Thursday, March 10, 2011

Animal Rights - Britain’s latest official religion

His Grace has long-prophesied the absurd derivations and eventualities of theological relativism and religious equality. When Harpy Hormone began her equalities crusade, she could have had no idea of the consequences. Or at least the unintended ones. We knew all about her anti-Christian proclivities, which she unashamedly wears on her sleeve and by which she’s knows precisely what she’s doing. But what Parliament has set down in statute is for the Courts to interpret; what politicians may have intended is subsumed to what judges decree.

And so it came to pass the ‘Environmentalism’ was declared a religion for the purposes of employment law. His Grace said after that ruling:
It is not simply that ‘green views’ are now on a par with religious or philosophical beliefs, but that any ‘strong beliefs’ which influence one’s opinions and which affect a whole lifestyle may be considered a religion.
And so Environmentalism begat Animal Rights Activism – another ‘landmark ruling’; this time that a person’s anti-hunting beliefs should be protected from discrimination in the same way as religion.

To the euphoria of animal rights activists nationwide, Judge Lawrence Guyer ruled that animal rights beliefs are a ‘philosophical belief’ akin to religion under employment law. Joe Hashman may be a hunt saboteur, and may act outside the law, but his belief in the sanctity of life ‘extends to his fervent anti-fox hunting belief’, and such beliefs should be protected under 2003 employment regulations.

It was argued in court by his opponents that Mr Hashman's beliefs were ‘incoherent, inconsistent, politically motivated by class war and that they endorsed violence’. Ergo, they were not worthy of respect. The judge rejected that argument. Quoting Mr Hashman, he held that he believes that ‘people should live their lives with mindful respect for animals and we all have a moral obligation to live in a way which is kind to each other, our environment and our fellow creatures’.

As with Tim Nicolson's climate change case, the judgment that animal rights activism amounts to a ‘philosophical belief’ permits the case to proceed to a hearing.

When His Grace posted exactly a year ago this week that Conservatism was now a religion, it was a little tongue in cheek, not least because the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 explicitly exclude political belief as a protected belief. Yet it is hard to see why. The legislation states:
2 (1) In these Regulations, ‘religion or belief’ means any religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief.
At what point does a ‘body of opinion' become a 'religion'? If it were not for the Buddhists, it could all conveniently be down to the invocation of a deity. It now appears that if a belief is pursued with religious fervor (that is the important word) by a sufficient number of people, then it may be defined as a religion. And so anything (except Burke, Mill or Marx) may become creed, and anything made god.

The moment the state begins to define ‘religion’, and then attempts to apportion rights and liberties under the guise of an enlightened tolerance of relativist equality, there is no logical end to the official recognition of all manner of weird cults, strange sects, spurious beliefs and pseudo-religions, all of which have to be equal under the law irrespective of the common good and irrelative to the inherent counterknowledge believed or propagated.

If you wish to believe that a carpenter from Nazareth can rise from the dead, you are free to do so. But in the age of ‘equality’ and ‘non-discrimination’, this is no different from - indeed, entirely equivalent to - believing that a middle-eastern illiterate warlord had a direct line to Allah; a man can walk around with the head of an elephant; and that Satan is worthy to be worshipped. These beliefs are now equal before the law and akin to the philosophies of man-made global warming, veganism and animal rights activism.

Why should atheists not enjoy the same protection?

For an atheist in the House of Commons who presents himself in the chamber during parliamentary prayers ought to have the right in law to object to the affront. Those of all faiths and none have the right in law to object to the 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords, which is a manifest discrimination against not only Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists, but also the Nonconformists and Roman Catholics.

And since we’re talking about employment law, is being king a job? Is it employment which bestows the same employment rights enjoyed by the rest of us? If so, it is difficult to see how the prohibition on the Monarch being or marrying a Roman Catholic can survive this judicial onslaught.

Pope Benedict XVI was right to point out that the Equality Bill restricts religious freedom and violates natural law.

If any sinister sect, trivial ‘-ism’ and ephemeral ‘-ology’ are now no different from the Christian Faith which forged the laws and culture of this nation, it is difficult to understand why political beliefs are not covered by the legislation.

Why does pacifism trump Marxism?

Why does humanism trump fascism?

Why does every ‘-ism’ and '-ology' under the sun trump Christianity?

Why does the non-belief in a god merit protection under the law, but not the belief that liberalism is antithetical to conservatism because of the consequent emphasis on individual autonomy and the rights of man?

Why is the decision not to eat meat merit protection under the law, but not commitment to conservatism which manifests itself in patriotism, custom, respect for the law, loyalty to a leader or monarch, and in the willing acceptance of the privileges of those to whom privilege is granted?

Why do those who decide not to wear leather merit protection under the law, but not those who in some deeper part of themselves yearn for a social order which is motivated and consoled by the forces to which the conservative instinct is attuned?

Why is the commitment not to imbibe alcohol worthy of protection under the law, but not the conservative tradition of social concern and action which is rooted in the historic Christian faith?

How can the environment, animal rights, fashion and matters of eating and drinking be more important than one’s theo-political worldview?

We have now reached the point of religious relativism where the Hunt Saboteur’s Handbook is equivalent to the King James Bible.

There is little now to stop animal rights activists applying for employment in laboratories that conduct animal experimentation, and pleading discrimination if they are rejected or dismissed. Once these laboratories are forcibly shut down, the animal rights activists will turn to the halal and kosher butchers. There is now a three-way race in the burgeoning hierarchy of competing and mutually-exclusive rights.

And then there is the thorny issue of ‘hate speech’:

The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003:
5 (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person (‘A’) subjects another person (‘B’) to harassment where, on grounds of religion or belief, A engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of –

(a) violating B’s dignity; or
(b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.
Almost any conduct against B is caught. It has a chilling effect on free speech.

The day is surely coming when one may surely be prosecuted under the statutory instrument prohibiting incitement to ‘religious hatred’, for being Environmentalistophobic or Animal-Rightsophobic.

O, what a dog’s breakfast New Labour have bequeathed.

205 Comments:

Blogger Gnostic said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 March 2011 at 10:25  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Damn typos! Third time lucky...

I have a sincere belief that almost every UK politician (both local and central) is a lying, self serving scumbag. I also believe that our judicial system is unfit for purpose. Can I pass the collection plate around please?

10 March 2011 at 10:26  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Ms Gnostic,

You clearly haven't read the post. The belief must be *fervent* and the fervour must be manifest.

10 March 2011 at 10:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Spot on Sir, as usual.

Don't forget the other new religions too.

The church of secular fascism.
The church of AGW.
The church of militant atheism.

There are so many others to list, I do not have enough time.

When men replace Almighty God as their God, what they fail to realise is that the automatically and subtly replace Him with a man made false god of their own making.

All men believe in something.

If you replace God, you can replace Him with anything.

Yours

Enoch Carpenter @ Twitter

10 March 2011 at 10:31  
Blogger DP111 said...

Oh, so the Animals Rights brigade are concerned and up in arms about some foxes and badgers, but all around them Halal slaughter continues.

This inhumane and absolutely cruel method to kill animals in ritualised form is and has been, inimical to the traditions of Europe. The good and decent tradition of not inflicting prolonged pain on animals, is one of the main features of a decent civilised society. Why? Because we show compassion not just those who can speak, but to the defenceless and the speechless.

Halal butchery has now become gargantuan in scale. Our once civilised society has reverted to ritual sacrifice, and is quite literally swimming in an ocean of blood, as animals are slowly bled to death.

How could did this happen when the guardians of animals - Animal Rights, RSPCA, were standing by? Why is the RSPCA, an organisation that is up in arms over a few badgers, is silent while halal slaughter is all around them?

If there is a God, and he judges us, we will be found wanting, for we once were civilised, and knew good from evil.

10 March 2011 at 10:40  
Blogger Simon Sarmiento said...

The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 have been replaced by The Equality Act 2010 Schedule 9.

10 March 2011 at 10:45  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, my belief is most fervently manifest. Have you not been reading my comments for the last two years? ;0)

10 March 2011 at 10:49  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

..Once these laboratories are forcibly shut down, the animal rights activists will turn to the halal and kosher butchers.

I'm surprised that that the animal rightists haven't activated themselves in this matter before now - they would be doing the animals. the planet and us all a big favour.

10 March 2011 at 10:51  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

The barnabasfund through Operation Nehemiah has organised a helal petition. Details here https://barnabasfund.org/UK/Act/Campaign/Operation-Nehemiah/What-is-Operation-Nehemiah/

10 March 2011 at 11:01  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Your Grace, you touch on an issue which has led to my migration to the saner government and legal system to be found now in Germany.

I do not see the Animal Rights activistas succeeding against the practices of Halaal or Kosher slaughter, since both are protected by the legislation against stirring up racial or religious hatred and Islam (Actually the Gnostic Christian heresy of Arianism) will soon be the majority religion in the UK anyway. I hope all those who current denigrate everything Christian enjoy the imposition of Sharia and Dhimmitude.

10 March 2011 at 11:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I hope all those who current denigrate everything Christian enjoy the imposition of Sharia and Dhimmitude."

Nah.

We'll stop these nutters too.

10 March 2011 at 11:17  
Anonymous MrJ said...

This commendably draws attention to certain follies in the lawmaking of our time, or "dogs breakfst". The following remarks are in support (not to detract)

"...what Parliament has set down in statute is for the Courts to interpret; what politicians may have intended is subsumed to what judges decree."

...and what the judges decree is to some (and uncertain) extent now, so they hold, liable to subordinate the painstakingly evolved "Common Law" (Blackstone, Pollock and so on) to the jurisprudence of Strasbourg (Justinian, Napoleon and so on). The notion of ‘philosophical belief’ seems to be derived from republican France, to accomodate the "philosophes" and anti-religionists. Why exclude "Burke, Mill or Marx" if claimed as a basis for fervent ideological activism, sincerely practised?

"The moment the state begins to define ‘religion’, and then attempts to apportion rights and liberties under the guise of an enlightened tolerance of relativist equality..." Could that moment have been on the passing of the Toleration or Relief or Emancipation Acts?

10 March 2011 at 11:31  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld : The Final Solution said...

An Anonymously deluded individual spouted 10 March 2011 11:17

What exactly are you secularists/atheists going to do, not exactly renowned for your own suicide bombers are you.

Get a grip on reality, It Bites!

You are in the smelly too, but as usual, refuse to see the TRUTH.

E S Blofeld

10 March 2011 at 11:38  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Are insecticides and germicides illegal?

Just checking. I feel as if I'm fighting my way through a forest of spiders' webs. Can't avoid unweaving them, and they end up all tangled and sticking to me. Along with the occasional poisonous member of the species...

10 March 2011 at 11:45  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Don't forget the Church of Entitlementism, init.

10 March 2011 at 12:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

The Employment Equality (… or Belief) Regulations 2003:

5 (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person (‘A’) subjects another person (‘B’) to harassment where, on grounds of religion or belief, A engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of –

(a) violating B’s dignity; or
(b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

‘The day is surely coming…’?

It is already here.

Note the low threshold that can trigger an allegation of harassment: ‘… or offensive environment’ (5(1)(b)) that has the ‘effect’ (5(1)) of that which is complained of.

So for example, if I said on the factory floor: ‘Praise the Lord!’ An Atheist could allege harassment.

If I said to an Atheist: ‘Good bye’ that could trigger an allegation of harassment (for ‘Good bye’ means ‘God be with you’).

And don’t bother saying to a Secularist ‘Good luck!’

The madness has begun supported by the full majesty of the law.

10 March 2011 at 12:08  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld : The Final Solution said...

What is Secularist Atheism? It is supposed to be the new 'Truth Based Ideology'. Some say It's as old as man/woman since they rebelled against their Father in heaven.
Nobody believed Secularist Atheism was real.
Nobody ever saw it for the insidious menace it was (just a few concessions was all it asked for), or knew anybody that ever worked directly for it, but to hear it told now, anybody could have worked for Secularism. You never knew it. That was it's power. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. And like that, poof. He's gone. Same with Secularist Atheism..It is not an -Ism. Poof.

Ernst

10 March 2011 at 12:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Simon Sarmiento said... 10 March 2011 10:45


‘The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 have been replaced by The Equality Act 2010 Schedule 9’.

You mean: s.26 Equality Act 2010:

26(1) A person (A) harasses another (B) if –

(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic, and
(b) The conduct has the purpose or effect of –

(i) violating B’s dignity, or
(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B.

The ‘related to’ (26(1)(a)) protects those who do not themselves have the protected characteristic. This captures harassment based on an association or perception of the complainant. For example, ‘My sister is a Secularist (although I am not) and I find it offensive that you have just wished me good luck.’

S.26(5) states the relevant protected characteristics:

Age;
Disability;
Gender reassignment;
Race;
Religion or Belief
Sex; and
Sexual Orientation.

10 March 2011 at 12:37  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

" I hope all those who current denigrate everything Christian enjoy the imposition of Sharia and Dhimmitude."

Nah. When you Christians realise which side your bread is buttered, you'll give up your claims for special privilege and back a secular State for your own long-term protection along with the rest of us.

10 March 2011 at 12:45  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld : The Final Solution said...

A definition of Irony.

