EDL (English Defence League)

[FoxyPV]

Oh come on! There are millions of religious people who think for themselves and many that I know think for themselves more than the average Joe on the streets. Many of the atheists I know are the least open-minded people[/b] I know and they just regurgitate the same old lines that they are spoon-fed by the government and media that they actually know nothing about.

Empty, I can easily make a counter claim against.

I'm not getting into yet another debate on religlion. I've made my feelings on it more than clear on several occassions.

On Mohammed's second wife link

[adam1]

Having watched the guardian video which was linked in a post earlier; see here, worth watching, I spotted a Leicester City flag. 9minutes 50 and also 11.08. Anyone recognise him? I am not promoting a lynch mob...

[Zingari]

Having watched the guardian video which was linked in a post earlier; see here, worth watching, I spotted a Leicester City flag. 9minutes 50 and also 11.08. Anyone recognise him? I am not promoting a lynch mob...

thanks ,

shocking stuff there , maybe i'm being overly pessimistic but this doesn't seem to be going away any time soon .

somehow it seems it was all sadly inevitable though

the bloke in the foxes flag looks asian , how weird is all this stuff

i really don't know how i feel about the UK anymore

[Bilo]

Having watched the guardian video which was linked in a post earlier; see here, worth watching, I spotted a Leicester City flag. 9minutes 50 and also 11.08. Anyone recognise him? I am not promoting a lynch mob...

thanks ,

shocking stuff there , maybe i'm being overly pessimistic but this doesn't seem to be going away any time soon .

somehow it seems it was all sadly inevitable though

the bloke in the foxes flag looks asian , how weird is all this stuff

i really don't know how i feel about the UK anymore

I've seen a couple of threads on the EDL and that chap in the videos is actually a Muslim believe it or not. Obviously his presence is entirely tokenistic, some of the EDLers reckon he's the UAF's worst nightmare. In spite of the fact that he's, y'know, one disabled as opposed to a mass movement of moderate Muslims queuing up to support them.

Oh, and it's a Rangers flag he's wearing. Thankfully he has sod all to do with us.

[jonno24]

IMO all religion has the potential to be evil this is my favourite quote on religion.

'If there were no religions in the world we would still have good people doing good things and bad people doing bad things. But for good people to do bad things thats when you need religion'

[adam1]

I've seen a couple of threads on the EDL and that chap in the videos is actually a Muslim believe it or not. Obviously his presence is entirely tokenistic, some of the EDLers reckon he's the UAF's worst nightmare. In spite of the fact that he's, y'know, one disabled as opposed to a mass movement of moderate Muslims queuing up to support them.

Oh, and it's a Rangers flag he's wearing. Thankfully he has sod all to do with us.

Well spotted it is indeed a Rangers flag. It does look similar though.

The protest is for October 9th? There are no football matches on that day. That means every disabled from every team will be descending on Leicester;

we are a city with a central location,

we are reasonably sized and most of the ****** would have been here before to 'watch' a football match,

it is well reported and known that we are (and proud to be) a multicultural city.

I have a feeling that this one could be quite big/biggest so far on the violence front. There were rumours of a Leicester march before and I think that this city has been chosen on that date because it would result in complete carnage. I unfortunately would estimate costs of £1m+ and this would be due to not only the policing bill but damage caused. And yes unfortunately I'm talking about a full scale riot.

I shall be avoiding the city centre on that day and would recommend it.

edit: Yes I am a half empty type of person and expect the worse all the time so my account of what might happen might be a bit ott

[Finnegan]

Full scale riot is sort of talking it up a bit really. The British don't do "full scale riots" we do standing and shouting.

We're not exactly Paris or LA.

[adam1]

Full scale riot is sort of talking it up a bit really. The British don't do "full scale riots" we do standing and shouting.

We're not exactly Paris or LA.

Yeah my comment was possibly ott but I am expecting the worse. As for cost of the protest £1m may be too high but it could reach that, in fact it could very easily reach over £500k. Bradford cost over £300k. There is a very good chance that there will be more edl supporters in Leicester then Bradford, primarily because of our central location and also because some members of the EDL didn't want to go to Bradford as it might be a bit 'bad.'(I randomly spoke to an EDL member a while ago who said this to me.)

As for rioting, Bradford? Birmingham? London?

[BoneDog]

Sorry to the thread starter and anyone who doesn't like to read or hear religious chatter but I just need to reply to these then I'll leave it. I don't mean to shift the thread from the main topic so if I need to comment again I'll start a thread.

so you are saying that people do good things irrespective of religious teachings ? , if so , i agree

but i refer you to the quote

by nature , good people will always do good things and bad people will always do bad things

but for good people to bad things , that takes religion !

Yes I am saying that folk do good deeds irrespective of religion but I also disagree with the quote that 'for good people to do bad things it takes religion'. I consider myself a good person but I have done some very bad and shameful things that I regret and have to live with and I'm not religious. I also know many good people who have done bad things who aren't religious either. I think that good people do bad things for psychological reasons not religious reasons.

"Definitely between the ages of 18 and 20?"

This is why you consistently come across like a complete muppet, Empty. What on Earth is wrong with accepting some fallibility when you're talking about either theory or ancient dogma?

Nothing's ever completely known in these contexts.

Though it baffles me what exactly would be so unprecedented even if she were to have been married at six. The Medieval West is littered with pre-pubescent marriages. Obviously they're vile by contemporary standards but you can't really judge ancient history by contemporary standards.

I don't mind if you think I'm a muppet Aisha was between 18 and 20 but if you and others don't want to believe (or even care about) that what can I do to change your minds? Nada.

I disagree. Either I'm a borderline sociopath and massively unlike everyone else (unlikely) or I'm just honest enough to admit it, occasionally I do "nice" and "generous" things instinctively but for the most part I do it because it makes me feel good. I enjoy how it feels to me to be caring, good or generous.

The end product might be all the same but whether fully consciously or sub-consciously the motive is entirely selfish.

I think that you are unlike alot of people who do good deeds if you mainly do them for selfish reasons! But hey-ho, at least you are sometimes kind and generous, it all helps.

Oh dear o dear Empty, there is no evidence from any scholar or litraly source that has her past puberty. Infact there's tens of hadiths from many sources that say the same thing, have incidences of Aisha playing with dolls and sitting on Mohammed's lap. Agreed maybe one or two hadiths might be debatable but 50 or 60, I dioubt it.

Mohammed the greatest man in the last 2000 years, in your opinion, any man who advocates slavery and as the the Koran states 'what his right hand posses' is never gonna reach the peaks of the 'greatest man' imo!!

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that she was between 18 and 20 years old. Infact I would even say that if people study the subject for themselves then it is not even a debate, it's obvious she was an adult. Today I have read that link you posted yesterday and there is even some evidence on there. If you go to the top of the page of your link and then scroll down and read the info under the 3rd, 4th and 5th sub-headings you will see part of what I'm talking about. The 4th ("Later Research") and 5th ("Two Further Evidences") are especially interesting and there is much more evidence to back all of this up. I have read much on Islam and Muslims for the past 8 or 9 years and wish I could remember the names of the books I read about the battles of Badr and Uhud because these have much proof on this matter.

And yes there is talk of 'slaves' in the Quran. We would call them servants or employees nowadays. Mohammad was actually telling people to treat their slaves as human-beings (we might call it workers rights) and trying to end the mistreatment of slaves and orphans. If you read the whole Quran again then I think any sane mind would see this.

Oh and the sitting on lap hadiths Obviously another shady agency plant. Anyone who knows about that time in history (and even way before) knows that the agencies were just as active back then as they are today. Like I've said before, if I were a Muslim, the only hadith I would trust at all (if any) are hadith about laws and behaviour to others.

Empty, I can easily make a counter claim against.

I'm not getting into yet another debate on religlion. I've made my feelings on it more than clear on several occassions.

On Mohammed's second wife link

I agree that you could easily make a counter claim. I was just trying to say that many religious folk have their own minds as do many atheists or anti-theists as I like to call them!

Those hadith in the link are false hadith and weren't scrutinised like the hadith to do with law and personal actions were. They were plants basically by some shady agency back in the day. Either some Roman or Jewish agency no doubt.

[FoxyPV]

Those hadith in the link are false hadith and weren't scrutinised like the hadith to do with law and personal actions were. They were plants basically by some shady agency back in the day. Either some Roman or Jewish agency no doubt.

Didn't think you'd stoop to that level Empty

[Bilo]

Didn't think you'd stoop to that level Empty

Those Israelis have really been playing the long game though.

[Jordan]

Among the non-New Yorkers who traveled to Lower Manhattan on Saturday to protest the neighborhood’s decision to allow an Islamic community center to be built were seven men who came from England bearing flags with slogans and the cross of St. George — a symbol of their nation and of the Crusades.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/english-soccer-hooligans-at-ground-zero/

It's bad enough that people from Alaska want to tell NYers what they can and can't build in old Burlington Coat Factory buildings; now this?

[BoneDog]

Didn't think you'd stoop to that level Empty

Nothing against Jews, I didn't mean that as a racist or prejudiced comment but I didn't want to say Israeli agency because I'm not sure they were called that back in the days I'm talking about ! But the powerful rulers as far back as the times of Babylon and ancient Egypt had agencies similar to what they have now, and they were up to no good just as they are now. That is what I meant by that comment!

Other ancient cultures obviously had their agencies too but the agencies (for want of a better word) who would have been messing with early Islamic and Christian teachings were mainly Jewish and Roman. Just to clarify!

[FoxyPV]

Those Israelis have really been playing the long game though.

[Dr The Singh]

Sorry to the thread starter and anyone who doesn't like to read or hear religious chatter but I just need to reply to these then I'll leave it. I don't mean to shift the thread from the main topic so if I need to comment again I'll start a thread.

Yes I am saying that folk do good deeds irrespective of religion but I also disagree with the quote that 'for good people to do bad things it takes religion'. I consider myself a good person but I have done some very bad and shameful things that I regret and have to live with and I'm not religious. I also know many good people who have done bad things who aren't religious either. I think that good people do bad things for psychological reasons not religious reasons.

I don't mind if you think I'm a muppet Aisha was between 18 and 20 but if you and others don't want to believe (or even care about) that what can I do to change your minds? Nada.

I think that you are unlike alot of people who do good deeds if you mainly do them for selfish reasons! But hey-ho, at least you are sometimes kind and generous, it all helps.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that she was between 18 and 20 years old. Infact I would even say that if people study the subject for themselves then it is not even a debate, it's obvious she was an adult. Today I have read that link you posted yesterday and there is even some evidence on there. If you go to the top of the page of your link and then scroll down and read the info under the 3rd, 4th and 5th sub-headings you will see part of what I'm talking about. The 4th ("Later Research") and 5th ("Two Further Evidences") are especially interesting and there is much more evidence to back all of this up. I have read much on Islam and Muslims for the past 8 or 9 years and wish I could remember the names of the books I read about the battles of Badr and Uhud because these have much proof on this matter.

And yes there is talk of 'slaves' in the Quran. We would call them servants or employees nowadays. Mohammad was actually telling people to treat their slaves as human-beings (we might call it workers rights) and trying to end the mistreatment of slaves and orphans. If you read the whole Quran again then I think any sane mind would see this.

Oh and the sitting on lap hadiths Obviously another shady agency plant. Anyone who knows about that time in history (and even way before) knows that the agencies were just as active back then as they are today. Like I've said before, if I were a Muslim, the only hadith I would trust at all (if any) are hadith about laws and behaviour to others.

I agree that you could easily make a counter claim. I was just trying to say that many religious folk have their own minds as do many atheists or anti-theists as I like to call them!

Those hadith in the link are false hadith and weren't scrutinised like the hadith to do with law and personal actions were. They were plants basically by some shady agency back in the day. Either some Roman or Jewish agency no doubt.

Maybe you need to refresh your knowledge empty, the quran has many verses on slavery NOT servents, including price, possesion, treatment and release. A servent in the context of 6th century Arabia can leave there employee or master as and when they wish....BOLLOX. In the 6th century, slavery was rife, and if you look at many of the battles Mohammed had, the booty included women and children slaves, who had very little rights and could not leave there masters without there masters say so. This is explianed in the quran, infact the quran and mohammed were revolutionary, they insisted on treating slaves better BUT, not once does the Quran or Mohammed abolish possesion of a human being ie slavery or servitude!!!!

The quran and Mohammed never once abolished forceful sex with slaves, and please do tell me, did the slaves or servents as you say have the option of refusal.............

[Zingari]

They do things because they are good people. A few might do good things just for show like giving to charity (there are a few 'organisations' that do this) but most people who do good and kindly actions really are good and caring people.

Sorry Empty but you have misunderstood the quote;

“Good men will do good things and bad men will do bad things, but for good men to do bad things, takes religion”

Quite probably because as a stand alone quote, and without the lead up , it is rather misleading

Of course , all men are capable of doing both good and bad things in isolated cases (and even in small groups) , a good man can on occasion do very bad things , and vice versa , a bad person can do good things .And in effect we are as individuals not all good or all bad but varying degrees of both .

But what Dawkins is trying to put across , is that, en masse , as a society , for people to do evil things , requires a belief in a higher authority than an earthly government .

You have said on more than one occasion that world leaders have pretended to be religious to convince people to do wrong/evil, but without the masses willingness to believe in a higher authority, this would not be possible.

Perhaps a better quote would be something like ;

An individual has the capability in varying degrees to do both good and evil

A society can be well run or badly run and will be in varying degrees both just and unjust

But a society needs a belief in a higher authority to be truly evil

but somehow this does not have the snappiness of the Dawkin's quote

[Webbo]

Perhaps a better quote would be something like ;

An individual has the capability in varying degrees to do both good and evil

A society can be well run or badly run and will be in varying degrees both just and unjust

But a society needs a belief in a higher authority to be truly evil

That doesn't explain the atrocities committed by atheist regimes. Perhaps if dictators like Stalin, Moa, Pol Pot hadn't believed that they were the highest authority and that perhaps they would sometime suffer punishment for their crimes they wouldn't have committed those crimes.

[Bilo]

That doesn't explain the atrocities committed by atheist regimes. Perhaps if dictators like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot hadn't believed that they were the highest authority and that perhaps they would sometime suffer punishment for their crimes they wouldn't have committed those crimes.

Hitler was very much a Catholic and clearly didn't believe he was doing anything worthy of punishment. In fact, some of the most brutal dictators have used religion to justify their acts rather than see it as something that can come back to haunt them in the afterlife, thinking they're doing their god's bidding. By contrast, I can't think of a single dictator who has committed atrocities because he felt that atheism was at stake.

[Webbo]

Hitler was very much a Catholic and clearly didn't believe he was doing anything worthy of punishment. In fact, some of the most brutal dictators have used religion to justify their acts rather than see it as something that can come back to haunt them in the afterlife, thinking they're doing their god's bidding. By contrast, I can't think of a single dictator who has committed atrocities because he felt that atheism was at stake.

There haven't been any more brutal dictators than Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Their atrocities were carried out to enforce their beliefs which atheism was a large part of.

[Bilo]

There haven't been any more brutal dictators than Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Their atrocities were carried out to enforce their beliefs which atheism was a large part of.

Generally though, it was because they felt they were defending their political ideology rather than their theology.

For example, Stalin turned to state sanctioned anti-semitism because he felt that Jews were conspiring against the Soviet state. The fact that he was an atheist was incidental, defence of what he saw as the Communist ideal was his motivation. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all Communists, and Communism has traditionally had a deep antipathy of and mistrust for organised religion as they feel it reinforces social inequality and therefore represents a threat.

[Webbo]

. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were all Communists, and Communism has traditionally had a deep antipathy of and mistrust for organised religion as they feel it reinforces social inequality and therefore represents a threat.

So I was right then?

[Bilo]

So I was right then?

Yes and no.

They did kill because of their antipathy to religion, but because of their political beliefs rather than their theological beliefs. Their shared atheism wasn't a part of their motivation.

[Zingari]

There haven't been any more brutal dictators than Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. Their atrocities were carried out to enforce their beliefs which atheism was a large part of.

Indeed ;

The iron hand crush’d the Tyrant’s head

And became a Tyrant in his stead.

William Blake

The Grey Monk

Yes i do agree to a certain extent , but hopefully , the tyranny imposed after religious tyranny is short lived and reactionary ,( much like a drawn out civil war ), that dissipates after a few generations ( scant comfort for those involved, i know )

Such a society can then mature into a democracy or at least fairer society , as can be winessed post Stalin, Mao.

Without the belief in illogical godlike authority , these regimes rarely last .

[RedHux]

Though banned, they say the're still going to protest

[adam1]

Though banned, they say the're still going to protest

The EDL called the move an infringement of its human rights and said it would march on Saturday.

EDL spokesman Guradit Singh called the government decision "a breach of freedom of speech" and "bang out of order".

He said the organisation would march, and added that it was withdrawing its liaisons with Leicestershire Police.

Idiots.

Human Rights - freedom of speech. They are allowed to protest. They are not allowed to march through Leicester whilst protesting. Therefore their freedom of speech has not been infringed.

The ban I would concede is a draconian measure which I do not like to see. However in instances like this THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. There is ample evidence that there is going to be violence. It is easier to control groups of people if they are confined to a small area. Now if there was a planned protest by the fosse boys one day including a march through Leicester attracting 3,000+ people, it would not be banned because there is no evidence of any trouble arising out of it.. That is a completely random example but it demonstrates that banning marches are used with a good cause.

Oh and the cost is going to be massive. The council are having to remove EVERYTHING (pillars, lamposts etc) and tarmac all the holes left by objects and also pavements. Then remove the tarmac the following day and restore objects.

The police are having to guard everything. No just mosques but temples as well.

AND YOU PAY FOR IT! (I don't pay taxes!)