egafd.com

Just two articles I read today in the Guardian. One on the child rape cases in Rotherham (they call it 'abuse' but let's call it what it really is. It's 'rape'.) and one about suicide.

Here are links to the two articles:






Now, when it comes to the child rape of mainly non-Muslims by mainly Pakistani Muslims, this is what's said:

"There is no religious basis for the abuse in Rotherham?
Nazir Afzal, the Crown Prosecution Service?s lead on child sexual abuse, says that it is about male power." - This is the summary of the argument. Fair enough.

However, when it comes the problem of suicide, the articles starts off thus:

Suicide rates vary enormously from one country to another around the world ? influenced by the cultural, social, religious and economic environments in which people live and sometimes want to stop living.

Bam! No problem at all concluding (or conceding?) that religion plays a part. It goes on:

"Catholic countries and those with large numbers of Muslims tend to have lower rates because of the opposition to suicide of their religion."

Yet when it comes to the child raping again:

"?There is a lot of criticism of religion ? namely: ?Is this a Muslim thing??? He recalls how after the Rochdale case, someone called the Radio 4 Any Answers programme. ?He said the Qu?ran supports paedophilia. I?m not paraphrasing, that is what he said. He wasn?t cut off, he was allowed to say all manner of things.?

?There is no religious basis for this. These men were not religious. Islam says that alcohol, drugs, rape and abuse are all forbidden, yet these men were surrounded by all of these things. So how can anyone say that these men were driven by their religion to do this kind of thing?"

Why the protection of religion when it comes to child rape but the promotion of it when it comes to suicide? They're basically saying, if Pakistani Muslims happen to commit a lot of child raping compared to population as a whole, it is nothing to do with Islam you silly billy. But, if Pakistani Muslims have a lower suicide rate than the overall population then it's because their religion is saving them. Thank god for their religion, eh?

More proof of cherry picking to suit an agenda and because it's politically convenient.

"More proof of cherry picking to suit an agenda and because it's politically convenient."

Nah, you are comparing cherries with figs - hence your confusion.

Cherries

For example for Catholics and Muslims who believe in their religion, suicide is a sin. So in that sense you could argue that culture, religion etc. has an impact on suicide rates.

Figs that have gone off

The Rochdale gang had a line in drinking alcohol, drugs, extreme violence, paedophilia and rape. Now by your actions shall ye be known. I doubt somehow that these Muslims were using their belief in Islam as a justification for their actions. Unless their other line was stand-up comedians.

The Police are shit scared to tackle any sort of Muslim criminal for fear of being racist. Enoch was right.

No real explanation for the inconsistency here apart from David's apples/oranges excuse.

Child rape and suicide........two big moral questions but only one can be guided by your religion. Yeah, right. Nothing more than convenience.

No mention of rape in the commandments and 'rape' in the Quran isn't even a word because unmarried non-Muslim women can be taken as sex slaves, and your wife is your property so consent never comes into it. I'd say that influences how Muslim men think of women.

The Bible is no better, as my quote in the other thread shows. But we have fought against the Church and have built a society that can question and criticise it. We've beaten it back in the west. It's influence has waned and we're all the better for it. Protecting Islam denies Muslims the same opportunities we now have and some left-winger who are more concerned about how they come across to others don't see it. It's too uncomfortable for them.

"No mention of rape in the commandments and 'rape' in the Quran isn't even a word because unmarried non-Muslim women can be taken as sex slaves, "

I couldn't agree more. I saw advertised on the web the Manchester Mosque sex slave, bring and buy car boot sale and the decapitate a non-believer stall.

Personally I find this absolutely disgusting. And something should be done about it........

Can I do that? No I cannot because I am not a Muslim. Just see what reaction I get as a white, non Muslim if I decapitate someone in Blackpool. Can Muslims? Yes indeed, certainly at the Manchester Mosque because there are people like David Johnson who are far too busy defending Islam rather than attacking it for leading astray these poor, misguided rape gangs.

To be continued ad infinitum.

David's sarcasm seems to be directed at a supposed grievance of what Muslims can and cannot do under law and nothing about the protection of religion when it's convenient.

He's lost it.

Remember guys:

If a Muslim or Catholic rapes a child it has nothing to do with their religion.

If a Muslim or Catholic reaches retirement without topping themselves it's all thanks to their religion.

2014 and we still fall for this shit. Religion again claiming the good things (fewer suicides) but denying the bad things (child rape).

It's like that story about finding a new born child found under some rubble alive and well after a tsunami and everyone calling it a miracle from God, yet concluding that God had nothing to do with the other 100,000 innocents that were killed that same day. They were just unfortunate.

What hypocritical bullshit.

I will say this once.

I have lost all respect for you. Why?

1. You have no problem discussing at great length, topics with the likes of Robches, Essex Lad, Bob Singleton etc. whereby you cut up their response and reply to each point they make.

2. You are clearly entitled to respond to anyone you like or not on this forum. However, I note that for months now you have refused to address any points that I raise on the content of your posts.

