[Burgerman]

You will all be pleased to know I am finally back in Blighty and not appreciating the cold weather!

Whilst away I came on the message board now and again, mostly to check out what people thought about how we played in the games I missed but I did hop into the personal section once in a while to see how it was going, sadly nothings changed.

Whilst away I did some self reflection mainly because I had been targeted on here as being an Islamophobic racist. So I decided to try and figure out if I really was.

Religion

Touchy subject but I am going to be as honest as I can. I don't believe in God, Allah, Krishna or Waheguru, I don't believe in the miracles of Christ or Muhammad, I think its all crazy mumbo jumbo with no scientific evidence that any of it is true. Does it make me Islamophobic or anti Christian? No it doesn't. I believe that everyone has a choice to worship what they want, do I respect those that do? Not really, I really don't care what people choose to kneel to, it never crosses my mind, its none of my business. What I do care about is by not respecting a religion somehow offends the people that do and I'm therefore labeled a bigot 'phobic this, 'phobic that. It offends me that people say I should respect their Gods or whoever or whatever they worship.

I would say that personally I lean towards Buddhism but as we all know, its not a religion.

People and their Pronouns

In these modern times people have the right to identify as whatever they like. I have absolutely no problem with that, be it a man identifying as a female or vice versa. Someone identifying as an animal a tree or whatever, I really don't care what people believe they are, its a personal thing and is none of my business and I an not offended by anyone who decides to re-gender themselves. Do I dislike or hate people that do that? No I don't. I find it offensive being forced to recocognise there are more than two genders because I don't believe there is.


Illegal Immigration

Very topical on this message board. We have folk on here who are angry about the current level of illegal immigration and crimes that are carried out by immigrants/illegal immigrants on these shores. Surely they have a right to be concerned? The Prime Minister is as he is working to end it, does that make him a racist or a bigot. Not being happy with the high level of uncontrolled illegal immigration doesn't make someone a racist, it makes them concerned. The riots we saw recently where hotels were being attacked and set on fire were wrong on every level although I do believe some folk were easily led by the more extreme right wing groups. But hopefully some jail time will give their head a wobble.

People are far to quick to label others just because they have a different view to themselves and its wrong. I am not a racist, I don't hate Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus etc but I was deeply offended when I was told on here I hated Muslims, I am over that now, sometime away has helped me address that.

I think this message board, well this section of the message board, is incredibly toxic and I hold my hands up that in some way I too have added to the toxicity by defending myself in the wrong way and was out of order.

Everyone should try a little bit of self reflection and try to be more tolerant of what other believe or don't believe in.

[s42blue]

Hard to disagree with most of this.

Question everything and respect the differences and the right to be different.

And as you say be tolerant. Getting wound up on a message board with very few contributors seems a waste of time and life. It won?t change anything except your BP probably!

And stick to the mantra of only posting a reply that you?d say to someone?s face.

[Wooden Spoon]

Burgerman, on 17 February 2025 - 09:35 AM, said:

You will all be pleased to know I am finally back in Blighty and not appreciating the cold weather!

Whilst away I came on the message board now and again, mostly to check out what people thought about how we played in the games I missed but I did hop into the personal section once in a while to see how it was going, sadly nothings changed.

Whilst away I did some self reflection mainly because I had been targeted on here as being an Islamophobic racist. So I decided to try and figure out if I really was.

Religion

Touchy subject but I am going to be as honest as I can. I don't believe in God, Allah, Krishna or Waheguru, I don't believe in the miracles of Christ or Muhammad, I think its all crazy mumbo jumbo with no scientific evidence that any of it is true. Does it make me Islamophobic or anti Christian? No it doesn't. I believe that everyone has a choice to worship what they want, do I respect those that do? Not really, I really don't care what people choose to kneel to, it never crosses my mind, its none of my business. What I do care about is by not respecting a religion somehow offends the people that do and I'm therefore labeled a bigot 'phobic this, 'phobic that. It offends me that people say I should respect their Gods or whoever or whatever they worship.

