Muslim magazine journalists pretended to be Roman Catholics :D
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Sure it is, in this context: people felt disrespected. What else is there to it?
You'd have to be Catholic, or at least Christian, to get away with naked proclamations on how such an act is percieved by those groups. The rest of us have no standing to contradict them on this count.
So you speak for "all sensible people" now, eh?
More cheap dishonesty and disrespect, which I again interpret as the dishonorable version of an admission of defeat. Thanks for playing; it must be sort of liberating to write polemics without the restraint of credibility.
Wow. That wasn't bigoted at all. Tiassa, are you marking your protege?
Well, far be it from me to borrow phrases, but I'm not surprised that you don't understand either; or rather that you're trolling the indefensible.
Don't wait for an invitation to contribute something of value, all right? Don't get me wrong: I love the Action Notes.
Well, apparently. (See OP. It's right up there.) It's funny to get accused of bigotry while the protege of the guy making the accusation is...well...see above.
How about reporting on the (clearly dangerous and subversive) existence of apostates? I'm sure the spitting out of communion wafers - and the necessary reporting of same? - had not a thing to do with religious intolerance or extremism in Malaysia. Which, as you know, is nil. Nicht wahr?
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1041175/1/.html
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsgeneral.php?id=471387
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...hathir_jews_had_to_be_periodically_massacred/
http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...hathir_jews_had_to_be_periodically_massacred/
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100110/ap_on_re_as/as_malaysia_allah_ban
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/world/asia/12malaysia.html
http://www.bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsgeneral.php?id=470194
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/02/28/67427.html
Kind of the tip of the iceberg. But never mind all that: what does one expect from a country with an "Anti-Jews Day"?
Not so fast: Tiassa might not think you were the right kind of bigot, if you keep on with this kind of thing.
That it's an issue at all is alarming: that you would defend a modern Gestapo persecuting a group of helpless religious minorities merely as "an issue" not surprising at all. Your attitude is that of the typical "worst conservative": survive on our tolerance, not on the constitutional rights a human might reasonably expect. (Tiassa: again - are you taking notes? I had the impression you were something of a constitution jockey.)
Nothing wrong with reporting on conversion to a jackboot religious state. I see.
Doth someone else see?
Geoff
Do you hold the same opinion on all issues of such stupidity?
My body is a temple, so I shouldn't have to pay taxes?
If you live in a mixed community, you should actively discourage such nonsense.
To answer that, we'd first have to pin down coherent operating definitions of what "such stupidity" is, which issues are instances of it, and also what you think my opinion is. History does not recommend such a project; nor does the present, for that matter.
So I'll pass on that one.
If you can convince the government of that, more power to you. You'd have no shortage of converts, certainly.
My community would be considered "mixed" under any reasonable definition of that term, but beyond that I can't really comment on whatever it is that you think you're recommending here.
Bells
Staff member
How good of you.
Again. You were not the one who felt insulted. Rather you seem to feel insulted that they were so offended.
It is not for you to determine who is and who is not to be insulted.
Your glib ignorance does not do you justice Sam.
Religious minorities do face extreme religious oppression in Malaysia. I guess one could say that since the State prefers Islam as the religion of choice, forcing people to convert by repressing them is one way to increase your numbers. I guess I should not be surprised that you are excusing their behaviour as you are.
Certainly. And when someone throws pigs blood at a Mosque, we'll be expecting you to say that 'it's just a building guys, no one was harmed when it was thrown, not even the dead guy or God it represents'.. right? How about when a Mosque is bombed, we'll be expecting you to take that argument.
What you keep ignoring in your trolling in this thread is that Christians and other religious minorities in Malaysia do suffer from harm and are oppressed by the State. Their places of worship are firebombed, desecrated and their persons threatened and restricted. I understand that such things meaningless and that it only matters to you when it occurs in the Middle East and the victims are Muslims, and if that is the case, then maybe this thread is not the place for you to be posting in.
And if you live in a mixed community or Govern a mixed community, you should treat all members of that community equally, just as you should afford equal rights to members of said community. You should not dismiss attempts to denigrate and insult other religions as being mere 'stupidity' or 'idiocy'.
