Tommy Robinson Goes North and is Milkshaked

[Bodd]

Maybe we are getting to the nub of the problem with your statement. It was perhaps an over generalisation, not accurate and unfair.

You now concentrate on specific groups who happen to be adherents of a particular religion. No-one would disagree with you that ISIS, Taliban, et al are an evil cult. But a cult they are. They follow the same interpretation of Islam as Saudi Arabia. So maybe Saudi Arabia could be included in the overall identification of evil cults.

But if you identify specific cults and misappropriate them as the wider religion, then you are being overly-general, inaccurate and unfair.
For instance, you wouldn't condemn all Catholics because Sinn Fein were predominantly Catholic, or suggest that Catholicism was evil because of the troubles. Or condemn all Buddhists because Myanmar Buddhists are practising ethnic cleansing, nor suggest that Buddhism is evil because of those issues, etc.

Such overly general sweeping statements creates the wrong impression, creates and multiplies prejudice and does nothing for the writer's reputation.

In addition, I don't see how you can suggest that a religion is evil, but then suggest that the adherents of that religion are OK.
It's like suggesting that Conservative policy is inhumane, but Conservatives are OK. If the policy is inhumane, it requires people to enact that policy. Therefore how can those actors be OK, when enacting an evil policy or religion?
Sure, some adherents of the policy or religion, those that practice the inhumane or evil interpretations of the policies or religions, must by definition be evil, or acting under duress, or be genuinely incapable of deciding for themselves. But those that don't practice or enact those inhumane or evil policies or religious bits, are OK, normal people. Invariably, the vast majority of them.

As others have said, all religions have their inhumane or evil bits in them, but only a tiny minority of people choose to live by those bits of the policy or religion, and force others, against their will, to do likewise. We need to be more precise about who or what we describe as evil, to avoid spreading and multiplying prejudice. We both know that some are easily influenced.

I stopped reading when you said

In addition, I don't see how you can suggest that a religion is evil,

I don't remember saying that. So won't bother reading what you have to say

 

[Mfatic]

Religion, like anything evolves. Sometimes it is the appointed leader that makes the decisions, sometimes some sects choose which bits are appropriate to them. Some even create a new sect to apply certain bits that they find attractive.
Some, maybe most, religions aren't pedantic, in that they never change. Religious people are not generally pedantic about their religion. Perhaps altering their belief throughout their life.
Sometimes religions must change to be within the law. And there is the dichotomy. The law sometimes dictates the religious practice, and other times religion dictates the legal definitions.

How can religion be anything to do with God, or any deity, if people can change their religion?

All religions are broad churches, excuse the pun. You cannot define any of the religions by insisting that they follow all the rules as laid down in their holy book. Religion is very much a personal choice. It should affect no-one else in its adherence.
Unfortunately, throughout the ages, and in line with the teachings of the holy books, religion has had an enormous effect on others, and the world in general. All the holy books preach the 'spreading of the religion'. This reflects the animal instinct, to take control of resources, whether it be the best nesting sites, the first access to food, or the control of natural resources.
Religion mirrors and reinforces patriotism in some respects by ensuring everyone (of a particular group) are all singing from the same hymn sheet. Excuse the religious pun.

But religion is an inanimate object. It cannot be evil in itself. It can only be evil through the manifestations of its followers, or the original authors declarations.
As politics or a nations policies, cannot be evil in themselves, only through the people defining the policies, and the manifestations of its followers.

I very much doubt that the author, the originator of any of the holy books had any evil intent. They probably thought they were providing good guiding practice for a better life for the followers. Unfortunately, 'that best practice' was provided for a completely different era than the one we are in now.
Some religions do try to adjust their teachings to reflect that. Some don't have a singular leader who can make such decisions. Sometimes a new religion is created to reflect the changing societal norms, but they have to base their belief on some revered holy manuscript to be accepted, or to give some credence. That is when some texts within the holy book take precedence over other texts.
It is the nature of humans, to require some reason or motivation to form bonds within groups.

 

[Mfatic]

I stopped reading when you said
In addition, I don't see how you can suggest that a religion is evil,
I don't remember saying that. So won't bother reading what you have to say

You may not remember it.

I hope Andy is talking of the evil of Islam and not the good people of Muslim believes.

Well you have been dancing around it for a while, avoiding my question.

Why is Islam any more evil than say, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism or Christianity?

Why do you think Islam is evil?

 

[Mfatic]

Lots of evils deeds are done in the name of religion. Islam is the one causing the greatest fear in the West.

Only if you perceive it as a conflict of religions.
If it was a holy war, then all adherents of both religions would consider themselves at war, not just a few fanatics.

Maybe, some present it as a holy war hoping to involve more into the 'conflict', or persuading some to adopt their own view of the 'other'.

 

[Bodd]

You may not remember it.


Well you have been dancing around it for a while, avoiding my question.

Why do you think Islam is evil?

Is that the way you read it?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Wow, I'm confused.

Using the football team analogy - you seem to be saying that there are several fan clubs who can decide which original rules to keep, which to reject and which to update. At times the fan clubs may fight each other, because of rivalry or for whatever reason one decides.

That seems logical and reasonable - except for the fact that there are no football teams - yet most of the fan club members believe there are football teams even though none of them has ever seen one.

The imaginary teams were invented in the distant past (by the leaders or those who wished to be the leaders) because the simple peasants liked the stories and had to follow the club rules or be banished from the land.

You said this began in a completely different era. That is true but unfortunately and inexplicably seemingly intelligent people, including a lot of the world's national leaders, still believe in these football teams and still act like simple peasants by going to their fan club meetings.

 

[JohnD]

Islam is the one causing the greatest fear in the West.

Fascists like to have an enemy who is different from themselves, who can be blamed for all the ills of the world.

Eighty years ago the scapegoat of choice was Jews.

Today it is more fashionable to blame Muslims.

I wonder who will be next.

 

[Brigadier]

Fascists like to have an enemy who is different from themselves, who can be blamed for all the ills of the world.

Eighty years ago the scapegoat of choice was Jews.

Today it is more fashionable to blame Muslims.

I wonder who will be next.

My current irk is prolific GD posters.
Well, some of them anyway.....

 

[Mfatic]

Using the football team analogy - you seem to be saying that there are several fan clubs who can decide which original rules to keep, which to reject and which to update. At times the fan clubs may fight each other, because of rivalry or for whatever reason one decides.

That seems logical and reasonable - except for the fact that there are no football teams - yet most of the fan club members believe there are football teams even though none of them has ever seen one.

The imaginary teams were invented in the distant past (by the leaders or those who wished to be the leaders) because the simple peasants liked the stories and had to follow the club rules or be banished from the land.

Fantasy football teams?

You said this began in a completely different era. That is true but unfortunately and inexplicably seemingly intelligent people, including a lot of the world's national leaders, still believe in these football teams and still act like simple peasants by going to their fan club meetings.

There are some seemingly intelligent people that hold very strange ideas. I don't seek to excuse them or explain it.
If these national leaders leave their belief outside of politics, then probably no harm is done
I'm not sure so sure that happens. I suspect many political notions are formed from a religious discipline. Maybe some political leaders adopt a religion for convenient reasons.

As I said, there in lies the dichotomy. Politics influences religion and vice-versa.

 

[Mfatic]

Is that the way you read it?

Still dancing?
Perhaps your dancing is illustrative.

 

[Bodd]

Still dancing?
Perhaps your dancing is illustrative.

Hang on a wee minute I recognise you.

Your whats his name arn"t you?

 

[JohnD]

Is he that plumber from Manchester way?

 

[Bodd]

Is he that plumber from Manchester way?

More than likely.

He masquerades as many a person. He won't be the first to make out he's a plumber.

 

[Thomasthepiperson]

I don't think Milshaking is the way forward. Any decent person would respect this.

 

[Mfatic]

Hang on a wee minute I recognise you.
Your whats his name arn"t you?

Is that your metaphorical milkshake?
Used when words have deserted?

I don't think Milshaking is the way forward. Any decent person would respect this.