Free Speech Yet Again
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Many more millions have been killed in the name of religion (and the slander of other people's religions) than were killed by the Third Reich.
Paul, that is sheer leftist propaganda, which you should be above. How could you, or anyone else, possibly know how many 'millions' have been killed in the name of religion? I seriously doubt that you could document more than a few hundred deaths, at best, that are directly attributable to any kind of religious fundamentalist causes. "You get that which you tolerate"
In africa there were some regimes in the last century, from which the worst killed more than three million people in the name of their religion. This is not the single event you can find in history. When you add all the people killed in the name of religion in the last century, then you got more murders than in the third reich. But that don't makes the third reich any better. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
Yes it is. Over thousand of years have more people been killed by several religions than in the third reich. That's a fact not a valuation. It doesn't make the third reich any better and it doesn't make the killing in the name of some god any worth. ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
ihoecken wrote:
Over thousand of years have more people been killed by several religions than in the third reich
That is absolute Marxist historic revisionism. You could not site a single historic instance of any religion, of its own accord, killing mass numbers of people. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
(1) We are sick of your Nazi jokes. They were funny until around March 17, 1957. They are stale, boring, childish and not funny. Bring on some healthy, dry english humour, and we get along. (2) certain insignia of the 3rd reich are prohibited in Germany. Everyone knows that, and if you come here, follow the rules. (3) Laws like that are the only measure a democratic country has against shitheads. Would you rather have a headline "30.000 Nazis march through Berlin! US Ambassador applauds german courts for ruling they are protected under free speech."? OK, those english folks with a Nazi fetish probably wouldget off on that, but IMHO they should stick to their sheep.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighistTo quote Gerhard Hauptmannl: 'But anyone glorifying extremism here risks arrest' Isn't doing a Nazi salute ridiculing extremeism? Mind you, the goose step is also an Italian, Russian thing too, and the salute was also form ancent Rome I believe. It was also used by the Cromwellian troops in the English Civil war in 1640. Hence the childrens poem: 'Goosey goosey gander, where shall I wander...' The Nazi insignia is also an ancient Indian insignia too. But you have to see the other side of this, the stronger the reaction, the more pleasure there is in windng someone up, so while you continue to be sensitive in this area, the more these yobs will give the Nazi salute. It would be better if you just laughed at it all. Nunc est bibendum
-
In africa there were some regimes in the last century, from which the worst killed more than three million people in the name of their religion. This is not the single event you can find in history. When you add all the people killed in the name of religion in the last century, then you got more murders than in the third reich. But that don't makes the third reich any better. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
ihoecken wrote:
In africa there were some regimes in the last century, from which the worst killed more than three million people in the name of their religion.
The key word there is "regime". That means government. You cannot blame a religion for what some government decides to do in its name. Hell, I don't even blame Islam, as a religion, for the current chaos we are seeing. You seem to want to blame religion for having a corruptive influence on the state, rather that admitting the obvious that it is the state that has a corruptive influence on religion. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Two world wars and one world cup, doo-dah, doo-dah...
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
-
ihoecken wrote:
Over thousand of years have more people been killed by several religions than in the third reich
That is absolute Marxist historic revisionism. You could not site a single historic instance of any religion, of its own accord, killing mass numbers of people. "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is absolute Marxist historic revisionism. You could not site a single historic instance of any religion, of its own accord, killing mass numbers of people.
In africa in the last century there were some regiems that made ethnic and religious "cleansing". There were killed over three million people in one country because of the wrong religion. And until you didn't read marx and don't know what he talked about you shouldn't mix him up with this. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
ihoecken wrote:
In africa there were some regimes in the last century, from which the worst killed more than three million people in the name of their religion.
The key word there is "regime". That means government. You cannot blame a religion for what some government decides to do in its name. Hell, I don't even blame Islam, as a religion, for the current chaos we are seeing. You seem to want to blame religion for having a corruptive influence on the state, rather that admitting the obvious that it is the state that has a corruptive influence on religion. "You get that which you tolerate"
I didn't blame the islam or another religion, but I say they murder in the "name of religions". Jesus Christ didn't teached us to kill any other but the church did the crusades and killed many people. This isn't the fault of the religion or christians but some murders did it in the name of religion, thats what I'm saying. When a government makes a "Gottesstaat" (a country with is based on a special religion) than you can say that they kill in the name of a religion. Of course in reality they don't. They kill because they like it. No god gave them permission, but many people believe this. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
-
So? Freedom of speech, as with any freedom, is not absolute. Freedom must be used responsibly or it can legitimately be taken away. Get used to it. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
To quote Gerhard Hauptmannl: 'But anyone glorifying extremism here risks arrest' Isn't doing a Nazi salute ridiculing extremeism? Mind you, the goose step is also an Italian, Russian thing too, and the salute was also form ancent Rome I believe. It was also used by the Cromwellian troops in the English Civil war in 1640. Hence the childrens poem: 'Goosey goosey gander, where shall I wander...' The Nazi insignia is also an ancient Indian insignia too. But you have to see the other side of this, the stronger the reaction, the more pleasure there is in windng someone up, so while you continue to be sensitive in this area, the more these yobs will give the Nazi salute. It would be better if you just laughed at it all. Nunc est bibendum
fat_boy wrote:
The Nazi insignia is also an ancient Indian insignia too.
