Posted                       

quote:

---

Erm, the fundamental difference is that the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it) are prone to blowing up buses and slicing the heads off people, whereas the Christians we are talking about are simply saying, 'actually we are of the opinion that marriage should only be one man and one woman.'

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can I ask why we think that a Western government from 2015 onwards would NOT begin to introduce laws that severely restrict freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom to express beliefs, freedom to dissent from Government philosophies?

Why do we think that an oppressive regime will only exist in North Korea, Afghanistan or Europe in the 1930s?

Might it not happen again? ...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You know what just struck me?

This entire debate is basically centred around an incident where politicians suggested something to stop nasty Muslims, and people tended to nod their heads and say "yes, let's stop the nasty Muslims", and then someone suggested that actually it could apply to Christians as well and everyone started losing their shit.

This is a recurring theme in recent years.

---

Erm, the fundamental difference is that the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it) are prone to blowing up buses and slicing the heads off people, whereas the Christians we are talking about are simply saying, 'actually we are of the opinion that marriage should only be one man and one woman.'

Spot the difference.
I don't see any Christians from the local Methodist church turning up to a registar's office on a wet Thursday afternoon wielding a meat cleaver with which to behead the groom and his husband, shouting 'Jesus is Lord!'

---

Yes because Christians have never committed acts of terrorism and all Muslims are terrorists.

What the actual fuck.

Probably doesn't help to counter accusations of homophobia with some fairly hugely Islamophobic comments.

---

Excuse me, but I am simply referring to Orfeo's point. I have not made any 'hugely Islamophobic comments'.

No one has said 'all Muslims are terrorists' at all!

How would you justify saying that a terrorist with a machete is in any way in the same group as a Christian simply saying they don't agree with the change of law regarding marriage.

Have you EVER seen Christian in the UK doing acts of extreme violence against anyone in order to protest against same sex marriage? Specifically?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

---

quote:

---

This entire debate is basically centred around an incident where politicians suggested something to stop nasty Muslims, and people tended to nod their heads and say "yes, let's stop the nasty Muslims"

---

quote:

---

the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Nobody else *on this thread* is comparing terrorism and people disagreeing on marriage equality.

It is a very convenient fantasy to imagine Christians (the 'right kind of Christian' of course because it's inconvenient that other Christians might support marriage equality or other progressive ideas) being persecuted under equality legislation. But it is just that, a fantasy, because equality legislation protects Christians too - and far more than we need eg regarding disability rights.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The term the Home Secretary used was "Those who spread 'poisonous hatred'". Mark Spencer wrote a rabble-rousing letter to a constituent reflecting his opinion of how legislation could be used, subject to judicial interpretation.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Nobody else *on this thread* is comparing terrorism and people disagreeing on marriage equality.

It is a very convenient fantasy to imagine Christians (the 'right kind of Christian' of course because it's inconvenient that other Christians might support marriage equality or other progressive ideas) being persecuted under equality legislation. But it is just that, a fantasy, because equality legislation protects Christians too - and far more than we need eg regarding disability rights.

---

I haven't said they did!
It's the Home Secretary and that MP that are.

My only complaint on this thread is that some people are defining the word 'extremist' as someone simply holding extreme, unfashionable or objectionable views.

Holding such views - even if they are objectionable - does not make one a radical extremist with terrorist sympathies, which is what the legislation will do.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Also regarding 'anti-terrorism' legislation which consists of harassing university Islamic Societies etc, there should of course be equal, fair scrutiny given to other religious societies eg Christian Unions. CUs are as capable of just as much extremism as ISocs.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The term the Home Secretary used was "Those who spread 'poisonous hatred'". Mark Spencer wrote a rabble-rousing letter to a constituent reflecting his opinion of how legislation could be used, subject to judicial interpretation.

---

And my point is that the Home Secretary could use the term 'poisonous hatred' and apply it to any opinion that the Government suddenly doesn't like.

It was not 'poisonous hatred' to say 'one man, one woman' two years ago. Suddenly, because the government deems it to be otherwise, such an opinion held by a significant number of people - a belief according to conscience - is now 'poisonous hatred'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Also regarding 'anti-terrorism' legislation which consists of harassing university Islamic Societies etc, there should of course be equal, fair scrutiny given to other religious societies eg Christian Unions. CUs are as capable of just as much extremism as ISocs.

---

I'm sorry? Are you serious?

Can you give an actual example of a Christian terrorist group, an actual terrorist training camp, that has recruited Christians from a university CU and sent them to train with weapons to fight a crusade???

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Disagreeing that marriage should remain defined as a union between one man and one woman is not homophobic. I'm not aware that I or anyone on this thread has made any judgment about homosexuality.