What is the difference between forcing a couple to state verbally or in writing they are not willing to promote a homosexual lifestyle to a young child

or

being brought before a court and told to declare publicly the literal changing of the bread into the body of Christ.

Congratulations DanJo, Graham Davis et al. THEY become what they supposedly loathe. Hypocrites!

IRONY?

E S Blofeld

10 March 2011 at 12:52  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

What on earth are you on about now E S Blofeld?

10 March 2011 at 13:31  
Blogger William said...

"Nah. When you Christians realise which side your bread is buttered, you'll give up your claims for special privilege and back a secular State for your own long-term protection along with the rest of us"

Danj0 your teeth are showing. Calm down or you'll give the game away.

10 March 2011 at 14:03  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

You speculate:

‘The day is surely coming when one may surely be prosecuted under the statutory instrument prohibiting incitement to ‘religious hatred’, for being Environmentalistophobic or Animal-Rightsophobic’.

Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as amended by section 39 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 "Religious Group" is defined as
"a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief OR LACK of religious belief." (My emphasis)

The criminal courts are likely to be persuaded by the civil as to which groups should be protected under the ‘religiously aggravated’ provisions.

Further, under the Act you do not need to prove ‘hatred’ (not required). You merely need to show if ‘hostility’ was demonstrated.

10 March 2011 at 14:04  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Wring your hands to your heart’s content, Your Grace, but nothing will change until the old order is swept away. The relativist nonsense of which you write wouldn’t last two minutes under a BNP government.

10 March 2011 at 14:15  
Anonymous srizals said...

DP111 said...
"Oh, so the Animals Rights brigade are concerned and up in arms about some foxes and badgers, but all around them Halal slaughter continues."

Maybe it is because they knew it is the most humane way for an animal to be killed by humans and the safest way for us to consume meat, not forgetting the cheapest way too.

"- Question: Dr. John, if the veins that are in the front part of the neck of the animal are cut, what would happen to that animal?

- Dr. John: Scientifically speaking, when an animal or human has his veins that are found in the front part of the neck cut, he will faint immediately.
To clarify, he said that if someone was strangled, he would suffer extreme dizziness and lack of concentration because it is difficult for the blood to reach the brain, and if the duration of strangling was longer, he will lose sensation and faint."
http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index.php?page=articles&id=161841

10 March 2011 at 14:26  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

William: "Danj0 your teeth are showing. Calm down or you'll give the game away."

What game is that William? That I'm an atheist and a proponent of State secularism? That I'm gay and Christians seem to want special privileges to discriminate in the public sphere regarding that? That I'm a proponent of free speech and a libertarian-oriented liberty and some religious people seem to want a right not to be offended or have their religion criticised? William, I think people already know matey.

10 March 2011 at 14:28  
Anonymous srizals said...

" Question: Does the slaughtered animal feel any pain immediately after having its neck cut?

- Dr. John: Of course not, as it is totally unconscious.

- Question: Then, why does the animal do such spasmodic movements that give the feeling that it is in pain?

- Dr. John: This is because when the veins are cut without breaking the bones of the slaughtered animal’s neck, which is exactly the case in the Islamic way of slaughtering, the brain does not receive blood while the cerebrum is still alive and the neurological system that is at the back part of the neck is still linked to all the systems of the body. Thus, the neurological system sends signals to the heart, the muscles, the intestines and all the cells of the body to send blood to the cerebrum. This makes all the cells, intestines and muscles of the body make spasmodic movements to push the blood to the heart which sends the blood to the brain. However, the blood leaves the animal’s body instead of going to the brain because the veins of the neck are already cut. The neurological system continues to send signals and blood leaves the animal’s body until all the blood flows out. The widespread idea that animals suffer from pain when slaughtered by this method was scientifically proven to be wrong as animals faint and totally lose sensation as soon as the veins are cut.

- Question: Medically speaking, is it better to leave the blood inside the body of the animal or let the blood flow out of the body?

- Dr. John: Blood is one of the most fertile environments where germs grow and it also carries substances that are harmful for the human body. So, if the blood remained in the meat directly after the death of the animal, it will be a fertile environment for germs, in addition to the harmful substances that are present in it."
Ibid.

10 March 2011 at 14:30  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

Gonstic - I think you mean that your belief in manifestly fervent.So, Anonymous, are you saying you'll "stop" the Islamicists? I won't be quite so confident, if I was you ... didn't democratic people in Germany think they'd get rid of the Nazis once the Nazis had got rid of the Communists (or does my memory of Cabaret let me down?)?
And no one seems to have mentioned THE religion of our age, on which hangs all of secularism and materialism: Evolutionism.

10 March 2011 at 14:30  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld : The Final Solution said...

A definition of Irony.

My dear boy, your feigned ignorance of said parallel ill suits you, my lad.

In terms that even You, Graham D and others like you can comprehend!

The New Heresy.

vs

The Old Heresy.

How is Secular Atheism an improvement? All you do is change the words but the outcome ( end of freedom of expression, association and speech) appears to be the same!

Why I stated "Congratulations DanJo, Graham Davis et al. THEY become what they supposedly loathe. Hypocrites!

IRONY?"

E S Blofeld

10 March 2011 at 14:38  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (14:30)—Here is a video of halal-slaughtered animals not feeling any pain immediately after having their necks cut.

10 March 2011 at 14:40  
Blogger srizals said...

Johnny, here's a scientific proof of the halal-slaughtered animals vs Western-style slaughtered animals.

"5. During the experiment, EEG and ECG were recorded on all animals to record the condition of the brain and heart during the course of slaughter and stunning.

Results and Discussion:
I - Halal method
1. The first three seconds from the time of Islamic slaughter as recorded on the EEG did not show any change from the graph before slaughter. This indicates that the animal did not feel any pain during or immediately after the incision.
2. For the following 3 seconds, the EEG recorded a condition of deep sleep - unconsciousness. This is due to a large quantity of blood gushing out from the body.
3. After the above- mentioned 6 seconds, the EEG recorded zero level, showing no feeling of pain at all.
4. As the brain message (EEG) dropped to zero level, the heart was still pounding and the body was convulsing vigorously (a reflex action of the spinal cord) driving the maximum amount of blood from the body: resulting in hygienic meat for the consumer.

II -Western method performed by C.B.P. Stunning
1. The animals were apparently unconscious soon after being stunned.
2. EEG showed severe pain immediately after stunning.
3. The hearts of the animal that was stunned by C.B.P. stopped beating earlier as compared to the animals slaughtered according to the Halal method resulting in the retention of more blood in the meat. This in turn is unhygienic for the consumer."
Ibid.

We do not judge with our eyes only Johnny. We must rely on the scientists that made scientific research from time to time to help us evaluate and re-evaluate our world. Thanks anyway for the link.

10 March 2011 at 14:44  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld : The Final Solution said...

Johnny going over the top 10 March 2011 14:40

Johnny my boy, steady!

Showing the barbaric Halal process in video and directing it towards Srizals is really preaching to the already perverted, is it not.

Ughh

Ernst prefers his meat prepared in the old fashioned manner.
Ernst

10 March 2011 at 14:45  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

E S Blofeld, still not really getting you I'm afraid. I suspect you're using your own special definitions, or perhaps imagining views not actually held, or possibly both.

10 March 2011 at 14:48  
Blogger srizals said...

Ernst, you can't even show consistency in signing your name. That sure shows something now don't it?

10 March 2011 at 14:51  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Blofeld

He wouldn't understand The Great Day by Yeats.

10 March 2011 at 14:55  
Blogger srizals said...

And why do you synonymised your name with 'the final solution'? Are you trying to remind us of something?

10 March 2011 at 14:56  
Blogger srizals said...

Ouch, that hurts D. Singh. Since no Christians ever answered me why they do not uphold the Old Testament anymore when they kept on saying that they had a long Judeo-Christian heritage, may I get a response from you, Mr. D. Singh? And did Jesus come to abrogate the law of Moses?

10 March 2011 at 14:59  
Blogger srizals said...

Johnny, I think your blog has been in the dark for far too long now. Give some colour to it, or is it manifesting something deep down inside your heart, Johnny?

Come Johnny, step into the light. Do not hide in the darkness. You are much better than that.

10 March 2011 at 15:03  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld : The Final Solution said...

My sweet lad in denial blubbed 10 March 2011 14:48

"E S Blofeld, still not really getting you I'm afraid." But old Ernst is getting YOU, my boy.

It R.eally is not very C.andid of you to C.ast accusations in ernst's direction in denying the old vs the new heresy, is it? and your possible
problem in agreeing you have other motives at work here.

Old Ernst does not mind you trying to pull the wool over his peepers but hopes you don't mind that HE KNOWS you are.

""Danj0 your teeth are showing. Calm down or you'll give the game away."" INDEED!

E S Blofeld

10 March 2011 at 15:04  
Blogger William said...

What game is that William? That I'm an atheist and a proponent of State secularism?

Your proposal is to ban all religions from the public sphere. This used to be called fascism/socialism, but is now called State secularism. This is the game.

That I'm gay and Christians seem to want special privileges to discriminate in the public sphere regarding that? That I'm a proponent of free speech and a libertarian-oriented liberty ...

If you are really a proponent of free speech then you will have no problem with Christians discriminating against homosexuals in the public sphere. Otherwise your "libertarian-oriented liberty" is a sham.

...and some religious people seem to want a right not to be offended or have their religion criticised?

Not on this blog they don't. Perhaps you are imagining views not actually held?

William, I think people already know matey.

If they didn't then they do now.

10 March 2011 at 15:07  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld : The Final Solution said...

Funny moustached foreign icon chappie 10 March 2011 14:51

You are mere 007 extra's film fodder, which in your case has an expiry time of approx 2 minutes and unworthy of my wit and intellect.

Know your place in the food chain, there's a fine 'Peace Loving' jolly foreign chappie.

E S Blofeld

10 March 2011 at 15:09  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (15:03)—Videos are best watched against a dark background. Apologies for clogging up your august thread with trivialities, Your Grace.

10 March 2011 at 15:10  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld : The Final Solution said...

D Singh wisely said 10 March 2011 14:55

My dear fellow, the lad is positively barbarian and loves it.

Fondest regards

Ernst

10 March 2011 at 15:12  
Blogger srizals said...

Mr. D. Singh, maybe he's referring to what's happening in Egypt? How a change isn't really a change at all?

Glad you brought it to my attention, thanks.

Hurrah for revolution and more cannon-shot!
A beggar upon horseback lashes a beggar on foot.
Hurrah for revolution and cannon come again!
The beggars have changed places, but the lash goes on.

Am I right?

10 March 2011 at 15:16  
Blogger D. Singh said...

srizals it is written:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished”.

10 March 2011 at 15:20  
Blogger srizals said...

Ernst, thank you for your 2 minute for me. Hope you're comfortable in your arrogant shield from reality, daddy got to go and play with mummy.

10 March 2011 at 15:21  
Blogger srizals said...

Mr. D Singh,

Most Christians drink, eat swine, indulge themselves with adultery and do not uphold the law of God. Why?

10 March 2011 at 15:23  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Do not confuse race with religion: or you risk being described as a racist.

10 March 2011 at 15:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'drink, eat swine, indulge themselves with adultery and do not uphold the law of God'

And we Judaeo-Christians drink the blood of Christ and eat His flesh.

What now srizals?

10 March 2011 at 15:35  
Blogger srizals said...

That is not an answer, D Singh. It is a smokescreen. Why do you say I'm confused? Are you saying that eating swine, free sex and drinking were not culturally endorsed by Christians but were practised by White Westerners? Then what is Geert Wilders defending?

10 March 2011 at 15:36  
Blogger srizals said...

What now? I don't know, I'm just a mindless barbarian, ask Ernst, he's the one with witty wits and intellect.

10 March 2011 at 15:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

You cannot see the answer. The 'answer' you 'Arabists' see is that white+Western = Christian.

10 March 2011 at 15:38  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

William: "Your proposal is to ban all religions from the public sphere. This used to be called fascism/socialism, but is now called State secularism. This is the game."

No. I have stated many times that I support Article 9 of the HRA. I just don't think religion should be part of the State. On a very bad day, I'm tempted by the idea of religion being just something between consenting adults in private but, well, my liberalism reasserts itself.

I love the fact that my local city celebrates the Diwali festival with huge street lights, I love the Christmas decorations and activities in the city centre every year, I happily celebrate Eid when invited by Muslim friends and would be happy for something more public.

I suppose, like ES Blofeld, it's easier to create a fake monster and try to slay it with a flourish instead of actual understanding what all the nuances and differences mean.

"If you are really a proponent of free speech then you will have no problem with Christians discriminating against homosexuals in the public sphere. Otherwise your "libertarian-oriented liberty" is a sham."

William, tough concept to grasp I suppose, but denying goods and services to gay people because they are gay when their sexual orientation ought to be irrelevant is not the same as 'free speech'. I suppose it all gets mixed up in your mind. When you sort it all out, feel free to get back to me.

"Not on this blog they don't. Perhaps you are imagining views not actually held?"

