anyone discriminating against a person for being Christian is as bad as a person discriminating against a Muslim for being Muslim"

Oh but it's all fine and dandy when a gay sues a Christian bakery?

Vlerchan
September 19th, 2016, 05:45 PM
Wadda you mean, ONE is a broader instruction?
The Qu'ran is intended to be a guiding political doctrine, and was written as such. It incorporates repugnant ideals that would have been celebrated in their time amongst those Enlightened in the Western tradition. The Christian bible, on the other hand, does not intend to operate on such a broad platform (i.e. it offers purely spiritual guidance*) and thus fails to practices that would have been seen, by Christians, as acceptable up until the last few centuries.

---

* The likes of St Augustine had to piece together a political doctrine, see: City of God, etc., since there was none contained in the bible.

Arkansasguy
September 19th, 2016, 08:28 PM
I was browsing the Internet earlier this week and came across this video. Appartently it was recently released hidden camera footage of an Islamic school in the UK. This video consists of a teacher instructing her students on correct social conduct for Muslims. The teachings she taught were very eye opening, considering that these Muslims are likely considered moderate by most. I did considerable research into this, and I haven't found any evidence that this a fake, so it is safe to assume this is real. If you think this is not real, that's your opinion, but don't start posting that this is just a fake based on your own opinion. I am open to criticism about this video, just please have some actual evidence backing you up.
bzEm4xuBhqg
A few excepts:

All of this is orthodox Islam.

They are correct about "all religions are equal" being false.

Flapjack
September 20th, 2016, 11:34 AM
That would be fine, I really don't care what God you worship.
Good... although your islamophobic comments seem to differ with this claim.

While the Christian religion does preach tolerance,
Says who? The church preaches whatever political messages it wants to, often defying their own religion. The church has encouraged war, discrimination and for centuries. This still happens today. The bible is vague and contradicts itself so can be used to justify peace or war. This coupled with the fact the majority of followers have never read the bible or did as a child with a follower of the religion explaining to you what to think of it.

Did you know there is abortion in the bible?


"Anyone discriminating against a person for being Christian is as bad as a person discriminating against a Muslim for being Muslim"

Oh but it's all fine and dandy when a gay sues a Christian bakery?
If he sued them or being Christian I would be horrified and ranting about it. More likely the baker was being a homophobic asshole, discrimnating against people because of their sexuality and used a skygod to justify it.

Skygods do not outweigh the law. The US is supposed to be a secular state.

Paraxiom
September 20th, 2016, 11:55 AM
"Anyone discriminating against a person for being Christian is as bad as a person discriminating against a Muslim for being Muslim"

Oh but it's all fine and dandy when a gay sues a Christian bakery?

The suing of a Christian bakery was because of the owners of the bakery refusing service to the gay people, it wasn't because the owners were Christian.


While the Christian religion does preach tolerance [...]

Not so much, if some Christian bakers from above were refusing service to gays because of their homosexuality and seeing it as justified because of their religious perspective.

Vlerchan
September 20th, 2016, 01:18 PM
If he sued them or being Christian I would be horrified and ranting about it. More likely the baker was being a homophobic asshole, discrimnating against people because of their sexuality and used a skygod to justify it.

Skygods do not outweigh the law.
Being secular means it needs to afford the same respect to the bakers SkyGod as it does to your own God, Equality.

Flapjack
September 20th, 2016, 01:43 PM
Being secular means it needs to afford the same respect to the bakers SkyGod as it does to your own God, Equality.
Yeahhh I respect his skygod, I don't respect skygods as a justification for discrimination or any other crime.

Can I stone to death non believers?

Vlerchan
September 20th, 2016, 01:50 PM
Yeahhh I respect his skygod, I don't respect skygods as a justification for discrimination or any other crime.
Is all discrimination immoral?

It's also not all a crime - we just define certain acts of discrimination to be crimes. Just referring to the statues quo is fallacious reasoning.

Can I stone to death non believers?
Engaging in physical assault breaches the negative rights of those that get stoned.

People have never had a right not to be offended and that's what stopping people from discriminating garauntees. I wrote about this in detail to a response before - would youins in my next post if I just pasted in our previous discussion that went unconcluded.

