Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Tricky one. . . (Updated)Follow

#52 Nov 10 2006 at 1:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
I don't think it should be allowed. Western society seperates church from government. Religion has absolutely no place in the court room, as far as the court is concerned it's a hat.


You DID read that whole "Church of England" comment above, right? Not everyone separates church from state.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#53 Nov 10 2006 at 1:26 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
I don't think it should be allowed. Western society seperates church from government. Religion has absolutely no place in the court room, as far as the court is concerned it's a hat.


You DID read that whole "Church of England" comment above, right? Not everyone separates church from state.


Yes sorry, I didn't realize this happened in England. If that's the case, the rules may be different.

Edit:...yep, I'm dumb...that page SCREAMS England.

Edited, Nov 10th 2006 at 1:30pm PST by Yodabunny
#54 Nov 10 2006 at 8:16 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
"Just the other day, my Polish Interpreter said "Thank God for the Mexican people, or I couldn't afford to keep a gardener." --FleaJo1

RACK that, Flea. I'd be out of a Y-O-B if it weren't for those wonderful polacks.

Sincerely,
Gitslayer






















Totem
#55 Nov 12 2006 at 6:40 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
And I'm not being a racist for making fun of their prophet and god. I'm being a jerk. I can make fun of the "virgin" Mary and Jesus de Christi as well if you want. I'm born and raised a Catholic, but basically am an atheist now.


That's the thing. It's ok to make fun of yourself, or your own religion, or one you're somehow affiliated with. It's like Jewish people making jokes about Jewish people. That's fine.

However, making fun of something extemely sensitive for other people, people with which there are already tensions, and which is alien to you, is not really cool. Look, those cartoons were not funny. I saw them, I don't see what is funny about Mohamed with a bomb as a turban. Out of 12, maybe 1 put a smile on my face. All the others were just insulting. Now, had a Muslim drawn it, it might have been accepted as a legitimate criticism from their own ranks. When it's from people on the other side of the world, it's just seen a gratuitous insult, which it was.

Look, white inbreds making jokes about black people is rascist. Black people making jokes about black people is not.

It might not be "fair", but that's the way it is perceived. All while it is [possible that the newspaper who printed those cartoons did this purely for comdy value, we both know it's not the case. They knew exactly what they were doing, and teh consequences it would have. A right-wing paper printed out such cartoons, in such an environment, knows exactly what it is doing.

Quote:
I'm just saying that a pretty large percentage of all criminalism in Denmark is caused by a certain religious group


I'm not convinced this is factually true, as opposed to a media-induced concpetion. Second, I would also like to see the correlation between crime committed and class. I bet you it is a lot higher than the one between crime committed and religion.

Quote:
Why, and I'd like to hear your argumentation on this one, am I paying taxes so that we can shelter refugees who then turn around and stab us in the back because someone made some drawings?


No, you're paying taxes so you can have nice hospitals, nice public transports, good schools, etc... That other people use those services is quite normal. That you allow refugee in your country also seems to me to be the decent, humanist, thing to do. That those refugee are allowed to your country's services doesn't strike me as odd either.

And finally, that some of these people get angry when their religion comes under attack, doesn't seem that strange to me either.

Now don't get me wrong, burning flags and embassies is not cool. But if I go to Peckham with a banner saying "Black people are monkeys", not matter how many smiley faces I put on it, I'm gonna get in trouble.

You're saying they should suffer in silence. I think they might as well express their anger, so that people udnerstand that some people are sensitive about certain things. I think we can live without saying their prophet is a terrorist, and it won't be much of a sacrfice, nor a loss to the world of comedy. And in the meantime, they'll be happier and not offended.

Surely, this is the sensible and mature thing to do, no?
____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#56 Nov 12 2006 at 10:32 AM Rating: Decent
Maybe it's me being old school but maybe she isn't a face we'd like to be viewing?

And just in from the Christian State of England...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061112/ts_nm/britain_elton_dc

Quote:

Sun Nov 12, 9:26 AM ET
LONDON (Reuters) - Elton John has said organized religion should be banned because it promotes homophobia and turns some people into "hateful lemmings."

"I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it," the British singer said in an interview with the Observer newspaper on Sunday.

"Religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people. It turns people into hateful lemmings and it is not really compassionate."

The singer, who tied the knot with long-term partner David Furnish in a civil ceremony last year, said he admired the teachings of Jesus Christ, but disliked religious bodies.

"The reality is that organized religion doesn't seem to work," he added.

The 59-year-old singer, who has sold an estimated 200 million records, is no stranger to controversy.

In 2000, he hit out at the "ignorance" of the Roman Catholic church after a priest said homosexuals were engaged in "a lifestyle that can never respond to the deepest longings of the human heart."

Since then he has received blanket media coverage for a series of high-profile outbursts.

In May, he launched an expletive-laden tirade against the press at the Cannes film festival, telling photographers: "You should all be shot."

In 2004, he was filmed shouting at Taiwanese photographers for surprising him as he arrived at Taipei airport, calling them "rude, vile pigs."