Bells
Staff member
You're right. Spitting out a bit of wafer is exactly like vandalising a religious place of worship. Or throwing a bomb Maybe even worse than the holocaust
Maliciously spitting out a wafer is a desecration of their holy site, in this instance, a church.
That you make light of the desecration of a holy site, because you view it as being something as inconsequential as merely spitting out a wafer, says more about you than it does about Christians who take their faith very strongly.
You're right. Spitting out a bit of wafer is exactly like vandalising a religious place of worship. Or throwing a bomb Maybe even worse than the holocaust
The first person to cry 'pogrom' at the investigation of radical Islam in Europe and the United States sees no connection between journalists investigating apostates and religious Islamic fundamentalism in Malaysia. She disingenuously reduces the entire incident to the act of spitting out a wafer.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. This is nothing really unexpected.
How does one maliciously spit out a wafer?Does spitting a wafer desecrate a church? If Christians took their faith strongly they wouldn't be restricting who gets communion. Christianity was the first religion to break the barrier of race and ethnicity. The first religion available to all regardless of birth.
Bells
Staff member
By pretending to be Catholic, using deceipt to get said wafer and to spy on the church and the congregation and then spitting out the wafer and photographing it for a news story... One has to wonder at how and why you seem to be amazed that they felt grieved by the behaviour of the two journalists. You are either really that thick or simply trolling. Either way, it's not looking too good for you my dear old girl.
They seem to think it does. It is their church and their belief that has been insulted. Whether you agree that an insult occurs or not is really beside the point.
And this article proves that maybe some restriction is necessary. After all, if you're going to let any arsewipe take the wafer and then spit it out of spite for a news story..
Which is probably why Muslims feel so uncomfortable at the thought that anyone can become a Christian and are free to convert to any other religion without fear of arrest or persecution.
but as i said, the answer that is a bit more "subtle" is acid's post
sigh..
ok, first, as a general answer, no i don't, assuming all religions have a degree of correct and wrong in them, hence becaoming a matter of subjective choice and freedom, so no.
but, if something is right, and the rest is wrong, then laws are there to enforce that which is absolutely right:shrug:
it's like, self righteousness is wrong, except when the one applying it IS righteous.
but then again, not only are there a lot of laws i think are not right(example: some countries get nukes others are prohibited), but many of the laws are frequently trampled on(ex: the war on iraq), so in essence;
if you try to create laws based on what the mass of people think you won't create any..
crap
i researched and was gonna point that out when i saw that you just said it, SHIT! you know some stuff about islam I don't know?
how did you know that?
bet it must be all over your atheism 101 internet corses eh?:grumble:
The problem with trying to con us, Geoff, is that you're not very good at it
I find it curious that you suddenly find the notion of the eucharist as cannibalism bigoted. After all, you didn't have a problem with it before (see "Cannibalism"). It's hardly an unheard proposition. As a point of faith, one is, indeed, consuming the body and blood of Christ. Furthermore, as it is heretical to deny Christ's humanity, one is consuming the body and blood of another human being.
You show your own bigotry, Geoff. Exploring the cannibalistic aspects of the eucharist is a long tradition here at Sciforums. I guess the difference between a "legitimate inquiry" and "bigotry" is whether it's an atheist making the inquiry, or a Muslim.
Quite the standard.
Spare us the fake outrage.
GeoffP said:
I find it curious that you suddenly find the notion of the eucharist as cannibalism bigoted. After all, you didn't have a problem with it before (see "Cannibalism"). It's hardly an unheard proposition. As a point of faith, one is, indeed, consuming the body and blood of Christ. Furthermore, as it is heretical to deny Christ's humanity, one is consuming the body and blood of another human being.
You show your own bigotry, Geoff. Exploring the cannibalistic aspects of the eucharist is a long tradition here at Sciforums. I guess the difference between a "legitimate inquiry" and "bigotry" is whether it's an atheist making the inquiry, or a Muslim.
Quite the standard.
Spare us the fake outrage.
Again: context.
See above.
There is no instance of Christians restricting who gets communion, here. If they'd done that, the interlopers would never have recieved communion to spit out in the first place.
They are offended that the people took their communion, and then violated the spirit of the ritual, and then documented and publicized this fact. Had they simply taken communion like anyone else, there'd be no issue here.