Flapjack
September 20th, 2016, 02:05 PM
Is all discrimination immoral?
I don't know - go ask a philosopher xD Homophobic crap like the baker was doing is immoral and going against that person's rights. I am all for skygods and believe people should do whatever they like, until it harms another person. Of course that is my basic opinion but as for the question I know you're going to respond with 'should a alcoholic be allowed to drink if it harms his family', I dunno xD If it is physical no but financial maybe it is his choice to choose where his money goes? It's a grey area but homophobic bakers is not a grey area.

Gosh I ramble xD


It's also not all a crime - we just define certain acts of discrimination to be crimes. Just referring to the statues quo is fallacious reasoning.
We define some murders crimes and not others, I don't see why this means the baker can claim a skygod as an excuse.


Engaging in physical assault breaches the negative rights of those that get stoned.
So you accept skygod is not an excuse not the take away the rights of others? Then why support the homophobic baker?

People have never had a right not to be offended and that's what stopping people from discriminating garauntees.
Of courseeee, the baker can run around town shouting gays should not be served cakes but if he words as a baker he should serve him the bloody cake xD
I wrote about this in detail to a response before - would youins in my next post if I just pasted in our previous discussion that went unconcluded.

Do you mean you responded to me once before and I missed it?

Sureeee post it buddy xD That is what I do when people ignore me :') (I don't think I ignored you:) )

Vlerchan
September 20th, 2016, 02:34 PM
I don't know - go ask a philosopher xD
The correct answer is, of course not.

I discriminate against a certain set of people whenever I make a decision as to who I will befriend or not: I might prefer people with a darker sense of humour or a more open mind. Firms, the entire time, discriminate against people in the hiring process, on the basis of whether that person holds a degree or not - or the amount of experience someone has. Shops discriminate against people who can't afford their goods.

Discrimination is a constant feature of our societies. There is a debate over when something is ethical and when something is not - but here we have turned to wading through the realm of opinion. The point of mine is that in a secular society your opinion that discrimination on the basis of belief in god is wrong has no reason to take precedence over the opinion of someone who believe's it is right. Otherwise, you're engaged in the enforcement of dogma and we have stopped living in a secular state.

In short, secularism requires the state is blind to the ideological feelings behind our private decisions. To declare something illegal because someone is volunteering action on the basis of the profoundly Orwellian wrong-sort-of-thinking (i.e. religious thinking) entirely undermines any claim to secularism.

Homophobic crap like the baker was doing is immoral and going against that person's rights.
Person's right to what? That, in turn, will require a defence.

I am all for skygods and believe people should do whatever they like, until it harms another person. Of course that is my basic opinion but as for the question I know you're going to respond with 'should a alcoholic be allowed to drink if it harms his family', I dunno xD If it is physical no but financial maybe it is his choice to choose where his money goes?
The question I would ask is, what about calling someone a mean name? That hurts their feelings just like discrimination - Yet: no-one would claim that should be illegal.

It's also not his choice to choose where the money goes and such a conception flies in the face of how contract law has been practised since almost the foundation of the liberal British state. When you can force someone to engage in a contract - and engage in labour to your ends -, in law, we call that slavery.

It's a grey area but homophobic bakers is not a grey area.
It's not a grey area to you, because of your frankly religious belief in equality.

We define some murders crimes and not others, I don't see why this means the baker can claim a skygod as an excuse.
That we have defined murder as being a crime before hand says nothing about its statues as a moral or immoral act.

To claim it does is fallacious.

So you accept skygod is not an excuse not the take away the rights of others? Then why support the homophobic baker?
That sentence needs to be considered in its context. In taking away someone's right to bodily autonomy you are undermining the very principals that make society-building possible. That someone shouldn't be discriminated against is something that flies in the face of the negative rights that liberalism presumed of us (i.e. speech).

I also support the baker because, [1] moral autonomy is an essential component of meaningful individualism, [2] private individuals should be free to associate with who private individuals choose to associate with, [3] forcing the baker to bake the cake for the homosexual couple - forcing him to contract with him, is tantamount to enslavement, [4] the denial of the opinion as meaningful because it is steeped in religious observation, flies in the face of any meaningful separation of church and state.

Of courseeee, the baker can run around town shouting gays should not be served cakes but if he words as a baker he should serve him the bloody cake xD
I was offered a job, which I rejected, despite claiming to work in the field that job was offered for. Should I be forced to take that job, as a result of declaring myself to be a member of that field?

Or is that literally as nuts as it sounds?

Do you mean you responded to me once before and I missed it?

Sureeee post it buddy xD That is what I do when people ignore me :') (I don't think I ignored you )
I think you might have missed it, it was a fast moving thread :).