William, the Danish cartoons, the Satanic Verses, the Sikh play in Birmingham, the Atheist Bus Campaign, the Census Campaign adverts, Jerry Springer The Opera, The Life of Brian [...] all very well-known and very much in the public domain. Of course, there's loads of stuff in the private space but that should suffice to back my previous words. Hope this helps.

10 March 2011 at 15:42  
Blogger srizals said...

Nope, I'm not an Arab. Come on, that is not an answer, tell me whether Christians were allowed or not to consume swine, alcohol and illegal sex, that is all that I'm asking you.

10 March 2011 at 15:43  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

I blame Walt Disney and co for much of our modern day confusion, especially with regards to supposed animal rights.

If human rights are extended to be the same as animal rights, then human rights no longer exist, or in reality become animal rights.

Which by extension gives the state the right to treat human beings as animals. Which, to an ever greater extent is exactly what the state does anyway, and has been doing for a very long time. Therefore it could be argued that we have little to fear, that we should not already have been very fearful of.

At the top, the powers that be,( ie close friends and associates of people such as Walt Disney) human life is cheep, in fact so very cheep, that it has no intrinsic value whatsoever, other then the profit that can be generated from it.

No profit, therefore no useful life, or at least no kind of usefulness to the powers that be.

The powers that be care about only 2 things. Looking after THEIR planet or FARM, using whatever methods that come to hand, while making sure human DNA is somehow perpetuated into the future, so that it can be more perfected.

This is their job, their reason for being, ours is to act as their mindless slaves, cannon or factory fodder.

If we are good little boys and girls, we may get to stay in a warm safe office somewhere, pointlessly moving pieces of paper around our respectively work spaces.

Depressing?

Well, sorry the truth just is, it's not my fault, I did not make the truth the truth; I am simply a messenger; therefore try your best not to shoot me.

If you do not real like an animal, this is because YOU ARN'T. Human being are almost infinitely more then just animals. However this FACT will not in anyway stop your owners from doing their upmost, over any time scale needed to utterly convince you that you, and your children are one of the lowest forms of creation imaginable, and therefore totally deserving of the incredibly nasty things they have so carefully planed on giving you.

10 March 2011 at 15:45  
Blogger srizals said...

Yes, atlas shrugged, the female cartoon characters are getting more and more intimidating than they were before. How I missed the day of the sheepish lion, Lambert and all.

10 March 2011 at 15:49  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Also, William, our D Singh here and that Spoon bloke expected me to avoid offending them over Jesus pretty recently. It was like them insulting my wife, one of them said, if I recall correctly. An odd thing to say, given my orientation but hey. Not really wanting a right not to be offended at this point, I accept, but given an inch ...

10 March 2011 at 15:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

SIZRALS SAID:- 'I'm just a mindless barbarian...'

Atlast...the penny's dropped. Nuff said.

10 March 2011 at 15:53  
Blogger Cheese Messiah said...

What seems likely is this law will not only create the cacophony of competing 'religions' that your Grace notes but will positively promote the more extreme elements within them. That the touchstone for a religious faith can only be defined as 'fervour' can only breed a new generation of fanatics.
We will all be very sorry that this ill-conceived law was introduced.

10 March 2011 at 15:54  
Blogger srizals said...

DNA?

In order to come out with a master race, we must start a new international law that only allows a race to marry another race once only and their children must not marry the same race as their parents. Eventually, the final product would be a true master race that has the qualities of all races in the world. Hopefully the defect DNA qualities such as Ernst would not have survived and died out eventually.

10 March 2011 at 15:57  
Blogger srizals said...

"SIZRALS" SAID:-

Glad it wasn't me, Mr. Anonymously annoying, =)

10 March 2011 at 16:01  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld : The Final Solution said...

Our resident funny moustached foreign icon chappie spoked in the 'comment what he wrote' 10 March 2011 15:38

"What now? I don't know, I'm just a mindless barbarian, ask Ernst, he's the one with witty wits and intellect."

You are on your own, my boy, Ernst will not assist!

A witty wit barb?

E S Blofeld

10 March 2011 at 16:01  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esGqizRDo6w&tracker=False

This is where its all leading.

10 March 2011 at 16:03  
Blogger srizals said...

My, thank you for your extra time, Ernst.

10 March 2011 at 16:04  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

"...D Singh here and that Spoon bloke expected me to avoid offending them over Jesus pretty recently..."

I seem to recall asking you, DanJ0, to stop offending D Singh due to his perfectly polite request asking you to do so. It also came surrounding some accusations from you about the type of speech found on this website. I have seen more, what you would call, 'hate-speech', intolerance and bigotry on Pink News, muslim, and militant atheist websites than I have ever read here.

10 March 2011 at 16:07  
Blogger srizals said...

You have an oversized head, Mr. Spoon. YOu have my sympathy.

Were the English that noisy, Bred in the bone?

10 March 2011 at 16:10  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

Yes indeed Swizzels, but it comes in handy when giving out the Glaswegian Kiss.

10 March 2011 at 16:13  
Blogger William said...

"Also, William, our D Singh here and that Spoon bloke expected me to avoid offending them over Jesus pretty recently. It was like them insulting my wife, one of them said, if I recall correctly. An odd thing to say, given my orientation but hey.

Also ???

DanJ0. The allusion was why you would want to attack someone's beloved spouse. It's a very good question. You and I both know it's about revenge, but that's another story.

Not really wanting a right not to be offended at this point I accept,

exactly

but given an inch ..."

and they take a mile? Thanks for the homily.

10 March 2011 at 16:14  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld : The Final Solution said...

Our resident funny moustached foreign icon chappie spoked in the 'comment what he wrote' 10 March 2011 16:10

My dear boy, when somebody has a smiling death mask (in anticipation of all those virgins awaiting your arrival perhaps..ooh, your poor wife, bless) as a moniker, it takes some bleeding nerve to challenge somebody else.

Pot-Kettle?

E S Blofeld

10 March 2011 at 16:15  
Blogger srizals said...

Ernst, a sincere advice from me, sign your name in a consistent manner. People believe in consistency. You sure are lacking of it. Another extra time for me? Now I'm blushing.

10 March 2011 at 16:20  
Blogger srizals said...

LeucipottomySpoon82, do a lobotomy, I heard it helps.

See, LobotomySpoon82, that way people could remember you easier, if they would.

10 March 2011 at 16:26  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

I already had one Swizzels. Meeting you undid all the doctors hard work.
Still, unlike you I do have at least half a brain,

10 March 2011 at 16:32  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer in the words of Henry Higgins you have finally got it!!!!!!

....there is no logical end to the official recognition of all manner of weird cults, strange sects, spurious beliefs and pseudo-religions, all of which have to be equal under the law....

Correct! Your beliefs and of those here deserve no more and no less merit than any other. Some believe in the “sanctity” of the environment or animals or the trappings of Christian religion. So to the rational mind (and public policy) all must be subjected to rational scrutiny so as to separate the reasoned wheat from the nutcase chaff.

Despite your protestations your beliefs have no more merit than that of any other supernatural and magical beliefs. However other “beliefs” like environmentalism for example which is based on evidence that humankind has intervened in the earth’s natural processes and has resulted in at least some negative consequences, are deserving of greater merit and therefore respect.

So don’t expect any special status or respect for your own beliefs. They are the result of superstition and wishful thinking when subjected to the harsh light of reason they are shown to be nothing more than an absurd fantasy.

10 March 2011 at 16:32  
Anonymous MrJ said...

FYI_Insularity?: It may be that "srizals" has concerns connected with historic and current relations between the peoples of Indonesia and environs and the peoples of Europe and the offshoots of the American and Pacific regions, which could be as worth attention in another forum as the concerns which preoccupy most commentators here? But current news about UK arms exports may give many here discomfort.

10 March 2011 at 16:34  
Blogger srizals said...

Pardon me your grace, playing with kids do cheer up one soul from time to time in our crazy world, good night gents, I'll sleep smiling tonight.

10 March 2011 at 16:34  
Blogger srizals said...

So be a good guy and get the girl, Lobotomyspoon82, see, I done it without even copying your name.

10 March 2011 at 16:38  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

And a good night to you too Swivels. Hang on...arghhhh! You're almost starting to sound reasonable. One of us needs our medication.

10 March 2011 at 16:43  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"Also ???

DanJ0. The allusion was why you would want to attack someone's beloved spouse. It's a very good question. You and I both know it's about revenge, but that's another story."

Also, as in to the message which didn't arrive (I think blogger may have a defect) or was deleted. I shall rewrite and see what happens.

William, it's amazing what you religious people manage to get into your head. Revenge? William, as far as I am concerned the idea of Jesus as a god is a myth or fable. That is what it means to be an atheist.

You have seen the effect the Danish cartoons had on Muslims around the world. They made the same comparison about wives yet this is one of the most anti-Muslim sites I have ever been on as far as comments are concerned. Criticising the religion, and the behaviour of its adherents, is part of the process of debate.

As far as I am concerned Mohammed was not in contact with Allah to create the Qur'an in Allah's exact words, and Jesus was not a crucified god. You may feel strongly about one of those and not care a hoot about the other. I'm the same in the last respect, only for both.

10 March 2011 at 16:44  
Blogger srizals said...

Half a brain or half an empty head, lobotomyspoon82? It depends on how you see it.

10 March 2011 at 16:44  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

I thought you were going to bed.

10 March 2011 at 16:46  
Blogger srizals said...

DanJO, we'll continue next time. I really ought to sleep now.

10 March 2011 at 16:47  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

William: "Your proposal is to ban all religions from the public sphere. This used to be called fascism/socialism, but is now called State secularism. This is the game."

William, I have said many times here that I support Article 9 of the HRA. I don't want to ban all religions from the public sphere (depending on what you mean by that), I just want to remove religion from the State. On bad days, I am tempted by the idea of confining religion to consenting adults in private but then my liberalism reasserts itself.

"If you are really a proponent of free speech then you will have no problem with Christians discriminating against homosexuals in the public sphere. Otherwise your "libertarian-oriented liberty" is a sham."

William, refusing to supply goods and services to gay people simply because they are gay when sexual orientation is not relevant is not the same as 'free speech'. One is, well, about speech and one is, well, about behaviour. It's a tough distinction to recognise, right? When you clear it up in your mind then get back to me.

"Not on this blog they don't. Perhaps you are imagining views not actually held?"

William, the Danish Cartoons, the Satanic Verses, the Atheist Bus Campaign, the Sikh play in Birmingham, Jerry Springer The Opera, the Census Campaign, the Life of Brian [...] all well-known things in the public domain which the religious tried to suppress.

In the private sphere, there are numerous things but much harder to show here. All show the truth of my previous words. Hope this helps.

10 March 2011 at 16:54  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

On reflection that was actually a brilliant idea!

10 March 2011 at 16:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If one is in doubt whether these odd verdicts are just restricted to the UK, they are clearly not. A German Christian couple have been sentenced to jail. For their story, see

http://christianconcern.com/our-concerns/religious-freedom/christian-german-couple-jailed-after-withdrawing-children-from-sex-ed

10 March 2011 at 17:09  
Blogger William said...

Anonymous at 17:09

Viva the Secularist State! Danj0 would be proud.

10 March 2011 at 17:21  
Anonymous Oswin said...

This is what comes from too close an association with beastly foreigners: 'isms, 'ologies and so-called 'experts'... we have forgotten that to be termed an 'intellectual' was once a great insult.

Anything that fails to sit well alongside a pint of beer and a roast-beef sandwich should rightly be regarded with scepticism.

Srizals @ all over: your 'halal' promotion will likely be the end of Islam within Britain. Never mind the 'animal rights' loonies, you risk offending the blue-rinse brigade, the W.I and all manner of animal lovers, poodle-parlour matriarchs and newt-fanciers alike.

Any religion that sneers upon the 'Empress of Blandings' whilst simultaneously advocating mass throat-hacking will surely end in tears.

I say again, beastly, beastly foreigners!

10 March 2011 at 17:35  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (15:57)—Hopefully the defect DNA qualities such as Ernst would not have survived and died out eventually.

As we’re on the subject of defective DNA: ‘Massive inbreeding within the Muslim culture during the last 1400 years may have done catastrophic damage to their gene pool. The consequences of intermarriage between first cousins often have serious impact on the offspring’s intelligence, sanity, health and on their surroundings.’

10 March 2011 at 17:39  
Anonymous Oswin said...

L'Spoon @ 16:32:

Tee hee!

Don't, however, be too hard upon old Srizals, it's not his fault being born 'other' than British ... it burns, it cuts, it sears. Why would it not; it is a burden few handle with grace. Either at one's bally feet, or else at one's throat; it has always been thus...

10 March 2011 at 17:48  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Johnny Rottenborough @ 17:39

I strongly suspect that the 'gene pool' must have been a tad suspect from the onset ... to fall for such 'guff' must indicate a certain weakness inherent within the old grey matter. Oh sorry, I forgot, it was by murder and coercion, advocated at source, that Islam prospered.

10 March 2011 at 17:59  
Blogger peggy38 said...

I have had this idea for some time that moral relativism would lead to the balkanization of society to the point where no group would even be able to communicate with any other group. The result is a fractured society full of people talking past one another and getting angrier with the other all the time.

In other words, not everyone can have their own way all the time. Only chaos can result from such an expectation.

