The penny has dropped

[dundeegeorge]

I wondered why chicken was against this new proposed law about debunking the stupid, sorry, inciting religious hatred.
But suddenly it all becomes clear. chicken would have to stop posting, because every time he posts he incites hatred against christianity (based of course on the utterly false premise that chicken is representative of christians; he's not, I know a few committed christians and they don't seem to have their head stuck up their own arse).
D'oh!

[ScotsPine]

dg

don't you have some work to do?

[dundeegeorge]

yes boss, sorry boss

don't you? that was a mighty quick reply.

[widgetdance]

Oh come on. Even Chicken knows the real reason it is bad.

Incitement to hatred on religious grounds or religious sectarianism is just as offensive to the areligious as it is to other religions.
This law would stop evangelists telling us we are all sinners and must repent. As an evangelist Chickentulip becomes voiceless.

[ScotsPine]

i am waiting

for some files to be sent and so was browsing idely and came across this board.

[ScotsPine]

interesting wd,

as a society, we are surrounded by and constantly bombarded by solicitations to drink, gamble, smoke, view and/or get involved in porn, soft or otherwise, indulge ourselves to the extent of extreme indebtedness in various fripperies and so on ad infinitum. maybe chico is on a mission to begin to ever so slightly redress the imbalance, not that he ever could. why do a few posts with that particular content upset people so much while the whole weight of the onslaught of [i have to use the term] degenerate, self-indulgent, commercialised humanity fails to ruffle a feather? interesting..

[widgetdance]

Re: interesting wd,

I agree, we are constantly asked to debauch ourselves.

The point is that in all that advertising they can not say "You will be a better person if..." or you are "damned if you dont".
The religious types have no such barrier, or wont have untill this new law comes into place.

If Chico was a moral conscience and just told us we should do things differently because that is a nice way to be then I might (might) listen, but when it is built around religious zeal I find it utterly offensive.

I am looking forward to this new law as it will be an exciting time watching the different churches take each other to court, watching the BNP ask for Islam to be banned as it is based on hatred of all non Islamics, the removal of evangelists from TV etc... oh yes, this is one can of worms

[snaw]

Re: interesting wd,

maybe chico is on a mission to begin to ever so slightly redress the imbalance, not that he ever could.

Therin lies the problem, his mission is unwelcome round these here parts.

For me it's all about free will; no one likes to be lectured to by a bunch of holier than thoughs. Especially from someone like Chico, who backs up his religious arguements with some absolutely stonkingly bad assertions & statements.

Your obviously a religious man Scots, and I'm sure that's fine with all here - it's when religious people start lecturing the rest of us on how we choose to live our lives that 'feathers get ruffled'.

[SupremeSpod]

Re: interesting wd,

I object to Chicos diatribe because reading it burns my eyes, green vomit spews forth from my nostrils and my palms bleed!

[ScotsPine]

i wouldn't call myself religious,

snaw. i am far too suspicious of mankind to want to adhere to anything made by him/her in a matter i hold to be so very important. however, that's as may be, but just supposing chico is right? and who is to say he's not? we come on to this planet, spend a few years looking around, pick up some vices, primarily selfishness, seek to satisfy those vices and then we depart. in passing, we accumulate a variety of ideas, structures and ethics, some of which at least attempt to provide a rationale for our existence. but in reality, it's like trying to step outside to see whatever it is we're living in. and we can't do it. none of us is able to step outside of the human condition and look back to see what is really going on. every single thing we do, every single thought, is limited by this restriction. so who's to say that there is no god, who exists on whatever terms he/she cares to delineate? it verges on arrogance on our part that we claim to be able to say that there is no god since in reality, we are not in a position to ever make that claim. some might say that in that case, we'd as well be penalised for failing to believe in wee green men frae mars. however, i don't believe that to be the case and there is ample opportunity for any person sufficiently concerned about the issue to ascertain that for themselves.