By Church I presume you're talking about the Roman Catholic Church? They get a bad press these days but actually they were trying their best. You have to remember that once the Roman empire fell (to barbarians - sound eerily familiar?) there was basically no government anymore, so the Church stepped in and did its best to provide some form of much needed authority - not saying they were perfect (it is a man-made institution after all), but the Church did plenty of good as well as a bit of bad every now and then. One thing that's really surprising if you read up on it is the Crusader states. Revisionist historians like to portray these as cruel, imperialist white-men enslaving the local Muslim population but actually, that couldn't be further from the truth - they were often bastions of multi-cultural tolerance, even plenty of Muslims liked living there because it was preferable to life in the Caliphate.
Manchester Bombing *** Please remain respectful and refrain from antagonising posts ***
- Thread starter omnomnom
- Start date
Yea!! You got it.................
It's best to approach those posts by assuming the person writing them hasn't really given the content much thought.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,341
its a tricky scenario, on the one hand we want to stop this (obviously), on the other how much of what makes us ourselves are we willing to sacrifice?
for example take Katie Hopkins horrific post.
do I agree with what he said? hell no, we have concentration camps as museums to remind us how horrible we can be if we let ourselves.
do I support her freedom to say what she said? hell yes, she can say what the hell she likes, that's freedom, but don't mistake that for my freedom to ignore/disagree.
what we don't need is for our fixes to make us not ourselves, by changing us to such extremes you could argue that the terrorists have won. lets face it we could so easily reduce the middle east to radioactive dust, and kill everyone who claims to follow this religion, but in doing so we sacrifice the very principles for which we stand.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 6,613
I've been following Indonesia situation, yes they are, you know why they are?
Islamic terrorism.
That's why. They got attacked and then attacked back.
Not necessarily down to Buddhist ideology rather ethnic/sectarian violence where the perpetrators's religion is Buddhism. I mean this seems to be the equivalent of blaming IRA violence on Catholicism because the IRA happened to be made up of mostly Catholics.
But if you allow that then you have to also allow the hatred and propaganda that the rancid extremists preach that indoctrinates and encourages people to commit atrocitys like we saw in Manchester.
I'm a believer in free speech, but up to a point.
What does this have to do with Manchester? If you want to make a thread for other things then nothing is stopping you.
Robbo, it's his standard modus operandi. JohnnyG had a solution to it earlier when I tried to call him out on it.
The threat level has been increased from severe to critical, whatever the hell that means in practise, apparently another attack is 'imminent'
military being deployed to support the armed police, sounds like they're pulling out the stops
military being deployed to support the armed police, sounds like they're pulling out the stops
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,341
this is where it gets tricky, where do we draw the line?
Sounds like credible intelligence coming through. Possibly from the raids/arrests today
I'm trying to point out to people here that we shouldn't be making sweeping statements about individual religions and that it's about extremism and interpretations.
We don't judge all Buddhists by the actions of the violent extremists in Burma and we don't judge all Christians by the extreme actions from the christian terrorists the lord resistance army in Africa!