It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Koran illegal in the UK? It will be soon….

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by iksmodnad
They would ban the bible before they would ban the Korean. We already had to remove monuments with religious sayings on them from public places so people who do not believe in God won't be offended makes a whole lot of sense don't it?


Excuse you, but for those who do not believe in your God, it makes a hell of a lot of sense.

How about this, everywhere we see sayings or referrneces from the Bible, be it in stone, paper, fabric, whatever, and no matter where, be it in front of courts, in the courts, gov buildings, everywhere considered public domain - we place beside it in the same fashion a Pentagram?

Deal?

Misfit




posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
To tell you the truth I wouldn't care, I am not that religious although my family is Roman Catholic, I just don't get why people get offended by something that they don't even believe in, It makes me think people do get offended just because they can. I guess It makes people feel like there in power... who knows. I don't even care that sayings on the monuments are gone I just don't understand why its such a big deal.



posted on Jul, 1 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Can I just repeat: nobody is banning the Qu'ran

This post was about some legislation in the UK which will outlaw "inciting religous hatred". The main group in the country who want this law introduced are the muslim community, and they would hardly do that if it would mean the their holy book was banned as a result of it. They want it to protect them from abuse from far right groups.

Some idiot politician in the UK (Boris Johnson is a bit of a joke) said that if they outlaw inciting relgious hatred then they will have to ban the Qu'ran. However he is just wrong as the law won't operate that way. Not that I want the law introduced myself as I think will stop true freedom of speech.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Well like I said it can hardly be much of an erosion of "who or what we are" if hardly anyone ever bothers with the Bible in a hotel room in the first place, huh?


Missed the point again I fear. It isn't about the god dammed bible and the hotel room it is about the systematic removal of who and what you are as a Christian society.


- Er, the "facts" are that we in the UK - whilst by no means perfect - have a pretty good record when it comes to our centuries of multi-racialism/culturalsim (I think you are really splitting hairs there).


Really!!! Just stand back and take a close look at what is going on around you now. The past is the past and I fear you are in for a rocky road over the next 5-10 years.


You can be as cynical as you like but thats how it works, here anyways......that's the nuts and bolts of what they're talking about when you hear about Judges 'interpreting' an Act of Parliament.


Yes I can be as cynical as I like because I have already seen first hand what happened in this country due to similar laws. I also heard 'parliment' state that the intent was etc etc etc etc but that didn't save two priests from being taken to court when all they were doing was pointing out the difference between the bible and the Koran.

It is also about the removal of our rights to free speech.



[edit on 2/7/2005 by Lady of the Lake]



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake


Missed the point again I fear. It isn't about the god dammed bible and the hotel room it is about the systematic removal of who and what you are as a Christian society.



Well, thats the thing: there are no christian societies in Europe anymore. There is no pure christian country, christian religion stopped playing a major role quite some time ago.
Society is not a unchangeable thing. Societies change with time. In the last few decades millions of immigrants moved from the third world to europe, which has indeed become a multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-religious society. For the most part we do live in harmony. It is the extremist fractions on ALL sides that are creating problems and it is their hate speech that must be regulated with laws.
In an ideal society you don't need these laws because everybody behaves. In real world you need them, so that there is a familiar action-consequence-punishment chain.

If you are a religious person and if you are not actively trying to impose your world view on others, everything is ok. Nobody is trying to take away anyone's freedom to go to church or pray at home.
But if you try to push your religous view through laws which influence the whole society, or if you stand on the street or appear on some talk show on TV and call for death of all infidels/arabs/foreigners/blacks then you should be punished for that.
Hitler started with hate speech too....

The reality is, we have turned into multi-cultural societies and our laws should addapt to that.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by paperclip
Well, thats the thing: there are no christian societies in Europe anymore. There is no pure christian country, christian religion stopped playing a major role quite some time ago.
Christian belief however I believe still plays a major role for many societies. Whilst people don't roll up to church on Sunday's this doesn't mean that that their belief sytems has changed dramatically.


It is the extremist fractions on ALL sides that are creating problems and it is their hate speech that must be regulated with laws.
No one in their right mind supports hate 'speeches' but these proposed changes to the law can go far deeper than 'hate' speeches. That in my opinion is the problem. I can assure you that (as stated previously) similar laws in this country have been used to suppress free speech. In essence even a simple statement that a ceratin religion is stupid can see you end up in court is someone takes offence at your comment.


....if you stand on the street or appear on some talk show on TV and call for death of all infidels/arabs/foreigners/blacks then you should be punished for that.
Obsolutely, no right minded person supports this type of behaviour but just remember that if I were to make a cmment on radio as an example with reference to to say Muslim women being repressed and say comparing this to how women in a christain society are treated and someone took offence under similar laws I can be taken to court. It is the interpretation of the law that worries me.


The reality is, we have turned into multi-cultural societies and our laws should addapt to that.
Laws should never be racially or religiously based this only leads to further hate and unrest.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
Christian belief however I believe still plays a major role for many societies. Whilst people don't roll up to church on Sunday's this doesn't mean that that their belief sytems has changed dramatically.


- Sorry but IMO this is just a really fake arguement some Christians try to use to justify them continuing to try and influence the rest of us when hardly anyone bothers with them anymore.

You don't particularly need Christianity - and especially not some fundy evangelical version of it - to have excellent worthwhile values in a society.

......and as for concerns about a non-Christian UK?
Go look at the House of Lords.
There in the heart of British law making sit the 'Lords Spiritual' as they have done for centuries; 26 Bishops and ArchBishops debating, amending and influencing British law.


these proposed changes to the law can go far deeper than 'hate' speeches.


- Perhaps you'd care to outline your objections to the proposed British law?


similar laws in this country have been used to suppress free speech.


- The proposed British law is not the same as anyone elses. For a start it has the advantage of taking account of other peoples' experiences.


In essence even a simple statement that a ceratin religion is stupid can see you end up in court is someone takes offence at your comment.


- It is not so simple.
It's about incitement and the effects of that incitement and not just about a single comment itself.


Laws should never be racially or religiously based this only leads to further hate and unrest.


- Er, actually we already have laws relating to incitement to racial hatred here in the UK.......and have had for decades, starting in 1965 and most importantly the 'Race Relations Act' of 1976, actually.

There have been 76 prosecutions and 44 people have been convicted by them in the 40years (so hardly a case of Judges going nuts or being forced to be heavy-handed).
news.bbc.co.uk...

.......and I think you'd be pressed to find anyone outside of the small nutter extreme right-wing element we have that would claim the race hate laws have led to further hate and unrest.

Like I said you can claim to 'worry' and have 'concerns' about the future but our track record in the UK is, overall, a goo one when it comes to race and religious relations.

This new law simply tackles the case of 2 hate-mongers.
The one inciting hatred on the basis of race can currently be lifted by the cops the one inciting on the basis of religion cannot.

That will now stop.

......and when the law is passed and the fuss and silly exaggerated fear from some dies down, just as with the race laws, no-one but the nutter element will give a damn.


[edit on 2-7-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   
i thought the idea of the religious hate law thing was to stop non-religious people making fun of religions?

no more jokes about the smug church of england...somehow implying that perhaps jesus was british.

i guess because its stopping free speech against religions, its also going to stop their freedom of speech and so on...kinda a knock on effect. lets face it, if the koran or bible were taken literally, christians would be off slaughtering people with islamic beliefs etc...oh wait, they are. on a serious note, some of the more barbaric stuff in the bible and koran could be left out, you could cut the bible in half, save some paper and it'd still have the same meaning...cause that stuff about stoning your wife if she isn't a virgin...what's the point in printing that.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by shaunybaby
i thought the idea of the religious hate law thing was to stop non-religious people making fun of religions?

no more jokes about the smug church of england...somehow implying that perhaps jesus was british.

i guess because its stopping free speech against religions, its also going to stop their freedom of speech and so on...kinda a knock on effect. lets face it, if the koran or bible were taken literally, christians would be off slaughtering people with islamic beliefs etc...oh wait, they are. on a serious note, some of the more barbaric stuff in the bible and koran could be left out, you could cut the bible in half, save some paper and it'd still have the same meaning...cause that stuff about stoning your wife if she isn't a virgin...what's the point in printing that.


As you cut or change something you change the word of God. This how it is.

As for stuff sometimes in a socities there is laws so that the socitiy wont corrupt and spoil. To protect every member of the socity there should be sacrafies and punishment so the socity could go on.

Sometime pride and arogance take place there in many socities it not because he look his wife but because his pride is on the line and thats my dear friend is the socity changing toward the culture more than relgion.

Most people in Europe lost hope of christianity because most of the times people would use the relgion into there own advantages changing inscript and make new law on the people. Sometime people fight for the own thing and put the name of relgion for people to give support but instead they taint the name of the relgion .



