Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Enraged SJ? Nope, just chortling at it - I genuienely love all you smug, hypocrtical, liberal metropiltans. Nothing unites you like having your easy prejudices and 'safe ground' positions questioned. But you're becoming a too easy target - maybe I'll go an pick on the Scientologists. With my anger and wrath..oh and persecution complex :))
Quids, how is it "prejudiced" to criticise the large-scale cover up of child abuse? I just don't get it. Would it make you happier if there were parallel threads criticising honour killings, forced marriages, genital mutilation, stoning of rape victims, etc?

I'm like: maybe describing religion as ridiculous mumbo jumbo is more offensive (and patronising, which as we all know is the worst thing you can be on the EDF) to the faithful than condemning those who have abused that faith and trust.


(But then I don't really give a toss about the abuse, it's just a convenient pretext for me to give free reign to my existing anti-Papist prejudices.


Not too keen on the Jews either, natch, which is why you won't find me starting threads about those power-mad c*nts who recruit young girls and boys, strap explosives to them and detonate them in shopping malls. Or who lift young boys away from poor families in rural Pakistan, indoctrinate them in so-called maddrassahs, abuse them, and send them to die half way up a mountain fighting an enemy they can't see.


^I've sent Nick Cohen the cheque for this bit^)

@ Jeremy


Please don't lend some sort of legitimacy to the barbaric and utterly selfish acts of filicide in the muslim community by pre-fixing killing with honour. However percieved, there's no 'honour' in it at all. It's murder, plain and simple. Nothing against you persoanlly, it's just that I can't tolerate the air of justification carried by the word honour when used to describe murderous acts at the behest of their chauvinsistic, Stone Age culture.

"Honour" in terms of organised religion is shorthand for the continued assertion of male power, despite mealy mouthed shitehawks claiming otherwise - women are still chattels to most religions, to be bought and sold as required.


If there is a God, then he should hopefully be waiting for these fuckers to come along and meet him so he can smite their parochial, narrow minded posteriors before sending them on the down elevator to meet Satan.

Jelly, it's certainly not my idea of "honour", that's just how it tends to be referred to in the media. Barbaric, stone-age culture? Yes, I would agree.


But is it not also true that the catholic church is chauvinistic (albeit to a lesser extent)?

Catholisism is more about Mary than the baby Jebus - the virgin mother fetishised by repressed men who have no experience of dealing with the opposite sex in real life - its logical to conclude that real women are second class when measured against this yardstick.

jelly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...their chauvinsistic, Stone Age

> culture.


Entirely agree about the twisted use of 'honour', but talking of being careful with words, it's perhaps not helpful to use 'Stone Age' in a derogatory way. It's likely that pre-farming hunter-gathering tribes were more often than not highly egalitarian, non-chauvinistic and given to sharing. Post-Stone Age agriculture and urban development, however, gave rise to notions of wealth, status and honour of which extreme chauvinism and murderous family violence are cruel descendents.

a parting word - I have no issue with personal belief. As long as it doesnt affect me or my life, then I have no problem with anyone beleiving whatever they want. I know a few people with strong belief and I can honestly say, they are decent, caring and straight folk, who contribute much more to society than I will ever do.


This is not a rant at you or your faith.



/thread killed

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda and far more across their briefs than any minister I've seen in years. The consensus was that Labour are so unpopular and untrusted by the electorate already, as are the Conservatives, that breaking the manifesto pledge on income tax wouldn't drive their approval ratings any lower, so they should, and I quote, 'Roll The Dice', hope for the best and see where we are in a couple of years time. As a strategy, i don't know whether I find that quite worrying or just an honest appraisal of what most governments actually do in practice.
    • They are a third of the way through their term Earl. It's no good blaming other people anymore. They only have three years left to fix what is now their own mess. And its not just lies in the manifesto. There were lies at the last budget too, when they said that was it, they weren't coming back for more tax and more borrowing. They'd already blamed the increase in NIC taxes on what they claimed was a thorough investigation. They either knew everything then or they lied about that too .   They need to stop lying and start behaving. If they don't the next government won't be theirs, it will be led by Nigel Farage.  They have to turn it round rapidly. Blaming other people, telling lies and breaking promises isn't going to cut it any more.
    • Is it lame? Or is it Lamey? (sorry)
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...