He criticized pop star Madonna a week later, accusing her of charging fans outrageous prices to see her lip-synch in concert.

In an interview, he said his "bad temper and irrationality" emerged only when he was tired.


The queen has spoken? Between Mel, Russel and Sir Elton keeper of the flame I'm growing concerned. I'm thinking married life is having an affect and he's no longer Gay.
#57 Nov 12 2006 at 2:57 PM Rating: Decent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Eight percent of the Danish population are immigrants. Twenty-something percent of the prisoners in Denmark are immigrants.

Coincidence?

And no, I didn't pull those numbers from my ***. I read it yesterday in a Danish newspaper called Ekstra Bladet while at work. I even thought about you when I read it, Phoenix. And if that newspaper isn't fancy enough, how about an official memo from Danish Statistics saying that immigrants and descendants commit the most violations of the law (pdf-file).

16.9% of all 20-29-year-old non-western immigrants have been found guilty of at least one violation of the law, only 8.9% Danish 20-29-year-olds have been found guilty of the same.

In 2004, 12% of all Danish criminals were immigrants. And on an index-100 scale, the Danish were at about 95 in violent crimes whereas the non-western immigrants were above 160.

I don't see why we should keep criminal immigrants in our country in the first place. Send them back to wherever the fuck they came from. They obviously don't like it here.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#58 Nov 12 2006 at 3:08 PM Rating: Good
****
5,311 posts
They could just opt-out like the Amish.

What?
#59 Nov 12 2006 at 7:14 PM Rating: Decent
I think that as long as she was able to make herself understood, there should be no issue with her wearing a veil.
#60 Nov 12 2006 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
**
461 posts
Maz, what's the standard of living for danish immigrants compared to non-immigrants?

Edited, Nov 12th 2006 at 8:37pm PST by RunawayFive
#61 Nov 12 2006 at 11:55 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
RunawayFive wrote:
Maz, what's the standard of living for danish immigrants compared to non-immigrants?
You're not implying that they're in clink because racist little fUcks like Mazra make sure immigrants are marginalised, are you?
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#63 Nov 13 2006 at 2:16 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Eight percent of the Danish population are immigrants

Quote:
In 2004, 12% of all Danish criminals were immigrants


So immigrants make up 8% of the population, and 12% of the prison population.

It seems pretty proportionate to me...

Then:

Quote:
16.9% of all 20-29-year-old non-western immigrants have been found guilty of at least one violation of the law


Doesn't seem that shocking either. "Violation of the law" could be a parking ticket or a speeding fine.

I would still love to see the ratio of "crime committed relative to class". I bet you it's much higher than the ratio "crime committed relative to immigration".

When I came to England, I was 10 years old. Between the ages of 14-20, I committed lots of crime: I stole CDs, I bought and smoked weed, did the same with pills, I used to rip off the little insignias of cars in my street. I'm not proud of it, but I was bored and I enjoyed the adrenaline rush. Luckily, I never got caught. And, luckily no one is, or was, advocating sending French criminals back. Now I'm older and I'm a respectable member of society, I work for the government, pay my taxes, and only very rarely break the law.

All this to say that crimes committed by youth doesnt necessarily mean they "dont like the country", or are "bad people". Just that they're a bit bored and confused.

____________________________
My politics blog and stuff - Refractory
#64 Nov 13 2006 at 8:20 AM Rating: Good
*****
18,463 posts
King Nobby wrote:
RunawayFive wrote:
Maz, what's the standard of living for danish immigrants compared to non-immigrants?
You're not implying that they're in clink because racist little fUcks like Mazra make sure immigrants are marginalised, are you?
Are you implying that a penchant for crime isn't suckled right from their mother's brown teat? Because, I'll have you know, that's just racist.
#65 Nov 13 2006 at 4:30 PM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
The judge claimed that he could not clearly make out what she was saying.

Anywho. . .

Veil row lawyer is taken off case

Quote:
A legal adviser at the centre of a row over wearing veils in court has been taken off the case she was working on.

A tribunal in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs, was adjourned last week after Shabnam Mughal refused to remove her veil when asked to do so by Judge George Glossop.

It was rescheduled after an interim ruling allowed solicitors and legal advisers to wear a veil in court.

But Ms Mughal, a Muslim, was replaced by a male colleague in the client's interests, her law firm said.
Speaking outside the rescheduled hearing centre, solicitor Abdul Khan, from Coventry-based The Law Partnership, said the decision was not a reflection on Ms Mughal nor issues surrounding her use of a Muslim veil.

"It is not an issue of us backing down. We represent clients and our duty is to make sure that their interests are at the forefront of our mind.

"The decision was made solely in the interests of our client."

Mr Khan, who appeared before the immigration tribunal instead of Ms Mughal, said his colleague would continue to wear her veil during hearings.

Last week Judge Glossop was thought to have asked for the full-face veil to be removed because he could not hear Ms Mughal properly.

The interim ruling said a veil can be worn in court unless it interferes with the "interests of justice".
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 316 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (316)