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Most people 100 years ago believed in the Bible, it was a way of bringing your family up. Today we have no role model just the Law of man and many people. We have progressed with technology for the fear of mass destruction and open laws that change to accommodate our sinful ways. You could say that Christianity forced its way into people’s lives but it was the fact people chose. Even if your family was religious you could choose your decision to leave. You were never tied up to believe in it and if so-called Christians forced their religion inappropriately then they misunderstood the Bible. A lot of people chose to believe Christianity not because they were forced to. If the influences of their traditions linger on today its because 90% believed compared to 40% today and that even a God exists, in the UK figures. That 90% caused their influence in their buildings and had crosses everywhere. But it seems that we have denied our grandparents generation because of internationals or because scientists say we have evolved from apes. And their has been a split but why take Bibles away from anywhere as to stop teaching its values because no leader or government can match its wisdom and no one can improve on it. If they could we would not be in the downward spiral of today’s society.

Law after law has liberated our sins to full use, yes we are free to choose but are it because they have no shame of what they do and nobody wants to listen to the law, who wrote it anyway. Its like we have lost a father in society and we have become orphaned by lack of guidance as there is no single source of help or direction and thus splitting the unity we once had for even more fragmented peoples and issues that cause us to hate each others views. Even a football game creates hate and it’s just a game. We were once united but are now split with extremes social behaviours. 100 years ago Christianity bloomed and so did knowledge of science and art.

People are afraid of change yes but what for? The improvements of technology for social demise. Religion is in built we are meant to have a spiritual nature but denial only oppresses it. It could be any religion but we have a sense of God and denying that is like crime thought. Lets make sure people are unaware of God and before anything as children so they think its stupid. Its not unreal to feel the presence of God and know there is something out there only for it to be replaced with aliens, its not the God feeling people get its an excuse to deny he exists.
Like the denial of any right are we being denied God in society? Unless you don’t influence others that is and spread the word.

We may unite against world poverty and disaster but never in faith and when one day we as man kind need to unite for peace (7 year tribulation)
we will stand united just to hand the keys to the Devil him self. We have been pre-warned but our desperation with lack of knowledge will fulfil our worst nightmares. People will have no choice only to get that hero himself the anti-Christ against Gods people.

This is just my recent outlook and many have similar thinking without even having to speak to each other.


[edit on 2-7-2005 by The time lord]



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Isn't it illegal to read parts of the Bible now in Canada since they're anti-gay?

This is just an expansion of an anti-religious secular agenda in these nations. Hopefully our Constitution will protect the U.S. from getting such laws, even though many liberal groups would like to see them enacted.

Liberals are intelligent and don’t believe in God or Gods. Banning the Bible out right would be the best thing that could happen for civilization right now. Religion served it’s purpose in providing morals and rules to peoples lives, we don’t need a book to tell us right from wrong anymore period. Now a days religion is used as a tool of control more then anything.



posted on Jul, 2 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Is really Canda democartic like it says ?!?!?!?!


If somebody cant have a relgion of chocie in a country is a country with not real values. expect the relgion that harm other people and self



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
An international community causes international problems and deny the existing law into political incorrectness.



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Can the UK ban Bob Geldoff as well? I really don't like that fellow, too greedy and selfish for me.

As far as the Koran is concerned, how would you ban it? Stop publishing of the book in the UK? Like that'll work. Mandated raids on known Muslims' house?



posted on Jul, 4 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I hardly doubt that the Qu'ran would ever be banned. Such a banning would contradict freedom to practice ones faith. Regardless, there is plent of hatred rampant in Judeo-Christian scripture, not to mention the more discreet and socialy deliterious Brahmic teachings practiced by many Hindu's; this, in itself, is hate material.

Also, a fellow aforementioned that all faiths at one point or another have preached genocide against infidels, I'm going to take exception to that as it's not wholly true; peoples may have acted outside of doctrine, but that does not label the faith one of genocidal porportions. There are numerious faiths which have existed without relative bloodshed.

Luxifero.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Sorry but IMO this is just a really fake arguement some Christians try to use to justify them continuing to try and influence the rest of us when hardly anyone bothers with them anymore.


I am not overly Christian so lets get that bit straight. As a mater of fact right now I am sitting in Malaysia looking out over the moist beautiful mosque. So please do NOT label me as being a Christian. I am not trying to influence anyone.

I personally find things of value in all religions along with much rubbish, suppression and control. The essence is to take the good and disregard the rest. However, if people are to be enlightened and to grow they need to have access to all information sources so to remove some of those sources only serves to keep people in ignorance.

This in a nutshell is is the essence of my concern.


and as for concerns about a non-Christian UK?
Go look at the House of Lords. There in the heart of British law making sit the 'Lords Spiritual' as they have done for centuries; 26 Bishops and ArchBishops debating, amending and influencing British law.


Come on now do you REALLY believe that these people are influential and not merely puppets of the Government? May I ask 26 out of how many seats? Since the current Government started on their campaign to remove heredity peers they are really stacking the number with cronies.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Perhaps you'd care to outline your objections to the proposed British law?


I have no objections merely seek to point out that laws can be used for purposes never envisaged. Once they are in they are in and it is very hard to remove them once they are there – moral! Buyer beware.


The proposed British law is not the same as anyone elses. For a start it has the advantage of taking account of other peoples' experiences.


In case it has escaped you our legal system is based on the British system and our laws in this regard were never meant to deliver the results they have.


It is not so simple. It's about incitement and the effects of that incitement and not just about a single comment itself


Same as the above. This is what our laws were meant to do also. In practice the results can be very different to the intention because it is about reaction too and interpretation of


Laws should never be racially or religiously based this only leads to further hate and unrest.



actually we already have laws relating to incitement to racial hatred here in the UK.......and have had for decades, starting in 1965 and most importantly the 'Race Relations Act' of 1976, actually. There have been 76 prosecutions and 44 people have been convicted by them in the 40years (so hardly a case of Judges going nuts or being forced to be heavy-handed).


The difference between then and now is that we live in an ever increasingly litigious society. The answer to most issues these days is to use the law or to demand laws to solve issues rather than to work them out. We are also ever influenced my the minority in the making of laws which is fact. This is a trend that we should all be mindful and wary of.


and I think you'd be pressed to find anyone outside of the small nutter extreme right-wing element we have that would claim the race hate laws have led to further hate and unrest.


I can assure you I am far from a nutter extreme right-wing person and I fear for what we are becoming. We can learn many things from our past if we care to look.


This new law simply tackles the case of 2 hate-mongers.
The one inciting hatred on the basis of race can currently be lifted by the cops the one inciting on the basis of religion cannot.


Look at what has been achieved by race laws in reality. Reverse discrimination. I mean really take a look.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Lets see how todays terror attacks on London by Islamic extremists speed this law up....



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
Lets see how todays terror attacks on London by Islamic extremists speed this law up....


you could dream on

BEcause the Quran is something from God is its protected by God. Nobody could do to it anything .

Because UK is made of Indian and Pakstian .

THose people make up alot of the country and they give to the british socity more than those stupid hollagans football english who stays in the pub til his brains expplode.



posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lady of the Lake
I am not overly Christian so lets get that bit straight.


- I didn't say you were, I said that the arguement that 'Christianity' (and particularly a fundy version of it) is relevant, no matter what even though relatively few are by any reasonable definition especially 'Christian', is a fake propostition fundy Christians sometimes use to sidestep the reality of the situation.


I personally find things of value in all religions along with much rubbish, suppression and control. The essence is to take the good and disregard the rest.


- Personally I'd agree with that although maybe we'd not agree on what counts as value.


However, if people are to be enlightened and to grow they need to have access to all information sources so to remove some of those sources only serves to keep people in ignorance.

This in a nutshell is is the essence of my concern.


- Well OK, if you say so but I don't think you can force religious views on people.

......and as this example of the Bible in hotel rooms goes to show, hardly anyone ever looked at them anyway.
In which case I'd say it was a totally neutral thing whether they are there are not.
Bibles as mere room decoration? Surely that's no one's ideal?


Come on now do you REALLY believe that these people are influential and not merely puppets of the Government?


- Er, yes actually.
The voting record and the instances of C of E inspired 'trouble' for UK govs of all colours is well documented over the decades.


May I ask 26 out of how many seats?


- 723 total membership, but they never all attend at once. The average attendance is 388.
www.parliament.uk...
www.parliament.uk...


Since the current Government started on their campaign to remove heredity peers they are really stacking the number with cronies.


- Er, no actually. That is simply not true.
The composition is as follows (as of 30/06/05) -

Conservative 159 life peers; 40 hereditary elected by party; 9 hereditary office holders
Total Conservative 208

Labour 211 life peers; 2 hereditary elected by party; 2 hereditary office holders; 0 hereditary Royal office holders
Total Labour 215

Liberal Democrat 69 life peers; 3 hereditary elected by party; 2 hereditary office holders
Total LibDems 74

Crossbench 155 life peers; 28 hereditary elected by party; 2 hereditary office holders; 2 hereditary Royal office holders
Total Crossbenchers 187

Bishops 25

Other** 12 life peers; 2 hereditary elected by party
Total 'Others' 14


Labour remains (after 8yrs in office.......and all that supposed 'stacking') very much a minority party when compared to the total membership of the HOL.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join