There is something to be said for one or another thing to be priviledged whether that is the Church of England or the English language. In recent times, English Christian culture had proven itself a gentle overlord which shows that it can be done without unduly restricting the most basic rights of others.

A coherant society also must have everyone on the same page, using the same definitions for the same words, agreeing on some core basic values. In a healthy and cohesive society every one must bend down to one ultimate authority when the chips are down.

The alternative is a society destroyed by violence in which anarchy prevails. Sad to say that if the trend is not stopped, this is where our Western democracies are headed at a rapid pace.

10 March 2011 at 18:06  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"Viva the Secularist State! Danj0 would be proud."

William, I'm here myself. I haven't employed you to imagine what you think I want and speak on my behalf.

10 March 2011 at 18:13  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"Viva the Secularist State! Danj0 would be proud."

William, I'm here myself. I haven't employed you to imagine what you think I want and speak on my behalf.

10 March 2011 at 18:14  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Well, two of those and two deleted so far by the look of it. William, you appear to have a Guardian Angel offering you special protection from criticism.

10 March 2011 at 18:22  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Oswin (17:59)—I dare say it was the knowledge that Allah gave his full blessing to murder and coercion, not to mention the serious nooky provided by four wives and as many slave girls as a man could keep, that made Islam such an attractive religion to the first Muslim men. Even the most cerebrally challenged Arab would have responded positively to guilt-free mayhem and endless totty.

10 March 2011 at 18:25  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Or Guardian Cookies.

Off topic ... but does anyone else get bounced occasionally when posting as though the blogger site can't cope with multiple updates at once? Is this what messes up cookies or whatever is happening here?

10 March 2011 at 18:29  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (18:29)—Blogger has been a little creaky since they improved the template. If posts disappear, or do not appear at all, try emptying your cache and/or clearing your cookies. The cookies may be the best bet.

10 March 2011 at 18:36  
Blogger William said...

I see. So you are allowed to make assumptions about what other posters on this blog want, but I am not allowed to make assumptions about you. I am beginning to see how your Secular State is going to work. But please feel free to comment on the fact that another set of parents are being prevented to bring up children because of their Christian beliefs. In fact they have been jailed.

10 March 2011 at 18:37  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Ah Johhny, but what is mayhem and endless totty without that certain piquancy that a frisson of guilt imparts!

Islam is shockingly bereft of anything 'naughty but nice' ... I mean, what can you do with a so-called religion that thinks that a pint of good, draught ale IS a sin?!?!?

10 March 2011 at 18:43  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"Blogger has been a little creaky since they improved the template. If posts disappear, or do not appear at all, try emptying your cache and/or clearing your cookies. The cookies may be the best bet."

Thanks. I did that just before the post about the Guardian Cookies and the posts appeared.

10 March 2011 at 18:49  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"I am beginning to see how your Secular State is going to work."

The secular State is going to work by treat all religions the same and not including religious belief in the workings of the State itself. That is, it will be a-religious if I have my way. Both parts of Article 9 will remain. Other than that, I don't see that much changing really. We're almost secular now anyway.

10 March 2011 at 18:55  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Three more religions: child protection, health & safety, and anti-smoking.

10 March 2011 at 18:56  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

Yes indeed Oswin, and the legacy (amongst many others) that every slave who sets foot on English soil becomes free. Although Non Mouse, through something mentioned, reminded me of the final lines of Beowulf, and I sometimes feel that substitution of the name Beowulf with the name England might sadly be appropriate these days.

10 March 2011 at 18:56  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"But please feel free to comment on the fact that another set of parents are being prevented to bring up children because of their Christian beliefs. In fact they have been jailed."

You already know exactly what I think even before I do it seems and want to tell people. As it happens, Lord Falconer gave an example like this on R4 this morning. Not that I particularly rate Falconer, you understand.

The education system is provided or regulated by the State for a number of reasons, one of which is to socialise young members of society and prepare them for work.

In theory, I don't see the problem with withdrawing kids as a matter of principle from lessons about sex education. Withdrawing them from (say) biology lessons about evolution is a different matter, I'd say.

However, if it's against the law then you take the legal consequences if you do it. If you refuse to take the fine then you go to jail by the look of it. They can hardly complain really.

There's a quote in the article which is interesting: "Parents, not the government, are the ones ultimately responsible for making educational choices for their children [...]" I'm not sure I agree with that.

10 March 2011 at 19:07  
Blogger peggy38 said...

To the person who is claiming that halal slaughter is the more humane way.

I researched the different types of slaughter not too long ago. The ONLY places that I found support for halal slaughter was on Islamic websites. I couldn't find a single scientific peer reviewed paper that supported such claims. Just because a bunch of Muslims go through the motions of writing a paper claiming that EEG proved something does not mean that those results were replicated by anyone else in an objective manner. You can go through the motions of science and not be truly scientific. Unfortunately a lot of gullible people do not know the difference.

On the other hand, a well known animal welfare specialist, named Temple Grandin did some research on the different methods. Ms Grandin is a high functioning autistic woman who has no religious belief, no axe to grind. She is not an animal rights activist. She is someone who simply cares about making animal care and slaughter as humane as possible. She is recognized for her objectivity and expertise and many of her recommendations have been implemented all over the world.

Dr. Grandin determined that the best and most painless method was stunning the animal first. She also determined that the characteristics of the blade used for Kosher slaughter as prescribed in the text of the Old Testament was less painful and more humane for animals. She determined that the shape of the blade used in halal slaugher caused MORE pain for the animals then shape of the one used for kosher slaughter.

Until the entire scientific community contradicts her and supports halal instead through the process of peer review, I will continue to believe her over some Islamic site that has a high level of interest in proving the value Islamic practice.

To the rest of the commenters, sorry for getting off topic.

10 March 2011 at 19:08  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

I'm trying to find out more about the case but it seems to be all over the Christian network and not much else. Would I be right in thinking part of the education classes in the story is about inappropriate sexual contact from adults and how to be assertive as a child and tell someone if you are not happy with (say) the overly touchy-feely 'uncle'? That sounds quite useful to me.

10 March 2011 at 19:31  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Noticed this earlier:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/mar/10/taxi-drivers-say-dress-code-racist

10 March 2011 at 19:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is meant in the early post by the Church of Secular Fascism? Political Correctness or actual Fascism? The latter is not welcomed by the State.

10 March 2011 at 19:51  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Your Grace, it seems the law has become self-cancelling. The implications are horrific, there is now a licence for human sacrifice and cannibalism.

That is the real consequence of Harriet's equality. Not even the Muslims would applaud this outcome,but an Atheist could.

10 March 2011 at 19:57  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

'O, what a dog’s breakfast New Labour have bequeathed.'

I suppose your mate Dave is going to sort it all out now though, isn't he?

10 March 2011 at 20:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.[

10 March 2011 at 20:08  
Anonymous Anon 2 said...

Well said Peggy 38. Through the Ten Commandments, Judaeo-Christianity defines:

i) One Authority - whom no earthly potentate can outguess, outjudge, etc... :)

ii) A set of core values that encourage the least distress for the greater number of individuals.

That is why they work when yoked with just government. And progress is possible, if only because education under those principles lets us learn how much we don't know.

Now, in their place we have the "dogs breakfast" under the commands of --- Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you --- DANJO, GD, SIZZLES, et AL!!!!!

10 March 2011 at 20:32  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

srizals said..."Were the English that noisy, Bred in the bone?"

It does rather teeter on the edge of mob rule instead of keeping the peace. Looses the Tradition of a Wapentake warrior caste somewhat, who I would have imagined having a little more decorum.

10 March 2011 at 20:43  
Anonymous Anon 2 said...

Yes, Arnold had that right, Anonymous! Agreed, this 10th of March, 2011!


To wit - my previous post:
The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd.

Fortunately His Grace's blog preserves us from impending of hopelessness:
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind,
down the vast edges drear[15]
And naked shingles of the world.

10 March 2011 at 20:47  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

srizals said...
tell me whether Christians were allowed or not to consume swine, alcohol and illegal sex ...



Yes, yes and no.

Next question?

10 March 2011 at 21:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, Anon 2. Arnold's words do
seem sadly apt for the West.
Happily, they do not apply to the whole World and the Gospel has passed successfully beyond the burned-out shell of Christendom.

10 March 2011 at 22:07  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I have had a mull over this post and couldnt quite work into todays thoughts , other than your grace may be describing entropy .Mr old holborn has an interesting post on affairs at bexley. To govern is to choose , however we now have some difficult problems , as we perhaps do not have democracy but nudge theory , in which the basis of democracy has been given to a tree of law , which is getting more remote from the people , both in substance and delivery.
christians themselves are subject to this .
This post perhaps brings a little despair as we both seem to have lost people and democracy and are looking retro at what we used to have , which was more easy to understand . Like the euro , a cultural democracy currency is being forced upon varied and natural models of living. perhaps we no longer own our lives in more subtle ways , the reason for distaste is not somthing individuals are now supposed to have , which is different form being keeper/vessel of gods spirit . I cannot quite adequately describe if we are in some sort of fabian nightmmare or liberal injunction , but I am fairly sure it isnt democracy as I once understood it , which may be as direct result of the church being downgraded under the socialist nudgeboot .

10 March 2011 at 22:09  
Blogger William said...

Danj0 said

"The secular State is going to work by treat (sic) all religions the same and not including religious belief in the workings of the State itself. That is, it will be a-religious if I have my way. Both parts of Article 9 will remain. Other than that, I don't see that much changing really. We're almost secular now anyway."

I'm not sure you have thought this through Danj0. The point of the post is that more and more beliefs are being classed as religious beliefs. Even your non-belief is classed as a religious belief (see below). Your a-religious state will be based on nothing at all.

Courtesy of D. Singh:

Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 as amended by section 39 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 "Religious Group" is defined as
"a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief OR LACK of religious belief."

10 March 2011 at 23:04  
Anonymous Sean Baggaley said...

"Why should atheists not enjoy the same protection?"

What kind of atheists? Not all religions are theist, as you well know.

I guarantee that there plenty of intolerant theists who certainly would be offended by prayers to one of the Christian pantheon*.

What's happening now is the result of repeated attempts by certain organised religions to explain the increasingly obvious flaws in their creation myths and sacred texts:

Humans don't tend to worship deities as such; they worship stories about deities. You can see the same effect in the US, where that nation's Bill of Rights and Constitution are venerated by many at a level easily on a par with any of the Abrahamic religions' various sacred writings. The true "god" of the USA goes by the name of "Inalienable Rights". It could be argued that this is the latest in the successful line of Abrahamic® religions.

Once logical flaws and other problems in these texts become too large to ignore—e.g. the "God created Earth in 4004 BC, shortly before teatime." cliché—people began questioning the very foundations of their religions. The religious leaders then had to change their ages-old policies, redefining what was once Gospel Truth to... "well, it's clearly not meant to be taken literally! It's allegorical! Yeah, that'll work!"

Once you start down that road, the devaluation of those core tenets and axioms was inevitable. By trying to make religions fit the observable facts and the results of scientific experimentation, religions also devalued themselves.

This is a shame, as religion—or, more accurately, faith—serves a very useful function: that of providing the necessary foundations upon which believers can build their mental models. Those models define how we humans act and react to our environment, to our social groups, to strangers, and, indeed, to everything else. The stronger those foundations, the stronger the models we build upon them. But if we realise those foundations are crumbling and unsafe, everything we've built on them—all that time, effort and energy we've invested in building the very building blocks of our very selves—is wasted. We have to tear it all down and start over. (As we get older, our own models tend to be much more complex and interrelated compared to those of our younger, more naïve selves, so it's no accident that older people are therefore more resistant to change.)

Yet faith is inevitable when laying down those early foundations. We all have to start with basic axioms accepted on faith, such as "I think, therefore I am." Science can only cement our base of abstract, unprovable, philosophy, but it cannot prove those axiomatic starting points. For that, we have to take a leap of faith, accepting those axioms as Gospel Truth.

We may be seeing the beginning of the end for organised religions as we know them, but that does not mean the end of faith itself.

Anyway, I'm sure I had a point to make, but my painkillers are wearing off, so I'll stop here.



* (Oh yes they do: Go visit Italy sometime. You'll see a bloody sight more evidence for their worshiping of Jesus' mother, Mary, than for their supposed one true god. And the less said about all those saints, the better.)

11 March 2011 at 00:44  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I part agree with A Niels analysis on libya , except we seem to have forgotten his PR while he bristled problems in other states . we wisely tried the soft options , tonights statement from saif is more luck than judgement for he had to move as vital supplies were in danger of being lost , av gas anyone . I would try a few more attempts at defections , then get new leader and UN to meet , if arab league accpt imperative and different nature to Iraq (there lack has as much blood on hands as Un in any delay) . My basic point if the current situation cannot go on ,and a stalemate is of no use then by all means offer peacable surrender but reduce his front line attack , it will at least limit civilian casualties until his forces begin to have to make more certain decisons about there future and defect .
defection is your best weapon , as i get the feeling they will know how vulnerable they are to a war , the unreason of gaddafi not leaving , will be apparent to them , he is nothing if his army wants change and they have the comms systems to send that down the line . even a civil war standoff without supplies means his army will have to come to terms , in that sense his army faces the unplatable choice of loss/surrender later on , as any siege means what few resources will go to army and tripoli will turn into nightmare for him .
free libyan solutions to there own problems , but now the heavy armour has started , the free libyans positions must be held and supplied , would seem to me to be the best way of limiting casualties whilst gaddafis own errors slowly turn on him in the bunker .If the arab position changes to one of ending his rule agin i would ask them to try and get defections pointing out surgical strikes are on there way.
everyother option to me seems high casualty for the libyans , which no one wants , we just want him to go .

11 March 2011 at 01:22  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

William: "I'm not sure you have thought this through Danj0. The point of the post is that more and more beliefs are being classed as religious beliefs. Even your non-belief is classed as a religious belief (see below). Your a-religious state will be based on nothing at all."

William, I'm not an apologist for the whole of the law as it stands. In fact I think there needs to be some tidying up to repair what I see as the damage done by Parliament under the presidential-style executive of T Blair.

However, in the particular example you point to, you need to recognise the context as it appears to me from what you've written that you're generalising from the specific there.

The 'hate crime' area of law is about aggravating factors. So, if someone is beaten up for money then it's some sort of assualt. The victim was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

For racial aggravation, if the victim is white then and he is set upon by a group of Pakistanis who prior to the attack follow him shouting racial abuse then that aggravating factor will probably up the sentence to show society's particular disapprobation of racism and it potential for social unrest in our ethnically diverse society.

Similarly with religious aggravation. If one group is beating up people in turbans for being Sikh or people wearing crucifixes for being Christian then this is an aggravating factor.

Similarly with sexual orientation or disability. The small group who killed the gay man a couple of years ago by stamping on his head simply for holding hands with another man fall into this category. Assault for this reason is depressingly common as it happens.

So, the piece of law you quote attempts to define 'religious group' for the purposes of this particular law regarding aggravating factors. That is, if some beats up someone for looking fat and bald and smiley whilst shouting abuse about nirvana then it's religiously aggravated.

Similarly, if someone beats up Richard Dawkins for being a very successful author and a critic of religion whilst shouting "militant atheist scum" then, ironically, it's religiously aggravated.

To me, it's about the relationship between the criminal and the victim and how society, through the law, views the type of crime. That is, it's not just about the victim. In these laws, there are certain categories to which the law pays particular attention given the current nature of our society. In an ideal world, they shouldn't be there.

As it happens, I personally wish they were not there and sentencing guidelines used to capture the individual circumstances of the case. The fact of those clauses in the law tends to lead to 'mission creep' in my mind, trying to cross Ts and dot Is.

Having a secular State doesn't necessarily mean that this will be better or worse. For the most part, it just removes privilege from one particular religion over another by removing that religion from the machinery of the State, and puts the law over all of them so that the justifications for the law are demonstrably a-religious.

As far as a-theism is concerned. the secular State is a-theist in as much as theism is not an integral part of it. It is not saying, however, that the universe is based on materialism, or assessing the nature of particular gods in a comparative religion stylee, or writing off the possibility of god or gods in the law.

Perhaps that last paragraph addresses in some way E S Blofeld's comment some way back. I confess I lacked the patience, as I often do, to probe and sift back there to get to the actual argument.

11 March 2011 at 04:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Vanity of Vanities; All is Vanity," Saith the Preacher.

11 March 2011 at 04:35  
Blogger Gnostic said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 March 2011 at 06:16  
Blogger Gnostic said...

srizals - perhaps you would like to comment upon and defend the inhumane treatment visted upon Egyptian Copts by thousands of adherents of the Religion of Peace.

Or is it a case that eaters of swine aren't considered human so are treated worse than animals?

11 March 2011 at 06:18  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.

11 March 2011 at 07:04  
Anonymous len said...

This whole situation has become farcical. A 'dogs breakfast' hardly does it justice.
What we need is someone who 'sits outside the situation 'to give us guidelines to restrain the evil inherent in man until redemption comes?

Oh sorry we already did that one didn`t we.!

What we need (as we are in the process of rejecting God`s system )is a system devised by man which will constantly legislate(unfairly) to try and stop one section of society trampling the Human Rights of another.
But what happens in reality is whoever can manipulate the Legislature most successfully will be able to block the Human rights of the other!
Some System!

11 March 2011 at 07:40  
Anonymous len said...

Do you know the ultimate purpose of God's law? Jesus Christ defined the purpose of God's law as teaching us how to apply the two great principles of loving God and loving each other. He made this clear when someone asked Him, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" How did Jesus respond? "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets'" (Matthew 22:35-40).

11 March 2011 at 07:45  
Anonymous len said...

When we depart from God`s Law we descend into chaos.
As is becoming increasingly apparent!

11 March 2011 at 07:46  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

I don't see much of the second commandment around here, especially for Muslim neighbours.

11 March 2011 at 08:21  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

Remove the plank from your own eye before you start criticising others.

11 March 2011 at 08:27  
Blogger William said...

Danj0 @ 04:25 (early bird catches the worm)

So long story short you have ruled out the Crime and Security Act 2001 definition of what constitutes a religious belief. But the problem remains how do you determine what is a religious belief so that you can exclude it from the state apparatus? Is there any other piece of legislation you could use? If not perhaps you could define what is a religious belief. Ah, but some people (not realising what an equitable chap you are) might find that a tad dictatorial. Perhaps we could setup a committee of non-religious people who could determine religious beliefs from non-religious ones. No that won't do, if you can't define a non-religious belief then you can't define a non religious person - catch 22.

As an aside, I presume that the Christian belief that we should pay our taxes would be excluded from the state apparatus. No, secularists probably believe that themselves. Oh but secularism might be a religious belief iteslf! It's all so complicated.

11 March 2011 at 08:41  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps these so called animal rights activists might make a stand against the inhumane slaughter of animals that have not been stunned and have taken a minute or two to die after having their throats cut.

They could start by demanding that there be a legal requirement to inform the public through labelling etc. whether we are buying, or are being fed, ritually slaughtered meat by supermarkets, butchers, restaurants, schools and hospitals.

In the mean time I suggest everyone switch to pork or buy their meat from the local farm shop.

11 March 2011 at 09:17  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

William, I know my reply was quite long but I'm not sure you have the gist of it from what you've written. You seem to be forcing the principle of secularism onto the foundations of the laws New Labour brought in and using flaws in those laws to claim secularism itself is flawed. If so then is that a valid thing to do?

If I have the measure of it, the argument is that the liberal principles on which our society is based, such as maximising freedom and minimising harm between individuals, are part of a belief system themselves. If there is a principle that all belief systems are equal then raising this one over the competing belief systems of (say) Christianity and Islam is not possible while adhering to that principle. Well, I am inclined to agree.

Are secularists caught on the horns of a dilemma here? Are we like deer a set of headlights, frozen not knowing what to do? No, not at all I'd say. If I've got the gist of the arguments and set them out clearly enough then look at the inherent assumptions and the steps as the whole thing flows from one to the other. Anything suspicious or weak in there?

11 March 2011 at 10:15  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

LobotomySpoon82: "Remove the plank from your own eye before you start criticising others."

I am an atheist and therefore not subject to those two Christian commandments, unlike most of you guys. Hope this clears things up for you.

11 March 2011 at 10:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

His own mouth has cursed himself to blindness. He is an accident waiting to happen.

11 March 2011 at 10:31  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

What are we to think of someone that matches this description:

They act entitled to whatever they’re taking from you e.g. free speech.
They won’t apologize to you, but will expect you to apologize to them.
They believe their problems are someone else’s fault.
They believe that you and everyone else are in this world to make them happy.
They act as if they are always right.
They act as if they are never wrong.
When they’re frustrated, they feel justified in doing anything to make themselves feel better. (Such as posting under an 'Anonymous' tag to make it seem as if they have support, a common 'flaming' tactic.)
They either cannot or will not put themselves in another person’s shoes.
They hold everyone else accountable, but evade being held accountable
They talk much more than they listen.
They claim to have high moral standards but these go out of the window when 'winning' is the aim.
They display very high standards, but only double ones.
They show hypocrisy in their arguments.
They claim high educational qualifications but cannot grasp even a schoolboy standard of science, logic, and reason.
They display a driving need to have the last word in conversations which displays immuturity and a need to dominate.

The list goes on.

Like the saying goes - you can tell a bigot, but you can't tell them much.

11 March 2011 at 10:39  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Phew, I thought that was just a load of abuse towards me there for a moment until I saw this:

"When they’re frustrated, they feel justified in doing anything to make themselves feel better. (Such as posting under an 'Anonymous' tag to make it seem as if they have support, a common 'flaming' tactic.)"

You seem to be very angry LobotomySpoon82. You ought to check out the list of the Fruits of the Holy Spirit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_Holy_Spirit

Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, and Self-Control.

Referring back to that thread that seems to have made you so angry and aggressive, they'd be evidence of sorts if they were widely observable. *meaningful look*

11 March 2011 at 11:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Calm down everyone. We accept Christianity as absolute truth, supernaturally revealed. As an atheist, LS presumably rejects it as human ideology, naturally developed. Our views are incommensurable and meaningful discussion impossible. We can live and let live or the atheists can resort to genocide. If they do, we inherit eternal life and a martyr's crown.

11 March 2011 at 11:36  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

So you recognised yourself in nearly everything I wrote? LOL! If the cap fits...
And I'm not angry actually. Not in the slightest. I am rather concerned about you though. You do have a habit of claiming to be able to read peoples minds. You really should give it up you know, because you can't.

And please stop citing Wikipedia. Even undergraduates (at least, (the red-brick University ones) can tell you that it is not accepted as a reliable information source.

And Anonymous, presumably your reference to 'LS' was a reference to me. For the record I am not an atheist, and my comment was not directed at Christians. Please read up on others threads on this page before commenting.

11 March 2011 at 13:09  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

I think that post up there tells a rather different story. :)

11 March 2011 at 13:40  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

You're such a drama queen.

11 March 2011 at 13:58  
Anonymous srizals said...

Gnostic, I won't comment on something that I only partially understand, what I know is it began with love between two love birds, like Romeo and Juliet, with religions get mixed up in this love story, and now that love has given birth to hate. The brawl didn't turn as ugly as in Indonesia when the Christian Bataks chopped everyone to pieces, showing heads with cigarettes in their mouths, so let's be thankful and pray that it would be over soon and everyone would come to their senses, sit down and talk like you and me.

Why don't we show them a good example to follow, we don't have to always love or hate each other, just co-exist as human beings and compramise where we can. We can't agree on everything all the time now, can we? What a boring world would it be.

About eating swine, you know that is not my purpose. I'm trying to show that swine is not made for eating, as was said in the Bible, which Jesus quoted by Len, didn't abrogate at all in the first place. I'm reminding my Christian brothers about their religion and also some health issues regarding it. Unlike you, I won't pretend and let them be to their demise. That is what caring is all about, right? We advise and remind each other because we care. Silence is consent.

I don't hate pigs since they are created with a purpose by God Himself. I have some pygmy wildboars living side by side with me that even my 5 and 7 year old sons chased their cute little striped piglets. Maybe they were looking for earthworms near my house. But the males make me nervous though.

"THE pig or swine is a very popular food item with most Christians. Yet Christians are unaware that the God they profess to believe in had condemned the eating of swine's flesh. The condemnation was based on some very sound biological principles."
http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/porkfacts.html

Eating pork can also lead to GALLSTONES and OBESITY, probably due to its HIGH CHOLESTEROL and SATURATED FAT content. The pig is the MAIN CARRIER of the TAENIE SOLIUM WORM, which is found in its flesh.
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/porkcoke.html

Gnostic, Do you think Christians should eat swine or not? Shouldn't we tell them about the risks involved?

11 March 2011 at 13:58  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Hey, Galatians 5:22 has a list too. Let me just check to see if the other information is reliable.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance"

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+5%3A22-26&version=KJV

Blimey, that looks rather similar. In fact, the wikipedia link has the same text and a valid reference.

Could you explain what the rest of it means please, LobotomySpoon82? You being Christian and all.

"If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another."

11 March 2011 at 13:59  
Blogger srizals said...

Gnostic,

“The pig is so poisonous and filthy, that nature had to prepare him a sewer line or canal running down each leg with an outlet in the bottom of the foot. Out of this hole oozes pus and filth his body cannot pass into its system fast enough. Some of this pus gets into the meat of the pig.
There are other reasons grounded in biological facts that could be listed to show why pigs and swine should not be eaten. But a true Christian should only need one reason why not to eat this type of food because God prohibited it.
"And the swine, because it divides the hoof, yet does not chew the cud, it is unclean unto you: you shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase." - Leviticus 11:7,8; Deuteronomy 14:8
Those who say Christ abolished the law condemning pork are motivated by their stomach not Scripture. The problems with pork are biological, and Christ never changed the laws of biology.”
http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/porkfacts.html

Gnostic?

11 March 2011 at 15:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

srizals I am no theologian. But you deserve an answer. I am sure the others would do much better.

Jesus fulfilled all of the requirements of the Law.

No man was and is able to do that (that makes us all criminals under the Law and liable for the death penalty).