Along with a lot of gay people I believe civil partnerships are a just and important way of committing to one another legally and publicly. I know there are some men who celebrated their CP as something wonderful and life-changing who are upset that their CPs are now seen as second rate compared to the new 'marriage.'

It is not just a certain type of Christian that rejects the idea of same sex marriage. A lot of others also fail to see the reasoning behind it all. Are they homophobic?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Also regarding 'anti-terrorism' legislation which consists of harassing university Islamic Societies etc, there should of course be equal, fair scrutiny given to other religious societies eg Christian Unions. CUs are as capable of just as much extremism as ISocs.

---

I'm sorry? Are you serious?

Can you give an actual example of a Christian terrorist group, an actual terrorist training camp, that has recruited Christians from a university CU and sent them to train with weapons to fight a crusade???

---

You realise that that ISocs recruiting for terrorist training camps is vanishingly rare, right? And that most ISoc members get together for, erm, prayer. That well-known terrorist activity.

Meanwhile I have heard genuine threats inc bodily harm/wanting to implement the death penalty against gay people, Jews, atheists, sex workers, and various world leaders within CU meetings.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Also regarding 'anti-terrorism' legislation which consists of harassing university Islamic Societies etc, there should of course be equal, fair scrutiny given to other religious societies eg Christian Unions. CUs are as capable of just as much extremism as ISocs.

---

I'm sorry? Are you serious?

Can you give an actual example of a Christian terrorist group, an actual terrorist training camp, that has recruited Christians from a university CU and sent them to train with weapons to fight a crusade???

---

You realise that that ISocs recruiting for terrorist training camps is vanishingly rare, right? And that most ISoc members get together for, erm, prayer. That well-known terrorist activity.

Meanwhile I have heard genuine threats inc bodily harm/wanting to implement the death penalty against gay people, Jews, atheists, sex workers, and various world leaders within CU meetings.

---

Erm... YOU brought up the issue of Isocs, not me. And now you're saying it doesn't happen?

Have you actually sat in a CU meeting where they called for gay people, Jews, atheists, sex-workers and world leaders to be killed??

Really sat there and listened to the Christian youth there advocating this? Shouting it, praying for it, singing to Jesus to allow it happen?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Disagreeing that marriage should remain defined as a union between one man and one woman is not homophobic. I'm not aware that I or anyone on this thread has made any judgment about homosexuality.

Along with a lot of gay people I believe civil partnerships are a just and important way of committing to one another legally and publicly. I know there are some men who celebrated their CP as something wonderful and life-changing who are upset that their CPs are now seen as second rate compared to the new 'marriage.'

It is not just a certain type of Christian that rejects the idea of same sex marriage. A lot of others also fail to see the reasoning behind it all. Are they homophobic?

---

The point behind the 'certain type of Christian' comment was that you seem to be totally ignoring the fact that many Christians are both LGBT and/or fine with marriage equality - because it's inconvenient to your argument. There are Christians who want the death penalty against gay people, Christians in this country - that is the type of homophobia I am talking about. Not plain disagreement over marriage.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

And yes, really - I have genuinely listened to Christians at CU meetings praying for these things. Mostly cessationist so not really into big singing about it, but definitely and clearly supporting and asking God for these things.

In certain circles these views are really not unusual. You are lucky enough to not have experienced them, but they exist.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Disagreeing that marriage should remain defined as a union between one man and one woman is not homophobic. I'm not aware that I or anyone on this thread has made any judgment about homosexuality.

Along with a lot of gay people I believe civil partnerships are a just and important way of committing to one another legally and publicly. I know there are some men who celebrated their CP as something wonderful and life-changing who are upset that their CPs are now seen as second rate compared to the new 'marriage.'

It is not just a certain type of Christian that rejects the idea of same sex marriage. A lot of others also fail to see the reasoning behind it all. Are they homophobic?

---

The point behind the 'certain type of Christian' comment was that you seem to be totally ignoring the fact that many Christians are both LGBT and/or fine with marriage equality - because it's inconvenient to your argument. There are Christians who want the death penalty against gay people, Christians in this country - that is the type of homophobia I am talking about. Not plain disagreement over marriage.

---

I think you keep raising straw men because you won't address the OP

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:

And yes, really - I have genuinely listened to Christians at CU meetings praying for these things. Mostly cessationist so not really into big singing about it, but definitely and clearly supporting and asking God for these things.

In certain circles these views are really not unusual. You are lucky enough to not have experienced them, but they exist.

---

I find it very, very hard to believe.
I also find it hard to believe because had you heard this stuff then surely you would have complained to the authorites.

And what's with 'cessationists' anyway? Why would someone who believed the gifts of the Holy Spirit had ceased with the Apostles suddenly want Jews and atheists killed?

Seriously? They were praying, Lord kill all atheists?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
Nobody else *on this thread* is comparing terrorism and people disagreeing on marriage equality.

It is a very convenient fantasy to imagine Christians (the 'right kind of Christian' of course because it's inconvenient that other Christians might support marriage equality or other progressive ideas) being persecuted under equality legislation. But it is just that, a fantasy, because equality legislation protects Christians too - and far more than we need eg regarding disability rights.

---

I haven't said they did!
It's the Home Secretary and that MP that are.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
But yes, there were prayers for particular groups to be wiped out/have the death penalty against them/be killed and eaten by worms (like Jehu, is it?). Really. Honestly. I have heard it in particularly conservative churches too.

---

Really? I'm a lifelong evangelical who has often been at odds with the more conservative elements of my faith, and I have certainly encountered views from some fellow evangelicals that I find objectionable. I didn't fit in with my university CU because they were too conservative for me. But I never experienced anything as extreme as that, actually PRAYING for people-groups to be wiped out. Holy cow!

Not denying that was your experience, of course.

I do remember, in my university days, a Campus Crusade for Christ guy (I can't remember if this was in the UK or US) getting into hot water for saying that the Holocaust was God's judgment on the Jews for rejecting Jesus. He got a HUGE bollocking for this, rightly so, both in the secular press and from other Christians - I can't remember the details now but I think CC was forced to apologise for such appalling anti-Semitism. I remember thinking at the time, "good grief, some of my fellow evangelicals have really awful views." In fact, that was a wake-up call for me. It was my first introduction to the reality of anti-Semitism in the church. I started to examine my own tradition more critically, and began to realise that we evangelicals weren't always all that, despite the talk about being born again.

quote:

---

There is certainly an extremist underbelly to Christianity in the UK - it is rare and not seen often, for which I am grateful. But it is real and scary and genuinely harming people. I appreciate that your strand of evangelicalism is very moderate and probably doesn't attract too many fringe types, but the fringes do exist.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Erm, the fundamental difference is that the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it) are prone to blowing up buses and slicing the heads off people, whereas the Christians we are talking about are simply saying, 'actually we are of the opinion that marriage should only be one man and one woman.'

Spot the difference.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The difference declaring that some disaster is the judgement of God on a country that passes equal marriage legislation and actually causing such a disaster because that's "God's judgement" isn't all that great.

---

quote:

---

The difference between intimidatory picketting of funerals and intimidation at the point of a gun is also not that great.

---

quote:

---

Or, the difference between wearing a suicide bomb and wearing a white sheet to lynch people of a different racial group.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm still trying to straighten this out. If you tell an eleven year old student that she's "gonna burn in hell real bad", is it okay to say that if you think she's homosexual but not okay if you're saying it because you think she's a Muslim? Or is it the other way around? Or are both actions okay because they're less "extreme" than decapitating the student?

---

Neither actions are okay. And that bus driver was absolutely awful. But obviously her bullying nastiness IS, actually, far less extreme than actually decapitating a child.

I once had a well-intentioned young Muslim wave a pamphlet in my face and exhort me to give up alcohol and embrace Islam because I'd be so much happier. I smiled sweetly at him, said "not today, mate," and walked on. If he'd told me I was going to hell, I'd have rolled my eyes, and walked on. Would that have been an extremist attitude on his part? - yes, I think it would have been. But it's not even close to someone actually wanting to behead me, is it?

Objectionable ideas do not lead AUTOMATICALLY to extreme acts of violence. Of course they can do. But not necessarily.

--------------------
"I fear that to me Siamese cats belong to the fauna of Mordor." J.R.R. Tolkien

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The difference declaring that some disaster is the judgement of God on a country that passes equal marriage legislation and actually causing such a disaster because that's "God's judgement" isn't all that great.

---

Do you really believe that? IMO, that's an absurd opinion. One is a nasty and rather sad bunch of no-hopers waving placards, and the other is dead people.

quote:

---

The difference between intimidatory picketting of funerals and intimidation at the point of a gun is also not that great.

---

Again, there's a pretty big difference between threatening someone with a gun and waving an offensive placard at them.

quote:

---

Or, the difference between wearing a suicide bomb and wearing a white sheet to lynch people of a different racial group.

---

Now, this one is pretty similar.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
Neither actions are okay. And that bus driver was absolutely awful. But obviously her bullying nastiness IS, actually, far less extreme than actually decapitating a child.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
I once had a well-intentioned young Muslim wave a pamphlet in my face and exhort me to give up alcohol and embrace Islam because I'd be so much happier. I smiled sweetly at him, said "not today, mate," and walked on.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The term the Home Secretary used was "Those who spread 'poisonous hatred'". Mark Spencer wrote a rabble-rousing letter to a constituent reflecting his opinion of how legislation could be used, subject to judicial interpretation.

---

And my point is that the Home Secretary could use the term 'poisonous hatred' and apply it to any opinion that the Government suddenly doesn't like.

It was not 'poisonous hatred' to say 'one man, one woman' two years ago. Suddenly, because the government deems it to be otherwise, such an opinion held by a significant number of people - a belief according to conscience - is now 'poisonous hatred'.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
You know what just struck me?

This entire debate is basically centred around an incident where politicians suggested something to stop nasty Muslims, and people tended to nod their heads and say "yes, let's stop the nasty Muslims", and then someone suggested that actually it could apply to Christians as well and everyone started losing their shit.

This is a recurring theme in recent years.

---

Erm, the fundamental difference is that the 'nasty Muslims' (as you put it) are prone to blowing up buses and slicing the heads off people, whereas the Christians we are talking about are simply saying, 'actually we are of the opinion that marriage should only be one man and one woman.'

Spot the difference.
I don't see any Christians from the local Methodist church turning up to a registar's office on a wet Thursday afternoon wielding a meat cleaver with which to behead the groom and his husband, shouting 'Jesus is Lord!'

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The difference between intimidatory picketting of funerals and intimidation at the point of a gun is also not that great.

---

Again, there's a pretty big difference between threatening someone with a gun and waving an offensive placard at them.

---

quote:

---

More than 200 protesters, some armed, berated Islam and its Prophet Mohammed outside an Arizona mosque on Friday in a provocative protest that was denounced by counterprotesters shouting "Go home, Nazis," weeks after an anti-Muslim event in Texas came under attack by two gunmen.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think once you've resorted to the argument that certain actions aren't extreme when compared with the brutal summary execution of a minor you've implicitly conceded that those actions would be considered extreme by most other standards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
Slightly different situation since he was some random person in the street rather than someone who had a good deal of administrative power over you, as was the case with the student.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

"Those who spread 'poisonous hatred'". Which is a long way along the spectrum from those who disagree with the definition of a word.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

[..]having someone waving placards saying your loved ones are burning in hell, or that the nation is under judgement of God is a very vindictive and hurtful act.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is this an intimidating action, since the demonstrators were armed? Or inoffensive, because all they did in the end was "wave placcards"? And is that something that's easily discernible as soon as the crowd shows up?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
But I think Mudfrog should have asked -

"What about The Salvation Army which, alongside other churches, has in the last year re-confirmed its belief that marriage is the New Testament standard of the voluntary union of one man to one woman for life to the exclusion of all others?

Are we wrong now?"

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The problem is that people who 30 years ago - sorry, TWO years ago - held a reasonable, allowable and, more pertinently, legally-supported view, i.e. marriage is a heterosexual union, now find themselves labelled as extremists and targetted by exactly the same law that targets the people who use Youtube to show Christians being beheaded - and they haven't even said anything yet!!

These people - and I count myself as one of them - simply believe that marriage should be defined one particular way: the way it's been defined by common acceptance until 2 years ago.

They haven't altered their views, they haven't campaigned to change any laws, they haven't demanded legislation, etc. They've simply just been themselves and now they are being condemned as extremists overnight simply because they believe something that was perfectly OK a couple of years ago.

If these people - most of whom haven't even thought the issues through - are suddenly extremists, it's in no way because they have suddenly moved to that position!

They (we) have stayed exactly where we were all along and it's the government that has suddenly run off into the far extreme corner and is now shouting at us from a distance through a megaphone for being extreme!!!

It's not us that moved, it's you bloody lot!!
What are you going to do, send us for reprogramming? Re-educating? Assimilation??

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

It's not us that moved, it's you bloody lot!!
What are you going to do, send us for reprogramming? Re-educating? Assimilation??

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

An extremist? Me?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
And it's like entropy. The arrow only points one way. Once we know and accept that it is not right to, say, (as in Leviticus) kill our daughters if they sleep around then you can't ever go and take a gun to the little slut. I don't think fashion or the popular culture or the zeitgeist will ever come around again, to where it is OK to enslave people. Tons of stuff in the Bible is simply no longer doable, so many things that there are entire web pages devoted to listing them.

---

(emphasis mine)

Did you really mean that?


--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic