Woolwich Incident

[Mich the Tester]

There we go a perfect example... stating what "fundamentalist Christians" do. I think you mean "some people who claim to be fundamentalist Christians" or "some people the media labelled fundamentalist Christians".

Considering Jesus directly countermanded that Old Testament on that specific point, you could just be making that up for all I know

Tell me this; why would people who call themselves 'Christians' really be too bothered about rules and exhortations in the Old Testament, given that the word 'Christian' implies that they follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, as documented in the New Testament?

In other words, it seems to me that the Old Testament isn't really the key to Christianity, but perhaps is a store of the historical backgrounds.

[Old Hack]

There we go a perfect example... stating what "fundamentalist Christians" do. I think you mean "some people who claim to be fundamentalist Christians" or "some people the media labelled fundamentalist Christians".

Considering Jesus directly countermanded that Old Testament on that specific point, you could just be making that up for all I know

turn to them the other cheek also.

Shouldn't this be in the Gay marriage thread?

[SueEllen]

There we go a perfect example... stating what "fundamentalist Christians" do. I think you mean "some people who claim to be fundamentalist Christians" or "some people the media labelled fundamentalist Christians".

I personally call anyone like that something else less polite regardless of their religion.

[Mich the Tester]

What amazes me about researching the Quran, is that Islamic Scholars still discuss what was meant by his words, which, to me, indicates they don't really understand his words. I am not being glib by saying it's in the interpretation of his words by the powerful and fundamentalist Imam's that produce behaviour as we have seen.

As is the case with all religions. Mohammed said lots of things during his life, some of them contradicting things he'd said earlier; I think everyone does that. But yes, some people interpret it all to serve their own ends.

[d000hg]

Tell me this; why would people who call themselves 'Christians' really be too bothered about rules and exhortations in the Old Testament, given that the word 'Christian' implies that they follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, as documented in the New Testament?

In other words, it seems to me that the Old Testament isn't really the key to Christianity, but perhaps is a store of the historical backgrounds.

Because Jesus is in theological terms the fulfillment of the OT, everything he taught and did and lived was rooted in the OT. He was a Jew himself of course. Jesus himself said "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Christianity is based in great depth on the OT and in fact you really need to understand the OT to understand the NT fully.

[KaiserWilly]

It's just a little detail; many fundies aren't very interested in what Mohammed (the really famous one in the Koran) actually said. Many haven't even read the Koran beyond reciting verses without understanding the words.

Indeed. That's because Islamism is less a religion and more a political system.

There is nothing in the Christian world that you can compare to the Muslim Brotherhood.

[KentPhilip]

Anyways, what do we think the jump in UKIP vote will be? I think between 5 and 10%

Which would be enough to bring them into coalition power, at the very least.

[vetran]

Checks and balances, bollocks; you've worked on enough IT projects to know how much tulipe goes into production without anyone giving a dogpoo about whether it's correct.

As for your question, I would expect the German authorities would ask the American guy some questions, maybe even take him to the station and get to the bottom of the matter, and then present the cae to a judge who decides whether he can be sent home, but not shoot him as he gets on a train. Germany has the rule of law and is not a police state, whatever some little Englanders think.

Not on my projects.

The two issues may not be linked. They were mentioned tangentially to illustrate how badly these enquiries are managed.

Statement 1 - The guy was here illegally. You may believe Jack Straw personally I wouldn't trust him as far as I would throw him. No real evidence was produced to satisfy the suggestion he was here legally in a work capacity. He may possibly have been here legally as a tourist but he was working and had a rented flat of long standing which made his status illegal if his ILR was forged. If his ILR was forged he would be banned for a visa for a decade. If instead of shooting them they had questioned him and followed the law he would have been on the plane home.

statement 2 - The Police screwed up royally then covered up for which someone should of been sacked.

However logic suggests if he were in Brazil even the Met Police wouldn't have shot him.

This was presented as a reason for having a long drawn out court case, from my mind they glossed over Mr DeMenezes visa status, demonised the individual police officers despite the heated nature of the situation, but then failed to reprimand anyone in power for the cover up.

so it was a fail all round for me.

[Mich the Tester]

Not on my projects.

The two issues may not be linked. They were mentioned tangentially to illustrate how badly these enquiries are managed.

Statement 1 - The guy was here illegally. You may believe Jack Straw personally I wouldn't trust him as far as I would throw him. No real evidence was produced to satisfy the suggestion he was here legally in a work capacity.

So you want a system whereby someone has to prove he's doing things legally? I prefer the burden of proof to be on those who think he's doing something illegally. Maybe some other people hold this somewhat unfashionable view too.

[d000hg]

Extremist is probably the right word, not fundamentalist. HTH.