Muslim Council of Britain

[Sylar]

Who exactly comprises this "institution" and what is their function in British society?

Every-time the religion of Islam comes under fire, these people seem to jump up and vocalise how peaceful a religion Islam is and how the British government/society should work harder to try and integrate Muslims into local communities.

My reason for raising it, is that I just read something on the BBC website, regarding the banning of certain individuals into the UK, because of their extremist and inflammatory views, which would cause unnecessary conflict amongst certain groups.

Many of these individuals are considered Islamic extremists who would incite terrorist activities on a domestic and international level. The spokesman for the Muslim Council is advocating that ANYONE should be allowed into the UK and only punished if they cross the lines of our laws.

Correct approach by the UK government, or should we stand idly by and wait until it's too late to prevent acts of violence, preaching or terrorism?

In my eyes, there's a reason we have such an expansive intelligence community, and it should be incorporated to prevent extremists from entering our shores. The Muslim Council seem to sit on a very high horse and only voice opinion when they feel wronged against. They are wrong in this instance in my opinion.

[Betty Boop]

Who exactly comprises this "institution" and what is their function in British society?

Every-time the religion of Islam comes under fire, these people seem to jump up and vocalise how peaceful a religion Islam is and how the British government/society should work harder to try and integrate Muslims into local communities.

My reason for raising it, is that I just read something on the BBC website, regarding the banning of certain individuals into the UK, because of their extremist and inflammatory views, which would cause unnecessary conflict amongst certain groups.

Many of these individuals are considered Islamic extremists who would incite terrorist activities on a domestic and international level. The spokesman for the Muslim Council is advocating that ANYONE should be allowed into the UK and only punished if they cross the lines of our laws.

Correct approach by the UK government, or should we stand idly by and wait until it's too late to prevent acts of violence, preaching or terrorism?

In my eyes, there's a reason we have such an expansive intelligence community, and it should be incorporated to prevent extremists from entering our shores. The Muslim Council seem to sit on a very high horse and only voice opinion when they feel wronged against. They are wrong in this instance in my opinion.I notice you declined to mention the Jewish guy and the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Clan thay have been denied entry to the UK. If you care to have a look at the list, its not only Muslims, that have been denied entry.

[Sylar]

Oh, I know - I don't mean my post to seem like it was a pop at purely followers of the Islamic faith - my reason for highlighting the Muslim Council was their response (as only they have spoken out against the list).

There's also Pastor Fred Phelps and his followers, which is a justified move.

I don't disagree with many names on the list, or the reasoning for most of their inclusion onto the list - my questioning was whether the Muslim Council are viewing this list through purely objective eyes, or if they're voicing against it because nearly 75% of the names on the list are banned for being Islamic fundamentalist preachers.

[ancient hibee]

Is it not the case that the Muslim Council is actually a self selected,unelected pressure group?

[hibsbollah]

Its totally illogical. You don't defend liberalism by banning things that are illiberal.

[steakbake]

Is it not the case that the Muslim Council is actually a self selected,unelected pressure group?

They are self selected and unelected.

However, this ridiculous notion inflated by the politicians and media that an entire diverse community of more than 1 million people can be simply represented by a small group of people who are not appointed by the whole Muslim community is the most interesting point.

Often we see people whining about "why are the Muslim council not condemning this that or the other" or "what do the Muslim council have to say about this?"

To me, it speaks more about politicians not thinking outside of a westernised point of view about how to engage with the Muslim community.

It just seems to me sheer laziness that politicians have grasped a group of unelected, self appointed people that they can tokenise as the views of whole Muslim community in this country. The media have bought into this and therefore has perpetuated a popular myth of the Muslim council's legitimacy.

Hence we have folks moaning as if the Muslim council represents every single Muslim and are accountable for every single Muslim's actions. You wouldn't hold the Vatican responsible for the actions of every Catholic in the UK, nor the General Assembly for every Protestant's.

It's all just a bit stupid.

[Sir David Gray]

I'll attempt to steer clear of talking about the MCB as much as I can, as I think I have spoken enough about Islam in the past and I think most people know my views on that particular subject.

However, I will approach this topic from a slightly different angle. From a personal point of view, I don't believe that banning most people serves any purpose.

There are some individuals who are rightly banned from entering the country. For example, anyone who is actively involved, or encourages others to be actively involved, in terrorist activities (or similar acts of violence) should not be allowed to enter the country.

However, I do not agree with banning people just because they hold a view that many would find controversial or even distasteful. Whether we like it or not, freedom of speech and freedom of thought, is what living in a democracy is supposed to be all about.

Looking at that list produced by the Home Office, there's not a lot of information on most of them.

What I find particularly flawed about this whole argument of who to ban and who not to ban, is where to draw the line.

Again speaking purely from a personal point of view I find Philip Nitschke, the euthanasia doctor who has this week been granted entry to the UK, much more despicable, and worthy of a banning order, than a couple of the individuals who are on that list.

But many other people will view this man in a very different light and I respect that, even although I am extremely opposed to what he stands for.

As I said, people who carry out and encourage violence should be banned but those who simply hold opinions, should be allowed into the country.

[Green Mikey]

Its totally illogical. You don't defend liberalism by banning things that are illiberal.

You have a point here but at some point the Government has to protect the citizens of this country. This sort of list is designed to protect British public from foriegn nationals not to curb the liberties of the current domestic populace.

This list is designed to stop the named people entering the country not their views being heard. The internet makes it easy to access the views of all the people included on that list.

A small aside here, maybe it's me being a pedantic, but surely you have to ban illiberal things to create a liberal society. For example, any illiberal practices that restrict freedom of speech or the rights any group must have to be banned to create a liberal society:wink:

[Betty Boop]

Shock Jock Michael Savage intends to sue Jackie Smith, over his ban from the UK. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8035114.stm

[hibsbollah]

This list is designed to stop the named people entering the country not their views being heard. The internet makes it easy to access the views of all the people included on that list.



So whats the point of it then? I think you're making my argument for me:agree:

[Woody1985]

You have a point here but at some point the Government has to protect the citizens of this country. This sort of list is designed to protect British public from foriegn nationals not to curb the liberties of the current domestic populace.

This list is designed to stop the named people entering the country not their views being heard. The internet makes it easy to access the views of all the people included on that list.

