Praise Allah to be on British buses

Why on Earth not? :confused:

Many good reasons not to give to religious charities.
Human rights, politics, pushing religion on vulnerable people.

The Catholics have to be one of the worst. Lots of aid in Africa, much of which is needed by their own hardline on condoms, creating the AIDs endemic they're trying to "help" with, whilst being extremely missionary and trying to convert the masses.

Everyone should do far more research on what charities they give to, how the money is spent and if there's any underhand motives, or any pushing for political change.
 
Arabic for praise God. It's like writing 'praise God' on the side of buses in english. No one would bat an eye.

Actually, both make me nervous. Large-scale organized religion always makes me a little uneasy as does any popular movement that you are outside of.

But ultimately free speech is free speech. I also kind of felt uneasy when an Atheist organization started putting messages on the side of busses stating there is no god and I supported the bus driver who refused to drive one because it was offensive to him.

I think in general I'm just uneasy with overt displays of belief intended to get others to believe the same thing by assertion.
 
Actually, both make me nervous. Large-scale organized religion always makes me a little uneasy as does any popular movement that you are outside of.

But ultimately free speech is free speech. I also kind of felt uneasy when an Atheist organization started putting messages on the side of busses stating there is no god and I supported the bus driver who refused to drive one because it was offensive to him.

I think in general I'm just uneasy with overt displays of belief intended to get others to believe the same thing by assertion.

Imo, we shouldn't allow any advertising that can't be supported by evidence and we shouldn't allow any advertising that tries to deceive or uses clever tricks to confuse people. Adverts like those would then be banned, and 99.99% of the remaining adverts would have to change.

Oh and many people did bat an eye lid when Christian advertising happens.
 
Just a quick reminder that not too long ago, followers of that very cult tried to introduce London's public transport to the peaceful way of Allah.

People's ignorance of statistics never ceases to amaze me. A couple of billion muslims on the planet. If even 1% of them were terrorists of this kind the planet would be on fire by now. Yet some think it correct to extrapolate from a tiny percentage to the far larger group. Instead, the scientific response would be to look for narrower criteria that grouped these together.
 
'a cult is a religious or social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices.'
I think you need to understand a little harder.

A cult is a small, unpopular religion. A religion is a large, popular cult.

There is little functional difference if any except for size and even your own definition recognizes this because what is "socially deviant" if not a reference to popular acceptance?

I'm fine with people calling Islam a cult. It is. I'm not fine with people implying that muslim = terrorist, it doesn't.

And to people who argue that muslims countries do X so Christian countries can do Y, you don't get to claim Britain as a "Christian country". It's secular by law and by lack of dominance by any one strong religious belief.
 
The word cult was used to express disdain.
Cult is not the normal thing to call a major world religion. Christianity is not widely thought of as a cult, and by equal token neither is Islam.
If you were asked in a quiz what Christianity or Islam were for £1000 you would most likely say they are religions. I don't think your answer would be cult.

It's certainly used to express disdain. That doesn't make it off the mark. Islam has some very unpleasant beliefs in it and due to the nature of Islam requiring the Quran to be considered the literal word of God, there's little getting away from it. Homophobia, misogyny, mutilation... If your objection is that people should not dislike Islam, then I find your objection flawed.
 
I have more of a problem with shampoo adverts and their weird animations explaining pseudo science than i do with an ad on the side of a bus which seems to target customers they already have and drive (;)) away everyone else.
 
Yeah because those brainwashed fanatics represent billions of normal peaceful Muslims :rolleyes:

I have no problem with it but you usual knuckle draggers are obviously going to have a problem with it ie Britain First, EDL, BNP ..etc .etc

Why do people like you go down the same route and **** off someone as being of low intelligence etc like the knuckle draggers remark above if they have a different opinion on Islam than you?

You are all the same, you can't put a valid point across so you just call everyone else who criticise's Islam as knuckle draggers, you make me laugh.
 
Imo, we shouldn't allow any advertising that can't be supported by evidence and we shouldn't allow any advertising that tries to deceive or uses clever tricks to confuse people. Adverts like those would then be banned, and 99.99% of the remaining adverts would have to change.

That would be interesting. There's an obvious second-order loophole where you simply state that you believe something which would be a factual statement.

It reminds me of an old Phillip K. Dick novel called The World That Jones Made, in which no-one is allowed to preach something to another unless they can prove it is true.


EDL is not the same as BNP. The EDL is quite different, though similarly treated by the press.
 
They are just misunderstood?

Honestly, yes. Or at least they were for a long time. Watch a few interviews with Tommy Robinson and tell me you're not watching someone being slandered and shouted down with ad hominems and strawmen.

Though Tommy sadly left a couple of years ago as the organization shifted to become more extremist. Not to sound too conspiratorial but the original EDL was exactly what the government hates - a non-establishment movement that has quite a few intelligent middle class members as well as popular base amongst the working class. "Suits and boots" some of the government academics called it. Racist working class organizations don't gain traction - as the BNP showed for years. Middle class movements, well, they're seldom really movements because the Middle classes are both too comfortable and too busy trying to pay off mortgages to actually rock the boat. But when you get a group that appeals across classes and has respectable members able to argue coherently and who aren't easily dismissed as racist and uneducated, it doesn't half upset people. The media campaign against the EDL was far more vitriolic and organized than it ever was against the BNP (who really are a bunch of racist idiots).

Given that MI5 infiltrated the Green Party (established fact) and the Met have planted Agents Provocateurs in Stop the War marches to incite violence (again, known facts), I've long suspected that some of the more extreme members who joined the EDL later on were plants designed to both discredit it and push it more towards extremism.

I know it's a cliché but sometimes they really are out to get you. And if you're a popular movement gaining traction and not an accepted part of the Establishment, it's practically a given that they will.

Why do people like you go down the same route and **** off someone as being of low intelligence etc like the knuckle draggers remark above if they have a different opinion on Islam than you?

You are all the same, you can't put a valid point across so you just call everyone else who criticise's Islam as knuckle draggers, you make me laugh.

I think the knuckledragger part was referring to people who conflate muslim with terrorism. The picture that was originally posted was of that bus that was blown up by a suicide bomber on 7/7. And people such of that have a poor grasp of numbers. I don't think it was referring to all critics Islam though. If it were, then they'll have to argue with me because I have a considerable dislike of the religion. I just don't assume because someone identifies as a follower of it that they're a terrible person or a terrorist.
 
I'd ideally want to see Islam outlawed in the UK, but failing that the least I'd hope for is for it to not be allowed in the public space.

Freedom of religion is not something worth defending. It was something conjured up in different times to help resolve sectarian conflict between Christians, not to tolerate the odious and aggressive religion of Islam.
 
Freedom of religion is worth defending for the sake of preventing strife regardless of religion. If you think making a religion illegal will make extremist fanatics think twice before beheading you, then maybe the head might work better off your shoulders...

Making it illegal would make the UK the focus of Islamic extremism on an international level and label the UK as spearheading the anti-Muslim movement. I can only foresee more violence and trouble by going down this path.
 
Technically it would fall foul of the misleading advertising Laws in the UK as it: Infers you will be 'rewarded' for Donating to their Charity by a fictional deity. Can they give actual 'Evidence' or 'Proof' this will occur? I highly doubt it. :cool::D
 
Back
Top Bottom