Free Speech Yet Again
-
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.
-
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 -
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!
-
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:
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.
I never did and I never wanted to. Paul just said there were murder in the name of religion. That is a lie when someone says I kill in the name of god, but he does it in the name of religion. I agreed with him. We never said that is the fault of religion, this is the fault of liars but it's still a fact. The third reich based on lies, too. Do you want to say: ok it wasn't the truth the nazis said so you can't say that it happened? Surely you won't. Greetings, Ingo ------------------------------ 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"
Spanish Inquisition. Crusades (I - IX). Albigensian Crusade. Sacking of Constantinople. New England Witch Burnings. Honour killings. The Baltic Crusades. Spanish Reconquista. To name a few...
-
I dont think its a question of free speach. The Germans have the right to make any law they like as long as they dont breach international law. If people want to go there they have no choice but to abide by the German laws. If they dont like it they should stay home. My impression of the sun newspaper from the limited time I have spent in the UK is that their page three girls are more respectable then thier writers. Got a gun, fact I got two That's O.K. man, cuz I love god Glorified version of a pellet gun Feels so manly, when armed Glorified version of a pellet gun
International law? I'd better call my lawyer! (My favorite Bush quote!)
-
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
Big deal. Over 20 million people were killed in Russia and China last century in the of atheism (not including the 12 million+ killed by Nazis). If you want to count babies, throw in another 50 million in the US alone from abortion killed in the name of promoting atheism. I'm afraid the number of people killed in the name of atheism far outnumbers your claims. Besides, aren't you talking about the Congo...which was ethnic cleansing (i.e. done in the name of oneself...i.e. atheism)?
-
Spanish Inquisition. Crusades (I - IX). Albigensian Crusade. Sacking of Constantinople. New England Witch Burnings. Honour killings. The Baltic Crusades. Spanish Reconquista. To name a few...
New England Witch Burnings Honour killings Those are the only two I would give you. You continue to want to blame religoin exclusively for events that also had significant secular components. I would agree that these events may have been technically done 'in the name of religion', but they were also done in the name of many other, purely secular, purposes. So you simply cannot lay the blame for all those deaths on religion. The history is far more complex than that. For example, Constantinople was at least as important for economic and military reasons as it was for religious ones. Religion may have been important to get the peons to actually kill each other, but to those pulling the strings religion was entirely a secondary concern. Relgion in and of iteself would have never created the necessary conditions to motivate such sustained and expensive operations. And, in any case, historically we see no less violence and carnage in times and places when religion played no role then when it did. And the continued use of religion as the great evil of history, and the state as the hapless victim of overwhelming and uncontrollable religious zealotry, clearly shows the continueing and pervasive influence of Marxist thought on modern human culture. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 8:58 Thursday 9th February, 2006
-
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
Big deal. Over 20 million people were killed in Russia and China last century in the of atheism (not including the 12 million+ killed by Nazis). If you want to count babies, throw in another 50 million in the US alone from abortion killed in the name of promoting atheism. I'm afraid the number of people killed in the name of atheism far outnumbers your claims. Besides, aren't you talking about the Congo...which was ethnic cleansing (i.e. done in the name of oneself...i.e. atheism)?
Precisely. And lets not even mention the ensueing deaths resulting from military operations necessary to defeat those secular forces. "You get that which you tolerate"
-
New England Witch Burnings Honour killings Those are the only two I would give you. You continue to want to blame religoin exclusively for events that also had significant secular components. I would agree that these events may have been technically done 'in the name of religion', but they were also done in the name of many other, purely secular, purposes. So you simply cannot lay the blame for all those deaths on religion. The history is far more complex than that. For example, Constantinople was at least as important for economic and military reasons as it was for religious ones. Religion may have been important to get the peons to actually kill each other, but to those pulling the strings religion was entirely a secondary concern. Relgion in and of iteself would have never created the necessary conditions to motivate such sustained and expensive operations. And, in any case, historically we see no less violence and carnage in times and places when religion played no role then when it did. And the continued use of religion as the great evil of history, and the state as the hapless victim of overwhelming and uncontrollable religious zealotry, clearly shows the continueing and pervasive influence of Marxist thought on modern human culture. "You get that which you tolerate" -- modified at 8:58 Thursday 9th February, 2006
How was the Inquisition secular? It was ordained and organized by the church. For that matter, at the Council of Clermont, it was Urban II who preached the first crusade. He was pope at the time. The crusades can hardly be considered secular. While I agree they were done "in the name of religion", they were also religiously motivated killings. When the army entered Jerusalem the population of the city (Jews, Muslims, what-have-you) were killed to the man (and women, children, etc...). There was nothing secular about it. They were killed because they weren't Christian. I will concede Constantinople and maybe a few of the others, but definitely not the Crusades.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And, in any case, historically we see no less violence and carnage in times and places when religion played no role then when it did. And the continued use of religion as the great evil of history, and the state as the hapless victim of overwhelming and uncontrollable religious zealotry, clearly shows the continueing and pervasive influence of Marxist thought on modern human culture.
Regardless, I agree with you here.
-
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!
Wikipedia says that the Swastik was used in ancient Germany too, but doesn't say which version was used. Thanks, I didn't know that early Germans used it too. 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.
-
Spanish Inquisition. Crusades (I - IX). Albigensian Crusade. Sacking of Constantinople. New England Witch Burnings. Honour killings. The Baltic Crusades. Spanish Reconquista. To name a few...
thealj wrote:
Spanish Inquisition
About 1200 people (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1239577,00.html[^])
thealj wrote:
New England Witch Burnings
9 million.
thealj wrote:
Crusades (I - IX).
About a dozen.
thealj wrote:
Albigensian Crusade
Duplicated (part of the Crusades)
thealj wrote:
Honour killings
I don't think that counts. They're called "honor killings" and are performed to protect the honor of the family, not to derive any religious benefit.
thealj wrote:
The Baltic Crusades
Duplicated (part of the Crusades)
thealj wrote:
Spanish Reconquista
I don't see how you're saying this was done in the name of religion either. It was Spain vs. the Moors. So the total is about 9 million. Virtually all of that was part of The Crusades which occurred nearly a millenium ago (and lets not forget that was against the Middle East, so let's put that in some context). So basically a good estimate is that 800-1000 years ago about 5%-10% of those killed in the name of atheism over the past century were killed in the name of religion. So I'm still not getting where the whole "many were killed in the name of religion" thing.
-
thealj wrote:
Spanish Inquisition
About 1200 people (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1239577,00.html[^])
thealj wrote:
New England Witch Burnings
9 million.
thealj wrote:
Crusades (I - IX).
About a dozen.
thealj wrote:
Albigensian Crusade
Duplicated (part of the Crusades)
thealj wrote:
Honour killings
I don't think that counts. They're called "honor killings" and are performed to protect the honor of the family, not to derive any religious benefit.
thealj wrote:
The Baltic Crusades
Duplicated (part of the Crusades)
thealj wrote:
Spanish Reconquista
I don't see how you're saying this was done in the name of religion either. It was Spain vs. the Moors. So the total is about 9 million. Virtually all of that was part of The Crusades which occurred nearly a millenium ago (and lets not forget that was against the Middle East, so let's put that in some context). So basically a good estimate is that 800-1000 years ago about 5%-10% of those killed in the name of atheism over the past century were killed in the name of religion. So I'm still not getting where the whole "many were killed in the name of religion" thing.
espeir wrote:
thealj wrote: New England Witch Burnings 9 million.
:omg: Where do you get that figure from? Hell, there wouldn't have been any women left they had burned that many. In North America the actually number of women killed as wiches was quite small (numbering less than a hundred). Modern historians have shown that the victims of the witchhunt were not always female (in Iceland, for example, 80% of those accused were men), though they were in the majority and misogyny was an important part of the forces behind it. Generally accepted figures amongst historians today range from Levack at around 60,000 to Hutton at around 40,000[^] And I would bet those figures are a gross exageration. "You get that which you tolerate"