A small aside here, maybe it's me being a pedantic, but surely you have to ban illiberal things to create a liberal society. For example, any illiberal practices that restrict freedom of speech or the rights any group must have to be banned to create a liberal society:wink:

:agree:

[ChooseLife]

I can't believe there is a muslim council in Britain....

[LiverpoolHibs]

I can't believe there is a muslim council in Britain....

Why?

[Green Mikey]

So whats the point of it then? I think you're making my argument for me:agree:

The point of the list is to stop certain people entering the country... I think this has been cover already in the thread:wink:

If the govt wished to stop the views of these people being heard then they would have to censure the internet and any other media outlets. To the best of my knowledge they don't seem to be carrying out any censureship.

[ChooseLife]

Why?
Are there Christian councils in Muslim countrys?

[Betty Boop]

I can't believe there is a muslim council in Britain.... There is also a Jewish council.

[CropleyWasGod]

Are there Christian councils in Muslim countrys?

There are often Christian churches, so ... yes, probably.

[ChooseLife]

There is also a Jewish council.
Is this common place in most countrys or just ours?

[Betty Boop]

Is this common place in most countrys or just ours?
Not sure, why does it bother you?

[ChooseLife]

Not sure, why does it bother you?
I never said it did, I said I couldn't believe there was a muslim council in Britain,

however it would bother me if places like Iraq and Iran didn't have something similar for other religeons.

Everyone should have it or nowone should imo :agree:

EDIT - I said I couldn't believe it as I assumed there wouldn't be councils representing other religeons in Muslim countrys, I still assume this...

[Betty Boop]

I never said it did, I said I couldn't believe there was a muslim council in Britain,

however it would bother me if places like Iraq and Iran didn't have something similar for other religeons.

Everyone should have it or nowone should imo :agree:

EDIT - I said I couldn't believe it as I assumed there wouldn't be councils representing other religeons in Muslim countrys, I still assume this...
Despite the rhetoric you may read in the media, Iran has a close knit Jewish community. Amadinejad meets with Jewish Rabbis ---- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-r04SQ97_Q&feature=related

[CropleyWasGod]

I never said it did, I said I couldn't believe there was a muslim council in Britain,

however it would bother me if places like Iraq and Iran didn't have something similar for other religeons.

Everyone should have it or nowone should imo :agree:

EDIT - I said I couldn't believe it as I assumed there wouldn't be councils representing other religeons in Muslim countrys, I still assume this...

Assume ye not. Have a look at Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria (chosen at random).... 3 predominantly Muslim countries, but with sizeable Christian and/or Jewish populations.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Are there Christian councils in Muslim countrys?

As has been pointed out many predominantly Muslim countries have large Christian (and other denominations) populations. I'm not exactly sure if they have organisations exactly equivalent to the MCB; I'm also not sure why it would bother anyone in the slightest if they did or not.

[steakbake]

As has been pointed out many predominantly Muslim countries have large Christian (and other denominations) populations. I'm not exactly sure if they have organisations exactly equivalent to the MCB; I'm also not sure why it would bother anyone in the slightest if they did or not.

Because it's "them" and "us". "Us" being that huge number of Christians who fill out half-empty Churches every Saturday/Sunday.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Because it's "them" and "us". "Us" being that huge number of Christians who fill out half-empty Churches every Saturday/Sunday.

Quite. Anyway, I'm off to coerce some Maronites into forming the Christian Council of Lebanon.

[steakbake]

Quite. Anyway, I'm off to coerce some Maronites into forming the Christian Council of Lebanon.

Maronites :grr::grr: How dare they organise themselves into a group!

[Sir David Gray]

I can't believe there is a muslim council in Britain....

Of course. There's more than 2 million Muslims, and more than 1500 mosques, across the UK. There's bound to be a body that represents a group of people of that number.


Are there Christian councils in Muslim countrys?

In some countries there are. In other countries, woe betide you if you own a Bible or wear a cross round your neck, never mind set up a Christian council.


I never said it did, I said I couldn't believe there was a muslim council in Britain,

however it would bother me if places like Iraq and Iran didn't have something similar for other religeons.

Everyone should have it or nowone should imo :agree:

EDIT - I said I couldn't believe it as I assumed there wouldn't be councils representing other religeons in Muslim countrys, I still assume this...

In Iraq, the lives of Christians has deteriorated in recent years. The increase in the number of Islamist terrorists in the country has resulted in Christians being persecuted. Whilst the Iraqi government does allow for freedom of religion, this is not reflected in how many religious minorities are treated.

Whilst Betty Boop is correct in saying that Iran's Jewish population is protected (as are all other Iranian citizens who follow a monotheistic religion), non-Muslims are not allowed to proselytise and anyone who converts from Islam is considered to be an apostate, and subsequently faces a possible death sentence.

As far as I'm aware, I don't think anyone in the UK has been hanged for converting from Christianity. At least not in the past few years anyway.


Assume ye not. Have a look at Egypt, Tunisia, Nigeria (chosen at random).... 3 predominantly Muslim countries, but with sizeable Christian and/or Jewish populations.

Whilst the majority religion in Nigeria is Islam, it is split along geographical lines; the north of the country is predominantly Muslim and enforces Sharia Law in some states and the south of the country is predominantly Christian. Overall it is roughly a 60-40 split in favour of Islam.

However I don't think the number of Christians and Jews in "Muslim countries" was the point of Duffy_Hibs' post. I could be wrong but I thought (s)he was referring to how non-Muslims get treated in those countries.

In terms of Egypt, the Christian population there is put under constant persecution by government officials and they are continually discriminated against in several ways.

In Nigeria, in the north of the country where radical Islam rules, hundreds of Christians have been killed and churches are burned down by terrorists who oppose the presence of Christianity there.

Whilst Tunisia allows for freedom of religion, it bans proselytising by non-Muslims, deports foreign missionaries, persecutes anyone who converts from Islam and bans the publication and distribution of Arabic language Bibles.

I know I said I was going to try and not talk about Islam but I really wanted to reply to those posts. :greengrin

[poolman]

I'll attempt to steer clear of talking about the MCB as much as I can, as I think I have spoken enough about Islam in the past and I think most people know my views on that particular subject.

However, I will approach this topic from a slightly different angle. From a personal point of view, I don't believe that banning most people serves any purpose.

There are some individuals who are rightly banned from entering the country. For example, anyone who is actively involved, or encourages others to be actively involved, in terrorist activities (or similar acts of violence) should not be allowed to enter the country.

However, I do not agree with banning people just because they hold a view that many would find controversial or even distasteful. Whether we like it or not, freedom of speech and freedom of thought, is what living in a democracy is supposed to be all about.

Looking at that list produced by the Home Office, there's not a lot of information on most of them.

What I find particularly flawed about this whole argument of who to ban and who not to ban, is where to draw the line.

Again speaking purely from a personal point of view I find Philip Nitschke, the euthanasia doctor who has this week been granted entry to the UK, much more despicable, and worthy of a banning order, than a couple of the individuals who are on that list.
But many other people will view this man in a very different light and I respect that, even although I am extremely opposed to what he stands for.

As I said, people who carry out and encourage violence should be banned but those who simply hold opinions, should be allowed into the country.



Why exactly

[Pete]

They are self selected and unelected.

However, this ridiculous notion inflated by the politicians and media that an entire diverse community of more than 1 million people can be simply represented by a small group of people who are not appointed by the whole Muslim community is the most interesting point.

Often we see people whining about "why are the Muslim council not condemning this that or the other" or "what do the Muslim council have to say about this?"

To me, it speaks more about politicians not thinking outside of a westernised point of view about how to engage with the Muslim community.

It just seems to me sheer laziness that politicians have grasped a group of unelected, self appointed people that they can tokenise as the views of whole Muslim community in this country. The media have bought into this and therefore has perpetuated a popular myth of the Muslim council's legitimacy.

Hence we have folks moaning as if the Muslim council represents every single Muslim and are accountable for every single Muslim's actions. You wouldn't hold the Vatican responsible for the actions of every Catholic in the UK, nor the General Assembly for every Protestant's.

It's all just a bit stupid.

Spot on.

I doubt there's even such a thing as a "muslim community" in Britain?

[Sir David Gray]

Why exactly

Because I find the idea of teaching people methods on how they might kill themselves, disgusting and I am absolutely opposed to euthanasia.

This man knows full well what he is doing by carrying out one of his workshops in Bournemouth. I heard the other night on the news that the nearby borough of Christchurch contains a town where 70% of the residents are of retirement age (the highest percentage in the entire country).

At best, I would say his motives are quite sinister. Personally I would go a lot further in my condemnation.

The Home Office have come out and issued this list of sixteen individuals who, they say, are "likely to cause inter-community tension and violence" if they were allowed into this country.

Whilst that may be correct, and don't get me wrong, I'm glad that some of those people are not allowed to set foot in the UK, Philip Nitschke's presence is potentially far more destructive.

He stands to manipulate and take advantage of one of the most vulnerable sections of society with his despicable message.

Instead of telling elderly people that we can just put a bag over their head and all their troubles will be over, we should be doing much more to care for the elderly people in our communities and those who are sick or frail should be given the comfort and support that they require.

Apart from anything else, this man is a doctor and as far as i'm concerned a doctor's role is to either provide medication that is going to help a patient recover from illness or, in the case of the terminally ill, their job is to make them as comfortable as possible.

A doctor's role is NOT to kill people.

The practices and organisation that this man represents, sickens me to the pit of my stomach and in my opinion he should be added to the list of people that "encourage behaviour that Britain is not prepared to tolerate" and subsequently banned from entering the country.

[CropleyWasGod]

The practices and organisation that this man represents, sickens me to the pit of my stomach and in my opinion he should be added to the list of people that "encourage behaviour that Britain is not prepared to tolerate" and subsequently banned from entering the country.

So how do you view Margo McDonald's proposals to introduce related legislation in Scotland?

I assume that you don't support it, which of course is your choice. However, she has the democratic right to voice her opinion. It remains to be seen whether Parliament will support her, but I don't think you can say with any certainty that this is supporting "behaviour that Britain is not prepared to tolerate"

Or is there a difference in the fact that she is a UK resident?

[Pete]

So how do you view Margo McDonald's proposals to introduce related legislation in Scotland?

I assume that you don't support it, which of course is your choice. However, she has the democratic right to voice her opinion. It remains to be seen whether Parliament will support her, but I don't think you can say with any certainty that this is supporting "behaviour that Britain is not prepared to tolerate"

Or is there a difference in the fact that she is a UK resident?

Margo Mcdonalds proposals might be related but they're different to the philosophies of the guy Falkirkhibee is talking about.

Margo talks about the right for the terminaly ill or those whose life means constant suffering...whereas the other states that it's a persons right to end their life no matter what the circumstances.

Regardless, they should both be granted the platform to voice their views.

[Woody1985]

If I ever found myself in a veggative state I'd want someone to help me die.

[steakbake]

Spot on.

I doubt there's even such a thing as a "muslim community" in Britain?

IMHO the Muslim 'community' is arguably even more diverse in opinions, traditional culture and identity than the Christian 'community' in the UK.

[steakbake]

Spot on.

I doubt there's even such a thing as a "muslim community" in Britain?

IMHO the Muslim 'community' is arguably even more diverse in opinions, traditional culture and identity than the Christian 'community' in the UK.

[Sir David Gray]

So how do you view Margo McDonald's proposals to introduce related legislation in Scotland?

I assume that you don't support it, which of course is your choice. However, she has the democratic right to voice her opinion. It remains to be seen whether Parliament will support her, but I don't think you can say with any certainty that this is supporting "behaviour that Britain is not prepared to tolerate"

Or is there a difference in the fact that she is a UK resident?

I support her right to voice her opinion, even although I am totally opposed to what she is proposing. I think what she is doing is slightly different to what Dr Nitschke is doing. He is exploiting elderly people and telling them ways that they could end their life which, as I have already explained, goes against the principles of being a doctor. I believe that Margo MacDonald is genuine and sincere in her motives for wanting this change in the law.

She is also a politician and that is her job to challenge the legal system etc.

peterdouglas sums it up quite well.

[Onceinawhile]

Personally, I think the Euthanasia debate is one of the most important debates in the UK at the moment.:agree:

Margo Mcdonald is a supporter and so am I

[BravestHibs]

They are self selected and unelected.

However, this ridiculous notion inflated by the politicians and media that an entire diverse community of more than 1 million people can be simply represented by a small group of people who are not appointed by the whole Muslim community is the most interesting point.

Often we see people whining about "why are the Muslim council not condemning this that or the other" or "what do the Muslim council have to say about this?"

To me, it speaks more about politicians not thinking outside of a westernised point of view about how to engage with the Muslim community.

It just seems to me sheer laziness that politicians have grasped a group of unelected, self appointed people that they can tokenise as the views of whole Muslim community in this country. The media have bought into this and therefore has perpetuated a popular myth of the Muslim council's legitimacy.

Hence we have folks moaning as if the Muslim council represents every single Muslim and are accountable for every single Muslim's actions. You wouldn't hold the Vatican responsible for the actions of every Catholic in the UK, nor the General Assembly for every Protestant's.

It's all just a bit stupid.

Sounds a bit like Hibs.net :-@

[BravestHibs]

Because I find the idea of teaching people methods on how they might kill themselves, disgusting and I am absolutely opposed to euthanasia.

This man knows full well what he is doing by carrying out one of his workshops in Bournemouth. I heard the other night on the news that the nearby borough of Christchurch contains a town where 70% of the residents are of retirement age (the highest percentage in the entire country).

At best, I would say his motives are quite sinister. Personally I would go a lot further in my condemnation.

The Home Office have come out and issued this list of sixteen individuals who, they say, are "likely to cause inter-community tension and violence" if they were allowed into this country.

Whilst that may be correct, and don't get me wrong, I'm glad that some of those people are not allowed to set foot in the UK, Philip Nitschke's presence is potentially far more destructive.

He stands to manipulate and take advantage of one of the most vulnerable sections of society with his despicable message.

Instead of telling elderly people that we can just put a bag over their head and all their troubles will be over, we should be doing much more to care for the elderly people in our communities and those who are sick or frail should be given the comfort and support that they require.

Apart from anything else, this man is a doctor and as far as i'm concerned a doctor's role is to either provide medication that is going to help a patient recover from illness or, in the case of the terminally ill, their job is to make them as comfortable as possible.

A doctor's role is NOT to kill people.

The practices and organisation that this man represents, sickens me to the pit of my stomach and in my opinion he should be added to the list of people that "encourage behaviour that Britain is not prepared to tolerate" and subsequently banned from entering the country.

Are you a practicing Christian? If so which denomination?

[Tazio]

Quite. Anyway, I'm off to coerce some Maronites into forming the Christian Council of Lebanon.

I'm not sure the president would be happy about that.:rolleyes:

[marinello59]

Sounds a bit like Hibs.net :-@

Who on hibs.net claims to represent the entire Hibs support?

[BravestHibs]

Who on hibs.net claims to represent the entire Hibs support?

It's just a feeling I get sometimes. I'll point it out to you next time I notice it.

[Sir David Gray]

Are you a practicing Christian? If so which denomination?

It depends on how you define "practicing Christian". I probably don't attend Church as often as I should but I do undertake other activities, connected with being a Christian.

The denomination would be Church of Scotland.

Can I ask why you have asked such a question?

[BravestHibs]

It depends on how you define "practicing Christian". I probably don't attend Church as often as I should but I do undertake other activities, connected with being a Christian.

The denomination would be Church of Scotland.

Can I ask why you have asked such a question?

It's just that your views seem in line with someone who might be a member of the church. Same sex marriage, euthanasia that kind of thing. I just wanted to see if my hunch was correct. And it was.

[J-C]

I have never understood what religion someone has makes any difference to the type of person they really are.
Me, I was born and christened but have no real religious beliefs, I believe the way someone behaves morally whatever their religion is more important. I have many friends of differing religious persuasions but at no time have I ever expressed an interest as to what religion they are attatched to. Treat me and my family with respect and you'll get the same respect back.
I'ts the extreme religious types that I am concerned about, suicide bombers, religious cults etc. the majority are a brain washed and follow their leaders with an undying passion.

[davy]

you have to ask yourself...do we want to be subject to all their rules and regulations, because that is what they want. Dont kid yourself that they are a tolerant peaceful nation. Yes they have much to be proud of, but they want us to be in line with Saudi Arabia...who dont accept Christian teaching nor the bible to be read in public...dont accept alcohol...dont accept any critisism towards their way of life. If you value the British way of life in any respects then its time to take a stand. Dont you think that Saudi, iran, iraq, afghanastan, pakistan, large swathes of india, somalia, sudan etc cannot accomodate Muslims? They want to rule the world full stop. Resist them thats my opinions and yes Ill get attacked by the liberals but thats my opinion

[davy]

Are there Christian councils in Muslim countrys?


Dunno but there are plenty Christian prisoners held for nothing more than their beliefs...choose to disagree with that statement but it wont change the truth

[Tazio]

Dunno but there are plenty Christian prisoners held for nothing more than their beliefs...choose to disagree with that statement but it wont change the truth

And what does that mean? What truth is that? I don't believe it is illegal to be christian in most of the countries mentioned so far.

[davy]

And what does that mean? What truth is that? I don't believe it is illegal to be christian in most of the countries mentioned so far.


In which case I dare you to go to Saudi Arabia and preach from the bible in any market street

[Tazio]

In which case I dare you to go to Saudi Arabia and preach from the bible in any market street

That is very different from being allowed to have a belief.

[LiverpoolHibs]

you have to ask yourself...do we want to be subject to all their rules and regulations, because that is what they want. Dont kid yourself that they are a tolerant peaceful nation. Yes they have much to be proud of, but they want us to be in line with Saudi Arabia...who dont accept Christian teaching nor the bible to be read in public...dont accept alcohol...dont accept any critisism towards their way of life. If you value the British way of life in any respects then its time to take a stand. Dont you think that Saudi, iran, iraq, afghanastan, pakistan, large swathes of india, somalia, sudan etc cannot accomodate Muslims? They want to rule the world full stop. Resist them thats my opinions and yes Ill get attacked by the liberals but thats my opinion

Now, where was that thread about BNP internet recruiters...

[davy]

That is very different from being allowed to have a belief.


That is restriction of liberty something you dont have in uk

[davy]

Now, where was that thread about BNP internet recruiters...


I have no interest in the BNP however out policy allows freedom of speech something I would fight to preserve

[Tazio]

That is restriction of liberty something you dont have in uk

Correct. But not being jailed for your beliefs which is what you stated earlier.

[davy]

Correct. But not being jailed for your beliefs which is what you stated earlier.


O really?? take the blinkers off


http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=2134

[Tazio]

That piece is from a "radical" christian website. It relates to muslims converting to christianity. A sin in Islamic views.

However going back to the point that you cannot have your own beliefs it finishes with this paragraph.