3. Your typical approach to me unlike your dealings with Robches, Bob, Essex Lad etc. is to a: never ever address the points being raised b. not even using "You" but always addressing me in the third person and in doing so, not addressing the points I make specifically on your post, but just reiterating what you happen to believe.

4. Your reason for doing this apparently is because of some perceived insult months ago. However you had no problem responding to Bob after he accused you of having "excrement" for brains.

5. I can only assume that you cannot address my specific points and I have given you such a pasting on this forum that you cannot cope. Here is just one of very many where you have proved incapable of responding



6. If you want to prove me wrong, then look at my posts over the last week or so and respond to the specific points I raise. If not, I and I suspect the rest of the forum will regard you as behaving in a rather silly way.

Seems I've lost David's respect. How will I get over it?

This is a guy that believes in innocent until proven guilty unless it comes to somebody he doesn't like and the same guy that implies I don't care about Liverpool supporters dying just because I don't agree with his exact view on the subject.

He refused to apologise for his implication and attitude and has known for a long time the reasons stated above are why I won't debate with him. I'd rather lose his respect than lose respect for myself by forgetting his offensive implications and refusal to admit he's wrong when it's pointed out to him in black and white.

And......as you can see, he can't justify the inconsistency in the articles I posted and is now making the thread about me. I expected it.

Oh well, fair enough. I will leave you to your somewhat prima donna ways though I will continue to trash your posts if I think you are talking nonsense which to be fair to you, you don't always.

"And......as you can see, he can't justify the inconsistency in the articles I posted and is now making the thread about me. I expected it".

Well maybe you just haven't bothered to read my replies to you. Clearly there is no inconsistency.

1. True believers in Catholicism and Islam believe that suicide is a sin, so you can argue quite plausibly that this impacts on suicide rates as one of your links does.

2. Muslims who have an "extreme interpretation" of Islam believe that decapitating those who will not convert to Islam, raping women and carrying out suicide bombings is acceptable. In the same way that wacko Christians who have an "extreme interpretation" believe it is acceptable to kill a doctor working in an abortion clinic on the basis of a life for a life.

3. As you do not believe in the concept of "extreme interpretation" of Islam merely extreme acts, you need to explain why Europe is not completely awash with decapitations, beheadings of infidels, sex slave markets and chid rape. Your other link, states the obvious that there is nothing in Islam that mandates the Rotherham scumbags are allowed go out and use extreme violence, child rape, prostitution and the selling of class A drugs to vulnerable girls.

4. Your answer to the first part of 3 is the cultural mores of the countries Muslims live in. Your answer destroys your own argument because the reason for this is that it is not the content of Islam and Christianity in itself which creates these horrors but the literal interpretation of the more gory parts of the Old Testament and Koran which are seized upon by a mixture of gangsters, psychotics, pig thick morons, brainwashed fanatics, people looking for a square meal in an anarchic society, others fighting a war between Sunnis and SHias etc. etc.

So there is no inconsistency in the articles you reference. They are correct in stating that religion does play a part in reduced suicide rates amongst true believers and there is nothing in the Koran which justifies the range of criminal acts carried out by the Rotherham gangs.


Cue Sam "David cannot explain the inconsistency in the articles I link to blah, blah"

You should appreciate me more Sam. You are running out of people who can be arsed to respond to you!

I'm glad David has at least tried to explain things.

He's obviously realised that only God/Allah can decide if an interpretation is correct or incorrect, so sticking with trying to explain what is an 'extreme' interpretation.

He is only really giving examples of what acts are 'extreme', which isn't the same as providing any logic as to what can be considered extreme in a religious context (not a personal or societal one).

But I'll let that pass - I know he cannot, nor anyone else, give a satisfactory answer because it doesn't make sense.

His problem, like many others who like using the phrase 'extreme interpretation' is that there is nothing in that phrase that implies something to be incorrect or wrong about that interpretation.

So, David has a problem here. If he accepts the phrase 'extreme interpretation' he accepts that from a purely religious point of view, those interpretations are true and correct interpretations. If not, why not say they're wrong interpretations? That leaves the religion itself up for attack. Something he wants to avoid at all costs if it's Islam.

If David wants to say the extreme interpretations are wrong, we are left with what I've already said before........that only God/Allah can judge that. And every Imam would agree that Allah knows more about the meaning of the passages in the Quran than any human could.

It seems that some people want to have their cake and eat it. If you're going to say any 'extreme' interpretation of a religion is only 'extreme' when those people do something immoral and disgusting in the name of that religion, you'd have to seriously look at the religion. Nobody uses the term 'extremist' when somebody does something overly good in the name of religion, only when they do something bad, which shows we've tagged on the words 'extremist' , 'extremism' and 'extreme interpretation' to things we find abominable. We are free to do so. I've used such terms myself. But as long as we know that these are just our views and that from a religious perspective they're pretty much meaningless.