I would say that personally I lean towards Buddhism but as we all know, its not a religion.

People and their Pronouns

In these modern times people have the right to identify as whatever they like. I have absolutely no problem with that, be it a man identifying as a female or vice versa. Someone identifying as an animal a tree or whatever, I really don't care what people believe they are, its a personal thing and is none of my business and I an not offended by anyone who decides to re-gender themselves. Do I dislike or hate people that do that? No I don't. I find it offensive being forced to recocognise there are more than two genders because I don't believe there is.


Illegal Immigration

Very topical on this message board. We have folk on here who are angry about the current level of illegal immigration and crimes that are carried out by immigrants/illegal immigrants on these shores. Surely they have a right to be concerned? The Prime Minister is as he is working to end it, does that make him a racist or a bigot. Not being happy with the high level of uncontrolled illegal immigration doesn't make someone a racist, it makes them concerned. The riots we saw recently where hotels were being attacked and set on fire were wrong on every level although I do believe some folk were easily led by the more extreme right wing groups. But hopefully some jail time will give their head a wobble.

People are far to quick to label others just because they have a different view to themselves and its wrong. I am not a racist, I don't hate Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus etc but I was deeply offended when I was told on here I hated Muslims, I am over that now, sometime away has helped me address that.

I think this message board, well this section of the message board, is incredibly toxic and I hold my hands up that in some way I too have added to the toxicity by defending myself in the wrong way and was out of order.

Everyone should try a little bit of self reflection and try to be more tolerant of what other believe or don't believe in.

Ordinary politicians that want to represent the ordinary working class of this country don?t exist anymore

The Labour Party dont have the likes of John smith anymore they have mouthpiece gims like James obrien an extremist of the worst kind who?s agenda is to surpress debate not promote it

[frearsghost]

 Wooden Spoon, on 19 February 2025 - 11:32 PM, said:

Ordinary politicians that want to represent the ordinary working class of this country don?t exist anymore

The Labour Party dont have the likes of John smith anymore they have mouthpiece gims like James obrien an extremist of the worst kind who?s agenda is to surpress debate not promote it

Rayner looking to intoduce a law that defines what Islamophobia is that will restrict what one can say. This will be a blasphemy law by the back door and a crack down on free speech. Seems Vance's comments about UK restrictions on free speech have some mileage. Freedom of speech, in a democracy means all religions can be criticised and even mocked. Not in Starmer's Britain it seems, where we should all be concerned about a knock on the door in our increasingly intolerant country.

[s42blue]

 frearsghost, on 20 February 2025 - 10:20 AM, said:

Rayner looking to intoduce a law that defines what Islamophobia is that will restrict what one can say. This will be a blasphemy law by the back door and a crack down on free speech. Seems Vance's comments about UK restrictions on free speech have some mileage. Freedom of speech, in a democracy means all religions can be criticised and even mocked. Not in Starmer's Britain it seems, where we should all be concerned about a knock on the door in our increasingly intolerant country.

I have to say I agree with this. To single out one religion is an antithesis of free speech. When religion is a belief system it should be ok to believe whatever you want but also be able to be criticised. I don?t like the word mocked tbh.

[frearsghost]

 s42blue, on 20 February 2025 - 11:06 AM, said:

I have to say I agree with this. To single out one religion is an antithesis of free speech. When religion is a belief system it should be ok to believe whatever you want but also be able to be criticised. I don?t like the word mocked tbh.

A talking snake is well worth mocking. Taking a man's rib and making a women in another. As is the parting of an ocean and raising people from the dead. Filling head's with such nonsense is to control them. When you run into a satirical magazine's offices and murder people who mock religion then that religion has become a mental illness. All religions are homophobic and some more homophobic than others. Mocking is a poor decription of how we should respond to cults. Rayner is set to take away that freedom to respond. This could well be in response to the Muslim Islamic MP who called for blasphemy laws.