I'll link because it got rather long: Here (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3414832&postcount=48).

Paraxiom
September 20th, 2016, 02:43 PM
The point of mine is that in a secular society your opinion that discrimination on the basis of belief in god is wrong has no reason to take precedence over the opinion of someone who believe's it is right. Otherwise, you're engaged in the enforcement of dogma and we have stopped living in a secular state.

A good way of putting my view on how secularism needs to be done properly. Secularism does have a high amount of support from self-perceived (at least) anti-religious people, which is the wrong sort of motivation that I feel secularism would need to be implemented, in a dangerous slippery slope sort of way.

Flapjack
September 20th, 2016, 03:15 PM
The correct answer is, of course not.
I knew that and knew you would have an example waiting for me:')

I discriminate against a certain set of people whenever I make a decision as to who I will befriend or not: I might prefer people with a darker sense of humour or a more open mind. Firms, the entire time, discriminate against people in the hiring process, on the basis of whether that person holds a degree or not - or the amount of experience someone has. Shops discriminate against people who can't afford their goods. [/youtube]
Yeah I can kinda see how the friend thing could be discrimination but I don't think it is, if you outright refuse to consider a friend because they have I dunno blue hair then I would see that as crossing the line but as long as everyone has an equal opportunity, does that make sense? I get how choosing a friend based on music tastes is discrimination but it's not like I make people list 10 Taylor Swift songs before I befriend them ya know? I am rambling again but I think you get what I mean?

I would consider the shops discriminating if you had to own to cars to get in.

This is an interesting philosophical debate but you must see it is like apples and oranges? If I killed my neighbour because I was bored it would be bad but if a solider kills a terrorist in self defence it is fine? Both are killing but only one is a crime. Do you see how this relates to discrimination?


Do you consider what the baker did okay?

[QUOTE=Vlerchan;3437433]
In short, secularism requires the state is blind to the ideological feelings behind our private decisions. To declare something illegal because someone is volunteering action on the basis of the profoundly Orwellian wrong-sort-of-thinking (i.e. religious thinking) entirely undermines any claim to secularism.
I do not believe what the baker done was a private decision. I know it may not seem like a big deal but do you remember the segregated buses and that black people were banned from swimming pools? This is why I do not support discrimination.

I think what the baker done did infringe on the person's right and a skygod is not an excuse.


The question I would ask is, what about calling someone a mean name? That hurts their feelings just like discrimination - Yet: no-one would claim that should be illegal.
As I said before, the baker can run around with homophobic slurs on his shirt and campaign outside gay bars and I would disagree with him and think he is an asshole but he has the right to do that. It is freedom of speech and is not encouraging anyone to be harmed etc etc.

I believe a line is crossed when in a public shop you refuse someone and use sexuality as a reason and a skygod as an excuse.

Out of curiosity, if the customer was black and the baker claimed his skygod said no interracial marriages so he won't sell them a cake, would you support that?




It's also not his choice to choose where the money goes and such a conception flies in the face of how contract law has been practised since almost the foundation of the liberal British state. When you can force someone to engage in a contract - and engage in labour to your ends -, in law, we call that slavery.

He is not forced to serve the gay guy, make up an excuse about being ill or something but you can't tell him you won't because he is gay, that is a public shop discriminating based on sexuality.



It's not a grey area to you, because of your frankly religious belief in equality.
How is my belief in equality religious? I want equality because I think it is right? I was not told to believe it.




[1] moral autonomy is an essential component of meaningful individualism

I 100% agree but that shop is not an individual, it is a public place.

If you personally cannot do a job because of morals... then don't.

I don't want to kill animals- so I won't become a slaughter.

Would you support my right to be a slaughter and not kill any animals?


[2] private individuals should be free to associate with who private individuals choose to associate with,

Of course.

[3] forcing the baker to bake the cake for the homosexual couple - forcing him to contract with him, is tantamount to enslavement,
That escalation XD

No one is forced, he can walk away and be a bigot somewhere else so it is not enslavement.

If he cannot do the job, he should not have it.


[4] the denial of the opinion as meaningful because it is steeped in religious observation, flies in the face of any meaningful separation of church and state.

i do not deny opinions because it is steeped in religious stuff, if the only evidence is a thousand year old inconsistent book, I will use my critical mind and say nope.

'Highly ironic, since you're hoping to legally restrict those who have different opinions that you, from acting on them.'
Only point from your previous post I haven't addressed here,

I don't believe there is a lockness monster, but I am happy to let people go hunt for him.

