You are lying if you say I ask for viewpoints to be supressed. You are also lying that I ask for peoples to be banned from here.
Joshua, would you please use a word other than "lying"? Perhaps "misleading" would be a better choice. I do appreciate this isn't deliberate, merely an English learning situation.
I think this talk is very offensive to people of faith. Please talk about banning peoples from practicing their religion because that what this means. I think that none peoples here now what real political oppressions means and just try to say religion is the same as this is foolish. My church is a community church, we practice our faith and we help anyone in our community if they are Christians or not. we believe in tolerance not hatred or to divide peoples or make them into like the jewish peoples in the second world war.
Ban religion then ban political oppositions then ban people of different colours then ban all other things that you do not like.
As I say I don't think any body here but me has lived in political oppression regime.
Oh I see, so it's OK to suppress the views of those who take issue with aspects of religious history, because it offends you, and those of us commentating on actual wrong doings perpetrated by a religious organisation should be banned from doing so? At no point has anyone in this discussion pointed any blame at worshippers or those who choose to attend a place of worship. Furthermore, we don't have to have lived under oppression to learn about it and educate ourselves to its evil, but that decry oppression then ask for it by banning members with an opposing view to yours smacks of double standards expediency.
I think the words is moving the goal posts? You are lying if you say I ask for viewpoints to be supressed. You are also lying that I ask for peoples to be banned from here. Yes you do have to live under dictatorship to now what it is really like. You cannot now other wise to be suffering and your family suffering also. I don't think you have ever done these things yes? Reading from a book and being the victim of the dictator is two things different altogether. read all the books you like to read and learn yes as this is good but never put your self in the place of peoples who have actually been tortured or persecuted or put in the prison for execution or had to flee the country you love because you were to be killed because, if you have not experienced this things yourself you can never now. Also never now how offensive to take away rights from peoples who have only their faith to see them through these things.
I never said anything about the religion not doing any wrong and it is lyes to say i did stand up for wrong. i speak only about my church and I mean the church were i worship. Yes peoples are offensive to me to ask for my faith to be banned. If you wish to fight then i will not stand back.
I don't wish to fight but to have an open discussion about differing viewpoints, you have faith and that's good for you amd your well being, I do not have such a faith, I'm uneasy at the hypocrisy touted by some religions, you have belief in a teaching that brings you joy and solace which I respect, if you read my previous posts you will see I have never levied an attack on worshippers or their choice to believe in a God. I will whole heartedly defend my right to question how a cardinal can live in absolute wealth while many followers of his religion die of starvation, how a church can preach tolerance, understanding and forgiveness but persecute those who are are gay or don't follow their specific doctrine. Many churches are founded on oppression and persecuted those who questioned the rule of power of an almighty God.
In some religions oppressive behaviour is accepted, Muslim women mutilated and forced to behave a certain way, in the Jewish religion young men forced into circumcision, are these instances not at odds with peaceful worship? Many churches around the world were built using money gained from holy wars, which promoted wholesale slaughter of non believers, the Catholic Church knowingly covered up grotesque crimes committed by its own members to save it's own reputation. These aspects I question. Science dispels many of religions claims fact.
I don't think you have the monopoly on oppression. Many have lived under it, I'm sure Thunderpussy has known people who were politically and religiously oppressed in his home land, frightened to live how they choose for fear of masked men burying into their homes. I've seen first hand the results of dictatorships, I've looked into the sunken hopeless eyes of children with swollen stomachs living under such regimes and I've heard the sound of swarms of flies around people too ill and dejected to swat them away.
Most of our German members will have had family members or still do who lived under oppressive regimes. They've existed everywhere at one time or another I'm afraid to say.
You are lying if you say I ask for viewpoints to be supressed. You are also lying that I ask for peoples to be banned from here.
Joshua, would you please use a word other than "lying"? Perhaps "misleading" would be a better choice. I do appreciate this isn't deliberate, merely an English learning situation.
I change to this
I think the words is moving the goal posts? if you say I ask for viewpoints to be supressed. you say that I ask for peoples to be banned from here. both of these are not true and i did not say this.
Do you see what religion does to us! All this jumping and fighting it's exhausting!
Sir M really does hate being misquoted, but thankfully it's diverted us away from controversy and a hate filled religious civil war
Very true, CC...I loathe being misquoted...it shows that the other person has lost the argument and cannot construct a coherent response 8-)
Indeed ! And that's why religion is evil - all the wars that have been fought - and STILL are - in whatever gods name X-(
but Chriscoop, i do not speak about other members of the ajb, thunderpussy or my friend higgins in germany, i speak about you and your experience of political oppressions and dictatorship and not also do i speak of seeing third party. I think you should think carefully if you accuse peoples of such things as you rite below in the quote
Furthermore, we don't have to have lived under oppression to learn about it and educate ourselves to its evil, but that decry oppression then ask for it by banning members with an opposing view to yours smacks of double standards expediency
I think you should walk a mile in my shoes before you say these things. i ask if you have the gun to your head or threanted to execute in the prison and starved and beated and tortured because you are against the dictator, i do not speak from the third person. if you did then you do now what i mean if you didnt then you can never now. i also say again that i never asked for peoples to be banned from the ajb for these things and it is wrong to say this that i did. I am angry to now to be told that i ask for peoples to be banned so i speak more than i must to this.
again i never defend bad actions of the church and never would do this. I say this clear, i am offended by peoples wishing to ban my faith. it is only idle talk here but in the outside world this can happen. We see this now by peoples want to ban the mosk. where does this end?
The teachings of the Wiccan tradition, the pre- christian believe system of these islands only has
One commandment " do what thy will, so long as it harms no-one else "
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
The teachings of the Wiccan tradition, the pre- christian believe system of these islands only has
One commandment " do what thy will, so long as it harms no-one else "
Does that involve burning police men in giant wicker men?
. I think that none peoples here now what real political oppressions means and just try to say religion is the same as this is foolish.
As I say I don't think any body here but me has lived in political oppression regime.
I was responding to these statements made in general.
I did not accuse you of wanting AJB members banned as I have not seen anywhere in your posts that you have written this. The angle of my replies is one of general commentary given how those of CERTAIN faiths take offense with differing opinions and seek to halt discussions on the basis of being offended. It's a one way Street and therefore expedient. I disagree that I would have to live under an oppressive regime to understand its horrors, to say this insults my intelligence, despite the fact o have physically been amongst it and seen first hand it's horrors.
I will read your posts with interest and continue to have respect for your morals and the experiences you have had, but I am not entering into a fractious dialogue where I feel the need to defend myself .
If you feel particularly aggrieved by something Ive posted or by me in general then please feel free to pm me and I will discuss this in a very amiable way to clear the air.
but that decry oppression then ask for it by banning members with an opposing view to yours smacks of double standards expediency
It's missing the word opinion after where I typed members, I'm on my phone and my posts often end up different to what I intend to say. I intended it to say
But to decry oppression then ask for it by banning members opinions with an opposing view to yours smacks of double standards and expediency.
I proof read it this time. It's based on the context that the mods are likely to shut down a discussion if a member or members say they are offended.
It was either that.....or the priesthood
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,771Chief of Staff
We gave evidence that political debates here are masterpieces of decency and cultivated exchange of gentlemen's opinions in a relaxed kind of Countryclub atmosphere :v
President of the 'Misty Eyes Club'.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I still don't see the important distinction in the context we have here. If you or another person with English as first language could explain this big difference it would be very nice.
Hoping not to tread on Sir Miles's toes:
To be happy to allow something to happen is passive while wanting something to happen is active.
(I'm not getting into religious arguments whatsoever, but am happy (sic) to discuss language.
Thank you - you expressed it perfectly -{
I agree. And sir Miles wrote in the post "I'm happy to ban ALL religions". That's an active expression, unlike "I'm happy if" or "I'm happy with" that are passive expressions. I wrote that you wanted to ban all religion. While this isn't a word for word accurate quote, it is close enough in meaning not to misrepresent what you wrote. If you want an opology for not reapeating you word for word, I'm giving it here.
The sentence ""I'm happy to ban ALL religions" is in conflict with democracy and freedom.