The first Abrahamic religion available to all regardless of birth, you mean.
And, indeed, the entire problem in Malaysia is driven by attempts by that society and state to restrict Christianity from certain ethnicities, who are by law required to be Muslim. There would be no issue of political scrutiny of apostates, if Malaysia weren't using force in an attempt to impede that aspect of Christianity. So it's highly inaccurate - not to mention offensive - for you to recast them as the segregators here, over their complaint of being repressed in this way.
You are privy to something regarding faith which is absolutely right?
What's that?
You aren't a least bit bothered that some undercover government agents were trying to Out Illegal Converts at a time when 9 churches were burned to the ground for using the word Allah, which used to be outlawed, specifically because the use of the word Allah, may confuse Muslims into thinking Christianity is a faith which is absolutely right - for them. AKA: Muslims may find the Christian message more appealing because they can relate to the word "Allah" and Illegally convert. Which is why this "investigation" was started. These "Journalists" are perfect examples of what's wrong with mixing State and Superstition. CAN you JUST IMAGINE, what could have happened had there been a couple 12-14 year old illegal female converts? Maybe more than just a church burning would have occurred. Which is EXACTLY what these "Journalists" wanted. It's obvious to anyone with two cents to rub together they wanted to re-ban the word Allah for use outside of Islam. THAT was their goal. If a few people had to die, or have their lives ruined, and few more churches burned - that would have been an easy price to pay. See, back in the day, they'd simply come in and raze the church and scatter the Christians. That's no so easy anymore. Which is a good sign. Things ARE changing for the better.
Which is good evidence that there's nothing which is absolutely right for all of humanity in the Qur'an. Something to think about. It's also interesting that, given the supposed free choice, many Muslims may want to convert. Enough so as to make a it illegal in many Islamic States. Interesting No?
Last edited:
The problem with your moderation of Ethics, Tiassa, is your ethics themselves
I'm sorry: in which part of that thread was meant to be the religious condemnation? I don't recall it, but perhaps with your magical powers you can discern more, as you discern less.
- Actually, I just checked, and aside from an amusing comment on the first page only, I seem to have almost completely ignored it. Wherein is the assault on my religion again?
Of course not. It's merely an offensive one. That shouldn't concern you, of course.
Ha! This was the most laughable part.
Oh, indeed.
I'm really not aware of your or Sciforums' "longstanding traditions" on the matter, Tiassa: but holding your protege up to her own standards is certainly a tradition of mine. The question is just as offensive when she proposes it in the manner she does, which one would expect a moderator of Ethics to understand, ethically. But she is as free to, er, "question" the subject as I am free to take her to task for her hypocrisy, and as free as you are to exercise your own lack of balance. Or we could discuss the astounding intellectual hypocrisy both you and your toadie display on this very thread - as you've failed to address thus far.
I'm sure I've asked this before, but exactly why are you the moderator of Ethics, again?
Oh, and as it's only Muslims I apparently take to task for this issue, are you then announcing your own reversion to that faith?
Please. Enough foolery.
I'm sorry: in which part of that thread was meant to be the religious condemnation? I don't recall it, but perhaps with your magical powers you can discern more, as you discern less.
- Actually, I just checked, and aside from an amusing comment on the first page only, I seem to have almost completely ignored it. Wherein is the assault on my religion again?
Of course not. It's merely an offensive one. That shouldn't concern you, of course.
Ha! This was the most laughable part.
Oh, indeed.
I'm really not aware of your or Sciforums' "longstanding traditions" on the matter, Tiassa: but holding your protege up to her own standards is certainly a tradition of mine. The question is just as offensive when she proposes it in the manner she does, which one would expect a moderator of Ethics to understand, ethically. But she is as free to, er, "question" the subject as I am free to take her to task for her hypocrisy, and as free as you are to exercise your own lack of balance. Or we could discuss the astounding intellectual hypocrisy both you and your toadie display on this very thread - as you've failed to address thus far.
I'm sure I've asked this before, but exactly why are you the moderator of Ethics, again?
Oh, and as it's only Muslims I apparently take to task for this issue, are you then announcing your own reversion to that faith?
Please. Enough foolery.
Last edited: