Dodgy Bad Taste Warrior Queen Lyrics

[UFO over easy]

14 pages of bollocks just because zhao cant speak patty.

lol.

has anyone pointed out yet that if he'd let the song play, he'd have heard the next line - "what's your religion? what's your religion? sorry I forgot, you're a fucking madman"

good stuff

 

[swears]

Catholic church probably killing more people than Islam with their anti-condom stance at the mo.

What with the overpopulation and HIV and such.

 

[Slothrop]

Lets just say you re right - that more atrocities are committed in the name of Islam - that does not mean Islamic teachings are more violent. If this was the case then Muslims would historically be more violent than those who practice other religions - which is not the case.

This is the crux of it. QFT.

 

[john eden]

Significantly, the "Ankara School" of theologians working on the new Hadith have been using Western critical techniques and philosophy.

They have also taken an even bolder step - rejecting a long-established rule of Muslim scholars that later (and often more conservative) texts override earlier ones.

"You have to see them as a whole," says Fadi Hakura.

"You can't say, for example, that the verses of violence override the verses of peace. This is used a lot in the Middle East, this kind of ideology.

"I cannot impress enough how fundamental [this change] is."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7264903.stm

 

[droid]

And did you, for you seem to have an opinion on religion as well. And according to your own reasoning you should be a professor in Aramic and old greek at least.

Yes - my opinion on religion is that I wont objectively call any religion 'more hateful' than any other based on scripture as I dont have enough knowledge of the scripture of every religion to make a blanket judgement based on a few quotes or 'facts' (no doubt garned from politically dubious sources). I haven't read, compared and analyzed the sources firsthand, so making incendiary assertions would be at best insensitive, and at worst blatantly ignorant.

I wonder whether this in depth knowledge is required for every opinion anybody has on any subject. I think you can shut down this board in that case, it will become very quiet

In a serious discussion where one is making damning assertions about the religion of others and condemning an entire culture or religion based on a comparative reading of religious scriptures an in depth knowledge is essential - otherwise, how can anyone take you seriously?

When discussing music, art, the price of bread etc... even a shallow familiarity with the subject is desirable if not necessary - this thread being a good illustration of why this is the case.

 

[crackerjack]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7264903.stm

There's been some rowing back on this already.

Gormez, a British trained theologian, said the re-classified Hadith will come in multiple volumes.

"It might be five or even six volumes; we are still not decided."

He shrugged off media suggestions that Turkey was re-writing the Hadith and creating a new Islam.

"They made too much fuss and took the project out of its real context.

"We are neither fashioning a new Islam nor dare to alter the fixtures maxims of Islam," Gormez said emphatically.

"The Western media have read what are doing from a Christian perspective and understood it in line with their Christian and Western cultures."

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...57550116&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

 

[droid]

is that really all you can do, tarring the messenger so you dont have to address his message. this information will be found in dubious sources, but you can also read it in the BBC article your friend John Eden just posted. Or are he and the BBC suspect now as well?

What are you on about?

The only evidence you have shown so far are a couple of paragraphs that could easily have been cadged from any right-wing website.

Why should anyone give your argument the time of the day when you have effectively admitted that you haven't got the knowledge to back up your assertions?

 

[Slothrop]

has anyone pointed out yet that if he'd let the song play, he'd have heard the next line - "what's your religion? what's your religion? sorry I forgot, you're a fucking madman"

That would involve actually listening to the tune. It's so much more fun if everyone just argues based on what they think it probably says.

 

[droid]

did you first read my post befor you reacted? the verses i quoted are quoted in BBC article posted by John Eden as well.
and something else: when a right-wing website asserts the sky is blue, you immediately know the opposite must be the case

What are you on about? there arent any verses form the Quran or Hadiths quoted in that article, the only quote attributed to Islam there is from a speech Mohammed made;

"he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone".

This is what I'm talking about:

1) non muslims should either be converted or killed
2) older verses in the qur'an are superseded by newer ones. This especially is important. The old verses, written in a time when mohammed didnt have a power base yet, tend to be more peaceful, about the people of the book (jews and christians) for instance. These peaceful verses are often quoted to show the peaceful nature of islam. The younger verses (written in a time when Mohammed did have power in medina) though render these old verses invalid, and say all the bloodthirsty stuff we know. So were the bloodthirst of the old testament is redeemed by the new testament (the other cheek, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"), the quran actually becomes more bloodthirsty in time.

Add to this the tradition that it is forbidden for a muslim to critque or interpret the quran and the hadith. The violence of the old testament has been explained away by theologians (whether they were right or wrong to do so is irrelevant, their view has been accepted). Such a critique is not possible in islam. You will be labeled a heritic, a crime for which the penalty is death.