[clarevoyant.]

 frearsghost, on 20 February 2025 - 12:02 PM, said:

A talking snake is well worth mocking. Taking a man's rib and making a women in another. As is the parting of an ocean and raising people from the dead. Filling head's with such nonsense is to control them. When you run into a satirical magazine's offices and murder people who mock religion then that religion has become a mental illness. All religions are homophobic and some more homophobic than others. Mocking is a poor decription of how we should respond to cults. Rayner is set to take away that freedom to respond. This could well be in response to the Muslim Islamic MP who called for blasphemy laws.

Moving slightly off at a tangent but questioning religious principles/beliefs. In the past year I have visited 3 countries of mainly the Islam persuasion and acknowledging their beliefs dictate that females dress modestly ie in "black garb". So to achieve modesty why is it when you enter a bog after a long flight you invariably meet a female bog cleaner in full dress who carries on her duties as you do.
Do the religious authorities imposing these modesty laws(or whatever) cock (sorry) a deaf un.

[s42blue]

 frearsghost, on 20 February 2025 - 12:02 PM, said:

A talking snake is well worth mocking. Taking a man's rib and making a women in another. As is the parting of an ocean and raising people from the dead. Filling head's with such nonsense is to control them. When you run into a satirical magazine's offices and murder people who mock religion then that religion has become a mental illness. All religions are homophobic and some more homophobic than others. Mocking is a poor decription of how we should respond to cults. Rayner is set to take away that freedom to respond. This could well be in response to the Muslim Islamic MP who called for blasphemy laws.

Mocking will only strengthen someone?s resolve. Mocking is believing you are superior. You?re not, you just don?t believe what they believe. If you want free speech then surely they are allowed to believe without cruelty (to all religions). Mocking was your word tbf. Satirise them, disagree with them by all means.

As I said, I agree with much of what you said.

[frearsghost]

[quote name='s42blue' timestamp='1740055878' post='1875809']
Mocking will only strengthen someone?s resolve. Mocking is believing you are superior. You?re not, you just don?t believe what they believe. If you want free speech then surely they are allowed to believe without cruelty (to all religions). Mocking was your word tbf. Satirise them, disagree with them by all means.

As I said, I agree with much of what you said.
[/quote


What is satire if it's not mocking? Those who live in the empirical world have a superior outlook than those who dwell in the fantasy of a creator. Believers believe, despite being intellectually challenged, satirised or mocked. I have zero respect for obnoxious beliefs in religious scripts. Your view that I should accept them because others act upon them, often with violence, is not a moral imperative of what free speech is all about. Free speech asks questions and challenges, it doesn't appease.

[s42blue]

Reply to the above.

Satirizing and mocking can be similar, but they aren't exactly the same.

Satire is a more nuanced form of criticism, often using humor, irony, or exaggeration to highlight flaws or absurdities in a person, institution, or society. It tends to have a deeper, more thoughtful purpose, aiming to provoke thought or social change.

Mocking, on the other hand, is often more straightforward and focuses on ridiculing or making fun of someone or something. It can come across as mean-spirited or dismissive, while satire is typically aimed at pointing out issues or contradictions in a more intellectual or clever way.

So, while mocking can be part of satire, satire is usually broader and more sophisticated in its approach.

I?m not sure what a superior outlook is. Are you saying your thought process is superior to those with religious beliefs? Crikey if so.

Their obnoxious beliefs are I imagine beliefs that you don?t believe in? Who is the arbiter of right and wrong?

I believe we should be more accepting of people and beliefs in general (providing their views are not violent obviously). Accepting people's right to believe in religion is part of respecting their freedom of belief, which is a fundamental aspect of human rights and free speech. Free speech includes not only the right to express one?s beliefs but also the right to hold and practice those beliefs, including religious ones.

Respecting someone?s right to their beliefs doesn?t necessarily mean you have to agree with them, but it does mean you acknowledge their right to think and speak freely about their religion. In societies that value freedom, accepting diverse beliefs?religious or otherwise?helps create an environment where everyone can express themselves openly without fear of persecution or discrimination.

This post has been edited by s42blue: 20 February 2025 - 04:31 PM

[Johnnyspireite7]

 s42blue, on 20 February 2025 - 11:06 AM, said:

I have to say I agree with this. To single out one religion is an antithesis of free speech. When religion is a belief system it should be ok to believe whatever you want but also be able to be criticised. I don?t like the word mocked tbh.

Doesn't that already exist with Antisemitism, sauce for the goose and all that, Israel take it to an extreme that when you criticise the Israel Government and Netanyahu that it's Antisemitic when it isn't anything of the sort.

[s42blue]

 Johnnyspireite7, on 20 February 2025 - 04:50 PM, said:

Doesn't that already exist with Antisemitism, sauce for the goose and all that, Israel take it to an extreme that when you criticise the Israel Government and Netanyahu that it's Antisemitic when it isn't anything of the sort.

I obviously believe antisemitism is wrong too. Singling any religion out as beyond being challenged or satirised is in my opinion not acceptable. I think that?s what you mean?

[Mr Mercury]

 s42blue, on 20 February 2025 - 05:16 PM, said:

I obviously believe antisemitism is wrong too. Singling any religion out as beyond being challenged or satirised is in my opinion not acceptable. I think that?s what you mean?

Is antisemitism hostility against Jewish people and not a specific religion?

This post has been edited by Mr Mercury: 20 February 2025 - 05:19 PM

[frearsghost]

 s42blue, on 20 February 2025 - 04:19 PM, said:

Reply to the above.

Satirizing and mocking can be similar, but they aren't exactly the same.

Satire is a more nuanced form of criticism, often using humor, irony, or exaggeration to highlight flaws or absurdities in a person, institution, or society. It tends to have a deeper, more thoughtful purpose, aiming to provoke thought or social change.

Mocking, on the other hand, is often more straightforward and focuses on ridiculing or making fun of someone or something. It can come across as mean-spirited or dismissive, while satire is typically aimed at pointing out issues or contradictions in a more intellectual or clever way.

So, while mocking can be part of satire, satire is usually broader and more sophisticated in its approach.

I?m not sure what a superior outlook is. Are you saying your thought process is superior to those with religious beliefs? Crikey if so.

Their obnoxious beliefs are I imagine beliefs that you don?t believe in? Who is the arbiter of right and wrong?

I believe we should be more accepting of people and beliefs in general (providing their views are not violent obviously). Accepting people's right to believe in religion is part of respecting their freedom of belief, which is a fundamental aspect of human rights and free speech. Free speech includes not only the right to express one?s beliefs but also the right to hold and practice those beliefs, including religious ones.

Respecting someone?s right to their beliefs doesn?t necessarily mean you have to agree with them, but it does mean you acknowledge their right to think and speak freely about their religion. In societies that value freedom, accepting diverse beliefs?religious or otherwise?helps create an environment where everyone can express themselves openly without fear of persecution or discrimination.

I couldn't have made my view any clearer.

When you're encouraged by religious scripts to murder or rape someone, there is no arbiter, only right and wrong. So no, I dont respect or agree with the expression of religious texts that inspire evil. Neither do I think its morally acceptable to bundle them in a package called free speech. My view of the world, based on empiricsm, doesn't make me more intelligent either; it gives me a more truthful perspective of the world in which we live. I would question your conjoining of 'human rights' and free speech given recent events in this country.


Religion has been discussed on here many time going back years. My view are on record so I don't really want to repeat them all. I'll stop on this one if you don't mind.

[s42blue]

 frearsghost, on 20 February 2025 - 05:38 PM, said:

I couldn't have made my view any clearer.