I don't believe gays should be refused service by a public entity based solely on their sexuality and will not support their 'right' to remove other people's rights.

Like freedom of speech, freedom of religion has its limits and that limit is removing other peoples rights because you think a skygod doesn't like them.

Vlerchan
September 20th, 2016, 03:43 PM
Yeah I can kinda see how the friend thing could be discrimination but I don't think it is, if you outright refuse to consider a friend because they have I dunno blue hair then I would see that as crossing the line but as long as everyone has an equal opportunity, does that make sense?
For something to be discrimination it doesn't need to be outright and absolute, it's just holding something to a different standard.

In response to the follow up, people without a dark sense of humour don't have an equal opportunity, since I naturally prefer people with one, of course.

I would consider the shops discriminating if you had to own to cars to get in.
It's also discrimination to ask for a degree or experience.

Discrimination doesn't mean 'bad discrimination I disagree with'; it's just treating people to a different standard on the basis of some difference in character.

Do you consider what the baker did okay?
No. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to do it.

I do not believe what the baker done was a private decision.
On what grounds is an individual making a decision around who they will, or will not, contract with, not a private decision?

I know it may not seem like a big deal but do you remember the segregated buses and that black people were banned from swimming pools? This is why I do not support discrimination.
I don't support this discrimination either.

I think what the baker done did infringe on the person's right and a skygod is not an excuse.
You keep claiming this, but it turns out to be just claiming it.

As I said before, the baker can run around with homophobic slurs on his shirt and campaign outside gay bars and I would disagree with him and think he is an asshole but he has the right to do that. It is freedom of speech and is not encouraging anyone to be harmed etc etc.
It is bound up in freedom of speech to be able to refuse to accept an invitation to treat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitation_to_treat).

It also doesn't encourage harm on anyone to refuse to service them.

I believe a line is crossed when in a public shop you refuse someone and use sexuality as a reason and a skygod as an excuse.
I understand this is your opinion, but I want to know why you believe this is qualitatively different to all the counterpoints I have presented.

Out of curiosity, if the customer was black and the baker claimed his skygod said no interracial marriages so he won't sell them a cake, would you support that?
I would support their right to do that. That does not mean I encourage the action in and of itself.

Just like how, I doubt, you also wouldn't encourage someone to wear a shirt with racial slurs on it, but support their right to do so.

He is not forced to serve the gay guy, make up an excuse about being ill or something but you can't tell him you won't because he is gay, that is a public shop discriminating based on sexuality.
I realise this. My argument is that it doesn't matter.

Do you think it would be better to live in societies where we all just lied to each other?

How is my belief in equality religious? I want equality because I think it is right? I was not told to believe it.

You have, so far, produced no defence for it other than insistence.

Though, a religious belief isn't something you are told.

I 100% agree but that shop is not an individual, it is a public place.

No, it's a private premise on which the owner invites others. If it was a public place, she wouldn't be allowed to evict troublemakers.

We're now discussing legal concepts with definitions that have stood for well over a century.

If you personally cannot do a job because of morals... then don't.
The baker is attempting to not do a job because it clashes with his morals, and you are the one forcing him to do it.

If you think that he should have to participate in any job offered to him because of his occupation, see my previous post where I claimed:

I was offered a job, which I rejected, despite claiming to work in the field that job was offered for. Should I be forced to take that job, as a result of declaring myself to be a member of that field?

Or is that literally as nuts as it sounds?

Would you support my right to be a slaughter and not kill any animals?
I would support your right to do so, yes, but don't expect any income.

Do you support the right of Hindu men to not slaughter cattle?

Of course.
Forcing him to associate with the same-sex couple does not offer him much by freedom of association.

That escalation XD

No one is forced, he can walk away and be a bigot somewhere else so it is not enslavement.

The issue is, he can't just walk away. You're intent is to force him to back a cake when he otherwise wouldn't.

On the basis, it seems, of some weird view of how the labour market works (i.e. people have to do whatever job comes there way).

i do not deny opinions because it is steeped in religious stuff, if the only evidence is a thousand year old inconsistent book, I will use my critical mind and say nope.
That's fine for you not to accept it. But it is wrong for the government which claims to be secular to not accept it is a valid manner to live someone's life by.

The bit you seem to be missing is that whilst it is fine for you to mock the baker - or whatever you want - for choosing to live his life by his religious convictions, a secular state must remain neutral on such a relation. In declaring that he can't engage in something because it reasons are stupid - in this case, just because they are religious - you have stopped being a secular state, because you have begun to define where religiousness is appropriate in our societies and where it is not.

Just to be clear though, what do you think secularism actually means in practice?

I don't believe gays should be refused service by a public entity based solely on their sexuality and will not support their 'right' to remove other people's rights.

This violates the rights I have outlined - speech, association, person - and, doing so because you disagree with their reasoning, undermines the state as being a secular actor.

Like freedom of speech, freedom of religion has its limits and that limit is removing other peoples rights because you think a skygod doesn't like them.
The argument I am making is the manner in which you are limiting their freedom undermines a host of other rights, places people in temporary indentured servitude, and undermines any claim of the state to secularism.

PlasmaHam
September 20th, 2016, 03:58 PM
How is my belief in equality religious? I want equality because I think it is right? I was not told to believe it.

The way you act upon it seems religious. The way you basically sound is, "My version of equality is the best version of equality, and those who have a different view of equality are homophobic, racist, sexist, etc bigots! My version of equality is the best because I said so!"

Despite what you want to say about it, that is very similar to religious beliefs. Ironically enough, you admonish the very similar rhetoric when it comes to bashing religion, yet you openly do it yourself. You claim open-mindedness, yet I have almost never seen you change any stance of yours, even when it is extremely obvious, like above.

Vlerchan I was reading your little debate, and I honestly feel sorry for you having to deal with this. People are so stuck in their version of equality, that they start oppressing others to achieve "equality" for whatever group they support. And of course, they keep blaming that anyone to the contrary is a religious nut job with no validation for their ideologies, when in fact their own ideologies have no more basis. My opinion on that whole debate is that people have the freedom to deny service to whoever they want for whatever reasons they want. Are they right to do so? Not necessarily, but do they have that right, yes. No one should be forced to quit their job just because one person wants them to do something against their moral code and personal want. That is very close to outright enslavement.

ethan-s
September 22nd, 2016, 08:40 AM
The suing of a Christian bakery was because of the owners of the bakery refusing service to the gay people, it wasn't because the owners were Christian.




Not so much, if some Christian bakers from above were refusing service to gays because of their homosexuality and seeing it as justified because of their religious perspective.

Ill probably get banned for saying this, but the whole reason the bible and othe religions are so intolerant of homosexuality is because it's unnatural. It does not get society anywhere. Two guys can't make a baby, two women can't make a baby. It just is not natural and does not contribute to society, but instead it breeds disease and hate.

And just remember, Islam is so intolerant of gays in this age that they still kill them by stoning. Christians don't kill gays.

Periphery
September 22nd, 2016, 11:14 AM
Ill probably get banned for saying this, but the whole reason the bible and othe religions are so intolerant of homosexuality is because it's unnatural. It does not get society anywhere. Two guys can't make a baby, two women can't make a baby. It just is not natural and does not contribute to society, but instead it breeds disease and hate.

And just remember, Islam is so intolerant of gays in this age that they still kill them by stoning. Christians don't kill gays.

So because it's not natural they are not allowed to love eachother? Oh and btw, it's not like 'normal sex' can't spread disease m8

PlasmaHam
September 22nd, 2016, 12:21 PM
So because it's not natural they are not allowed to love eachother? Oh and btw, it's not like 'normal sex' can't spread disease m8
Why don't we allow polygamy then, and why not allow pedophilia? After all, they are both non-natural and provide more bodily risks and harm than intercourse. Why not let them love?

Picking up a phone can cause a disease, eating raw meat can cause a disease. However, one is far more likely to cause risk and harm. There is a reason we allow people to pick up phones but prohibit restaurants from selling raw meat.

Let's not get into this right now, even though I honestly have no idea what this thread is about anymore.

ThisBougieLife
September 22nd, 2016, 12:47 PM
Why don't we allow polygamy then, and why not allow pedophilia? After all, they are both non-natural and provide more bodily risks and harm than intercourse. Why not let them love?.

Huge difference between two consenting adults in a relationship and an adult taking advantage of a child. And polygamy is a different issue in that it involves quantities of people and has issues of logistics as far as legal unions go. That said, the "revulsion" factor on polygamy is probably much lower than the others. Polygamy is also not necessarily "unnatural"; historically many powerful men had many many wives, or one wife with various concubines.

But yeah, this thread is about whatever now I guess.

PlasmaHam
September 22nd, 2016, 01:12 PM
Please note in the response I made I never claimed that was the case. The argument I made is that comparing the instructions of the Qu'ran and the instructions of the Bible is comparing apples and oranges. One was intended to be a broader instruction.
Both are nevertheless interpreted as a religious doctrine for the ideal life. It just so happens that the Muslim rules are much more complicated than the Christian ones. It really doesn't matter if a book was meant as nothing but comedy. If you see it as a religious doctrine to guide your life, then it becomes a religious doctrine to guide your life. The Qu'ran is seen by Muslims just like Christians see the Bible, the perfect word of God.

But do you not see it is not every Muslim that is killing Christians, the same as it is not every Christian that is killing Muslims.

Wouldn't it be better to be at peace and worship whatever skygod you like? Does the Christian religion not preach tolerance?
Yea, let allow public demonstrations where we advocate for the death of all Jews! That is tolerance and is in no way inspiring violence! We should allow members of a death cult to teach our children how to live a good life! That is tolerance, and will certainly not turn our kids into homicidal maniacs!

Good... although your islamophobic comments seem to differ with this claim.
Typical Flapjack, can't think of a reasonable response so goes straight to the insults

Skygods do not outweigh the law. The US is supposed to be a secular state.
If you believe the Federal government is the harbinger of moral right and wrong, you have some serious issues.
If he sued them or being Christian I would be horrified and ranting about it. More likely the baker was being a homophobic asshole, discrimnating against people because of their sexuality and used a skygod to justify it. And what exactly are you doing? Ranting about Christianity, calling them nut-jobs and other insults, using your religion of equality to justify it?
I do not believe what the baker done was a private decision. I know it may not seem like a big deal but do you remember the segregated buses and that black people were banned from swimming pools? This is why I do not support discrimination. So you want mother government to fix that? But wait! Mother government was the one who actually enforced segregation! Numerous laws mandated segregation, it wasn't like the business owners came all together and said, "I want to lose a significant part of my business, let's ban all black people!"

I think what the baker done did infringe on the person's right and a skygod is not an excuse. You want to infringe on other people's right and use your god, Equality, as an excuse.
As I said before, the baker can run around with homophobic slurs on his shirt and campaign outside gay bars and I would disagree with him and think he is an asshole but he has the right to do that. It is freedom of speech and is not encouraging anyone to be harmed etc etc.
Do you believe that people have the right to be offensive in public?
I believe a line is crossed when in a public shop you refuse someone and use sexuality as a reason and a skygod as an excuse. I believe a line is crossed when you use,"Equality", as an excuse to take away other people's rights.
He is not forced to serve the gay guy, make up an excuse about being ill or something but you can't tell him you won't because he is gay, that is a public shop discriminating based on sexuality.
If a building is privately owned, is on private land, and is not connected in any way to government, it is automatically equal to government owned public places, despite the fact that they gain no benefits from the government? Reminds me of taxation without representation. I believe you are messing up two very different definitions of equality. There is the dictionary definition, which applies here, and the legal definition, which does not apply here.

How is my belief in equality religious? I want equality because I think it is right? I was not told to believe it.
You have been blinded in your worship of the great god, Equality.
If you personally cannot do a job because of morals... then don't.
Would you support my right to be a slaughter and not kill any animals? If you were a butcher, and someone came up to you and demanded you butcher a dead dog, would you? Lets pretend there are no legal hassles here, it is perfectly legal to butcher a dog, but you find the basic idea of butchering and eating a dog sickening. Does that one incident require you to quit your job and start doing something completely different. It honestly seems like you are advocating for people to lose morality and to start worshiping Equality.
No one is forced, he can walk away and be a bigot somewhere else so it is not enslavement.
A man, who barely makes enough to support his family, must do something morally wrong or quit his job, resulting in him and his family starving. The man stands for his morals, and is promptly thrown into the streets. This is something you would see in a dictatorship, would you not agree? I actually think there is a Twilight Zone episode similar to this. I know this is a exaggeration, but this is what you are basically advocating.
If he cannot do the job, he should not have it.
If I came to your sig shop and said that I wanted you to make a sig with numerous anti-homosexuallity quotes from the Bible, after you made an earlier sig for a different person with pro-homosexuallity quotes on it, would you make me a sig?
'Highly ironic, since you're hoping to legally restrict those who have different opinions that you, from acting on them.'
Even more ironic! since you are hoping to legally restrict those who have different morals than you from acting upon them.

I don't believe gays should be refused service by a public entity based solely on their sexuality and will not support their 'right' to remove other people's rights. You are so hypocritical, it is really hilarious.

Flapjack
September 22nd, 2016, 01:13 PM
The way you act upon it seems religious. The way you basically sound is, "My version of equality is the best version of equality, and those who have a different view of equality are homophobic, racist, sexist, etc bigots! My version of equality is the best because I said so!"
Yeahhhh I think my opinion is correct? I wouldn't be saying it if I though I was wrong xD Why not try change my opinion? :P
Noooo have I ever called vlerchan a sexist bigot or homophob?

Despite what you want to say about it, that is very similar to religious beliefs. Ironically enough, you admonish the very similar rhetoric when it comes to bashing religion, yet you openly do it yourself. You claim open-mindedness, yet I have almost never seen you change any stance of yours, even when it is extremely obvious, like above.

Religious belief refers to attitudes towards mythological, supernatural, or spiritual aspects of a religion. Religious belief is distinct from religious practice or religious behaviours with some believers not practicing religion and some practitioners not believing religion.
Yeahhhh that really isn't me sooo you fail epically xD

So now you have finished trying to persuade me that I believe in a skygod or some other fictional character, any chance you can go reply to the climate change thread and admit that you were wrong or actually counter for once?

ethan-s
September 23rd, 2016, 07:14 AM
So because it's not natural they are not allowed to love eachother? Oh and btw, it's not like 'normal sex' can't spread disease m8

That basically sums it up. Gay "marriage" does not and cannot produce productive members of society. Yes, I do know that normal sex can produce disease. That said, how do you explain the huge explosion of HIV and othe diseases during the middle of the sexual revolution?

My thinking is that if two people, a man and a women, get married, there is virtually no risk of disease. But if the same two people get together before they are married, the risk of disease is increased.

Flapjack
September 23rd, 2016, 08:15 AM
My thinking is that if two people, a man and a women, get married, there is virtually no risk of disease. But if the same two people get together before they are married, the risk of disease is increased.
Oh yeah because the pathogen is like 'you bloody slut, I don't agree with your moral code so I'm making you ill'

How about you stop worrying about other people's sex lives?

Periphery
September 23rd, 2016, 09:53 AM
My thinking is that if two people, a man and a women, get married, there is virtually no risk of disease.

Uuuuhm, that's not how that works at all

Vlerchan
September 23rd, 2016, 03:11 PM
[...] when in fact their own ideologies have no more basis [...]
I'd encourage all people to steer clear from this sort of reasoning: debasing all thought to that of ideology is recipe only for anomie and decadence. What is and isn't moral - or what is and isn't equality - we can still at least hope to deduce from a set of common principals*. From this, we might have a society. The main issue I see the argument that Flapjack made is that it was philosophically incompetent - that should be stressed: I don't just argue with him because we have conflicting views, I argue with him because I see reason that his argument to be incoherent.

---

* If I was president the first thing I would do is enforce the reading of a number of chunky intellectual history (of the West) texts. I find when debating that I have the greatest difficulties with those who have no understanding of the historical development of political argument: without that sort of perspective I imagine it's just difficult to consider that your own views might be wrong.

(How we should educate people to consider politics could also take up an entire post so I will stop here).

[..] non-natural [..]
In classical philosophy - which is what the Christians all adapted these ideas from - 'natural' meant that it was the intended end of something (like the reproductive organs and reproduction). I don't find this reasoning appealing at all but - given it - there is no simple argument that polygamy or ephebophilia are neccisarily wrong - though, there is argument that homosexuality is wrong.

It seems, in that sense, we're getting a lot of arguments prompted by disgust.

historically many powerful men had many many wives, or one wife with various concubines.
And, historically, it also led to skewing investment towards wife-seeking as opposed to more productive endeavours (one, amongst all, is child-rearing). That's the reason that it hasn't survived very well as a cultural practice - though modern wealth has granted us the ability to be decadent again.

So now you have finished trying to persuade me that I believe in a skygod or some other fictional character, any chance you can go reply to the climate change thread and admit that you were wrong or actually counter for once?
I feel I should add that when I called your view religious, I meant it as a euphemism for empty, feel-good insistence.

Gay "marriage" does not and cannot produce productive members of society.
Neither can marriage of infertile or old people, though it has been still considered marriage for a long time.

That said, how do you explain the huge explosion of HIV and othe diseases during the middle of the sexual revolution?
In statistics, an endogeneity problem occurs when an explanatory variable is correlated with the error term. Endogeneity can arise as a result of measurement error, autoregression with autocorrelated errors, simultaneous causality (see Instrumental variable) and omitted variables.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogeneity_(econometrics)

For a long time, HIV went un-regarded as a disease the straight people could catch.
Promiscuous people tend to have more partners on average.
Promiscuous people tend to have more likely to engage in risky sex.
Etc.

My thinking is that if two people, a man and a women, get married, there is virtually no risk of disease.
I am going to presume there's a definition of 'virtually' that I am unaware of, or else this just doesn't make sense.

But if the same two people get together before they are married, the risk of disease is increased.
Yeah.., no.

Paraxiom
September 23rd, 2016, 07:54 PM
Ill probably get banned for saying this, [...]

I'd doubt it.

[...] but the whole reason the bible and othe religions are so intolerant of homosexuality is because it's unnatural. It does not get society anywhere. Two guys can't make a baby, two women can't make a baby. It just is not natural and does ot contribute to society, but instead it breeds disease and hate.

This is getting very convoluted very quickly. Let me try to keep some of this on-topic at least.

You were showing what you saw to be a double standard in people saying that Christians cannot be discriminated against for being Christian, and with people saying that it's okay to discriminate against Christians who refuse gay people to avail of e.g. their bakery services, the former part tied to people saying that Muslims cannot be discriminated against for being Muslim.

Let's say that I am a gay person (which I incidentally am, as a happenstance case in counterpoint anyway outside of this) who is going to get a cake for me and my husband-to-be for that wedding. I go to a certain bakery and have the reaction of the bakers there refusing to give me service because I am gay. I'm pretty annoyed by what I see to be an unjustified reaction to my request, and take legal action against this.

Nowhere have I discriminated against the bakers for being Christian. It was all about their refusal to serve me appropriately. Their religious background is basically incidental, unless the bakers want to make it otherwise by saying that their refusal was because of that, but even then I have not done any religious discrimination.

If the bakers were fine baking the cake I requested and were also Christian, there would be no issue at all. If the bakers refused service and were also incidentally non-Christian / irreligious, then it would be the same issue anyway.

Unless it is part of the essence of every Christian to own a bakery and make cakes for couples-to-be, you're not making sense.

Now you're bringing in your perspective on homosexuality to try to back up what you saw as a double standard, which also doesn't add any sense.

To top it off you're taking about homosexuality breeding disease and hate; could you at least be specific??


And just remember, Islam is so intolerant of gays in this age that they still kill them by stoning. Christians don't kill gays.

Though Christians have effectively killed some through suicide/etc. (I'm sure Muslims have too, by the way.)


[...] but the whole reason the bible and othe religions are so intolerant of homosexuality is because it's unnatural.

This is what is really convoluted, with the two quotes above. You're saying that Islam is with Christianity in being intolerant of gays because of its unnatural presence, making Christianity apparently okay because it's not alone, but simultaneously you cast Islam down because of the use of physical abuse/torture on gays?

You're defending Christianity with the same thing you are attacking.

Anyhow, Christianity is equally not innocent of actions towards gays when it comes to psychological abuse/torture. Muslims have stoned gays, yes! Doesn't vindicate your viewpoint at all though, as both the physical and mental abuse directed at gays by followers of both religions are a minority, and it's not like one religion is clearly innocent and the other clearly guilty.

With the addition of homosexuality apparently breeding hatred, you're also making this sound like a three-way war between them, Christians, and Muslims.

Hence the convolution.

*Queue generic reality TV family feud intro*


That basically sums it up. Gay "marriage" does not and cannot produce productive members of society.

Okay, look...

Marriage isn't exclusively a prelude or whatever to conceiving and raising children.

If that is what you really mean, then this covers a huge range of marriages of people who haven't conceived, equally as much as same-sex marriage.


Yes, I do know that normal sex can produce disease. That said, how do you explain the huge explosion of HIV and othe diseases during the middle of the sexual revolution?

Irrelevant enough that I can't bring this back to the thread topic anymore.


My thinking is that if two people, a man and a women, get married, there is virtually no risk of disease. But if the same two people get together before they are married, the risk of disease is increased.

Irrelevant enough that I can't bring this back to the thread topic anymore, and especially bizarre to think (what a bonus).