...

how have i effectively admitted that? By not having studied old greek, aramic, hebrew and hindi? I actually have studied religious affairs, yes, at a humanties university, a real one. happy now?

Hahahaha you have got to be joking! You think a religious affairs degree elevates you to the status of a scholar in the scripture of every major religion? That this somehow qualifies you to make a comparative judgment on the nature of every faith? If you hadn't already admitted it through omission or refusal to answer the question, you certainly have now!

 

[john eden]

My point in posting that link to the BBC is that all of these things are subject to negotiation and that Islam is not monolithic.

 

[bassnation]

My point in posting that link to the BBC is that all of these things are subject to negotiation and that Islam is not monolithic.

i really don't know how i feel about this assertion that in order to be able to criticise religion you should be a scholar in it. i joined the national secular society recently because i believe religions should not be above criticism (they'd certainly like to make that illegal, and that goes for the CoE as well as all the others) and i want them out of government, education and for it to be a private pastime.

theres certainly a lot of evidence that islam like any religion has perpetuated divisions, violence, misogny etc. i think the same of the catholic church etc. i'm not saying there is no value, or that everyone who follows those faiths does those things - but on balance i believe the negatives far, far outweigh the positives. and i'll damned if i need to suddenly become an islamic scholar in order to level criticism at it, or its interpretations, or some of its adherents. theres too much at stake to remain silent, sorry.

 

[john eden]

i really don't know how i feel about this assertion that in order to be able to criticise religion you should be a scholar in it. i joined the national secular society recently because i believe religions should not be above criticism (they'd certainly like to make that illegal, and that goes for the CoE as well as all the others) and i want them out of government, education and for it to be a private pastime.

theres certainly a lot of evidence that islam like any religion has perpetuated divisions, violence, misogny etc. i think the same of the catholic church etc. i'm not saying there is no value, or that everyone who follows those faiths does those things - but on balance i believe the negatives far, far outweigh the positives. and i'll damned if i need to suddenly become an islamic scholar in order to level criticism at it, or its interpretations, or some of its adherents. theres too much at stake to remain silent, sorry.

I'm not sure how this relates to my bit you quoted, but fwiw I have a lot of sympathy with the NSS - the affiliated "New Humanist" magazine is well worth reading and I've known a few people who were NSS members or worked there who were sound.

I think my main objection to all of this is the way that all other aspect of life except religion manage to get filtered out. Bad things happen purely because of religion and not because of other factors such as culture, politics, economics etc.

For example it is clearly pretty lazy to suggest that the conflict in Northern Ireland / the six counties is a religious one.

Similarly the intense scrutiny around dancehall and homophobia has usually given the bible as the root of the cause which kind of ignores the most critical aspects of how come all these people ended up in Jamaica and reading the bible in the first place.

Whilst religion clearly hasn't helped these situations it is naive to suggest that it is religion and religion only that we should be criticising.

The rabid ranting about the evils of Islam that there is so much of these days is overly simplistic and unhelpful. It ignores the other factors completely and turns the situaiton into a battle between christianity (or "christian values/civilisation) and islam. This only serves to reinforce the idea that Islam is one thing and it is Evil. This doesn't leave much room for people who happen to be Muslim but who aren't nutcases. The whole tone only serves to whip up anti-Islamic sentiments, which creates more of a divide, which intensifies the feelings on both sides.

 

[swears]

Is there any such thing as a literal interpretation of a holy book like the Bible or Qur'an?
Since so many quotes and passages seem to contradict each other, moderates and fundamentalists alike can pick and choose elements and ideas which suit their respective agendas.

The Catholic church is a different kettle of fish because it is a monolithic central authority and can be critised as such.

 

[droid]

let me quote you from the bbc article you supposedly read (i admit, it's at the end of the article, that means you really have to read it):

glad to make you laugh. Could you tell me who you think IS qualified to make a comparative judgment on the nature of every faith?

I already have.

something else: what do you think i learned in university (apart from critically reading an article from start to finish, something you obviously never mastered)?

Now, he says, "they are trying to fashion a new Islam."

Significantly, the "Ankara School" of theologians working on the new Hadith have been using Western critical techniques and philosophy.

They have also taken an even bolder step - rejecting a long-established rule of Muslim scholars that later (and often more conservative) texts override earlier ones.

"You have to see them as a whole," says Fadi Hakura.

"You can't say, for example, that the verses of violence override the verses of peace. This is used a lot in the Middle East, this kind of ideology.