Partly right. It is an inverted form of the ancient Indian symbol called the Swastik. Hitler adopted it because of its Aryan origin, but inverted it for some reason that I don't know. It is said that the inverted Swastik is a bad symbol. Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
-
This is NOT about free speech. It is because the German authoroties (with help, no doubt, form the English police) know it will be done purely to irritate the German fans and is, therefore, highly likely to cause trouble. English football fans are not known for their restraint and take great delight in doing anything to 'wind-up' the opposition fans. Come to any Spurs vs Arsenal match and you'll hear exactly what I mean. www.merrens.com
www.bkmrx.com -
So? Freedom of speech, as with any freedom, is not absolute. Freedom must be used responsibly or it can legitimately be taken away. Get used to it. "You get that which you tolerate"
I'm starting to agree with you more and more. Heck, I even gave your post a 5. :omg: Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
-
ihoecken wrote:
In africa there were some regimes in the last century, from which the worst killed more than three million people in the name of their religion.
The key word there is "regime". That means government. You cannot blame a religion for what some government decides to do in its name. Hell, I don't even blame Islam, as a religion, for the current chaos we are seeing. You seem to want to blame religion for having a corruptive influence on the state, rather that admitting the obvious that it is the state that has a corruptive influence on religion. "You get that which you tolerate"
That is exactly true. We have individual and collective responsibilty for our actions. If religion hadn't been invented we'd just find another excuse. Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
-
fat_boy wrote:
The Nazi insignia is also an ancient Indian insignia too.
Partly right. It is an inverted form of the ancient Indian symbol called the Swastik. Hitler adopted it because of its Aryan origin, but inverted it for some reason that I don't know. It is said that the inverted Swastik is a bad symbol. Cheers, Vikram.
"When I read in books about a "base class", I figured this was the class that was at the bottom of the inheritence tree. It's the "base", right? Like the base of a pyramid." - Marc Clifton.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
Partly right. It is an inverted form of the ancient Indian symbol called the Swastik. Hitler adopted it because of its Aryan origin, but inverted it for some reason that I don't know. It is said that the inverted Swastik is a bad symbol.
Partly right. It wasn't the Indian Swastik they used, they used the germanic Victorysign. This was one of the germanic runes and hilter loved them because a liked all what was germanic. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
-
Two world wars and one world cup, doo-dah, doo-dah...
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
legalAlien wrote:
one world cup
one world cup? there are so many world cups, world up in cricket, womans cricket, hockey, football, snooker, poker, etc, etc
-Prakash
-
legalAlien wrote:
one world cup
one world cup? there are so many world cups, world up in cricket, womans cricket, hockey, football, snooker, poker, etc, etc
-Prakash
It's a song you'll hear chanted by the English soccer fans and refers to 1966. It's a stupid football song but they'll sing it if they can and hum it if they can't. Probably. Idiots, really. If flights weren't so cheap...
turning the other cheek just gets you slapped twice
-
I didn't blame the islam or another religion, but I say they murder in the "name of religions". Jesus Christ didn't teached us to kill any other but the church did the crusades and killed many people. This isn't the fault of the religion or christians but some murders did it in the name of religion, thats what I'm saying. When a government makes a "Gottesstaat" (a country with is based on a special religion) than you can say that they kill in the name of a religion. Of course in reality they don't. They kill because they like it. No god gave them permission, but many people believe this. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
The point is that you cannot legitimately say that religion, as such, is responsible for the 'murders of millions' when the obvious truth is that the state, some government, at some level was actually responsible for the killing. You can find many examples of the state using religion as an means of achieving otherwise secular goals, but you can find damn few examples of a religion rising up of its own accord, under its own leadership, and simply slaughtering large numbers of other religions. Such violence can almost always be traced back to some kind of political entity which a non-religious agenda all of its own. I think that is an important point that badly needs to be undestood - religion is not the problem, government is. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
That is absolute Marxist historic revisionism. You could not site a single historic instance of any religion, of its own accord, killing mass numbers of people.
In africa in the last century there were some regiems that made ethnic and religious "cleansing". There were killed over three million people in one country because of the wrong religion. And until you didn't read marx and don't know what he talked about you shouldn't mix him up with this. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!
ihoecken wrote:
And until you didn't read marx and don't know what he talked about you shouldn't mix him up with this.
I disagree entirely. Marxism, socialism, call it what you will, has a vested interest in marginalizing religious social influence in order to promote state based social influence. Such anti-religious historic interpretations arise directly from a generally Marxist world view. Of course they do. What other possible source could such intellectual conclusions arise from? "You get that which you tolerate"
-
That is exactly true. We have individual and collective responsibilty for our actions. If religion hadn't been invented we'd just find another excuse. Are you gonna bark all, day little doggy. Or are you gonna bite. - Mr Blonde
farmer giles wrote:
If religion hadn't been invented we'd just find another excuse.
Absolutely. Humans are very creative when it comes to killing each other off. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
ihoecken wrote:
And until you didn't read marx and don't know what he talked about you shouldn't mix him up with this.
I disagree entirely. Marxism, socialism, call it what you will, has a vested interest in marginalizing religious social influence in order to promote state based social influence. Such anti-religious historic interpretations arise directly from a generally Marxist world view. Of course they do. What other possible source could such intellectual conclusions arise from? "You get that which you tolerate"
Stan Shannon wrote:
What other possible source could such intellectual conclusions arise from?
This is much older than the teachings of Karl Marx and can be found in the history, too. Even the fashists (which are on the opposite spectrum of the politics) said the same in this point. But my statement were a different one. You can look at values of all kind from different points and come to other statements. Every from this statements can be right and can base on facts and anyway they can say the opposite. When Paul says in the whole history were more people killed in the name of a good then he is right. It's a fact. You can't deny it. But when you say, in truth say killed the people for some other reason and so it wasn't religion, this was only murder, then you are right. It's a fact and we can't deny it. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ A bug in a Microsoft Product? No! It's not a bug it's an undocumented feature!