Batman Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 still a NO then cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 (edited) Here's a couple for you Batman. Are you a Christian and how do you define a Christian? A Christian is someone who follows the religion based on the life and teachings of christ and someone who has accepted christ as their Lord and saviour. Hopkins has not done any of those things. Edited 13 December, 2015 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 You seem to be making assumptions yourself Batman. What do you think? Raised in a convent. Takes her daughter to a Nativity play. Calls herself the new Jesus. No you are right. She is probably a Buddhist. Not been a good weekend for you though has it? What with not being able to slag off Pelle. many of my friends went to Holy family catholic school and then on to St George's Catholic school none of them resemble anything like a catholic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 Absolutely none of those things make her a Christian. Not even a little bit. In fact calling herself the new Jesus is pretty much the opposite of what a Christian would do. He never disappoints. Almost blasphemous. Becoming no quite clear SOG has agenda bless him. Just a bit too confused to present any coherent argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 many of my friends went to Holy family catholic school and then on to St George's Catholic school none of them resemble anything like a catholic This is why SOG thinks people commit rape murder and burglary in the name of Christianity ie whoever is not Muslim and in jail equates to an SOG christian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 (edited) Here's a couple for you Batman. Are you a Christian and how do you define a Christian? A Christian is a follower of Christ. Quite simple really Sorry missed that Hypo explained it better above. Edited 13 December, 2015 by whelk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2015 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2015 many of my friends went to Holy family catholic school and then on to St George's Catholic school none of them resemble anything like a catholic Correct me if I am wrong but you don't have to be Catholic to be Christian. Also by celebrating the birth of Christ doesn't that kind of make you a follower? And if Katite Hopkins doesn't want to be thought of as a Christian perhaps best not describe yourself as the new Jesus. Isn't it also a tad hypocritical to make a big deal about celebrAting the son of god if you don't believe in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2015 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2015 This is why SOG thinks people commit rape murder and burglary in the name of Christianity ie whoever is not Muslim and in jail equates to an SOG christian I didn't said people who say they are Christian are not above committing serious crimes. How many of the clergy have been involved in kiddy fiddling or am I making that up to. Do you agree that people no matter what religion they are are capable of committing serious crimes, or is it just Muslims? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 Correct me if I am wrong but you don't have to be Catholic to be Christian. Also by celebrating the birth of Christ doesn't that kind of make you a follower? And if Katite Hopkins doesn't want to be thought of as a Christian perhaps best not describe yourself as the new Jesus. Isn't it also a tad hypocritical to make a big deal about celebrAting the son of god if you don't believe in it? Do you think someone who described themselves as the new Mohammed would be obviously seen as a Muslim? You really are stupid to not see things as others do. Do you think anyone who has eaten an easter egg is a Christian too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 I didn't said people who say they are Christian are not above committing serious crimes. How many of the clergy have been involved in kiddy fiddling or am I making that up to. Do you agree that people no matter what religion they are are capable of committing serious crimes, or is it just Muslims? Your line of logic is funny. Great question cos that is clearly what I am implying that only Muslim's commit serious crimes. Were you ever in a debating society? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 Correct me if I am wrong but you don't have to be Catholic to be Christian. Also by celebrating the birth of Christ doesn't that kind of make you a follower? And if Katite Hopkins doesn't want to be thought of as a Christian perhaps best not describe yourself as the new Jesus. Isn't it also a tad hypocritical to make a big deal about celebrAting the son of god if you don't believe in it? Totally completely bonkers. Again why would describing yourself as the new Jesus make you a follower of Christianity? That is the total opposite of what a Christian would do and would be considered by many to be blasphemous! No you don't have to be Catholic to be a Christian but you do have to be Christian and follow the teaching of christ. So are you saying the billions of people who celebrate Christmas are all Christians then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 I didn't said people who say they are Christian are not above committing serious crimes. How many of the clergy have been involved in kiddy fiddling or am I making that up to. Do you agree that people no matter what religion they are are capable of committing serious crimes, or is it just Muslims? Why would anyone dispute that? In fact one of the key beliefs in Christianity is that we are all flawed in the eyes of God and all imperfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2015 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2015 He never disappoints. Almost blasphemous. Becoming no quite clear SOG has agenda bless him. Just a bit too confused to present any coherent argument. I didn't say she was the new Jesus. She did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 Do you think someone who described themselves as the new Mohammed would be obviously seen as a Muslim? You really are stupid to not see things as others do. Do you think anyone who has eaten an easter egg is a Christian too? Or anyone who has ever been in a nativity is automatically a Christian? I just don't understand his thinking, it's incredibly muddled. I'm not sure he understands it either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 Correct me if I am wrong but......? Could almost set this up as an auto text on your posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 I didn't say she was the new Jesus. She did. Which as you keep ignoring, is the opposite sort of thing that a Christian would say... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 Absolutely epic stupidity from SOG today, then. Hats off. It's my daughter's indoctrination ceremony at the school on Tuesday. I think she's one of the angels. I'll let everyone know how she gets on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2015 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2015 Could almost set this up as an auto text on your posts Sorry Whelk but you were going on about blasphemy when I was quoting someone else. I also made a not unreasonable point that just because someone does not see themselves as catholic it doesn't mean they are not Christian. So where are the errors there exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2015 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2015 Your line of logic is funny. Great question cos that is clearly what I am implying that only Muslim's commit serious crimes. Were you ever in a debating society? I have no idea what you are implying Whelk. I also don't know what the problem in saying that normal everyday moderate Muslims are not an issue, but it seems to ruffle a few feathers here. Perhaps Donald Trump has a lot more supporters in the UK other than Katie Hopkins (and before you start again she is quoted as saying if he becomes President of the USA she will go and live there). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2015 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2015 Do you think someone who described themselves as the new Mohammed would be obviously seen as a Muslim? You really are stupid to not see things as others do. Do you think anyone who has eaten an easter egg is a Christian too? If they spent 13 years in a school that was based on Islam and if they took their daughter along to celebrate the birth of the Prophet I'd say that it was a good assumption that the person was a Muslim. No I don't think that anyone who has ever eaten an Easter egg is a Christian because chocolate has nothing to do with the death of Jesus. Celebrating the birth of the son of God is a bit more religious based than eating a bit of chocolate wouldn't you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2015 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2015 many of my friends went to Holy family catholic school and then on to St George's Catholic school none of them resemble anything like a catholic So based on your sample of "many of your friends" we can assume that people who went to Catholic schools don't become Catholics and also renounce Christianity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2015 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2015 still a NO then cheers If you say so. I still think that if someone refers to themselves as "the new Jesus", makes a big deal on TV about taking her daughter to celebrate the birth of the son of God and spent 13 years in a convent school there is a very good chance that that person has more than an element of Christianity about them. Perhaps you are right though and perhaps the person who makes a big deal about "Telling It Like It Is" is a complete atheist and is just making a fuss about The Nativity because she wants her daughter to believe in Baby Jesus even if she doesn't. As I said before though, a bit hypercritical for someone whose USP is her honesty and her telling it like it isness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 (edited) I have no idea what you are implying Whelk. I also don't know what the problem in saying that normal everyday moderate Muslims are not an issue, but it seems to ruffle a few feathers here. Perhaps Donald Trump has a lot more supporters in the UK other than Katie Hopkins (and before you start again she is quoted as saying if he becomes President of the USA she will go and live there). I don't really give Katie Hopkins too much thought TBH. You keep replying by asking inane questions that are not counter to you argument or anyone's really. It would be seen as blasphemous to say you are the new son of God. You however think that is akin to saying she is a follower. Also cannot see that someone making a thing about a nativity play is to highlight that she thinks out Christian culture is fading. Same thing has always gone on in right wing press and it isn't cos they are God fearing. You somehow think she is making it out to be a deep spiritual experience. Although as I said couldn't give much of a fck what sh it she spouts. She ain't no Christian bruv but convenient for you to think she is of course. Do you ever think being in minority might be cos you don't understand things? Edited 13 December, 2015 by whelk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 If they spent 13 years in a school that was based on Islam and if they took their daughter along to celebrate the birth of the Prophet I'd say that it was a good assumption that the person was a Muslim. No I don't think that anyone who has ever eaten an Easter egg is a Christian because chocolate has nothing to do with the death of Jesus. Celebrating the birth of the son of God is a bit more religious based than eating a bit of chocolate wouldn't you say? How on earth do we know that hopkins doesn't do what most of the non religious western world do at Christmas. The vast majority aren't Christians but it doesn't stop them exchanging gifts etc over that period and- shock horror- having a nativity! Her behaviour and attitudes are not someone that strikes me as typical Christian values, unless you have a quote which says she actively celebrates the birth of christ on Christmas? I'm not sure why we are continuing with this idiocy, you're the only one left ploughing this lonely furrow and no one agrees with you. It's the rantings of a troll looking got a reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 So based on your sample of "many of your friends" we can assume that people who went to Catholic schools don't become Catholics and also renounce Christianity? What evidence do you have that hopkins is a Christian other than the fact she went to a Catholic school when she was younger (so did millions or non Christians), attended her child's nativity (like millions of non Christians) and claimed she was the new Jesus? (unlike any Christian I have ever heard of) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 If you say so. I still think that if someone refers to themselves as "the new Jesus", makes a big deal on TV about taking her daughter to celebrate the birth of the son of God and spent 13 years in a convent school there is a very good chance that that person has more than an element of Christianity about them. Perhaps you are right though and perhaps the person who makes a big deal about "Telling It Like It Is" is a complete atheist and is just making a fuss about The Nativity because she wants her daughter to believe in Baby Jesus even if she doesn't. As I said before though, a bit hypercritical for someone whose USP is her honesty and her telling it like it isness. She didn't make a big deal put of celebrating the birth of the son of God. She made a big deal out of attending her child's nativity and guess what? It's a huge deal to loads of parents, many of whom are not in the least bit religious (as I do nativitys in my job every year I know this to be true.) she wants to attend the nativity clearly because she values British traditions and the fact that this is supposedly a Christian country. Do you realise you can value British traditions without the whole believing in God thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 I don't really give Katie Hopkins too much thought TBH. You keep replying by asking inane questions that are not counter to you argument or anyone's really. It would be seen as blasphemous to say you are the new son of God. You however think that is akin to saying she is a follower. Also cannot see that someone making a thing about a nativity play is to highlight that she thinks out Christian culture is fading. Same thing has always gone on in right wing press and it isn't cos they are God fearing. You somehow think she is making it out to be a deep spiritual experience. Although as I said couldn't give much of a fck what sh it she spouts. She ain't no Christian bruv but convenient for you to think she is of course. Do you ever think being in minority might be cos you don't understand things? Couldn't have put it better myself. Well said whelk. *cue soggy going off on another tangent and asking inane questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 If they spent 13 years in a school that was based on Islam and if they took their daughter along to celebrate the birth of the Prophet I'd say that it was a good assumption that the person was a Muslim. No I don't think that anyone who has ever eaten an Easter egg is a Christian because chocolate has nothing to do with the death of Jesus. Celebrating the birth of the son of God is a bit more religious based than eating a bit of chocolate wouldn't you say? Except if a Muslim person who spends their life growing up in the Muslim tradition, attending traditional Muslim services and going to a Muslim school then commits a terrorist atrocity in the name of that religion you would be absolutely falling over yourself to say they weren't Muslims. It's a funny effed up spaghetti of contradictory nonsense in that melon of yours, ain't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2015 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2015 I don't really give Katie Hopkins too much thought TBH. You keep replying by asking inane questions that are not counter to you argument or anyone's really. It would be seen as blasphemous to say you are the new son of God. You however think that is akin to saying she is a follower. Also cannot see that someone making a thing about a nativity play is to highlight that she thinks out Christian culture is fading. Same thing has always gone on in right wing press and it isn't cos they are God fearing. You somehow think she is making it out to be a deep spiritual experience. Although as I said couldn't give much of a fck what sh it she spouts. She ain't no Christian bruv but convenient for you to think she is of course. Do you ever think being in minority might be cos you don't understand things? If you don't like my inane questions you are quite at liberty to ignore them. Yes I would agree with you that it would be blasphemous to say that you are the new son of God and I have no idea why she thought it was a good idea to say that. She didn't use any other reference to any other religions so I can only assume that has some meaning for her - perhaps something to do with her religious bent? If she is worried about the Christian culture fading why would that bother her if she didn't have some kind of interest in it not fading? Why would she want her daughter to experience it if there was nothing in it? I don't know if she is making it out to be a deep spiritual experience but she seemed to make a big deal about it when talking to Andrew Neill (she brought it up not him). It is not convenient for me to think she is. She made the references not me. If she comes out and says she isn't I wont lose any sleep over it trust me. Am I in the minority just because a couple of people with nothing better to do have a pop at me on the internet? What exactly is my minority? That I believe that the only Muslims that we need fear are the nutters with guns? Are you saying that we need to be fearful of those who are not terrorists as dear old Donald seems to be saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 Except if a Muslim person who spends their life growing up in the Muslim tradition, attending traditional Muslim services and going to a Muslim school then commits a terrorist atrocity in the name of that religion you would be absolutely falling over yourself to say they weren't Muslims. It's a funny effed up spaghetti of contradictory nonsense in that melon of yours, ain't it? on the money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2015 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2015 (edited) I would say that they were a terrorist. I have no sympathy or time for anybody who takes innocent lives and have said that many times. Edited 13 December, 2015 by sadoldgit clarification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 I would say that they were a terrorist. Thanks for proving my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 If you don't like my inane questions you are quite at liberty to ignore them. Yes I would agree with you that it would be blasphemous to say that you are the new son of God and I have no idea why she thought it was a good idea to say that. She didn't use any other reference to any other religions so I can only assume that has some meaning for her - perhaps something to do with her religious bent? If she is worried about the Christian culture fading why would that bother her if she didn't have some kind of interest in it not fading? Why would she want her daughter to experience it if there was nothing in it? I don't know if she is making it out to be a deep spiritual experience but she seemed to make a big deal about it when talking to Andrew Neill (she brought it up not him). It is not convenient for me to think she is. She made the references not me. If she comes out and says she isn't I wont lose any sleep over it trust me. Am I in the minority just because a couple of people with nothing better to do have a pop at me on the internet? What exactly is my minority? That I believe that the only Muslims that we need fear are the nutters with guns? Are you saying that we need to be fearful of those who are not terrorists as dear old Donald seems to be saying? Nick Griffin and his ilk routinely bemoan the fact that we are losing our Christian heritage. They would also be concerned about keeping traditions such as nativities. Are they Christians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2015 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2015 Ok Whelk, another inane question for you as my original issue with Hopkins seems to have been hijacked and taken off at a pointless tangent... My initial point was that why should moderate Mulsims who have nothing to do with the terrorists acts have to come out and apologise for those acts? Why also should Hopkins be the one that say that there arent enough public apologies from Islam about the atrocities? Do you think that the bloke over the road (who happens to be a peaceful Muslim) should come out and make a public apology for the Paris shootings? Does he have a responsibility for people who use his religion as an excuse to butcher people? Do you think the peace march in London the other weekend by Muslims meant anything or should we still fear all Muslims? How do you feel about Shaker Aamer who spent 14 years in captivity in Guantanamo Bay and is saying to extremists in Britain to "get the hell out" of Britain? Do we ignore him as him as another possible terrorist or do we listen to him as a moderate Muslim who despite having every reason to hate "The West" is coming out firmly against terrorists (probably still not enough for our Katie though). I don't know about you but I see plenty of Muslims coming out and saying not in my name. Doesn't stop Trump and the likes of Batman wanting to close the borders to them though even though they have done nothing wrong. Feel free to correct me Batman if you are happy to keep the borders open to peaceful Muslims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 Why are you asking questions that no one has disagreed with? You brought all the guff up about hopkins no one else. Don't try and pretend it has been taken off topic just because you have been made to look foolish for the umpteenth time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 My initial point was that why should moderate Mulsims who have nothing to do with the terrorists acts have to come out and apologise for those acts? But this is almost always not the case SOG. Muslims do object frequently that they are being asked to apologise for atrocities. But they're generally not being asked to do that - they are making a mistake in believing they are being asked to apologise. They are being asked to condemn the attacks. Apologising and condemning are two completely different things. Apologising means accepting some personal responsibility for attacks - and that would obviously be objectionable. Condemning means rejecting the perpetrators' claim that the attacks are carried out in the name of the beliefs that other co-religionists hold dear. I don't see any problem in condemning. I would do the same if someone carried out an atrocity in the name of beliefs I shared. And I wouldn't need urging to do it. I'd want to separate myself clearly from such outrages. Also, do not underestimate the number of Muslims who do very vocally, and without prompting, condemn atrocities by ISIS and their imitators. There are plenty of sour mashes out there who clasp their ears when such condemnations are issued, and imagine, with viciously conspiratorial mindsets, that all Muslims are the enemies within. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 But this is almost always not the case SOG. Muslims do object frequently that they are being asked to apologise for atrocities. But they're generally not being asked to do that - they are making a mistake in believing they are being asked to apologise. They are being asked to condemn the attacks. Apologising and condemning are two completely different things. Apologising means accepting some personal responsibility for attacks - and that would obviously be objectionable. Condemning means rejecting the perpetrators' claim that the attacks are carried out in the name of the beliefs that other co-religionists hold dear. I don't see any problem in condemning. I would do the same if someone carried out an atrocity in the name of beliefs I shared. And I wouldn't need urging to do it. I'd want to separate myself clearly from such outrages. Also, do not underestimate the number of Muslims who do very vocally, and without prompting, condemn atrocities by ISIS and their imitators. There are plenty of sour mashes out there who clasp their ears when such condemnations are issued, and imagine, with viciously conspiratorial mindsets, that all Muslims are the enemies within. Thank goodness then that vast majority do not view all Muslims as the enemy. SOG keeps trying to say that that is what everyone on this thread is saying for some reason. I'm not really sure why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 I would say that they were a terrorist. I have no sympathy or time for anybody who takes innocent lives and have said that many times. The point is you have spent pretty much this entire thread trying to smear Christianity over any evil you can find, from the Nazis, "Christian terrorism" you've found on Wikipedia, the Klu Klux Klan through to Katie Hopkins - Christians! Christians! Christians! Something as anodyne, harmless and really quite lovely as the British traditional children's Nativity play has become a "indoctrination service" in your hate-filled eyes. Christians! Christians! Christians! But on the other side, any Muslims doing anything wrong at all immediately gets absolved of their religion in your eyes and you refuse to even acknowledge their religion at all. It is, if you don't mind me saying, utterly fu ckheaded beyond belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2015 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2015 (edited) Hi Verbal, apologise/condem, there is an inference with either that there is some kind of responsibility on the shoulders of those who are totally innocent. As you say, Muslims do come and speak against the atrocities but if you watch the interview with Hopkins, not enough. How many is enough? Why does she get to decide? How many times do they have to do it? I can understand why some people might want to stand up and distance themselves from the atrocities. I can also understand those who think it has nothing to do with them don't say anything. Because it has nothing to do with anyone apart from the murderous bastards who chose to commit these atrocities. Edited 13 December, 2015 by sadoldgit sp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 Hi Verbal, apologise/condem, there is an inference with either that there is some kind of responsibility on the shoulders of those who are totally innocent. As you say, Muslims do come and speak against the atrocities but if