He did not break a single law.

But upon Him was deposited all our breakages of the Law.

His Father permitted His execution – for the penalty for breaking the Law is death.

When He hung there on the cross He said: ‘My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?’

His Father could not look upon Him because He will not look upon all the breakages of the Law that was upon His son.

God the Father has never seen me (‘in sin I was conceived’). I am sure He knows that I exist: for my Great Lawyer in Heaven, Jesus, advocates on my behalf.



Article 7 of the Church of England’s Thirty-Nine Articles:

Although the Law given from God by Moses, as touching Ceremonies and Rites, do not bind Christian men, nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth; yet notwithstanding, no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.

11 March 2011 at 15:17  
Anonymous Broadwood said...

Srizals:

Christians and pork - check out Acts chap 10, Romans 14, and from Jesus himself, Mark 7 - as for alcohol it has was not proscribed by the law of Moses anyway. Some Christians practice temperance out of charity or personal conviction, but it is not a commandment.

And by the way, all that stuff about pig's feet and pus is complete rubbish!

So why do muslims eat camel meat, since it IS unclean, according to Torah?

11 March 2011 at 16:56  
Blogger srizals said...

Morality, D Singh?
What does your moral tell you when you know about this?

"An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday."

"The manner of Iman's killing, and the revelation of a tape recording in which the captain is warned that she was just a child who was "scared to death", made the shooting one of the most controversial since the Palestinian intifada erupted five years ago even though hundreds of other children have also died."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/16/israel2

Mr. D Singh,
God as the creator of man knows and knew what is the weaknesses and the advantages of His creations. He created us with love, D Singh. He does not hate His creations, knowing to well our shortcomings.

That is why he has offered the opportunity for pardon for those who would seek it in humility. Nothing more is asked for since He is the most merciful. He has given us a lifetime to think and reflect about who and what we are, why we are here and why aren't we the same with the rest of apes.

God is not the same as we are, D Singh. It is ungodly for the Almighty God to be like His mere creations, weak, easily intimidated, unforgiving and cruel.

But God is just, after all the time spent in disobedient, causing damages and preventing others from good and righteousness, one can't escape his justice. It would be totally absurd that a non-repenting sinner would be treated the same as a repenting sinner who remedy his sins by doing good.

“When Allah decreed the Creation He pledged Himself by writing in His book which is laid down with Him: ‘My mercy prevails over my wrath.’”
http://hadithqudsi.sacredhadith.com/hadith-qudsi-1/

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), from among the things he reports from his Lord (mighty and sublime be He), is that he said:
“A servant [of Allah’s] committed a sin and said: ‘O Allah, forgive me my sin.’ And He (glorified and exalted be He) said: ‘My servant has committed a sin and has known that he has a Lord who forgives sins and punishes for them.’ Then he sinned again and said: ‘O Lord, forgive me my sin.’ And He (glorified and exalted be He) said: ‘My servant has committed a sin and has known that he has a Lord who forgives sins and punishes for them.’ Then he sinned again and said: ‘O Lord, forgive me my sin.’ And He (glorified and exalted be He) said: ‘My servant has committed a sin and has known that he has a Lord who forgives sins and punishes for sins. Do what you wish, for I have forgiven you.’”

11 March 2011 at 17:19  
Blogger srizals said...

On the authority of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say:
“Allah the Almighty said:
‘O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth and were you then to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great as it.’”
Ibid.

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:
“Our Lord (glorified and exalted be He) descends each night to the earth’s sky when there remains the final third of the night, and He says: ‘Who is saying a prayer to Me that I may answer it? Who is asking something of Me that I may give it him? Who is asking forgiveness of Me that I may forgive him?’”
Ibid.

His mercy and forgiveness only require us to repent and realise our mistakes, D Singh, as He accepted the repentance of the Israelites for their ultimate sin, worshiping things created by their own hands as equal to God.

[2:51]
And when We appointed forty nights for Mūsā, then you took the calf (as God) thereafter, and you were unjust.

[2:52]
Yet We pardoned you, even after that, so that you may show gratitude.

An unforgiving man is understandable but an unforgiving God? God is the most relenting, only man is too arrogant to accept Him, even after being given almost everything for free by Him. We would not lose anything by following His light, instead we would gain more and more than we deserve.

11 March 2011 at 17:20  
Blogger srizals said...

As for Adam, the father of all human beings,

[2:36]
Then, Satan caused them to slip from it, and brought them out of where they had been. And We said, “Go down, all of you, some of you the enemies of others; and on the earth there will be for you a dwelling place and enjoyment for a time.”

[2:37]
Then ’Ādam learned certain words (to pray with) from his Lord; so, Allah accepted his repentance. No doubt, He is the Most-Relenting, the Very-Merciful.

[2:38]
We said, “Go down from here, all of you. Then, should some guidance come to you from Me, those who follow My guidance shall have no fear, nor shall they grieve.

[2:39]
As for those who disbelieve, and deny Our signs, they are the people of the Fire. They shall dwell in it forever.”

God had accepted Adam's repentance since He is the most merciful, most relenting,

[7:19]
O ’Ādam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise, and eat from wherever you like, but do not go near this tree, otherwise you shall join the transgressors.”

[7:20]
Then Satan whispered to them, so that he might expose to them their shame that was hidden from them; and said, “Your Lord has not prohibited this tree for you, but to avoid your becoming angels or your becoming eternal.”

[7:21]
He swore an oath, “I am one of your well-wishers.”

[7:22]
Thus, he cast both of them down by deception. When they tasted (the fruit of) the tree, their shame was exposed to them, and they began to patch together some leaves of Paradise upon themselves, and their Lord called them, “Did I not forbid you from that tree? Did I not tell you that Satan is your declared enemy?”

[7:23]
They said, “Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves, and if You do not forgive us and do not bless us with mercy, we shall, indeed, be among the losers.

[7:24]
He said, “Go down, some of you enemies of some; and for you on the earth there will be a dwelling place and enjoyment for a time.”

[7:25]
(Further) He said, “There you shall live and there you shall die, and from there you shall be raised again.”

[7:26]
O children of ’Ādam, We have sent down to you the dress that covers your shame and provides adornment. As for the dress of Taqwā (piety), that is the best. That is one of the signs of Allah, so that they may learn a lesson.

11 March 2011 at 18:00  
Blogger srizals said...

Mr. Broadwood, the verses in particular please?

11 March 2011 at 18:30  
Anonymous Oswin said...

I say, some crackling pig-talk here going down here!

Together with Lord Emsworth, I share a deep love of the old porcine breed. As my old governor used to say ''you can tell a chap's character by his attitude towards pigs'' ... Srizalz old bean, your admission to some delight re' ''cute, little striped piglets'' does you no end of credit (my advice is you keep your children WELL clear of wild boar, be they pygmy or otherwise!).

Srizals, you are, at least in part, quite accurate as to the inherent dangers of eating pork. Pigs and pork are a kittle business, and not to be entrusted to any old gadgie. However, under the auspices of a good pig-man, you need have little fear.

When your pygmy-pigs come around rooting for grubs, Srizals, give 'em the old universal pig-call: ''Pig-hoo-ooo-ey!''.
The first syllable should be short and stacato, the second long and rising, on the third syllable, to a falsetto.

It never fails, once you've got the hang of it. Your swine will love you for it and you'll have them eating from your very hand ... but again, not in the case of your children; not if you value their digits!

Advance old Srizals, amaze all, your friends and neighbours, with your 'Pig-hoo-ooo-ey'... commune with the porcine and bring true joy into your life!

11 March 2011 at 18:51  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Should read : 'some crackling pig-talk going down here'' ... I should know better by now ... sighs ...

11 March 2011 at 18:55  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Cracking, Oswin?

11 March 2011 at 19:00  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Well, I wondered if it would translate accordingly, in Malay ... first rule of attempting to be funny is 'getting it right'. I didn't ... :o[

11 March 2011 at 19:06  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Cracking stuff, I say!

11 March 2011 at 19:10  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

Are you a Scot then Oswin? And no, I'm not setting you up for anything joke-wise,lol, I'm just genuinely curious.

11 March 2011 at 19:11  
Anonymous Oswin said...

A Scot??? I know we've had the odd 'run-in' but there's no call for that sort of thing!

The Borders L'Spoon, from the sane side. :o]

My 'Wodehouse' impersonaton was that bad eh, for you to think me a Scot? Life, it just gets worse ...

11 March 2011 at 19:23  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (08:21)—I don’t see much of the second commandment around here, especially for Muslim neighbours.

When you know what the other side is thinking, it pays to be cautious:

● Qur’an 4:144 Believers, do not choose the infidels rather than the faithful for your friends. Would you give Allah a clear proof against yourselves?
● Qur’an 5:51 Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. Allah does not guide the wrongdoers.

11 March 2011 at 19:30  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

I do apologise, lol. It was the use of the words kittle and gadgie, you see. I've never heard them before and some dictionary websites suggested they were Scottish words. Having re-checked others also said Northern English.

11 March 2011 at 19:33  
Anonymous non mouse said...

But d.g., I don't know anything about Malay. Mind's utterly closed to it, at this point.

Oh LS--- you know better than that! Don't you recall Oswin's family domain? And the Irish questions...

11 March 2011 at 19:35  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Is there anything in the parable of the Good Samaritan which might help here at all?

They're not all bad, you know.

11 March 2011 at 19:38  
Anonymous Oswin said...

L'Spoon : yes, 'kittle' is rather good eh, means what it says on the tin : tricky, or perplexing etc.
I do admire a man who does his homework, take a gold star!

non mouse : coo, you honour me! I had no real idea that anyone read my drivel, let alone remembered stuff!

I'll shut-up now, I don't want to hog any of Dan-Jo's potential lime-light, I've had my fifteen minutes ...

11 March 2011 at 19:52  
Blogger LobotomySpoon82 said...

Embarrassingly Non Mouse, no, lol. But I did wonder as the name Oswin is a good Anglo Saxon name.

11 March 2011 at 19:53  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (19:38)—I think even the Good Samaritan would have had second thoughts about helping Islam impose its Dark Age creed on Britain.

11 March 2011 at 20:16  
Blogger Gnostic said...

srizals - I suggest you take a course in animal physiology because what you came out with is unadulterated garbage. But then, when I studied biology, there wasn't any sort of relgious text on my list of study books. Maybe that's because religious dogma is also unadulterated garbage especially the type spouted by you.

BTW, you dodged the thrust of my previous post. Perhaps you thought I wouldn't notice. So, do you or do you not condone the persecution of Egyptian Copts?

11 March 2011 at 20:58  
Anonymous non mouse said...

I'm so glad we consider cupiditas/caritas, in our approach to these non-communicants; even though their definition of the two commandments in question is, necessarily, always to the left of that scale...

As with any Geoffrey's travellers from Southwark, part of the problem must lie with glutted eyes and ears! As to mouths: their puffed-up words refract the colours of these non-waferers, as surely as do those of politicians ...

Still, their presence, in our Host's virtual space, may signify a wish to return to the goodly House: in spite of themselves.

Which is more than we can say about the Dark Age breakfast under scrutiny: which I wouldn't feed to any dog - or pig.

11 March 2011 at 20:59  
Anonymous non mouse said...

P.S: Hastening to add that I mean the neu non-communicants Gnostic. Your communication models all that is succinct, as you know! :)

11 March 2011 at 21:14  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Thank you non mouse. :0)

11 March 2011 at 21:58  
Anonymous Broadwood said...

Srizals - all of them - context is vital!

If you don't have a Bible handy, there are plenty on the net. How about http://net.bible.org

And the camels?

11 March 2011 at 22:07  
Anonymous len said...

Seems strange to me, the World is falling down about our ears and the topic of conversation=
whether it is halal (or is it Kosher) to eat bacon butties or not.

It is of vastly more importance what comes out of someone`s mouth than what goes in! It is what comes out of a man`s mouth that defiles him.

Muslims will quibble at a bacon sandwich but 'turn a blind eye' to atrocities committed to Christians, such is the blindness and hypocrisy of religion.
Straining at a gnat and swallowing a Camel (literally at times apparently.)

Srizels If you want to keep Gods law you MUST keep the whole of the Law perfectly and also if you live by the law you will be judged by the Law if you fail in any respect to keep every aspect the law.

Good Luck!

11 March 2011 at 23:16  
Anonymous len said...

Srizels, To clear up any misunderstanding as to whether Jesus abolished the Law or not!
The Law was to act as a schoolmaster to bring people to Christ.People who try to keep the Law will(if they are honest with themselves) will find they cannot!.
How can a fallen man with a corrupted nature portray the selfless nature and the Holiness ,the righteousness of Christ? of course he cannot , so he becomes a hypocrite leading a life of SELF righteousness.This is an abomination to the True God.........Jahweh.The self righteous are the Pharisees, interestingly the ONLY people Jesus condemned!

So what`s the answer? Either become religious and 'fake it' or become 'Born again' and let Jesus Christ , the Living Son of God live the Christian Life THROUGH YOU.Jesus Christ is the only one who could/can/ keep the Law of God!
......
Or course this is impossible for Muslims who have accepted a false Christ,a 'made up imposter' and to them Christ has been relegated to the position of merely a prophet and this 'false Christ is of no use to them at all.So Muslims are bound to this deception and unable to shake free until the light of the True Gospel shines upon them!!

