egafd.com

Once again more insults from Sam e.g. slimeball. I will not rise to these insults. Instead, to your obvious discomfort, I will concentrate on the arguments. Respect to Cockneygeezer for not responding to the insults heading his way in a like minded way.

"As you can see, David wants to talk about censorship now, rather than persecution. And he wants to split persecution from individuals and governments to muddy the waters and avoid the obvious conclusions we can draw from it all."

No. Read your own link. The Pew Report refers to exactly that separation:

1. The Government Restrictions Index (GRI) measures government laws, policies and actions that restrict religious beliefs and practices.
2The Social Hostilities Index (SHI) measures acts of religious hostility by private individuals, organizations or groups in society. This includes religion-related armed conflict or terrorism, mob or sectarian violence, harassment over attire for religious reasons or other religion-related intimidation or abuse.

"Fact is, the pew report takes into account all religious persecution and rates each country. 20 out of 24 of the countries rated 'very high' in religious persecution are Islamic states"

You have not understood the table you have copied from. The title of that table in the Pew Report is entitled "Countries with Very High GOVERNMENT restrictions on Religion. This table does not refer to ALL religious persecution in that a lot of religious persecution is carried out by individuals, groups etc in society.

For SOCIAL HOSTILIES there is a completely different list in which the overwhelming influence in terms of population is NON-MUSLIM countries such as China, India, Burma. THis table which you have completely overlooked is entitled Countries with very high SOCIAL HOSTILITIES INVOLVING RELIGION.

"Sully my character"

Who needs to do that, when you appear to make such a brilliant job of doing it yourself by spewing out unwarranted insults to myself and Cockney?

"decided to address the Pew report itself (and even then it was mainly a criticism of my conclusions and motives for posting rather than addressing the findings themselves)."

I had forgotten that your views must never ever be questioned. I merely pointed out that your use of this report is selective in taking one table only and ignoring the SOCIAL HOSTILITIES table.

"All conveniently forgotten to back up cockneygeezer's wrong and silly implication that I 'hate Muslims'

That is the obvious implication of what you say because you fail totally to address my point as to why millions of Muslims in Britain follow the tenets of a "Bronze Age cult" whilst still being perfectly law abiding and peaceful towards the non-Muslim people of the UK.

Have a relaxed evening watching the footie.

What I forgot to mention is something concerning Sam's choice of the Government Restrictions on Religion table from which he copies the 24 countries in his post.

I have no reason to doubt the validity of the list but I can comment on its use to support various conclusions.

For example, does a Muslim government restrictions on religion support the view that:

1. Islam is a "Bronze Age cult" which often results in governments suppressing other religions or sects?

Or does it support the view that:

2. Some Muslim governments are using religious intolerance to keep in power. For example, I do not think of Saddam Hussein as a religious person following the tenets of an evil religion, I think of him as a secular dictator who played lip service to religion to help maintain power and persecuted religious groups like the Shia who he thought might be a threat to him and his power.

Cue !shitstorm! slimebag, dishonest, disingenuous, blah blah !shitstorm!

Personally I'd have anyone that holds religious beliefs put to death. Too many people on this planet as it is, so a cull is necessary, and as most wars/conflicts are (sometimes only notionally) about religious differences it would solve many problems.

"Personally I'd have anyone that holds religious beliefs put to death."

I wouldn't go that far. I know you're only joking though.

"Too many people on this planet as it is, so a cull is necessary,"

We humans do like fucking.

Nothing to do with the original post at the top of this thread but hey ho waiting for a very calm reasoned and well thought out response from Sam.

[quote]You bought the whole subject up to further some kind of agenda. What's the problem?[/quote]

My problem was clearly pointed out. I post a link to a poll. You didn't argue against the poll. You didn't link to other polls which may cast doubt on the poll I posted. You seemingly had no argument with the poll. Instead, you implied I was a bigot when, if you'd have been around here long enough, would know I've spend years on here pulling people up for their bigoted views..........and yes, even defending Muslims.

This was about the poll and the obvious conclusions, not me. It's a common and all too unfortunate tactic of resorting to character assassination when you have no real argument of your own.

[quote]I'm bigoted against bigots. There are good and bad people in the world. Your agenda is Islam is bad. I take a different view.[/quote]

You're entitled to your view, as I am mine. I, at least, try to justify my views and explain them......hence, posting this poll. It's to show that data affects how I think. Isn't this a fair and just way of living life? Because, what is the alternative? To have views despite what the data says? That would mean an unwillingness to have your views changed - the opposite of being open minded. Now, the data could be wrong, which means my views are wrong, so then the argument should be about the data, not me. Get it? You made it about me, which shows you didn't like what the data was saying yet had no argument against it so you made it about my agenda. That's a problem for you to sort out with yourself, not me.

[quote]If you criticised Christianity for the bad things it's responsible for i would call that a balanced and objective view.[/quote]

You've missed all those posts where I criticise the paedo priests, the mad creationists trying to take over schools in the US and showed all the links the Catholic Church has to fascism then.

Your whole problem here is obvious. You saw a white guy attack a faith where the followers are mainly brown skinned and you thought 'racist'. You were presumptuous and wrong to jump to such a conclusion without any evidence and I accept your apology in your other post.

Though you were wrong, you at least have less knowledge of my past posts and arguments with the racists on here. In this respect your attack on me isn't as bad as David Johnson who does know - yet posted comments to back up your wrong assertion. A cowardly and snidey move that makes what he did much more despicable given he and I have, in the past, joined forces in defending Muslims/immigrants/gays/whatever. Just lends more weight to my 'slimeball' accusation. He's an opportunistic, disingenuous weasel. A man that will stab you in the back for his own gain. Clear sociopathic traits. Now you may understand why I won't have anything to do with the snide.

[quote]It's about your agenda of Anti Islam. You seem to have a problem with people who disagree with you.[/quote]

Have I implied or said you are a bad person like you did me?

It was you that had a problem with me having a view different to yours. I have no issue with you disagreeing.......just your wrong and hurtful assertion that I 'hate Muslims'.

If you cannot make you see this then there's nothing more I can say.

[quote]Some Muslim countries persecute all other religions and that 'fact' makes you very unhappy.[/quote]

Of course it makes me unhappy. Do you want me to be happy that people are persecuted due to their religion?

Are you happy about the data in the poll?

[quote]Personally I'd have anyone that holds religious beliefs put to death.[/quote]

Given that most religious people are indoctrinated at a very young age, I find your view a tad harsh!

This is why it's important to hate the religion, not the followers.

First step in progress is to make all religions subject to mockery and scrutiny. Christians especially should be mocked, given Matthew 5:11

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me."

Obviously, you cannot answer my points here. Typical Slater attitude. Ignore the difficult questions you cannot answer and concentrate on the easy ones.





Must be time for more bleating about your character "being sullied" by people like me and Cockneygeezer disagreeing with you.

"Your whole problem here is obvious. You saw a white guy attack a faith where the followers are mainly brown skinned and you thought 'racist'. You were presumptuous and wrong to jump to such a conclusion without any evidence and I accept your apology in your other post."

Not so much racist as anti Islamic or Islamophobic as some people call it. Most people (not all) who are anti Islamic are also racist as it goes with the territory. This is why the EDL were labelled a racist and fascist organisation as most of their followers were racist as well as anti Islamic.