you watch the interview with Hopkins, not enough. Who many is enough? Why does she get to decide? How many times do they have to do it? I can understand why some people might want to stand up and distance themselves from the atrocities. I can also understand those who think it has nothing to do with them don't say anything. Because it has nothing to do with anyone apart from the murderous bastards who chose to commit these atrocities. No one is saying she gets to decide apart from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 No one is saying she gets to decide apart from you. I think I missed the announcement about Katie Hopkins becoming Archbishop of Canterbury or Prime Minister or whatever the hell SOG has decided she is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 Hi Verbal, apologise/condem, there is an inference with either that there is some kind of responsibility on the shoulders of those who are totally innocent. As you say, Muslims do come and speak against the atrocities but if you watch the interview with Hopkins, not enough. Who many is enough? Why does she get to decide? How many times do they have to do it? I can understand why some people might want to stand up and distance themselves from the atrocities. I can also understand those who think it has nothing to do with them don't say anything. Because it has nothing to do with anyone apart from the murderous bastards who chose to commit these atrocities. There is a clear distinction between apologising and condemning. I see nothing wrong and a lot right in condemning. Some of my family are Muslim. They are beyond disgusted by IS, Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, etc., and are more than happy to say so. They is not diminished by that, nor do they feel that they are. Can you give me a single example of anyone being asked to apologise for - as distinct from condemn - the attacks? And I'm not sure why Katie Hopkins needs to come into this. She's an irrelevance, at the very best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxford_lou Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 I'll play devils advocate on this one. (Not that you're the devil SOG!) I hate anyone telling me what to do/how I should react to anything. If I were abroad and a bunch of Brits did something as awful as this (I'm not religious, so this is the closest example), I would naturally recoil in horror and condemning what had happened would be instinctive. However, if people around me then starting viewing me with suspicion, and as an individual (not a politician or leader) I was repeatedly asked to condemn what these people had done, it would inevitably get my back up, and I wouldn't feel treated as an individual anymore. After 9/11 the amount of leaders or opinion formers talking to the media who squirmed in their seats when asked to condemn, giving every excuse under the sun for what happened was a massive eye opener. But that's different to free individuals feeling pressurised to express anything. Oh, and when they do, it gets ignored: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/muslim-anti-isis-march-not-covered-by-mainstream-media-outlets-say-organisers-a6765976.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 I think I missed the announcement about Katie Hopkins becoming Archbishop of Canterbury or Prime Minister or whatever the hell SOG has decided she is. TBF I did post a link where she was informing Andrew Neill we had lost control of areas of the UK so think was me who introduced her not SOG. I missed her nativity play sermon though but sure it was an inspiring love filled corker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 TBF I did post a link where she was informing Andrew Neill we had lost control of areas of the UK so think was me who introduced her not SOG. I missed her nativity play sermon though but sure it was an inspiring love filled corker Yes but you aren't the one making out she has some sort of authority or speaks for anyone other than herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 Ok Whelk, another inane question for you as my original issue with Hopkins seems to have been hijacked and taken off at a pointless tangent... My initial point was that why should moderate Mulsims who have nothing to do with the terrorists acts have to come out and apologise for those acts? Why also should Hopkins be the one that say that there arent enough public apologies from Islam about the atrocities? Do you think that the bloke over the road (who happens to be a peaceful Muslim) should come out and make a public apology for the Paris shootings? Does he have a responsibility for people who use his religion as an excuse to butcher people? Do you think the peace march in London the other weekend by Muslims meant anything or should we still fear all Muslims? How do you feel about Shaker Aamer who spent 14 years in captivity in Guantanamo Bay and is saying to extremists in Britain to "get the hell out" of Britain? Do we ignore him as him as another possible terrorist or do we listen to him as a moderate Muslim who despite having every reason to hate "The West" is coming out firmly against terrorists (probably still not enough for our Katie though). I don't know about you but I see plenty of Muslims coming out and saying not in my name. Doesn't stop Trump and the likes of Batman wanting to close the borders to them though even though they have done nothing wrong. Feel free to correct me Batman if you are happy to keep the borders open to peaceful Muslims. Don't know why I am getting these questions. You keep asking me but trust me I don't have an anti-Muslim agenda in any way and most are stupidly rhetorical. As said many times you don't follow and example above saying 'why does she get to decide?' Do you really feel some bigoted shock columnist is representative of the people railing against you here( apart from mash)? And now throw Trump in as if everyone disagreeing with you is some right wing nut and you are standing against them. You are not.You know this is not the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2015 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2015 You are getting these questions because you have decided that I am an idiot and I am trying to engage in a debate with you. You talking about the people railing against me here as if it is the majority of the forum. It is a handful of the Usual Suspects who gang together to have a go at people in tandem. Yes, it happens to others too. I don't think I have said anything controversial yet the cabal have decided that I have and I just wonder why that is? When I pointed out that a poll showed moderate Muslims in a positive light one went to town on me because 10% weren't (yes a staggering 90% were against the terrorists). I was told I was spinning the figure. I really don't see how anyone can argue that peaceful Muslims are a problem but if I say they are harmless or say that Christians (and any other type of person you care to mention) also commit murder and rape I am treated by these few as if I have said something outrageous. I don't know what their agenda is but you have to wonder. I have never supported the terrorists yet to read some of their posts you would think that I do, that is why I don't bother to read several of their posts anymore. I mentioned Hopkins because I didn't care for the her assertion that she feels that more Muslims should come out against the outrages. Perhaps you need to read my posts more carefully Whelk instead of jumping in with the Jolly Boys all the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2015 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2015 TBF I did post a link where she was informing Andrew Neill we had lost control of areas of the UK so think was me who introduced her not SOG. I missed her nativity play sermon though but sure it was an inspiring love filled corker Yes it is a shame you missed that because she tried to get it in a couple of times so it was clearly an issue for her. As for Mr Fry's comments in your post, doesn't he know that I am supposed to be the one making things up. not him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 13 December, 2015 Author Share Posted 13 December, 2015 There is a clear distinction between apologising and condemning. I see nothing wrong and a lot right in condemning. Some of my family are Muslim. They are beyond disgusted by IS, Al Qaeda, Al Shabaab, etc., and are more than happy to say so. They is not diminished by that, nor do they feel that they are. Can you give me a single example of anyone being asked to apologise for - as distinct from condemn - the attacks? And I'm not sure why Katie Hopkins needs to come into this. She's an irrelevance, at the very best. Hopkins is here because in her interview with Andrew Neill (see earlier vid post) she made a big point about not enough Muslims coming out and condemning the terrorist attacks. Specifically she said not enough for her, as if she gets to decide on the number or decides how many are enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 13 December, 2015 Share Posted 13 December, 2015 You are getting these questions because you have decided that I am an idiot and I am trying to engage in a debate with you. You talking about the people railing against me here as if it is the majority of the forum. It is a handful of the Usual Suspects who gang together to have a go at people in tandem. Yes, it happens to others too. I don't think I have said anything controversial yet the cabal have decided that I have and I just wonder why that is? When I pointed out that a poll showed moderate Muslims in a positive light one went to town on me because 10% weren't (yes a staggering 90% were against the terrorists). I was told I was spinning the figure. I really don't see how anyone can argue that peaceful Muslims are a problem but if I say they are harmless or say that Christians (and any other type of person you care to mention) also commit murder and rape I am treated by these few as if I have said something outrageous. I don't know what their agenda is but you have to wonder. I have never supported the terrorists yet to read some of their posts you would think that I do, that is why I don't bother to read several of their posts anymore. I mentioned Hopkins because I didn't care for the her assertion that she feels that more Muslims should come out against the outrages. Perhaps you need to read my posts more carefully Whelk instead of jumping in with the Jolly Boys all the time? I read this post carefully: . We get ourselves worked up over people wearing a black sheet with eye holes but aren't overly bothered by people wearing white sheets with eyes holes who have been quite happy to burn and hang people of a different race and who are still active today. When are you ever going to attempt to explain it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now