British Muslims demand insulting Islam be outlawed

[Katzndogz]

The example I quoted from his link was enforced in 1977, in my adult lifetime (and in my state ). I'd say that's "current".

Fortunately it was, and they should be, easy cases to prove unconstitutional, but the point is the laws are/were already on the books-- in a nation that explicitly prohibits such legislation as point number one of its Constitution. I'm not much of a mathematician but 1977 looks to be nearly two centuries after that Constitution went into effect.

That's food for thought right there and it's ignored at our peril.

1977 isn't that current any longer, I know I was around also, hell do you know how many Blue Laws are on the books? I'd say these law definitely qualify as blue laws. Our history is rife with constitutional hypocrisy where religion is concerned but we've mostly grown out of it which give us a perspective, a 'don't do that it doesn't work perspective'. Islam is at least two centuries behind Christianity in its evolution as a world religion, Christianity went through those stages, now it's Islam's turn.

Oh yes of course I know about blue laws-- I'm from Pennsylvania
Only a few months ago I walked up to a cashier in a grocery store with a four-pack of beer (Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout if you're scoring at home) and the cashier said "I cant sell you this for three minutes". Apparently in North Carolina you can't sell alcohol before noon, or before noon on a certain day or whatever. We actually stood there and waited for the clock to tick off so I could make my purchase. That law is on the books right now.

I guess the admonition is of the hubris that comes from the attitude "maybe we were fucked up but we're all perfect now". That's never a good perch to roost on, so I like to chase us off that perch.

And yes, absolutely agree about temporal stages. I keep noting when the rabblerousers go digging up beheadings in Arabia and affixing a systemic causality solely from Islam that "we" did the same things and far worse in the Inquisition. The point there being their fixation on the symptom of one specific religion, while ignoring the disease of mob mentality born of organized religion in general.

That's in fact my whole purpose in threads like this: to point out the big picture. To quash hypocrisy.

There is a big difference between having to wait three minutes to buy a beer and getting your head cut off for not having a long enough beard.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

If you are speaking of the power the Vatican and RCC used to wield I'd have to agree with you. I suspect that is the inconvenient truth and we may yet see a revival of that power - accompanied by something different and more dangerous this time.

We should always be watchful for religious overreach of any form including gov. as you pointed out. To be clear, Coyote, I don't believe any religion should have a voice in politics. I believe politics benefits from the association but certainly not the church or the reputation of the church.

I wasn't referring to the Vatican (what's RCC?) - I was thinking more about Christian Reconstructionists and some of the fundamentalist sects that are politically active.

I'm strongly for seperation of church and state - for the protection and benefit of both

RCC is Roman Catholic Church and there is a period in which they wielded incredible political power. So great in fact that many who opposed them were burned at the stake or imprisoned. That is what I'm referring to. The fundamentalists - evangelicals have no political aspirations - as a church - the evangelicals are fully supportive of separation of church and state.

 

[Pogo]

1977 isn't that current any longer, I know I was around also, hell do you know how many Blue Laws are on the books? I'd say these law definitely qualify as blue laws. Our history is rife with constitutional hypocrisy where religion is concerned but we've mostly grown out of it which give us a perspective, a 'don't do that it doesn't work perspective'. Islam is at least two centuries behind Christianity in its evolution as a world religion, Christianity went through those stages, now it's Islam's turn.

Oh yes of course I know about blue laws-- I'm from Pennsylvania
Only a few months ago I walked up to a cashier in a grocery store with a four-pack of beer (Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout if you're scoring at home) and the cashier said "I cant sell you this for three minutes". Apparently in North Carolina you can't sell alcohol before noon, or before noon on a certain day or whatever. We actually stood there and waited for the clock to tick off so I could make my purchase. That law is on the books right now.

I guess the admonition is of the hubris that comes from the attitude "maybe we were fucked up but we're all perfect now". That's never a good perch to roost on, so I like to chase us off that perch.

And yes, absolutely agree about temporal stages. I keep noting when the rabblerousers go digging up beheadings in Arabia and affixing a systemic causality solely from Islam that "we" did the same things and far worse in the Inquisition. The point there being their fixation on the symptom of one specific religion, while ignoring the disease of mob mentality born of organized religion in general.

That's in fact my whole purpose in threads like this: to point out the big picture. To quash hypocrisy.

There is a big difference between having to wait three minutes to buy a beer and getting your head cut off for not having a long enough beard.

Sure, but not so much difference in the decision to take the path of legislating religion in the first place. The distinction here is merely different points on that path.

The point about the beer is (a) to cite a "current" example, and (b) to put in a plug for Old Rasputin Russian Imperial Stout.

 

[Katzndogz]

If you are speaking of the power the Vatican and RCC used to wield I'd have to agree with you. I suspect that is the inconvenient truth and we may yet see a revival of that power - accompanied by something different and more dangerous this time.

We should always be watchful for religious overreach of any form including gov. as you pointed out. To be clear, Coyote, I don't believe any religion should have a voice in politics. I believe politics benefits from the association but certainly not the church or the reputation of the church.

I wasn't referring to the Vatican (what's RCC?) - I was thinking more about Christian Reconstructionists and some of the fundamentalist sects that are politically active.

I'm strongly for seperation of church and state - for the protection and benefit of both

RCC is Roman Catholic Church and there is a period in which they wielded incredible political power. So great in fact that many who opposed them were burned at the stake or imprisoned. That is what I'm referring to. The fundamentalists - evangelicals have no political aspirations - as a church - the evangelicals are fully supportive of separation of church and state.

The reason why the Church possessed such power was because the Monarch of that country was catholic. It wasn't because the church just decided on its own to persecute non catholics. It wasn't religious differences but political differences. To not be catholic when the King was catholic was not only heresy, but treason as well. It defied the absolute authority of the monarch.

It really is no different than liberals today who want to imprison or in some cases execute those individuals who criticize obama. Especially since there is a significant percentage of Americans who call obama the savior. What should happen to those who don't accept obama's infallibility? The same as what happened to those who didn't accept the King's infallibility?

 

[Pogo]

I wasn't referring to the Vatican (what's RCC?) - I was thinking more about Christian Reconstructionists and some of the fundamentalist sects that are politically active.

I'm strongly for seperation of church and state - for the protection and benefit of both

RCC is Roman Catholic Church and there is a period in which they wielded incredible political power. So great in fact that many who opposed them were burned at the stake or imprisoned. That is what I'm referring to. The fundamentalists - evangelicals have no political aspirations - as a church - the evangelicals are fully supportive of separation of church and state.

The reason why the Church possessed such power was because the Monarch of that country was catholic. It wasn't because the church just decided on its own to persecute non catholics. It wasn't religious differences but political differences. To not be catholic when the King was catholic was not only heresy, but treason as well. It defied the absolute authority of the monarch.

It really is no different than liberals today who want to imprison or in some cases execute those individuals who criticize obama. Especially since there is a significant percentage of Americans who call obama the savior. What should happen to those who don't accept obama's infallibility? The same as what happened to those who didn't accept the King's infallibility?

Wow.

What color were those mushrooms? Did you have to ingest them ALL?

 

[Esmeralda]

RCC is Roman Catholic Church and there is a period in which they wielded incredible political power. So great in fact that many who opposed them were burned at the stake or imprisoned. That is what I'm referring to. The fundamentalists - evangelicals have no political aspirations - as a church - the evangelicals are fully supportive of separation of church and state.

The reason why the Church possessed such power was because the Monarch of that country was catholic. It wasn't because the church just decided on its own to persecute non catholics. It wasn't religious differences but political differences. To not be catholic when the King was catholic was not only heresy, but treason as well. It defied the absolute authority of the monarch.

It really is no different than liberals today who want to imprison or in some cases execute those individuals who criticize obama. Especially since there is a significant percentage of Americans who call obama the savior. What should happen to those who don't accept obama's infallibility? The same as what happened to those who didn't accept the King's infallibility?

Wow.

What color were those mushrooms? Did you have to ingest them ALL?

Wow is right. Where the hell does he get that stuff?

 

[t_polkow]

If one is born a religion, does that mean God is so great that free choice is threatening?

Well the bible god who is all powerful creator of the universe; but he is jealous!!

"You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God” (Exodus 20:4-5)"

 

[t_polkow]

If you are speaking of the power the Vatican and RCC used to wield I'd have to agree with you. I suspect that is the inconvenient truth and we may yet see a revival of that power - accompanied by something different and more dangerous this time.

We should always be watchful for religious overreach of any form including gov. as you pointed out. To be clear, Coyote, I don't believe any religion should have a voice in politics. I believe politics benefits from the association but certainly not the church or the reputation of the church.

I wasn't referring to the Vatican (what's RCC?) - I was thinking more about Christian Reconstructionists and some of the fundamentalist sects that are politically active.

I'm strongly for seperation of church and state - for the protection and benefit of both

RCC is Roman Catholic Church and there is a period in which they wielded incredible political power. So great in fact that many who opposed them were burned at the stake or imprisoned. That is what I'm referring to. The fundamentalists - evangelicals have no political aspirations - as a church - the evangelicals are fully supportive of separation of church and state.

And jesus the mamzer wasn't named a son of god until 325 b.c.e. by the catholic church, the same church that change the day of worship to Sunday and that came up with the three in one god concept, the same stuff fundies follow today. Christianity was spread by the sword by the roman empire . the more educated people become the lee need for the god superstition especially the christer variety.

 

[Pogo]

I wasn't referring to the Vatican (what's RCC?) - I was thinking more about Christian Reconstructionists and some of the fundamentalist sects that are politically active.

I'm strongly for seperation of church and state - for the protection and benefit of both

RCC is Roman Catholic Church and there is a period in which they wielded incredible political power. So great in fact that many who opposed them were burned at the stake or imprisoned. That is what I'm referring to. The fundamentalists - evangelicals have no political aspirations - as a church - the evangelicals are fully supportive of separation of church and state.

And jesus the mamzer wasn't named a son of god until 325 b.c.e. by the catholic church, the same church that change the day of worship to Sunday and that came up with the three in one god concept, the same stuff fundies follow today. Christianity was spread by the sword by the roman empire . the more educated people become the lee need for the god superstition especially the christer variety.

You mean 325 CE (not BCE). Indeed, the Council of Nicea, who voted on whether or not Jesus was divine (and it was not unanimous). Then the Septuagint rewrote the new testament and destroyed all previous copies. Or so they thought. And all this three hundred years after the fact. This is like us writing a definitive new story of Isaac Newton today, and destroying all previous accounts, including those of his contemporaries. It boggles the mind that people still follow this relic of antique superstition. Any of it.

 

[Kondor3]

"...Christianity was spread by the sword by the roman empire..."

If memory serves correctly, it was more like: Christianity was spread peacefully 'round most of the Mediterranean Basin and much of the lands more distant from the sea, by the underclasses of the Roman Empire.

Centuries later, once firmly entrenched in both the Eastern Empire and in many of the Frankish and Gothic and Celtic kingdoms and dukedoms of the post-Imperial period in the old (defunct) Western Empire, it then experienced a number of additional phases of expansion on the point of the Christianized Barbarian or Christianized Tuetonic or Christianized Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Imperial sword.

But its formative decades and centuries and its original and broadest phase of introduction and expansion and traction and momentum-building were largely peaceful and oftentimes clandestine thanks to sporadic but vicious persecutions and pogroms by various Emporers - entirely focused upon the relayed peaceful teachings of its founder and his evangelists rather than the accretions and imperial and secular attributes attached to it in later years.

Or so I seem to recall...

 

[Kondor3]

"...Christianity was spread by the sword by the roman empire..."

If memory serves correctly, it was more like: Christianity was spread peacefully 'round most of the Mediterranean Basin and much of the lands more distant from the sea, by the underclasses of the Roman Empire.

Centuries later, once firmly entrenched in both the Eastern Empire and in many of the Frankish and Gothic and Celtic kingdoms and dukedoms of the post-Imperial period in the old (defunct) Western Empire, it then experienced a number of additional phases of expansion on the point of the Christianized Barbarian or Christianized Tuetonic or Christianized Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Imperial sword.

But its formative decades and centuries and its original and broadest phase of introduction and expansion and traction and momentum-building were largely peaceful and oftentimes clandestine thanks to sporadic but vicious persecutions and pogroms by various Emporers - entirely focused upon the relayed peaceful teachings of its founder and his evangelists rather than the accretions and imperial and secular attributes attached to it in later years.

Or so I seem to recall...

 

[there4eyeM]

" It boggles the mind that people still follow this relic of antique superstition. Any of it."

While equally astonished, I would add that it isn't so surprising given what more modern people have believed: Monarchy, Nazism, Stalinism, trickle-down, Jim Jones, the Temple de Soleil and many other movements and belief systems too numerous and too ridiculous to enumerate.

One believes by choice. When choices are conscious, they are more human, but can also lead to disastrous results..

Unconscious choice is the domain of many movements as well and is really sadder.

 

[Pogo]

"...Christianity was spread by the sword by the roman empire..."

If memory serves correctly, it was more like: Christianity was spread peacefully 'round most of the Mediterranean Basin and much of the lands more distant from the sea, by the underclasses of the Roman Empire.

Centuries later, once firmly entrenched in both the Eastern Empire and in many of the Frankish and Gothic and Celtic kingdoms and dukedoms of the post-Imperial period in the old (defunct) Western Empire, it then experienced a number of additional phases of expansion on the point of the Christianized Barbarian or Christianized Tuetonic or Christianized Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Imperial sword.

But its formative decades and centuries and its original and broadest phase of introduction and expansion and traction and momentum-building were largely peaceful and oftentimes clandestine thanks to sporadic but vicious persecutions and pogroms by various Emporers - entirely focused upon the relayed peaceful teachings of its founder and his evangelists rather than the accretions and imperial and secular attributes attached to it in later years.

Or so I seem to recall...

I love how you suddenly shift to the passive voice there (in dark green), plus make sure to insert the word "Byzantine".
It didn't "commit" barbarism; it "experienced a shift to" it. You could be a political campaign speechwriter.

The part in Sienna I have serious doubts about; keep in mind that that entire history is written by the victors.

 

[there4eyeM]

"...Christianity was spread by the sword by the roman empire..."

If memory serves correctly, it was more like: Christianity was spread peacefully 'round most of the Mediterranean Basin and much of the lands more distant from the sea, by the underclasses of the Roman Empire.

Centuries later, once firmly entrenched in both the Eastern Empire and in many of the Frankish and Gothic and Celtic kingdoms and dukedoms of the post-Imperial period in the old (defunct) Western Empire, it then experienced a number of additional phases of expansion on the point of the Christianized Barbarian or Christianized Tuetonic or Christianized Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Imperial sword.

But its formative decades and centuries and its original and broadest phase of introduction and expansion and traction and momentum-building were largely peaceful and oftentimes clandestine thanks to sporadic but vicious persecutions and pogroms by various Emporers - entirely focused upon the relayed peaceful teachings of its founder and his evangelists rather than the accretions and imperial and secular attributes attached to it in later years.

Or so I seem to recall...

Drone Angels were a major advantage.

 

[HUGGY]

Thousands rally in UK to demand end to anti-Islam speeches - thenews.com.pk

Interesting the western media totally ignored this

And this is a concern here in the U S A ?

 

[Kondor3]

"...I love how you suddenly shift to the passive voice there..."

Thanks... I thought it was darned convenient myself...

"...plus make sure to insert the word 'Byzantine'..."

Gotta love it when accuracy and convenience are so closely integrated...

"...It didn't 'commit' barbarism; it 'experienced a shift to' it. You could be a political campaign speechwriter..."

Nahhhh... I wasn't trying to dodge-and-deflect, rather, I was merely conveying the idea that later phases of expansion - some of which were undertaken at the point of a sword - were done on the Barbarian Kingdom's watch rather than the original (Western) Romans' watch.

"...I have serious doubts about; keep in mind that that entire history is written by the victors."

We differ on that one (as I suspect we will differ on a variety of things), but that's OK. To my way of thinking, there seems to be far too much surviving contemporary pagan commentary on the subject as well as subsequent (AD 250 and beyond) anti-Christian legislation and enforcement of Emperor-Worship, to reject the stereotypical understanding of great persecution during the formative centuries of that belief system.

 

[Sunshine]

It's like condemning American criticism of slavery in parts of Africa and the Middle East by saying 150 years ago the US had slaves. I don't see any difference.

There is one major difference: no one (outside of a handful of crackpots) supports slavery, but there is a significant enough minority of people and even elected officials that support the insertion of religion into government.

And the consistent thread that runs through it all is that if someone says they don't want a Christian theocracy they are not a bigot; but if someone says they don't want a muslim theocracy, then the are a bigot.

 

[HUGGY]

It's like condemning American criticism of slavery in parts of Africa and the Middle East by saying 150 years ago the US had slaves. I don't see any difference.

There is one major difference: no one (outside of a handful of crackpots) supports slavery, but there is a significant enough minority of people and even elected officials that support the insertion of religion into government.

And the consistent thread that runs through it all is that if someone says they don't want a Christian theocracy they are not a bigot; but if someone says they don't want a muslim theocracy, then the are a bigot.

Why should we be concerned with what the "someones" in the UK say? The someones in the USA are permitted to whine about anything and everything equally. That is not going to change because those idiots in Eggland have anything to say..or not to say about it.

 

[Sunshine]

There is one major difference: no one (outside of a handful of crackpots) supports slavery, but there is a significant enough minority of people and even elected officials that support the insertion of religion into government.

And the consistent thread that runs through it all is that if someone says they don't want a Christian theocracy they are not a bigot; but if someone says they don't want a muslim theocracy, then the are a bigot.

Why should we be concerned with what the "someones" in the UK say? The someones in the USA are permitted to whine about anything and everything equally. That is not going to change because those idiots in Eggland have anything to say..or not to say about it.

Well, I am watching that situation with interest. They do have a mechanism which we do not have at their disposal to fix the problem. I'm just wondering if they have the intestinal fortitude to use it.

But you have to admit that anyone who doesn't approve of an islamic theocracy is called a bigot. Not so if they don't approve of a Christian theocracy.

Why the glaring double standard.

 

[Beachboy]

No...we have a Constitution that prevents the establishment of a state religion....

A Constitution which can be changed. With sufficient numbers it can and will be.

If in two hundred plus years, despite major efforts, a significant conservative Christian majority has NOT managed to establish a state religion, I highly doubt a tiny conservative Muslim minority will be able to do it either.

Now, see that you are about where I was two weeks ago. The I began living in Google. Muslim world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"As of 2010, over 1.6 billion or about 23.4% of the world population are Muslims. Of these, around 62% live in Asia-Pacific, 20% in the Middle East-North Africa 15% in Sub-Saharan Africa,around 3% in Europe, and 0.3% in the Americas."

The population of the United States in the 2010 census was 316,000,000.

So with 1.6000,000,000 Muslims, there are 5,063 Muslims for each American. I don't think there is a military person alive that would not call that a serious threat to United States National Security. Thank heaven for all the military technology we have. It will be the only way we can survive against these barbarians.

Hey, liberals, turn on your brains and focus on that reality! The conservatives already know it, and we Independents are learning quickly.
​