"The construction of churches or chapels is not allowed in the country. Muslims make up 93.7% of the Saudi population of 21.6 million people. Christians, who are almost entirely foreigners, account for 3.7% of the population. There are 800,000 Catholics. There are no exact figures on the number of Saudi Christians."

[davy]

O really?? take the blinkers off


http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=2134


not to mention


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3321637.ece

[davy]

That piece is from a "radical" christian website. It relates to muslims converting to christianity. A sin in Islamic views.

However going back to the point that you cannot have your own beliefs it finishes with this paragraph.

"The construction of churches or chapels is not allowed in the country. Muslims make up 93.7% of the Saudi population of 21.6 million people. Christians, who are almost entirely foreigners, account for 3.7% of the population. There are 800,000 Catholics. There are no exact figures on the number of Saudi Christians."


So you are saying any convert to Christianity desreves to be jailed. I consider myself Christian but do not subscribe to converts to Islam be jailed....but yes your feelings are deep rooted and only serve to show that Muslims are not very tolerant...and yes I know that history might show Christians in the same light but you cant really compare them to present day Britain

[Tazio]

So you are saying any convert to Christianity desreves to be jailed. I consider myself Christian but do not subscribe to converts to Islam be jailed....but yes your feelings are deep rooted and only serve to show that Muslims are not very tolerant...and yes I know that history might show Christians in the same light but you cant really compare them to present day Britain

Do you think that I'm a muslim?

[davy]

Do you think that I'm a muslim?


I have no idea if you are or not. I dont have a problem with people wanting to be Muslim. I do have a problem when they restrict others freedom to choose what religion to follos

[Tazio]

I have no idea if you are or not. I dont have a problem with people wanting to be Muslim. I do have a problem when they restrict others freedom to choose what religion to follos

You picked an extreme example in Saudi Arabia. They are seen as been fiends of the west due to their behaviour in the wars against Iraq and the number of Europeans working there.

In actual fact they are a very hardline version of sunni-ism that is hugely fundamental. Don't judge the rest of the middle east by their standards.

[davy]

You picked an extreme example in Saudi Arabia. They are seen as been fiends of the west due to their behaviour in the wars against Iraq and the number of Europeans working there.

In actual fact they are a very hardline version of sunni-ism that is hugely fundamental. Don't judge the rest of the middle east by their standards.


I dont judge the moderates by the actions of extremists, but I do believe that lurking behind the moderate view there will be extremists who follow in their wake. This is seen in history. David Livingstone's biggest regret that in opening trade routes and new avenues in Africa brought in turn the slave trade. And you can hide your eyes if you like but extremists are always closely following moderates within Islam. I quoted 2 incidents but there are many many more. I have no inclination to see sharia law introduced in UK. Unfortunately many Muslims do and the moderates do tend to get pushed aside. I for one am glad to see Pakistan fighting against the intolerant few. I dont mean to pick arguments with you, I dont know you and mean you no harm, but I do see a danger to a religion and way of life I count as precious. I doubt many others here feel the same as me but Im sure everyone will speak up according to their beliefs or none and I applaud the fact we still have the freedom to do so. Peace be to you Tazio and your family of whatever persuasion they are.

[Tazio]

I dont judge the moderates by the actions of extremists, but I do believe that lurking behind the moderate view there will be extremists who follow in their wake. This is seen in history. David Livingstone's biggest regret that in opening trade routes and new avenues in Africa brought in turn the slave trade. And you can hide your eyes if you like but extremists are always closely following moderates within Islam. I quoted 2 incidents but there are many many more. I have no inclination to see sharia law introduced in UK. Unfortunately many Muslims do and the moderates do tend to get pushed aside. I for one am glad to see Pakistan fighting against the intolerant few. I dont mean to pick arguments with you, I dont know you and mean you no harm, but I do see a danger to a religion and way of life I count as precious. I doubt many others here feel the same as me but Im sure everyone will speak up according to their beliefs or none and I applaud the fact we still have the freedom to do so. Peace be to you Tazio and your family of whatever persuasion they are.

Christian arabs actually on my wifes side.

[davy]

I pray then you always have the freedom to practice your religion or that your wives family does

[J-C]

These last few posts are the exact reason I have nothing to do with religion, two guys start of discussing the topic then BANG! all of a sudden
" peace to you Tazio and your family whatever persuasion they are"

Why oh why do people always play the " and what religion are you then?" card, what the hell difference does it make, your having a discussion not a bloody argument. I hate all this religious nonsense, if there's only 1 god then tell me all you religious ones out there, why is there so many types of religion, surely 1 god should mean 1 religion, no.
Read the bible, even the Koran, they're books of stories and fables, a lot of which cannot be proved, they are teachings from sages and magi's to help their people understand life, no more.
Unfortunately we have in the world extremists, who take the words of certain books very literally and are brainwashed into thinking that by doing certain deeds they will get into heaven as heroes. This has been going on for hundreds of years, the crusades for example was us christians trying to turn muslim into christians and robbing them blind into the bargain.
We've even seen Ireland fighting amongst themselves for decades because 1 church is a wee bit different to the other and King Billy killed X amount of catholics into the bargain.

OK rant over, as you can see religion in a subject that annoys me because nearly every war there'e been hasa religion somewhere involved, so no religion, no wars.( except Africa where it's a tribal thing ) :greengrin

[BravestHibs]

These last few posts are the exact reason I have nothing to do with religion, two guys start of discussing the topic then BANG! all of a sudden
" peace to you Tazio and your family whatever persuasion they are"

Why oh why do people always play the " and what religion are you then?" card, what the hell difference does it make, your having a discussion not a bloody argument. I hate all this religious nonsense, if there's only 1 god then tell me all you religious ones out there, why is there so many types of religion, surely 1 god should mean 1 religion, no.
Read the bible, even the Koran, they're books of stories and fables, a lot of which cannot be proved, they are teachings from sages and magi's to help their people understand life, no more.
Unfortunately we have in the world extremists, who take the words of certain books very literally and are brainwashed into thinking that by doing certain deeds they will get into heaven as heroes. This has been going on for hundreds of years, the crusades for example was us christians trying to turn muslim into christians and robbing them blind into the bargain.
We've even seen Ireland fighting amongst themselves for decades because 1 church is a wee bit different to the other and King Billy killed X amount of catholics into the bargain.

OK rant over, as you can see religion in a subject that annoys me because nearly every war there'e been hasa religion somewhere involved, so no religion, no wars.( except Africa where it's a tribal thing ) :greengrin

I think it does matter what religion someone is when discussing this kind of thing as if you have faith, whichever faith it happens to be it seems to have a tendancy to shape peoples views in that they tend to be brought into line, to a certain extent, with everyone else who follows the same faith-something which doesn't seem to happen with the Hibernian faith as is highlighted on this messageboard-For example most practicing Catholics will have an issue with abortion, most Muslims think eating pigs is dirty. Just a couple of obvious examples there but which highlight my point. To know which religion someone is is to know where these types of views originate and the thought, or lack thereof, behind it.

I personally don't see why you would put your faith into some stories written a thousand years ago, which are so contradictory in places it makes me red with frustration but each to their own. I think the danger that comes from religion is associated with the fact that each person interprets these scriptures in their own way and that is where the extremists of every denomination can justify their outlook on life regardless of how twisted and abhorrent it may be in your eyes.

[J-C]

I think it does matter what religion someone is when discussing this kind of thing as if you have faith, whichever faith it happens to be it seems to have a tendancy to shape peoples views in that they tend to be brought into line, to a certain extent, with everyone else who follows the same faith-something which doesn't seem to happen with the Hibernian faith as is highlighted on this messageboard-For example most practicing Catholics will have an issue with abortion, most Muslims think eating pigs is dirty. Just a couple of obvious examples there but which highlight my point. To know which religion someone is is to know where these types of views originate and the thought, or lack thereof, behind it.

I personally don't see why you would put your faith into some stories written a thousand years ago, which are so contradictory in places it makes me red with frustration but each to their own. I think the danger that comes from religion is associated with the fact that each person interprets these scriptures in their own way and that is where the extremists of every denomination can justify their outlook on life regardless of how twisted and abhorrent it may be in your eyes.


I see your point in the first paragraph, what may be better is if each person discussing religion states their own personal religious beliefs then we allknow where we're coming from.
I agree totally with your second point.

[BravestHibs]

I see your point in the first paragraph, what may be batter is if each person discussing religion states their own personal religious beliefs then we allknow where we're coming from.
I agree totally with your second point.

You're not threatening me again are you?:wink:

[davy]

These last few posts are the exact reason I have nothing to do with religion, two guys start of discussing the topic then BANG! all of a sudden
" peace to you Tazio and your family whatever persuasion they are"

Why oh why do people always play the " and what religion are you then?" card, what the hell difference does it make, your having a discussion not a bloody argument. I hate all this religious nonsense, if there's only 1 god then tell me all you religious ones out there, why is there so many types of religion, surely 1 god should mean 1 religion, no.
Read the bible, even the Koran, they're books of stories and fables, a lot of which cannot be proved, they are teachings from sages and magi's to help their people understand life, no more.
Unfortunately we have in the world extremists, who take the words of certain books very literally and are brainwashed into thinking that by doing certain deeds they will get into heaven as heroes. This has been going on for hundreds of years, the crusades for example was us christians trying to turn muslim into christians and robbing them blind into the bargain.
We've even seen Ireland fighting amongst themselves for decades because 1 church is a wee bit different to the other and King Billy killed X amount of catholics into the bargain.

OK rant over, as you can see religion in a subject that annoys me because nearly every war there'e been hasa religion somewhere involved, so no religion, no wars.( except Africa where it's a tribal thing ) :greengrin



Why do you have such an issue with someone who wishes another well? Religion does not bring wars, humans do, but as often as not they use religion as an excuse. Aethiests also take part in wars and communism has had plenty wars despite saying they dont believe in God. You will never see an end to evangelising from religions but it should be done with love and respect and if your not religious or believe in a God then thats your choice and that choice should be respected. Why shouldnt I wish peace onTazio or anyone else I care to? If we all did the same in a genuine manner there would funnily enough be no wars

[Betty Boop]

you have to ask yourself...do we want to be subject to all their rules and regulations, because that is what they want. Dont kid yourself that they are a tolerant peaceful nation. Yes they have much to be proud of, but they want us to be in line with Saudi Arabia...who dont accept Christian teaching nor the bible to be read in public...dont accept alcohol...dont accept any critisism towards their way of life. If you value the British way of life in any respects then its time to take a stand. Dont you think that Saudi, iran, iraq, afghanastan, pakistan, large swathes of india, somalia, sudan etc cannot accomodate Muslims? They want to rule the world full stop. Resist them thats my opinions and yes Ill get attacked by the liberals but thats my opinion
What nation are you talking about?

[BravestHibs]

Why do you have such an issue with someone who wishes another well? Religion does not bring wars, humans do, but as often as not they use religion as an excuse. Aethiests also take part in wars and communism has had plenty wars despite saying they dont believe in God. You will never see an end to evangelising from religions but it should be done with love and respect and if your not religious or believe in a God then thats your choice and that choice should be respected. Why shouldnt I wish peace onTazio or anyone else I care to? If we all did the same in a genuine manner there would funnily enough be no wars

Don't think you wishing him well is the issue do you?

I for one am glad to see Pakistan fighting against the intolerant few.

Religion does not bring wars, humans do, but as often as not they use religion as an excuse.

Is pakistan not fighting soley against a religious intolerant few though? Is it not religion that shaped their intollerant view of the world? Obviously humans start wars, a concept, a completely unproven one at that, which religion is, cannot start a war on it's own can it?

[J-C]

You're not threatening me again are you?:wink:


Obviously meant better :greengrin

[J-C]

Why do you have such an issue with someone who wishes another well? Religion does not bring wars, humans do, but as often as not they use religion as an excuse. Aethiests also take part in wars and communism has had plenty wars despite saying they dont believe in God. You will never see an end to evangelising from religions but it should be done with love and respect and if your not religious or believe in a God then thats your choice and that choice should be respected. Why shouldnt I wish peace onTazio or anyone else I care to? If we all did the same in a genuine manner there would funnily enough be no wars


Nothing wrong with wishing peace to anyone, just asking their persuasion was not necessary as far as I could see, we all could be here till the end of the world discussing religion, I suppose that's the type of subject it is.
I understand and take into consideration your other points, which are important, as long as we all remamber it's discussion and doesn't turn heated. :greengrin

[Sir David Gray]

And what does that mean? What truth is that? I don't believe it is illegal to be christian in most of the countries mentioned so far.


In which case I dare you to go to Saudi Arabia and preach from the bible in any market street


That is very different from being allowed to have a belief.

Yes it is, but davy's point is still valid. He has picked the most extreme example in Saudi Arabia where practicing any religion, other than Islam, is illegal. However you could look at a countless number of Muslim majority countries where it is not illegal to be a non-Muslim, but if you follow any religion other than Islam, life is made extremely difficult for you.

There are restrictions on places of worship, restrictions on the production of Bibles, restrictions on public displays of your faith, restrictions on missionaries and discrimination in the legal system where non-Muslims are treated more harshly than a Muslim who is accused of the same crime.

In a number of countries, conditions are so bad that following any other religion may as well be illegal.


These last few posts are the exact reason I have nothing to do with religion, two guys start of discussing the topic then BANG! all of a sudden
" peace to you Tazio and your family whatever persuasion they are"

Why oh why do people always play the " and what religion are you then?" card, what the hell difference does it make, your having a discussion not a bloody argument. I hate all this religious nonsense, if there's only 1 god then tell me all you religious ones out there, why is there so many types of religion, surely 1 god should mean 1 religion, no.
Read the bible, even the Koran, they're books of stories and fables, a lot of which cannot be proved, they are teachings from sages and magi's to help their people understand life, no more.
Unfortunately we have in the world extremists, who take the words of certain books very literally and are brainwashed into thinking that by doing certain deeds they will get into heaven as heroes. This has been going on for hundreds of years, the crusades for example was us christians trying to turn muslim into christians and robbing them blind into the bargain.
We've even seen Ireland fighting amongst themselves for decades because 1 church is a wee bit different to the other and King Billy killed X amount of catholics into the bargain.

OK rant over, as you can see religion in a subject that annoys me because nearly every war there'e been hasa religion somewhere involved, so no religion, no wars.( except Africa where it's a tribal thing ) :greengrin

You are quite correct to say that religion has been the root cause of many wars in the world. However, I have to pick you up on the statement you make about Ireland.

Whilst the problems in Ireland are loosely based on religious grounds, the main problem lies between those who believe that Northern Ireland should remain as part of the UK and those who believe it should be united with the rest of the island as one country.

Obviously those that align themselves with the latter viewpoint generally come from the Roman Catholic community, whilst those who wish to see Northern Ireland remain within the UK generally hail from the Protestant community.

However it would be untrue to say that is a completely foolproof way of looking at the Troubles in Ireland over the past few decades. Although they are in the minority, there are Irish R.C.'s who believe in Unionism and Irish Protestants who believe in Republicanism.

Also, some of the Irish republican groups that have existed over the years have been Marxist in nature and have had nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

[J-C]

Yes it is, but davy's point is still valid. He has picked the most extreme example in Saudi Arabia where practicing any religion, other than Islam, is illegal. However you could look at a countless number of Muslim majority countries where it is not illegal to be a non-Muslim, but if you follow any religion other than Islam, life is made extremely difficult for you.

There are restrictions on places of worship, restrictions on the production of Bibles, restrictions on public displays of your faith, restrictions on missionaries and discrimination in the legal system where non-Muslims are treated more harshly than a Muslim who is accused of the same crime.

In a number of countries, conditions are so bad that following any other religion may as well be illegal.



You are quite correct to say that religion has been the root cause of many wars in the world. However, I have to pick you up on the statement you make about Ireland.

Whilst the problems in Ireland are loosely based on religious grounds, the main problem lies between those who believe that Northern Ireland should remain as part of the UK and those who believe it should be united with the rest of the island as one country.

Obviously those that align themselves with the latter viewpoint generally come from the Roman Catholic community, whilst those who wish to see Northern Ireland remain within the UK generally hail from the Protestant community.

However it would be untrue to say that is a completely foolproof way of looking at the Troubles in Ireland over the past few decades. Although they are in the minority, there are Irish R.C.'s who believe in Unionism and Irish Protestants who believe in Republicanism.

Also, some of the Irish republican groups that have existed over the years have been Marxist in nature and have had nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

I agree with you there, I was just pointing out that originally the conflict was religious but obviously has moved on since then as you have pointed out. Nowadays as far as I'm led to believe from some NI mates it's all to do with drugs, extortion etc, how times have changed.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I agree with you there, I was just pointing out that originally the conflict was religious but obviously has moved on since then as you ahve pointed out. Nowadays as far as I'm led to believe from some NI mates it's all to do with drugs, extortion etc, how times have changed.

Really, when was that?

[J-C]

Really, when was that?


Erm......1690, Battle of the Boyne, William of Orange etc


The Battle of the Boyne (Irish (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Irish_language): Cath na Bóinne) was fought in 1690 between two rival claimants of the English, Scottish and Irish thrones - the Catholic King James (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/James_II_of_England) and the Protestant King William (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/William_III_of_England), who had deposed James in 1688 (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Glorious_revolution). The battle, won by William, was a turning point in James' unsuccessful attempt to regain the crown (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Williamite_War) and ultimately helped ensure the continuation of Protestant supremacy in Ireland (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Protestant_Ascendancy).
The battle took place on July 1 (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/July_1), 1690 (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/1690) (Old Style (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Old_Style_and_New_Style_dates)) just outside the town of Drogheda (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Drogheda) on Ireland (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Ireland)'s east coast. The armies stood on opposing sides of the River Boyne (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/River_Boyne). William's forces easily defeated those of James who led an army of mostly raw recruits. The symbolic importance of this battle has made it one of the best-known battles in British (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/History_of_the_United_Kingdom) and Irish (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/History_of_Ireland) history. It is a key part in Ulster Protestant folklore (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Folklore) and is still commemorated today, principally by the Orange Institution (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Orange_Institution). As a consequence of the adoption of the Gregorian calendar (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Gregorian_calendar) ("New Style" dating), the battle is now commemorated on July 12 (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/July_12) each year

[steakbake]

Yes it is, but davy's point is still valid. He has picked the most extreme example in Saudi Arabia where practicing any religion, other than Islam, is illegal. However you could look at a countless number of Muslim majority countries where it is not illegal to be a non-Muslim, but if you follow any religion other than Islam, life is made extremely difficult for you.

There are restrictions on places of worship, restrictions on the production of Bibles, restrictions on public displays of your faith, restrictions on missionaries and discrimination in the legal system where non-Muslims are treated more harshly than a Muslim who is accused of the same crime.

In a number of countries, conditions are so bad that following any other religion may as well be illegal.



You are quite correct to say that religion has been the root cause of many wars in the world. However, I have to pick you up on the statement you make about Ireland.

Whilst the problems in Ireland are loosely based on religious grounds, the main problem lies between those who believe that Northern Ireland should remain as part of the UK and those who believe it should be united with the rest of the island as one country.

Obviously those that align themselves with the latter viewpoint generally come from the Roman Catholic community, whilst those who wish to see Northern Ireland remain within the UK generally hail from the Protestant community.

However it would be untrue to say that is a completely foolproof way of looking at the Troubles in Ireland over the past few decades. Although they are in the minority, there are Irish R.C.'s who believe in Unionism and Irish Protestants who believe in Republicanism.

Also, some of the Irish republican groups that have existed over the years have been Marxist in nature and have had nothing to do with religion whatsoever.

Arguably, you can also find no shortage of protestants who were founding members of the Irish nationalist movement such as the United Irishmen.

Theobald Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet and Lord Fitzgerald were all presbyterian/protestants.

Generally, it's a safe point to make that nationalists are more identified as RC and unionists as protestant.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Erm......1690, Battle of the Boyne, William of Orange etc


The Battle of the Boyne (Irish (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Irish_language): Cath na Bóinne) was fought in 1690 between two rival claimants of the English, Scottish and Irish thrones - the Catholic King James (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/James_II_of_England) and the Protestant King William (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/William_III_of_England), who had deposed James in 1688 (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Glorious_revolution). The battle, won by William, was a turning point in James' unsuccessful attempt to regain the crown (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Williamite_War) and ultimately helped ensure the continuation of Protestant supremacy in Ireland (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Protestant_Ascendancy).
The battle took place on July 1 (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/July_1), 1690 (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/1690) (Old Style (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Old_Style_and_New_Style_dates)) just outside the town of Drogheda (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Drogheda) on Ireland (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Ireland)'s east coast. The armies stood on opposing sides of the River Boyne (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/River_Boyne). William's forces easily defeated those of James who led an army of mostly raw recruits. The symbolic importance of this battle has made it one of the best-known battles in British (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/History_of_the_United_Kingdom) and Irish (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/History_of_Ireland) history. It is a key part in Ulster Protestant folklore (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Folklore) and is still commemorated today, principally by the Orange Institution (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Orange_Institution). As a consequence of the adoption of the Gregorian calendar (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/Gregorian_calendar) ("New Style" dating), the battle is now commemorated on July 12 (http://www.hibs.net/wiki/July_12) each year

Well yeah, but it's alot more complex than that. It's a slightly over-quoted fact but William's Dutch forces fought under a Papal banner. You could broadly argue that the Irish combatants were divided on religious (or probably rather ethnic) grounds but it wasn't a case of people fighting on the grounds of "Transubstantiation my arse!"/"Supremacy of the Bible my arse!" but on issues of land-ownership, control of Parliament etc. etc.

To say any conflict in Irish history is based solely in religious difference is more than a little lazy. It just so happens that at certain times it has been more 'imaged' in religious terms than at others.

[davy]

[QUOTE=BravestHibs;2035059]Don't think you wishing him well is the issue do you?

Dont feel I have to make a point on everything I say. I wished him well because I wanted him to know that although we might disagree on some point, I dont hold a personal grudge any more than I do discussing this with you. Sometimes debate can degenerate to a slagging match or point scoring. I didnt want it to seem like that.



Is pakistan not fighting soley against a religious intolerant few though?

In this case they are. They are also fighting for the support of money from the USA and also to protect their country from hostile takeover. I would imagine they would do the same if aethiests tried to infiltrate the country.

Is it not religion that shaped their intollerant view of the world?

Unfortunately some peoples understanding of religion is unhealthy and they feel they are serving God by killing. Others kill for other reasons, money or power usually.

Obviously humans start wars, a concept, a completely unproven one at that, which religion is, cannot start a war on it's own can it?

Again there are many wars that have been started by irreligious people. Communism have no belief in God yet many have been killed for that cause. Hitler was very likely an aethiest despite what people may claim. Even many people fighting under a banner do so because of greed and not neccessarily because they feel they are fighting for God or a god.

[J-C]

Well yeah, but it's alot more complex than that. It's a slightly over-quoted fact but William's Dutch forces fought under a Papal banner. You could broadly argue that the Irish combatants were divided on religious (or probably rather ethnic) grounds but it wasn't a case of people fighting on the grounds of "Transubstantiation my arse!"/"Supremacy of the Bible my arse!" but on issues of land-ownership, control of Parliament etc. etc.

To say any conflict in Irish history is based solely in religious difference is more than a little lazy. It just so happens that at certain times it has been more 'imaged' in religious terms than at others.


Did I say that the whole Irish problem was a religious thing, I think I stated that the initial prblems in Ireland started between protestants and catholics. This may have changed a lot over the few hundred years since then and extortion, drug barons etc has now taken over but go over to Belfast and you'll still find a seperate city where sectarianism is still very rife. Kids get brainwashed from an early age and brought up spewing the religious hatred, just look at our ****bag neighbours out west, still spouting all their bigotted guff.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Did I say that the whole Irish problem was a religious thing, I think I stated that the initial prblems in Ireland started between protestants and catholics. This may have changed a lot over the few hundred years since then and extortion, drug barons etc has now taken over but go over to Belfast and you'll still find a seperate city where sectarianism is still very rife. Kids get brainwashed from an early age and brought up spewing the religious hatred, just look at our ****bag neighbours out west, still spouting all their bigotted guff.

Ok then. The emboldened part certainly isn't true, though. The Plantation (which I assume you are referring to) was just a means of asserting English dominance in Ireland - you'd had about four centuries of Anglo-Norman and English conquest and conflict before the Plantation even took place.

[J-C]

[QUOTE=LiverpoolHibs;2038546]Ok then. The emboldened part certainly isn't true, though. The Plantation (which I assume you are referring to) was just a means of asserting English dominance in Ireland - you'd had about four centuries of Anglo-Norman and English conquest and conflict before the Plantation even took place.[/QUOTE

This could go on forever and I for one have got more to do with my time, as I stated in a previous post I hate religion and feel that religion and politics should never be discussed on any forum due to the potential arguements they may cause.
You can go on all you like about the history of Ireland but religion is certainly part of it, not all of it but definately a part.