"I cannot impress enough how fundamental [this change] is.

None of this is a quotation of a verse of the Quran or a Hadith. None of this backs up any of the claims you previously quoted. None of this proves your point.

You said: 'the verses i quoted are quoted in BBC article posted by John Eden as well.'

Unless you mean 'quotes' when you say 'verses' (an odd mistake for such an educated commentator), then this is demonstratively false. There is not a single verse from the Quran or a Hadith quoted in that article.

Maybe you should have ditched the critical reading classes and tried reading comprehension instead?

 

[droid]

i really don't know how i feel about this assertion that in order to be able to criticise religion you should be a scholar in it. i joined the national secular society recently because i believe religions should not be above criticism (they'd certainly like to make that illegal, and that goes for the CoE as well as all the others) and i want them out of government, education and for it to be a private pastime.

theres certainly a lot of evidence that islam like any religion has perpetuated divisions, violence, misogny etc. i think the same of the catholic church etc. i'm not saying there is no value, or that everyone who follows those faiths does those things - but on balance i believe the negatives far, far outweigh the positives. and i'll damned if i need to suddenly become an islamic scholar in order to level criticism at it, or its interpretations, or some of its adherents. theres too much at stake to remain silent, sorry.

This is just silly. Im not saying that any religion is, or should be above criticism.

My point is, that if you are going to make the claim that Islam is a more violent and hateful religion than any other and then justify this by pointing to scripture, then youd damn well should have solid and in depth firsthand knowledge of the scripture of Islam and other religions - otherwise, of what value is the assertion?

Otherwise its just like saying 'Book A is the worst of all the books Ive read, even though Ive never read books B + C, only read a review of book D and skimmed through a bad translation of book E.

 

[bassnation]

I'm not sure how this relates to my bit you quoted, but fwiw I have a lot of sympathy with the NSS - the affiliated "New Humanist" magazine is well worth reading and I've known a few people who were NSS members or worked there who were sound.

I think my main objection to all of this is the way that all other aspect of life except religion manage to get filtered out. Bad things happen purely because of religion and not because of other factors such as culture, politics, economics etc.

of course, not arguing with that. people use all kinds of things as pretexts for land grabs, power struggles etc. and of course NI was not really about religion to the exclusion of everything else.

i was responding more to the idea that religions are somehow above criticism unless you are part of it, or at least have spent 50 years studying them in a comparitive sense. if religion intrudes into my life (like it does with my kids school, in an annoying evangelical way) then i feel justified in being able to speak out against it. we are in danger of losing enlightenment values otherwise and i'm prepared to stand up and be counted when it comes to that fight, whether it concerns islam, CoE, catholisicm or scientology.

 

[john eden]

i was responding more to the idea that religions are somehow above criticism unless you are part of it, or at least have spent 50 years studying them in a comparitive sense. if religion intrudes into my life (like it does with my kids school, in an annoying evangelical way) then i feel justified in being able to speak out against it. we are in danger of losing enlightenment values otherwise and i'm prepared to stand up and be counted when it comes to that fight, whether it concerns islam, CoE, catholisicm or scientology.

Yes indeed - I would agree with this, and also with Droid's point about the dubious aspect of creating a hierarchy of bad religions above.

Actually the two link up - in all this rabid denunication of Islam or kow-towing to it, the simple trudge towards secularism gets overlooked.

 

[john eden]

would anybody argue that fascism isnt necessarily more evil than liberal democracy?

when we can have a hierarchy of bad ideologies, why cant we have one of religions?

or would you say the following cults (christianity and islam were a cult one time as well) are just as good as for instance zen buddhism:

Branch Davidians
Heaven's Gate
Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God (Uganda)
The People's Temple (Jim Jones)
Solar Temple
Aum Shinri Kyo

Well, there is an arugment to suggest that liberal democracies have killed just as many people as fascist states, if not more.

All of the cults you mention are a product of more than religion. Jim Jones was as much a a socialist as he was a christian.

The Branch Davidians owe as much to the backwoods survivalist movement as they do to Seventh Day Adventisim.

The Lords Resistance Army are as much about the restoration of Acholi traditions as the 10 commandments, and indeed their objection to the government of Museveni and the generall weirdness of African politics in general.

Zen Buddhism has similarly not been immune to cults, from what I can remember.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Well, there is an arugment to suggest that liberal democracies have killed just as many people as fascist states, if not more.

There is? What is it?

 

[john eden]

There is? What is it?

Well I could be wrong but if you tot up all the victims of the European states and the US in various wars I imagine that would be quite a significant number. Possibly more than those killed by Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain.