talkFORUM Archive

I think the relevance of the religion and the fact many of these rape victims are quite literally passed around the family is of significance. It seems to have its roots not in the Koran but in the Hadiths and the way Muhammad conducted his life. Good muslims are supposed to replicate the way he acted. There are also many verses in Islam which denigrate other cultures as and describe them as legitimate (war) booty with full sexual rights upon ownership. You cannot rule out the correlation but it does seem you can pretend at all costs that it doesn't exist.

Likewise, there are no clear-cut ways to enter heaven as a good Muslim. Muhammad himself was asked the question and said he could not guarantee his own entry. There is however one way in which the Koran does guarantees entry to heaven according to God's word , and that is to die in the act of Jihad. It does not appear to matter how you conducted your life beforehand. It can be filled with any amount of sin and vice which goes some way to explain why so many jihadists led such non virtuous lives before waging their jihad and exposes the myth that these people were not true practicing muslims.

As Roy correctly states the reason for constantly bringing the same issue up is keep pointing out that that large grey thing in the room still hasn't been acknowledged.

m4rkb wrote:
As Roy correctly states the reason for constantly bringing the same issue up is keep pointing out that that large grey thing in the room still hasn't been acknowledged.

Yeah, but the elephant is tired and needs a rest. If you keep making the same point over and over who is influenced, who is listening?

On the general front I dont think it's necessary to tell the public every time a crime is carried out what the offenders religion is. Do you?

Can't see why it should be a secret unless someone is trying to hide something.

Well, the argument goes (by those who for some inexplicable reason seem to see muslims as being unfairly targeted) that we don’t state the religion/cultural background of the perpetrators of the majority of crimes, which is true.
But it is a chicken and egg situation, where, prior to the last few decades, religion/cultural background was indeed irrelevant, - there was not such a predatory and alien group in our country, but now there is, and the establishment remains staunchly averse to admitting it, and further, condemns those who try to bring up the ‘elephant in the room’ as islamophobes or similar.
I assume it is for ‘social cohesion’ reasons, but I believe that they are guilty of using the lives of many vulnerable british children as sacrificial lambs for the sake of this goal.

Should they give out photo and where they are from too?

Royal24s wrote:Can't see why it should be a secret unless someone is trying to hide something.

Someone's religion is not a secret, neither is it a necessity when reporti g a criminal act. On an individual basis, it's about as relevant as telling us all what he had for breakfast.

ccreds wrote:Should they give out photo and where they are from too?

No idea what point that is meant to make, but I would elaborate by saying that if it were found that a similar range of crimes were perpetrated by people who, for argument’s sake, were all members of, or had family members who were members of groups such as the freemasons, or ku klux klan, or scientologists, do you not think that the legal authorities would make this link known, and would be seeking to find out why?

Roy Twing wrote:

ccreds wrote:Should they give out photo and where they are from too?

No idea what point that is meant to make, but I would elaborate by saying that if it were found that a similar range of crimes were perpetrated by people who, for argument’s sake, were all members of, or had family members who were members of groups such as the freemasons, or ku klux klan, or scientologists, do you not think that the legal authorities would make this link known, and would be seeking to find out why?

Those are cults.

Just out of interest can anybody distinguish between Muslims calling for a jihad against America and the West and George Bush saying they had God on their side in the Crusade against terrorists in Iraq?

For the record I cant see why it is necessary to mention people's religion or colour when they have commited a crime, nor there political persuation.

After whoever has been convicted it may be relevant to discuss political, religious and cultural beliefs in sentencing; if it may have some relevance to the crime commited.

Fug1 wrote:Just out of interest can anybody distinguish between Muslims calling for a jihad against America and the West and George Bush saying they had God on their side in the Crusade against terrorists in Iraq?

For the record I cant see why it is necessary to mention people's religion or colour when they have commited a crime, nor there political persuation.

After whoever has been convicted it may be relevant to discuss political, religious and cultural beliefs in sentencing; if it may have some relevance to the crime commited.

Great post Fug1 and spot on. Re your question at the start of your post, nope, but would question whether it was a 'crusade against terrorists'.

Well, it's the Yanks being selective and not having the bollocks to do anything about the real elephant in the room i.e. Wahhabi Saudi.

That is certainly one of them.

ccreds wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

ccreds wrote:Should they give out photo and where they are from too?

No idea what point that is meant to make, but I would elaborate by saying that if it were found that a similar range of crimes were perpetrated by people who, for argument’s sake, were all members of, or had family members who were members of groups such as the freemasons, or ku klux klan, or scientologists, do you not think that the legal authorities would make this link known, and would be seeking to find out why?

Those are cults.

I know I shouldn't, but what is the difference between a cult and a religion.

Fug1 wrote:Just out of interest can anybody distinguish between Muslims calling for a jihad against America and the West and George Bush saying they had God on their side in the Crusade against terrorists in Iraq?

So you believe that we are at war with islam?

Fug1 wrote:For the record I cant see why it is necessary to mention people's religion or colour when they have commited a crime, nor there political persuation.

As I just mentioned, there should, I agree, be no point in mentioning any irrelevant characteristic of a suspect/perpetrator, and this was certainly the case until relatively recently.
I do believe that in the case of islam, it appears to be relevant.

Roy Twing wrote:

Fug1 wrote:Just out of interest can anybody distinguish between Muslims calling for a jihad against America and the West and George Bush saying they had God on their side in the Crusade against terrorists in Iraq?

So you believe that we are at war with islam?

Fug1 wrote:For the record I cant see why it is necessary to mention people's religion or colour when they have commited a crime, nor there political persuation.

As I just mentioned, there should, I agree, be no point in mentioning any irrelevant characteristic of a suspect/perpetrator, and this was certainly the case until relatively recently.
I do believe that in the case of islam, it appears to be relevant.

I don't believe we are at war with Islam, but it appears Bush did.

I'd imagine lots of Muslims don't believe they are at war with non muslins but you only hear about the ones that are.

Roy Twing wrote:

ccreds wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

ccreds wrote:Should they give out photo and where they are from too?

No idea what point that is meant to make, but I would elaborate by saying that if it were found that a similar range of crimes were perpetrated by people who, for argument’s sake, were all members of, or had family members who were members of groups such as the freemasons, or ku klux klan, or scientologists, do you not think that the legal authorities would make this link known, and would be seeking to find out why?

Those are cults.

I know I shouldn't, but what is the difference between a cult and a religion.

I'll have jolly old bash.

When you mention cult, I think of the relatively small group for example the Branch Davidians led by David Koresh. These people tend to have religious beliefs which the majority of others find odd, and the leader usually has some sort of weird and excessive hold over the group.

To me, religion means the belief and following of various gods which a significant number of the world's population follow.

Marks out of ten please Roy.

Let me help. I've got to return it unmarked because defining a religion is something which has defeated academics for a long time. People try now and then but it always gets knocked down because whatever they suggest always applies equally to something else.
A farly well known paper pointed out that football ticks all the boxes for the most accepted definition of religion, and the author therefore asked whether we should regard it as such.

The word means " re tied ", or joined again to that which one was originally a part of, so there's a starting point .
There's no actual literal difference between a religion and a cult in fact. The latter is just a weighted word for the same thing.
In the public mind the word religion conveys legitimacy, whilst the word cult tends to diminish it, but theyre the same thing. The Romans called Christianity a cult, didn't
they ?
Put another way, " one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter ".

Zambo wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

ccreds wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

ccreds wrote:Should they give out photo and where they are from too?

No idea what point that is meant to make, but I would elaborate by saying that if it were found that a similar range of crimes were perpetrated by people who, for argument’s sake, were all members of, or had family members who were members of groups such as the freemasons, or ku klux klan, or scientologists, do you not think that the legal authorities would make this link known, and would be seeking to find out why?

Those are cults.

I know I shouldn't, but what is the difference between a cult and a religion.

I'll have jolly old bash.

When you mention cult, I think of the relatively small group for example the Branch Davidians led by David Koresh. These people tend to have religious beliefs which the majority of others find odd, and the leader usually has some sort of weird and excessive hold over the group.

To me, religion means the belief and following of various gods which a significant number of the world's population follow.

Marks out of ten please Roy.

Don't ask me to judge zambo, - in my eyes I see little difference between the two except like you, perhaps size of following.

The issue here though, is that the particular cult in question has a disproportionately number of people who at best are either simply incompatible with ‘our’ lifestyles or at worst, wish to do us harm.

Roy Twing wrote:
Don't ask me to judge zambo, - in my eyes I see little difference between the two except like you, perhaps size of following.

It's more than that Roy. A cult can be a group for example who follow the Rocky Horror Show, or a pop band or even a fashion. Usually a cult will follow something or someone who is flesh and blood or can be visibly seen, but a religion is something which is followed where there is no material evidence of existence of what is being followed or worshipped. That's how I see it anyway. I don't think a cult has to be religious.

I just explained it to you. That wasn't an off the cuff personal assessment you know, it was a précis of the proper definitions. I honestly thought it would be helpful.

Royal24s wrote:I just explained it to you. That wasn't an off the cuff personal assessment you know, it was a précis of the proper definitions. I honestly thought it would be helpful.

It wasn't, just a load of mumbo jumbo. Then again, I'm just a mere pleb against the holder of the tablets of stone, so that is probably why I labelled it that.

ps I think I'll stick with my description thanks.

Royal24s wrote:I just explained it to you. That wasn't an off the cuff personal assessment you know, it was a précis of the proper definitions. I honestly thought it would be helpful.

It was, very helpful, assuming I understood correctly.
Basically, there is no difference except in the eye of the beholder.

This is one case when it doesn't have to be. The differences are plain to see. Whatever you are basing your opinion on, but I'd check first to see if your eye patch has slipped, and then do a bit of research.

I see little difference between those that worship a football club; or a follower of a charismatic leader of some group or other; or a group that follows a 6th century (from memory) paedophile, or those who believe in reincarnation according to some fat bloke called the enlightened one.
It’s all about following a pack.
Mindlessly.
As I've said though, the difference appears to be that when the numbers are sufficiently large, strength of numbers gives some apparent credibility.

Zambo wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

ccreds wrote:

Roy Twing wrote:

ccreds wrote:Should they give out photo and where they are from too?

No idea what point that is meant to make, but I would elaborate by saying that if it were found that a similar range of crimes were perpetrated by people who, for argument’s sake, were all members of, or had family members who were members of groups such as the freemasons, or ku klux klan, or scientologists, do you not think that the legal authorities would make this link known, and would be seeking to find out why?

Those are cults.

I know I shouldn't, but what is the difference between a cult and a religion.

I'll have jolly old bash.

When you mention cult, I think of the relatively small group for example the Branch Davidians led by David Koresh. These people tend to have religious beliefs which the majority of others find odd, and the leader usually has some sort of weird and excessive hold over the group.

To me, religion means the belief and following of various gods which a significant number of the world's population follow.

Marks out of ten please Roy.

People who are experts in cults (and getting people out of them) are always keen to point out there is a difference between a cult & a religion. Obviously there are grey areas.

Somebody who attends church regularly is not a cult member. You may think they're wasting their time but that's up to them.

If they start giving all their money to the church & abandon their family to go & live with the other church members, then they probably are caught up in a cult.