When you're encouraged by religious scripts to murder or rape someone, there is no arbiter, only right and wrong. So no, I dont respect or agree with the expression of religious texts that inspire evil. Neither do I think its morally acceptable to bundle them in a package called free speech. My view of the world, based on empiricsm, doesn't make me more intelligent either; it gives me a more truthful perspective of the world in which we live. I would question your conjoining of 'human rights' and free speech given recent events in this country.


Religion has been discussed on here many time going back years. My view are on record so I don't really want to repeat them all. I'll stop on this one if you don't mind.

Off at a tangent.

What?s right , what?s wrong? A whole new can of worms. You could argue religious texts have been the arbiter over the centuries forming what we think today.

More truthful? To whom?

I don?t believe I?ve discussed religion with you but if you?ve discussed before I respect your right to end the discussion. Enjoy your evening.

[Burgerman]

s42blue, on 20 February 2025 - 06:15 PM, said:

Off at a tangent.

What?s right , what?s wrong? A whole new can of worms. You could argue religious texts have been the arbiter over the centuries forming what we think today.

More truthful? To whom?

I don?t believe I?ve discussed religion with you but if you?ve discussed before I respect your right to end the discussion. Enjoy your evening.

What's right or wrong is surely down to the individual. Thankfully people have the freedom to serve any God of their choice and on the other hand, people have the freedom to dismiss religion as a load of BS. I am of the latter, I personally think religion has warped the human race but its been their since the dawn of time when people worshipped to Sun. Most religions are very tolerant of people who dont hold the same views they do, however some religions take great offence that everyone doesnt follow their way of thinking.

We can go back to the Crusades where Christianity was literally forced up on people all over the world or we can talk of more recent times where a bad word said against Muhammed or Allah can get you killed or in Salman Rushdies case getting stabbed in the face or having to live your life in exile like the teachers in Rochdale. All in the name of a God, thats crazy.

As I in my OP, I don't mind what people do with regards to religion and I hold no bad feeling towards anyone who does but people should be able to dismiss it as folly and question it without being tagged a phobic and that happens on this message board.

[dart in the crossbar]

frearsghost, on 20 February 2025 - 05:38 PM, said:

I couldn't have made my view any clearer.

When you're encouraged by religious scripts to murder or rape someone, there is no arbiter, only right and wrong. So no, I dont respect or agree with the expression of religious texts that inspire evil. Neither do I think its morally acceptable to bundle them in a package called free speech. My view of the world, based on empiricsm, doesn't make me more intelligent either; it gives me a more truthful perspective of the world in which we live. I would question your conjoining of 'human rights' and free speech given recent events in this country.


Religion has been discussed on here many time going back years. My view are on record so I don't really want to repeat them all. I'll stop on this one if you don't mind.

'Guns don't kill people..' or Religion don't kill people. Seems to me that the problem is the people who use anything to bring harm to others. Whether it be guns, religion or whatever. Matters not whether the vehicle is sermons, social media or whatever. The problem is only tackled by tackling those who seek to hurt others. If they use a religion, that doesn't make that religion the problem. It makes them the problem. As far as I see it anyway.

[Wooden Spoon]

dart in the crossbar, on 27 February 2025 - 09:45 PM, said:

'Guns don't kill people..' or Religion don't kill people. Seems to me that the problem is the people who use anything to bring harm to others. Whether it be guns, religion or whatever. Matters not whether the vehicle is sermons, social media or whatever. The problem is only tackled by tackling those who seek to hurt others. If they use a religion, that doesn't make that religion the problem. It makes them the problem. As far as I see it anyway.

I guess that depends on the ideology



The huge majority of Muslims don?t blow themselves up but the extreme elements of that ideology promote such things. To deny the existence of that is folly



Most priests aren?t peados yet there is a culture of covering up those that are in the Catholic Church, and as seen recently in the Church of England, to deny these things is folly