Have you notice that the US Constitution has a part about the freedom of belief? Here is Thomas Jefferson's opinion on banning religion:
The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed: [N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Norwegian constitution also safeguard the freedom of religion and I'm willing to bet the German and Dutch do to etc. I'd be surprised if any democracy doesn't have this in their Constitution (Britain has no written Constitution). This isn't simply to be nice to churches. Freedom of religion is a central part of freedom.
Every single atempt to ban religion has happened in dictatorships. Banning religion is only possible in dictatorships and it's an authoritarian idea. This is the 18th article of UN's Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
This is why the sentence "I'm happy to ban ALL religions"is clearly in conflict with democracy and freedom.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,771Chief of Staff
^ I don't live in America or Norway...
And you still make no sense to me at all
I'm happy to buy everyone an ice cream - doesn't mean it will happen 8-)
Why doesn't it make sense to you? I think what I have written is clear.
You wrote "I'm happy to ban ALL religions". I replied that I disagree, because I support democracy and freedom. I have just made a clear case why your statement is in conflict with democracy and freedom. You also suggested our disagreement was because I didn't know English well enough. I think it's clear now that if anyone used the English language incorrectly, it wasn't me.
but that decry oppression then ask for it by banning members with an opposing view to yours smacks of double standards expediency
It's missing the word opinion after where I typed members, I'm on my phone and my posts often end up different to what I intend to say. I intended it to say
But to decry oppression then ask for it by banning members opinions with an opposing view to yours smacks of double standards and expediency.
I proof read it this time. It's based on the context that the mods are likely to shut down a discussion if a member or members say they are offended.
I see this now but i still did nowhere ask to ban other peoples opinions. you please show me where i asked for banning of opinions?
no need to shut the talk down. but yes I am offended by people who want to stop my and other peoples human right to follow our faith. before any one nows other things are banned. skin colour for example then this way lead to the gas chamber of the nazis.
but that decry oppression then ask for it by banning members with an opposing view to yours smacks of double standards expediency
It's missing the word opinion after where I typed members, I'm on my phone and my posts often end up different to what I intend to say. I intended it to say
But to decry oppression then ask for it by banning members opinions with an opposing view to yours smacks of double standards and expediency.
I proof read it this time. It's based on the context that the mods are likely to shut down a discussion if a member or members say they are offended.
I see this now but i still did nowhere ask to ban other peoples opinions. you please show me where i asked for banning of opinions?
no need to shut the talk down. but yes I am offended by people who want to stop my and other peoples human right to follow our faith. before any one nows other things are banned. skin colour for example then this way lead to the gas chamber of the nazis.
The opinions of those making posts against your own are subsequently banned and or barred when the thread gets shut down because someone declares they are offended. It is not the intention of mine or Sir M's ( who first m mentioned banning religion) to cause personal offence but three times now being offended by an anti religious opinion has been declared. In my opinion rather than saying you are offended, why not enter the discussion bringing your positive religious facts and views in the spirit of enlightening those whose opinions you disagree with? All too often such topics ( usually started by the unscrupulous number 24 :v) end in argument and become too hot and get Barbeled or Sir M'd and shut down.
It was either that.....or the priesthood
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,771Chief of Staff
no need to shut the talk down. but yes I am offended by people who want to stop my and other peoples human right to follow our faith. before any one nows other things are banned. skin colour for example then this way lead to the gas chamber of the nazis.
Hi Joshua, could you please show me where you were told you couldn't follow your faith ?
Offence wasn't intended...and offence can ONLY be taken, not given.
The rest of your post is silly and juvenile and does not do you credit...I'm disappointed you decided to infer I'm a Nazi - I can only assume you are aiming that at me.
YNWA 97
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,771Chief of Staff
Why doesn't it make sense to you? I think what I have written is clear.
You wrote "I'm happy to ban ALL religions". I replied that I disagree, because I support democracy and freedom. I have just made a clear case why your statement is in conflict with democracy and freedom. You also suggested our disagreement was because I didn't know English well enough. I think it's clear now that if anyone used the English language incorrectly, it wasn't me.