Many Muslims are coming to know the True nature of Christ and the fact that the God of the Christians, Jahweh, loves them and wishes them to come to a knowledge of the Truth.There may be /have been/hostilities between Christians and Muslims but Muslims should look to the True nature of Christ not the actions of those who have 'acted in His name'.

12 March 2011 at 08:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003:
5 (1) For the purposes of these Regulations, a person (‘A’) subjects another person (‘B’) to harassment where, on grounds of religion or belief, A engages in unwanted conduct which has the purpose or effect of –

(a) violating B’s dignity; or
(b) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for B."

Isn't this precisely what the two gay guys did to the Christian B&B owners?

12 March 2011 at 09:36  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

^ I think the title of the law: Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, ought to give you a clue there.

12 March 2011 at 09:51  
Blogger srizals said...

It was narrated that Anas (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: There was a Jewish boy who used to serve the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and he fell sick. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to visit him. He sat by his head and said, “Become Muslim.” (The boy) looked at his father who was with him, and he (the father) said, “Obey Abu’l-Qaasim (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).” So he became Muslim, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went out, saying, “Praise be to Allaah Who has saved him from the Fire” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1290).

See, even Muhammad befriended the Jews and they called him Abul Qaasim or Father of the generous. Where did you get this idea Johnny?

The context of the verse in question, Johnny.

[4:139]
- those who take the disbelievers for friends rather than the believers. Are they seeking honor in their company? But, indeed, all honor belongs to Allah,

[4:140]
and He has revealed to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah being disbelieved and ridiculed, you should not sit with them unless they enter into some other discourse. You, in that case, would be like them. Surely, Allah is to gather all hypocrites and disbelievers in Jahannam .

[4:141]
- those who look for (a misfortune for) you, so, if there is a victory for you, they say, “Were we not with you?” But if there is a gain for the disbelievers, they say (to them), “Had we not overpowered you, still protected you from the believers?” So, Allah will decide between you on the Doomsday. Allah shall never give the disbelievers a way against the believers.

[4:142]
Surely, the hypocrites (try to) deceive Allah while He is the One who leaves them in deception. And when they stand for Salāh, they stand up lazily, only to show people, and do not remember Allah but a little,

[4:143]
wavering between (this and) that, neither here nor there. Whomsoever Allah lets go astray, you shall never find a way for him.

[4:144]
O you who believe, do not take the disbelievers for friends instead of the believers. Do you want to produce before Allah a clear evidence against yourselves?

[4:145]
Surely, the hypocrites are in the lowest level of the Fire, and you shall never find for them a helper

[4:146]
- except those who repent and correct themselves and hold on to Allah and make their Faith pure for Allah. So, those are with the believers, and Allah will give the believers a great reward.

12 March 2011 at 15:34  
Blogger srizals said...

[4:147]
What would Allah get by punishing you, if you are grateful and believe? Allah is Appreciating, All-Knowing.

[4:148]
Allah does not like the evil words to be said openly except from anyone wronged. Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing.

[4:149]
If you do a good act openly or do it in secret, or forgive an evil deed, then, Allah is All-Forgiving, All-Powerful.

I don't even have to elaborate further.

A deeper explanation can be found here,
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/can_muslims_befriend_the_disbelievers_

And an older tafsir, with the context of time and situation existed during the revelation of the verses,

4:142
(Lo! the hypocrites) 'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy and his followers (seek to beguile Allah) they disbelieve in Him and oppose Him in secret and think that they are deceiving Him, (but it is Allah Who beguileth them) on the Day of Judgement when, on the Bridge over hell, the believers will tell them: go back to the life of the world and seek some light, knowing full well that they cannot do so. (When they stand up to worship) when they go to perform the prayer (they perform it languidly) they perform it sluggishly (and to be seen of men) when they see people, they go to perform the prayer, but when they do see people they do not go, (and are mindful of Allah) they do not perform the prayer for Allah (but little) to show off and be known by others as people who pray;

4:144
(O ye who believe!) only outwardly: 'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy and his followers (Choose not disbelievers) the Jews (for (your) friends) in order to gain power (in place of believers) instead of sincere believers. (Would you) O group of hypocrites (give Allah) give Allah's Messenger (a clear warrant against you?) a clear proof and reason to kill you.

4:145
(Lo! the hypocrites) 'Abdullah Ibn Ubayy and his followers ((will be) in the lowest deep of the Fire) because of their evil, betrayal and scheming against the Prophet (pbuh) and against his Companions, (and thou wilt find no helper) a protector (for them);

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=2&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=4&tAyahNo=144&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

He and his people was the fifth column, Johnny, you know they are only design for one thing. And even so, the Muslims at that time did no harm to him.

http://www.bukhariblog.com/2008/02/abdullah-bin-ubay-bin-salul-king-of.html

12 March 2011 at 15:35  
Blogger srizals said...

645. Narrated Ibn 'Umar رضى الله عنهما : When 'Abdullâh bin Ubay (the chief of hypocrites) died, his son came to the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and said, O Allâh's Messenger, please give me your shirt to shroud him in it, offer his funeral prayer and ask for Allâh's Forgiveness for him. So Allâh's Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم gave his shirt to him and said, Inform me (when the funeral is ready) so that I may offer the funeral prayer. So, he informed him and when the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم intended to offer the funeral prayer, 'Umar رضى الله عنه took hold of his hand and said, Has Allâh not forbidden you to offer the funeral prayer for the hypocrites? The Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said, I have been given the choice, for Allâh تعالى says: 'Whether you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم ) ask forgiveness for them (hypocrites), or ask not forgiveness for them ...., (and even) if you ask seventy times for their forgiveness .... Allâh will not forgive them.' (V.9:80) So the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم offered the funeral prayer and on that the revelation came: And never (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم ) pray (funeral prayer) for any of them (i.e. hypocrites) who dies. (V.9:84). (2:359O.B.)
Ibid.

Len, you seem concerned about the persecution of Christians, if only they were persecuted to the level of the Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghanis, Pakistanis and Chechens, if only. Their homes and livelihood destroyed, their dignity obliterated, their loved ones killed sadistically in the thousands.

12 March 2011 at 15:43  
Anonymous len said...

Srizels,
Islam has no answers to the problems of humanity ,only attempts to control the fallen nature.
The God of the Bibles solution is a new nature through spiritual rebirth.This only comes through Jesus Christ.
You can recite the Koran from now until eternity but it cannot change the basic problem,which is man himself!

The more you reveal of the Koran the more apparent the real problem becomes.

Until man address the REAL problem......which is himself words are just words and meaningless...................................Jesus said you must be born again , until then you will never see, or understand what He was talking about.............................all you have is words...............................

12 March 2011 at 15:54  
Anonymous len said...

Srizels,
You keep stating the problem.

I keep giving you the answer!God`s answer to EVERY problem is Jesus Christ!

12 March 2011 at 15:57  
Anonymous len said...

Srizels,
How can anyone help you and your fellow sufferers when you reject the ONLY source of help.

To KEEP restating the problem is only to go round and round in circles like a dog chasing its tail .

Atrocities have been committed by 'Christians and 'Muslims'but what we want, what we need is a solution .which is....................................once again Jesus Christ!

12 March 2011 at 16:02  
Blogger srizals said...

Len, I did give you the answer, not just the problem. You didn't even read them, did you?

[4:147]
What would Allah get by punishing you, if you are grateful and believe? Allah is Appreciating, All-Knowing.

There's nothing wrong with us if we can distinguish between good and evil, keep on remedying our faults by ceasing them asap and be good to all, especially to ourselves and defend the oppressed. That is the way to fight the evil within us. We have to cleanse our own little self.

12 March 2011 at 16:06  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

His Grace: "And then there is the thorny issue of ‘hate speech’"

Here's a topical example of that:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-12708120

12 March 2011 at 16:11  
Blogger srizals said...

George Bush killed tens of thousands of his own fellow humans and destroyed nations even though he believed in Jesus Christ, Blair lied convincingly even though he believed in Jesus Christ, I think they even think and believe it with their hearts that no harm would come to them in the hereafter because of the blood of Jesus Christ, so your point is pointless.

The Taiping Heavenly kingdom was no heaven also, it took 20 millions lives with it. (Now you know why China banned the Bible.)

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2008/06/the_taiping_rebellionmass_murd.php

Sorry Len if I sounded too harsh on you.

12 March 2011 at 16:19  
Blogger srizals said...

For example, Mr. Broadwood,

[5:3]
Prohibited for you are: carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and those upon which (a name) other than that of Allah has been invoked (at the time of slaughter), animal killed by strangulation, or killed by a blow, or by a fall, or by goring, or that which is eaten by a beast unless you have properly slaughtered it; and that which has been slaughtered before the idols, and that you determine shares through the arrows. (All of) this is sin. Today those who disbelieve have lost all hope of (damaging) your faith. So, do not fear them, and fear Me. Today, I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My blessing upon you, and chosen Islam as Dīn (religion and a way of life) for you. But whoever is compelled by extreme hunger, having no inclination towards sin, then Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very-Merciful.

[5:4]
They ask you as to what has been made lawful for them. Say, “Made lawful for you are good things, and (hunting through) birds and beasts of prey that you train, teaching them out of what Allah has taught you. So, eat of what they hold for you, and recite the name of Allah upon it.” Fear Allah. Surely, Allah is swift at reckoning.

[5:5]
This day, good things have been made lawful for you. The food of the people of the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them, and good women from among believers, and good women from among those who were given the Book before you, provided you give them their dowers, binding yourself in marriage, neither going for lust, nor having paramours. Whoever rejects Faith, his effort will go to waste and, in the Hereafter, he will be among the losers.

12 March 2011 at 16:34  
Blogger srizals said...

And as for the camel issue,

[3:92]
You shall never attain righteousness unless you spend from what you love. Whatsoever you spend, Allah is fully aware of it.

[3:93]
Every (kind of) food was lawful for the children of Isrā’īl, except what Isrā’īl had made unlawful for himself, well before the Torah was revealed. Say, “Then, bring the Torah and recite it, if you are true.”

[3:94]
Then those who forge the lie against Allah, after all this,- they are the transgressors.

[3:95]
Say, “Allah has told the truth. So, follow the Faith of Ibrāhīm, the upright one. He was not one of those who ascribe partners to Allah.”

12 March 2011 at 16:37  
Anonymous Broadwood said...

Thank you, srizals. So why was Muhammad/Allah apparantly unaware of Jesus' words found in Mark 7, declaring all foods clean, reinforced by revelation to Peter and Paul in the later chapters I quoted?

As len has pointed out, to Yahweh the content of a man's heart is where cleanliness is lost or found. And Jesus showed he could heal and cleanse the whole man, body and soul, he did it over and over again.

I know who I will follow.

12 March 2011 at 16:55  
Anonymous srizals said...

(Mr. Broadwood, this is supposed to be before "For example Mr. you know who")

Mr. Broadwood, You do realised that we Muslims do not have any Judea-Muslim heritage since our prophet was Muhammad s.a.w. and Moses a.s. was not even a follower of Judaism.

He was sent to the Israelis, Muhammad was sent to all mankind. He came with a new book and a new law for a different time and different people. Having said that, each law has a reason governing it, especially God’s law.

God as the Creator would know that we would have wanted to know the reason behind the law. God as God would know what do we need to know with our limited abilities and thus would explain the reason behind each law, the cause and effect that we could understand. If you have been to the desert, you’ll know that the people there would be starved to death for being banned from eating the camel, which is like a fish to the ocean, the difference is a camel lives on a sea of sand.

Mr. Broadwood,
Do you mean this one?

Deuteronomy 14 (New International Version, ©2011)
"6 You may eat any animal that has a divided hoof and that chews the cud. 7 However, of those that chew the cud or that have a divided hoof you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the hyrax. Although they chew the cud, they do not have a divided hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. 8 The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses."

I am confused myself, since camels, as far as I know, chew the cud and have a divided hoof. Is it a sign of “contradicting adjustment” made by man? Maybe we should be asking Gnostic, he studied about animal biology right? He should know better. Well, Gnostic?

12 March 2011 at 16:58  
Anonymous srizals said...

Anyway, check this out,’
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8807238@N04/2347429037
http://visual.merriam-webster.com/animal-kingdom/ungulate-mammals/examples-hooves.php
http://onewaylink.blog.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/emilyd/741943237/in/photostream/

and a camel’s hoofprint on the sand, which glaringly indicates the divided hoof.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/joansminutia/4438415080/

As you can see, camel does have divided hoof, you can clearly see the line dividing them into two.
I think it can’t be exactly like a horse having to walk on sinking desert sand and all. So this is what the meddling hands of man had done, God would have known the nature of His creation.

Oswin, wild animals always fascinated me, nope they are not mine, they are the free creatures of God roaming the lands of their ancestors.

12 March 2011 at 17:09  
Anonymous srizals said...

And thanks for emphasising why some are forbidden to eat swine, they eat us, like you have said " not in the case of your children; not if you value their digits!", at a glance they look like babies of a tapir, Oswin, that what have made the boys excited in the first place, I think.

Gnostic, I do not believe in any persecution of the human beings whatever or whoever they may be. I find it appalling for what the "good" allies did to non-combatants and the defeated ones, no matter how evil their governments and soldiers may be, I despised those who had done what they did at My Lai and No Gun Ri, so my answer is no. Now, I return the question back to you, do you believe in the persecution of the Palestinians?

Johnny, the context of the verses that you have forgotten to mention, are the likes of Sharon and the Christian Phalangist at Sabra and Shatilla (16-18 September, 1982), surely you can’t expect us to be friendly with the likes of them, they want us dead or alive lying under their feet.

12 March 2011 at 17:10  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (15:34)—Mohammed befriended the Jewish boy because he agreed to become a Muslim. If he had refused, Mohammed would have beheaded him, just as he beheaded the Qurayzah tribe.

12 March 2011 at 17:36  
Anonymous len said...

So, getting back to my original point, who has the truth about Jesus Christ,the Koran or the Gospel(Injeel) because without knowledge of the Truth and the real identity of Jesus Christ salvation will be impossible!


Islam tries to gain acceptance by
attesting to the truth of both Christian and Jewish Holy books.

Then contradicts the teachings in both !

Surah 5:68 - Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law (Torah), the Gospel (Injeel), and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord."

Surah 29:46 Muslims are told by Allah, not to question the authority of the scriptures of the Christians, saying, "And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one.

.................................

Islam says that Jesus did not die. So, --Islam has proven to be false; because Muhammad claimed the Gospel is true, and all 4 Gospels (Injil) testify that Jesus died and rose from the dead.

Muslims then say the Gospel has been 'changed'.They changed ' The Books 'they allege.

"They" could not have changed the Christian Gospels after Muhammad, since there are 5,735 (Welte, 2003) manuscripts of the whole or part of the Greek text of the New Testament (Injil) pre-dating Muhammad still in existence. Worldwide, there are 24,800 copies of these original manuscripts. These include the Codex Vaticanus (325-350 AD) located in the Vatican library and the Codex Siniaticus (350 AD) located in the British Museum. There are also 80,000 quotations in the works of early Christian writers which are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the actual New Testament documents. Then there is the obvious fact that the Christian Gospels were so widely distributed both before and after Muhammad, that any attempt to change (add/subtract) something in the Christian Gospels would have resulted in immediate discovery and condemnation.

Then there are the Dead Sea Scrolls...........................................

12 March 2011 at 17:41  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Srizals, as much as I love and admire pigs, I wouldn't want wild ones rooting-up my vegetable patch, lawn and flower-beds. How do you manage to keep them separate?

12 March 2011 at 19:34  
Blogger mherzog said...

Here is a video on animal rights: http://meat.org

14 March 2011 at 05:00  
Anonymous Broadwood said...

Srizals, you must know that in Islam it is taught that Jesus, Moses, Abraham and even Adam were good Muslims also, so all the Jewish and Christian heritage is supposed to attach to Islam, except that it is continually contradicted, as you yourself have shown - you posted this ayat from the Koran:

[5:5]
This day, good things have been made lawful for you. The food of the people of the Book is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them, and good women from among believers, and good women from among those who were given the Book before you, provided you give them their dowers, binding yourself in marriage, neither going for lust, nor having paramours. Whoever rejects Faith, his effort will go to waste and, in the Hereafter, he will be among the losers.

Yet, I have shown you from the Bible, that for Christians, all food is permitted, including pork and alcohol, so in this ayat, Allah says that is also true for Muslims, then in two ayats previously, that is contradicted!!!

The usual Muslim answer to this is to blame Jews and Christians for textual corruption. But as len has shown above this clearly impossible, as there is so much contrary documentary evidence.

And back to the camels :D yes, that is the verse (with the next, 14.7 - "Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that have the hoof cloven: the camel, and the hare, and the coney; because they chew the cud but part not the hoof, they are unclean unto you.") from Deuteronomy that defines camels as unclean meat, and they are treated as such by observant Jews, as although they have a divided foot, it is soft, not a hoof. Observant jews also do not eat shellfish, as it has no fins
(Deu 14:9-10 "These ye may eat of all that are in the waters: whatsoever hath fins and scales may ye eat; and whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye shall not eat; it is unclean unto you.") - But again, this differs from Muslim practice, but why should it??

May I suggest you read St Paul's letter to the Galatians, from the New Testament, (especially from chapter 3) where Paul, the former ultra-orthodox Jew, explains in a nutshell why adherence to the law for law's sake is useless, and what the coming of Messiah Jesus really meant.

14 March 2011 at 10:19  
Anonymous srizals said...

• Diseases - Pigs may be afflicted with a wide range of diseases, some of which can be passed on to humans. Swine flu, or H1N1, is just one example. The risk of disease is present whether handling live pigs or their carcasses.
• Parasites - A number of dangerous parasites may contaminate pig meat, including tape works, trichina worms, hook worms and round worms. These parasites are transferred to the human body after someone consumes contaminated pork, and may cause serious illness and even death. Some worms ingested through contaminated pig meat can even migrate to the human brain, where they burrow into the brain tissue and must be surgically removed.

Although science has shown there is good reason for the Islamic prohibition on pork, Muslims first and foremost adhere to their dietary laws because doing so an act of obedience to their Creator. There is no hardship in avoiding pork and pork by-products, while consuming the meat of swine clearly poses the possibility of serious health risks.
http://www.suite101.com/content/why-dont-muslims-eat-pork-a175574

At least, all observing Jews, Muslims and some Christians agreed unanimously that pigs are not to be eaten.

Isaiah 65:2-5
New Living Translation (©2007)

"All day long I opened my arms to a rebellious people. But they follow their own evil paths and their own crooked schemes.

All day long they insult me to my face by worshiping idols in their sacred gardens. They burn incense on pagan altars.

At night they go out among the graves, worshiping the dead. They eat the flesh of pigs and make stews with other forbidden foods.

Yet they say to each other, 'Don't come too close or you will defile me! I am holier than you!' These people are a stench in my nostrils, an acrid smell that never goes away."

At least we are confident enough to be where we are and believe what we believed. How about you?

These verses indicate the characteristics of those who have went astray and yet believed it with their heart they are on the path of righteousness when in fact, they are rebelling against God. Whatever happened to Judea-Christian heritage, D Singh?

15 March 2011 at 00:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did it got through?

15 March 2011 at 00:59  
Anonymous srizals said...

(This should be before 15 March 2011 00:57, sorry for the glitches.)

Thanks Mr.Broadwood,

as for animal's right, I just saw on dirty jobs how farmers bit off the testicles of male lambs using their teeth, cut off their tails for easy marking and also their ears. And I thought this is the twentieth century. I wonder if Johnny knew about them.

Anyway, there are no scientific research/findings about the danger of eating the other food said to be forbidden for the Jews, so I guess it is just an act of piety, not health. As for pigs, it is both because of piety and health.

Dr. Gordon S. Tessler, in his excellent book, "The Genesis Diet," He says:

"Obviously, the indiscriminate eating patterns of omnivores like pigs, make them disease carriers. Pigs are known to carry up to 200 diseases and 18 different parasites and worms, including the deadly worm called trichinella spiralis."

"Even hog farmers who insist that corn fed hogs are safe won't give you a guarantee that their indoor hogs haven't eaten any rats, mice, fecal waste, or maggots within the past few days. The metal doorknobs in pig nurseries, become corroded after a year or so, due to the gases produced by the pigs urine and feces. The same gas and pig dander that eat away metal doorknobs are harming the respiratory tracts of hog farmers.

15 March 2011 at 01:46  
Anonymous srizals said...

Is it ok now?

15 March 2011 at 01:47  
Anonymous len said...

Srizels,
Just don`t eat pigs then!.
This is a side issue to the REAL issue.Which is................
who do you say Jesus is then?
Just another prophet?Because if Jesus was just another prophet all humanity is truly lost and without hope (Allah offers no hope ,no redemption,no re-birth, only harsh laws and vague promises.)

Jesus proved himself to be exactly who He said He was by being raised from the dead and appearing to several hundred people before returning to His Father in Heaven.

15 March 2011 at 08:24  
Anonymous srizals said...

Dear Len, starting from Adam a.s., the first man, the bornless one, the father of the human race, white or black, and the in-between, Caucasoid, Congoid, Mongoloid, Australoid and Capoid, God has never came down to beg us to believe in Him. It is un-Godly. Instead, He sent messengers and prophets to all people and races since the beginning of time and end it with the seal of prophets, Muhammad s.a.w. The end of days is nearer than we think. People are dying like flies. Wars and oppressions are rampant, so do earthquakes.

Len, we are one, we are created in the same way, and we share the same bloodline, the blood of Adam a.s. and Eve a.s. That is why our genetics are very much the same. The environment made us evolved. We are brothers Len, we are intertwined in the brotherhood of the human race, whether we like it or not. Only our faith and good deeds set us apart, now and especially in the Hereafter.

Len, I can only do what I can, I decide for no one. People say there were many scientific errors in the Koran and in the Prophet's hadiths, check it out yourself whether they are true or not, the most moving for me is about cloning and the cutting of the ears of the cattle to change God's creation and one of his authentic hadith that amazed me most is about water that cannot be contaminated. The Singaporeans proved it recently with Newater. They made drinkable water from sewers. These incidences can't be just some lucky co-incidences, too many things are evident.

The attempt to dehumanise and demonise Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. would never work. The events, norms and abnormalities of the people around us, past and present, would be the living proof for us to judge him.
We judge and evaluate by comparison, failure to do so would jeopardise our judgemental sensory; we can't understand anything fully without comparison. What is black without white? And grey would always exist between them. The living Muslims, the mainstream Muslims (around 1.5 billions) are the living proof of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. teachings and his true characters, not the less than 100 ordinary not that practising Muslims, without any authority or credence whatsoever that chose the path of their nemesis instead of their teacher. Paedophilia, torture and sexual problems were not rampant in Muslim nations with dominant Islamic culture, the innocents would always be protected, laws are strictly governed to ensure their justness, and the dreaded evil ones would not be spared after tedious proofing and confirmed by strict numbers of eye-witnesses consist of pious and respected men.

15 March 2011 at 17:14  
Anonymous srizals said...

Lacking of the requirements for certain punishments meant that injustice would be minimised if not omitted fully from the system, the sentence could never be carried out without ample justification and evidence. The victim’s family has a say in the ruling of the court. They can pardon the aggressors. That is justice in Islam. What do criminals deserve after inflicting such irreversible damages to the innocents and the society? We have to safeguard society from would be copycats. Have you ever had sleepless night in fear of someone would break into your home, kill and rape your loved ones and yourself and steal your hard earned possessions?
As for a human life, I don't recall any other religion that considers the life of an innocent human being as equal to the entire human race, regardless of faith. Islam does, that is why the terrorists aren't gaining any support, which explains why you are having such a good time dealing with them. Not you Len, you know what I mean.

But our enemies are restless, peace would mean a great loss for the weapon industries. Weapons aren't cheap Len. Military contractors would not be happy. Greedy manipulative capitalists won't either. They are the merchants of death and exploiters of human's misery. They won’t like it if we end the weapon race.

Open up your eyes Len, and see your true enemy. Having too few people with more than enough money to feed the entire world is fishy. Blaming God is an escapism for atheists and some agnostics. Blaming ourselves, our cruel monetary system, and our greedy unjust capitalism would be closer to the truth. We let exploiters exploit inhumanely unchecked and our brothers and sisters suffer because of our cowardliness, all over the world. Religion is just the black sheep of the family for them. It is the best diversion these capitalists have since people are so obsessed by it. Yes, we should, but we shouldn't let them decide for us who our enemies are and who should be our friends in terms of religions. They are not prophets of God! They are mere greedy men.

15 March 2011 at 17:14  
Anonymous srizals said...

Len, being a prophet is the highest position a human can ever achieved. Prophets and messengers of God have the privilege of communicating with the Creator personally and directly. Having the opportunity to meet the angels without any fancy high tech paranormal equipment whatsoever nor having to come up with scientific theories that aliens exist and would conquer us if they ever reached us. Being a messenger and a guide from God is the ultimate achievement a man can ever gain and have. It's not degrading at all, Len. Jesus was among one of the great prophets of God. We respect and love him. Look up the Koran if you don't believe me. Some hadiths regarding the end of days revealed his importance to us, almost 2 thousand years after he was saved from humiliating crucifixion by the pagan Romans, he would returned and finished his interrupted mission. He was abandoned by his people once. Only 12 stood their ground. They were no match for the mighty Roman legions. The Muslims are. And Byzantium fell and rose up again, being reborn as a great Muslim nation, even until now. So did the Persians. Contact with Islam only perfected them. They were never destroyed and perished like the Incas, Aztecs, , the red Indians and the aborigines. They became greater civilisation than before and were saved from bloody wars that would kill tens of millions by intense burning of hell on earth! As if these humans were mere flies.

Len, we can co-exist no matter how different our faith and face maybe. Let's compromise where we can and deal with the extremists and killers alike together. We don't have to kill each other just because we have different views and opinions of this life and the next.

15 March 2011 at 17:15  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older