8-)
YNWA 97
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,771Chief of Staff
Why doesn't it make sense to you? I think what I have written is clear.
You wrote "I'm happy to ban ALL religions". I replied that I disagree, because I support democracy and freedom. I have just made a clear case why your statement is in conflict with democracy and freedom. You also suggested our disagreement was because I didn't know English well enough. I think it's clear now that if anyone used the English language incorrectly, it wasn't me.
8-)
Well, there seems to be a lot to milk! You have claimed I don't know English well enough (probable, but not really an issue this time) and what countries you're not in. One has to admire a man who has very little going for him in a debate, and knows it
If you really thought you had an issue, you would argue why banning religion isn't anti-democratic. If you ment "I'm happy with a ban on all religions" (that's less bad) you would say so.
Comments
Joshua, would you please use a word other than "lying"? Perhaps "misleading" would be a better choice. I do appreciate this isn't deliberate, merely an English learning situation.
Oh, I see.
(Or rather, the significance attached to it.)
I don't wish to fight but to have an open discussion about differing viewpoints, you have faith and that's good for you amd your well being, I do not have such a faith, I'm uneasy at the hypocrisy touted by some religions, you have belief in a teaching that brings you joy and solace which I respect, if you read my previous posts you will see I have never levied an attack on worshippers or their choice to believe in a God. I will whole heartedly defend my right to question how a cardinal can live in absolute wealth while many followers of his religion die of starvation, how a church can preach tolerance, understanding and forgiveness but persecute those who are are gay or don't follow their specific doctrine. Many churches are founded on oppression and persecuted those who questioned the rule of power of an almighty God.
In some religions oppressive behaviour is accepted, Muslim women mutilated and forced to behave a certain way, in the Jewish religion young men forced into circumcision, are these instances not at odds with peaceful worship? Many churches around the world were built using money gained from holy wars, which promoted wholesale slaughter of non believers, the Catholic Church knowingly covered up grotesque crimes committed by its own members to save it's own reputation. These aspects I question. Science dispels many of religions claims fact.
I don't think you have the monopoly on oppression. Many have lived under it, I'm sure Thunderpussy has known people who were politically and religiously oppressed in his home land, frightened to live how they choose for fear of masked men burying into their homes. I've seen first hand the results of dictatorships, I've looked into the sunken hopeless eyes of children with swollen stomachs living under such regimes and I've heard the sound of swarms of flies around people too ill and dejected to swat them away.
Most of our German members will have had family members or still do who lived under oppressive regimes. They've existed everywhere at one time or another I'm afraid to say.
I change to this
I think the words is moving the goal posts? if you say I ask for viewpoints to be supressed. you say that I ask for peoples to be banned from here. both of these are not true and i did not say this.
For something completely different, apparently we're having less sex than 20 years ago !
As I've been married for over 20 years, I can confidently say that's true !
I am married for 17, so if that's right the honeymoon is soon over for us
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Furthermore, we don't have to have lived under oppression to learn about it and educate ourselves to its evil, but that decry oppression then ask for it by banning members with an opposing view to yours smacks of double standards expediency
I think you should walk a mile in my shoes before you say these things. i ask if you have the gun to your head or threanted to execute in the prison and starved and beated and tortured because you are against the dictator, i do not speak from the third person. if you did then you do now what i mean if you didnt then you can never now. i also say again that i never asked for peoples to be banned from the ajb for these things and it is wrong to say this that i did. I am angry to now to be told that i ask for peoples to be banned so i speak more than i must to this.
again i never defend bad actions of the church and never would do this. I say this clear, i am offended by peoples wishing to ban my faith. it is only idle talk here but in the outside world this can happen. We see this now by peoples want to ban the mosk. where does this end?
One commandment " do what thy will, so long as it harms no-one else "
I did not accuse you of wanting AJB members banned as I have not seen anywhere in your posts that you have written this. The angle of my replies is one of general commentary given how those of CERTAIN faiths take offense with differing opinions and seek to halt discussions on the basis of being offended. It's a one way Street and therefore expedient. I disagree that I would have to live under an oppressive regime to understand its horrors, to say this insults my intelligence, despite the fact o have physically been amongst it and seen first hand it's horrors.
I will read your posts with interest and continue to have respect for your morals and the experiences you have had, but I am not entering into a fractious dialogue where I feel the need to defend myself .
If you feel particularly aggrieved by something Ive posted or by me in general then please feel free to pm me and I will discuss this in a very amiable way to clear the air.
but that decry oppression then ask for it by banning members with an opposing view to yours smacks of double standards expediency
But to decry oppression then ask for it by banning members opinions with an opposing view to yours smacks of double standards and expediency.
I proof read it this time. It's based on the context that the mods are likely to shut down a discussion if a member or members say they are offended.
Not sure what you are after there...too high falutin for me
That is my work name
I'm STILL happy to ban all religions {[]
I'm glad I joined in now 8-)
Good luck getting a Political thread opened if this is what happens when religion is mentioned
PS: thanks to CC, TP and sincere apologies to Barbel for the extra stress
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I agree. And sir Miles wrote in the post "I'm happy to ban ALL religions". That's an active expression, unlike "I'm happy if" or "I'm happy with" that are passive expressions. I wrote that you wanted to ban all religion. While this isn't a word for word accurate quote, it is close enough in meaning not to misrepresent what you wrote. If you want an opology for not reapeating you word for word, I'm giving it here.
The sentence ""I'm happy to ban ALL religions" is in conflict with democracy and freedom.
Have you notice that the US Constitution has a part about the freedom of belief? Here is Thomas Jefferson's opinion on banning religion:
The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1779 by Thomas Jefferson, proclaimed:
[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Norwegian constitution also safeguard the freedom of religion and I'm willing to bet the German and Dutch do to etc. I'd be surprised if any democracy doesn't have this in their Constitution (Britain has no written Constitution). This isn't simply to be nice to churches. Freedom of religion is a central part of freedom.
Every single atempt to ban religion has happened in dictatorships. Banning religion is only possible in dictatorships and it's an authoritarian idea. This is the 18th article of UN's Declaration of Human Rights:
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
This is why the sentence "I'm happy to ban ALL religions"is clearly in conflict with democracy and freedom.
And you still make no sense to me at all
I'm happy to buy everyone an ice cream - doesn't mean it will happen 8-)
What's your point again ?
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
You wrote "I'm happy to ban ALL religions". I replied that I disagree, because I support democracy and freedom. I have just made a clear case why your statement is in conflict with democracy and freedom. You also suggested our disagreement was because I didn't know English well enough. I think it's clear now that if anyone used the English language incorrectly, it wasn't me.
I see this now but i still did nowhere ask to ban other peoples opinions. you please show me where i asked for banning of opinions?
no need to shut the talk down. but yes I am offended by people who want to stop my and other peoples human right to follow our faith. before any one nows other things are banned. skin colour for example then this way lead to the gas chamber of the nazis.
The opinions of those making posts against your own are subsequently banned and or barred when the thread gets shut down because someone declares they are offended. It is not the intention of mine or Sir M's ( who first m mentioned banning religion) to cause personal offence but three times now being offended by an anti religious opinion has been declared. In my opinion rather than saying you are offended, why not enter the discussion bringing your positive religious facts and views in the spirit of enlightening those whose opinions you disagree with? All too often such topics ( usually started by the unscrupulous number 24 :v) end in argument and become too hot and get Barbeled or Sir M'd and shut down.
Hi Joshua, could you please show me where you were told you couldn't follow your faith ?
Offence wasn't intended...and offence can ONLY be taken, not given.
The rest of your post is silly and juvenile and does not do you credit...I'm disappointed you decided to infer I'm a Nazi - I can only assume you are aiming that at me.
8-)
As you asked so nicely
In a warm glow, ....... I feel a song coming on
Well, there seems to be a lot to milk! You have claimed I don't know English well enough (probable, but not really an issue this time) and what countries you're not in. One has to admire a man who has very little going for him in a debate, and knows it
If you really thought you had an issue, you would argue why banning religion isn't anti-democratic. If you ment "I'm happy with a ban on all religions" (that's less bad) you would say so.