Rees-Mogg

Lord Beamish · Post by **Lord Beamish** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:03 am

Rees-Mogg, Marry, Avoid.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:06 am

LBC have a great video on their site of James O'Brien asking a Leave voter the simple question "Which EU law are you most looking forward to losing?". The outcome is predictable.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:06 am

Lord Beamish wrote:Rees-Mogg, Marry, Avoid.

Abort.

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:15 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:LBC have a great video on their site of James O'Brien asking a Leave voter the simple question "Which EU law are you most looking forward to losing?". The outcome is predictable.

Like something you'd see or hear on an Alan Partridge episode! The mobs!

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:21 am

Greenmile wrote:What does the Catholic Church base its teachings on then? Can the Pope just make stuff up that they all then have to follow?

Obviously it's down to interpretation of Holy books, the Old testament, Scripture etc. That's why there are so many different denominations of the church. Islam is the same.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:20 am

JohnMcGreal wrote:Not sure how many times you've listened to his show, HatfieldClaret, but I'd say he very often, almost always asks people with different views to phone in. I wouldn't describe it as a "phone-in if you agree with me show" at all.

He's very good at running rings around people with knuckleheaded views and he regularly destroys people with weak and nonsensical arguments. He's been superb at taking people down on the Brexit issues, which is probably why so many people dislike him.

It's not that he disagrees with knuckleheads that phone in, but the way that he does it when he shuts them down. One may dislike Farage but at least he lets people have their say whether they criticise him or not.

Nawaz recently did O'Brien's show and I was really impressed. Ian Dale lets people speak and uses constructive argument to make his point.

If you disagree with O'Brien you are a total ****, or so he thinks.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:22 am

OMG, Ringo giving me a like. I really must review my politics....

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:10 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Obviously it's down to interpretation of Holy books, the Old testament, Scripture etc. That's why there are so many different denominations of the church. Islam is the same.

The bible, then.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 1:50 pm

Greenmile wrote:The bible, then.

Not necessarily. There are many other source materials other than the Bible.
Even the Bible is not standard. The "Catholic" Bible having 73 books, (6 more than the standard "Anglican" / King James version.)

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:44 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Not necessarily. There are many other source materials other than the Bible.
Even the Bible is not standard. The "Catholic" Bible having 73 books, (6 more than the standard "Anglican" / King James version.)

Like what? I don't know of any Catholic scriptures or holy books that aren't the bible. I'm aware there was a load of stuff that didn't make "the final cut" but that was a decision by the church itself, wasn't it? (the council of Nicene?)

Rowls · Post by **Rowls** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:55 pm

HatfieldClaret wrote:Can't abide that man on LBC; I now need to switch channel when he's on.
Does he let people with opposing views speak yet; when they call in on his "phone-in if you agree with me show" ? Or is he still just telling them they're stupid and giving tedious monologues ?

James O'Brien = the left-wing Richard Littlejohn.

His best quality is his habit of exploding the silly myths that lefties are more caring or better educated.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:24 pm

Greenmile wrote:Like what? I don't know of any Catholic scriptures or holy books that aren't the bible. I'm aware there was a load of stuff that didn't make "the final cut" but that was a decision by the church itself, wasn't it? (the council of Nicene?)

Hi Greenmile,
I don't have time, or inclination (tbh) to get into this, but I'm sure you can do further research yourself, you always seem to be a well-informed and intelligent poster.
As you say, there's loads of "stuff" that didn't make the final cut, and then there's the point that some "sects" don't necessarily include the Old Testament whilst RCs include the extra 6 books. Then, of course, there's the issue of mis-translation / re-translation / interpretation etc.
Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and many American churches, have very different perspectives to RCs - all based on various texts.
As an example there's the Book of Mormon, (put together in the 1830, - I think- but which adherents believe contains writings of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from approximately 2200 BC to AD 421), also the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Essenses, and then - massive - there's the Eastern Orthodox church, whose Bible is different again.
It's also very interesting to compare the Bible with Koran. Much of the "stuff" is the same, but of course, there are massive differences in how it translates into their religion.
Anyway, even though there's no proper football till tomorrow - that's enough!!

claretandy · Post by **claretandy** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 4:41 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:LBC have a great video on their site of James O'Brien asking a Leave voter the simple question "Which EU law are you most looking forward to losing?". The outcome is predictable.

You remind my a lot of him, only a pound shop version.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:13 pm

Rowls wrote:James O'Brien = the left-wing Richard Littlejohn.

His best quality is his habit of exploding the silly myths that lefties are more caring or better educated.

Yes, because James O'Brien regularly drives teachers to suicide.

UpTheClaretsFCBK · Post by **UpTheClaretsFCBK** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:22 pm

I fully support his right to his own opinion but I would feel very uncomfortable and worried for our nation if someone with his views was our Prime Minster. It would make us the second biggest government freak show after America.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:12 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Hi Greenmile,
I don't have time, or inclination (tbh) to get into this, but I'm sure you can do further research yourself, you always seem to be a well-informed and intelligent poster.
As you say, there's loads of "stuff" that didn't make the final cut, and then there's the point that some "sects" don't necessarily include the Old Testament whilst RCs include the extra 6 books. Then, of course, there's the issue of mis-translation / re-translation / interpretation etc.
Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and many American churches, have very different perspectives to RCs - all based on various texts.
As an example there's the Book of Mormon, (put together in the 1830, - I think- but which adherents believe contains writings of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from approximately 2200 BC to AD 421), also the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Essenses, and then - massive - there's the Eastern Orthodox church, whose Bible is different again.
It's also very interesting to compare the Bible with Koran. Much of the "stuff" is the same, but of course, there are massive differences in how it translates into their religion.
Anyway, even though there's no proper football till tomorrow - that's enough!!

I appreciate the reply, and your unwillingness to get into a deep conversation re this issue, but just to clarify things, my original post on this matter was I reply to the following, from Hatfield Claret...

"I don't think he (JRM) was saying he followed the Bible, he was following the teachings of the catholic church. The two aren't necessarily the same...."

As such, I stand by my point.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:26 pm

The Seventh-day Adventist

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:34 pm

Greenmile wrote:I appreciate the reply, and your unwillingness to get into a deep conversation re this issue, but just to clarify things, my original post on this matter was I reply to the following, from Hatfield Claret...

"I don't think he (JRM) was saying he followed the Bible, he was following the teachings of the catholic church. The two aren't necessarily the same...."

As such, I stand by my point.

Obviously neither of us are looking for an argument, but my reply wasn't in response to that post.
The post I replied to was:
"What does the Catholic Church base its teachings on then? Can the Pope just make stuff up that they all then have to follow?"
Now I have read the full context, I can now see how we got slightly at cross purposes, , and I think we are pretty much in full agreement.
Fortunately you're not Ringo, so you'll fully understand that context is everything in a discussion, and things are rarely totally black or white.

Middle-agedClaret · Post by **Middle-agedClaret** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:50 pm

A couple of observations.
1.) As others have noted, JRM gave a clear and direct answer to a question. He is an aware and intelligent man. He will have known the inevitable reaction to his views, and the likely effect on his prospects of leading the Tory party. I think that many politicians would have given a vague/weaselly/opaque answer. He said what he believed. I respect him for that.
2.) I didn't know, prior to this incident, that JRM was a Catholic. If he follows devoutly the beliefs of his religion then he is bound to hold the views he expressed.
3) Why is it apparently inevitable that any mildly contentious subject will become the catalyst for an ill-tempered spat between posters ?

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:25 pm

Socrates wrote:I'm surprised at these people commending Rees-Mogg for his honesty in expressing these prehistoric views.

Firebrand Muslim clerics honestly believe a number of things in the name of their religion. Are we ok with them expressing those views and applauding their honesty?

He's absolutely entitled to his opinion. But I'm also entitled to say that I think his views are abhorrent in this day and age and I find him repugnant.

Bumping this post onto this page because it's the best post in the thread. Nobody would praise the sincerity with which a convicted serial killer held the belief that his victims "deserved it".

Ah, but wait, Spiral, you can't compare JRM with a serial killer.

Nope. I'm not. It's sincerity and honesty we're talking about, right? Not the actual tangible manifestation of those beliefs?

Praising his honesty without regard for how damaging such beliefs actually are is nothing short of a tacit endorsement of his backwards beliefs, which is rather convenient for those (on this thread and elsewhere in real life) who believe gays and lesbians to be second class citizens but lack the logical arguments and balls to actually say it out loud. He's your useful idiot.

As we're probably all aware by now considering Trump, bigots believing they have a friend in the executive branch of government can lead to a lot of serious problems.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:40 pm

Socrates wrote:I'm surprised at these people commending Rees-Mogg for his honesty in expressing these prehistoric views.

Firebrand Muslim clerics honestly believe a number of things in the name of their religion. Are we ok with them expressing those views and applauding their honesty?

He's absolutely entitled to his opinion. But I'm also entitled to say that I think his views are abhorrent in this day and age and I find him repugnant.

Personally i don't have a problem with Muslims expressing their views, if that is what they believe, it is preferable to violence and terrorism,the issue with some of the Muslim clerics, is their reticence to condemn terrorist acts and organised sexual abuse, that mainly stem from a misguided understanding of Islam.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:19 am

Greenmile wrote:Not being opposed to something doesn't make you in favour of it. These things are not as binary as you're making out. You're making it sound like pro-choicers are forcing unwanted abortions on people.

And if you think it's undisputed that human life begins at conception, you've been reading the wrong books. General scientific consensus (and I accept I may have painted this as more "settled" science than it is, perhaps) is somewhere between 14 and 21 weeks.

If you were right on this latter point, how would you define "conception" anyway? When the sperm breaches the wall of the ovum? When it fertilises the egg? When the DNA merge? When the embryo is formed? You see, it's not as simple as you may think.

I'm not saying that you are actively looking to abort babies, just that you agree in principle that there's nothing wrong with it.

Anyway, that's not the big point. You say that a baby/foetus becomes human at somewhere between 14 and 21 weeks. But I'm pretty sure that the point of stem cell treatment and other cell treatments was that cells come from embryos, whether fertilized or not, and those cells are human cells. Are you suggesting that if you take a (say) 15-week foetus and take some cells from it, there is a scientific test that will determine whether those cells are human cells or whether they come from some other, non-human, creature?

No, there isn't. Foetus cells are human, even before fertilization. An unborn foetus is a human being, whether you like it or not. All those expectant mothers looking at ultrasound pictures aren't just deluding themselves - it really is a developing human being in there.

I'm not expecially trying to make you change your mind about abortion. What I'm hoping for is that you can try and see the point of view of people who oppose abortion. To some of us, abhorrent though you might think it is,. an unborn baby is a life worth keeping.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:43 am

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

The definition of free speech.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:17 am

dsr wrote:I'm not saying that you are actively looking to abort babies, just that you agree in principle that there's nothing wrong with it.

Anyway, that's not the big point. You say that a baby/foetus becomes human at somewhere between 14 and 21 weeks. But I'm pretty sure that the point of stem cell treatment and other cell treatments was that cells come from embryos, whether fertilized or not, and those cells are human cells. Are you suggesting that if you take a (say) 15-week foetus and take some cells from it, there is a scientific test that will determine whether those cells are human cells or whether they come from some other, non-human, creature?

No, there isn't. Foetus cells are human, even before fertilization. An unborn foetus is a human being, whether you like it or not. All those expectant mothers looking at ultrasound pictures aren't just deluding themselves - it really is a developing human being in there.

I'm not expecially trying to make you change your mind about abortion. What I'm hoping for is that you can try and see the point of view of people who oppose abortion. To some of us, abhorrent though you might think it is,. an unborn baby is a life worth keeping.

Ive read this a few times and honestly have no idea what you mean. What's an unfertilised embryo? Why would the cells not be human? are you trying to suggest any collection of living human cells = a human life?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:18 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

The definition of free speech.

Should that apply to Abu Hamza, for example?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:44 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

The definition of free speech.

Also RingoMcCartney wrote:"There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights." Imploding Turtle January 2017

You should be taken in for questioning.

You should be on a watch list at the very least.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:57 am

dsr wrote:I'm not saying that you are actively looking to abort babies, just that you agree in principle that there's nothing wrong with it.

Anyway, that's not the big point. You say that a baby/foetus becomes human at somewhere between 14 and 21 weeks. But I'm pretty sure that the point of stem cell treatment and other cell treatments was that cells come from embryos, whether fertilized or not, and those cells are human cells. Are you suggesting that if you take a (say) 15-week foetus and take some cells from it, there is a scientific test that will determine whether those cells are human cells or whether they come from some other, non-human, creature?

No, there isn't. Foetus cells are human, even before fertilization. An unborn foetus is a human being, whether you like it or not. All those expectant mothers looking at ultrasound pictures aren't just deluding themselves - it really is a developing human being in there.

I'm not expecially trying to make you change your mind about abortion. What I'm hoping for is that you can try and see the point of view of people who oppose abortion. To some of us, abhorrent though you might think it is,. an unborn baby is a life worth keeping.

He said 'human life' not human, there's a huge difference. On the basis of your argument anyone who throws away their toe nail clippings is a mass murderer!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:05 am

Conservatives: Human life is sacred and shouldn't be aborted.
Also Conservatives: Child benefit cap on two kids! Why should we have to pay for your kids' food?

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:15 am

tiger76 wrote:Personally i don't have a problem with Muslims expressing their views, if that is what they believe, it is preferable to violence and terrorism,the issue with some of the Muslim clerics, is their reticence to condemn terrorist acts and organised sexual abuse, that mainly stem from a misguided understanding of Islam.

Do you understand Islam better than Islamic clerics?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:19 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Do you understand Islam better than Islamic clerics?

Do you?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... don-attack" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:33 am

Greenmile wrote:Should that apply to Abu Hamza, for example?

Yes. But if what Abu Hamza says, breaks the law, he should be dealt with accordingly.

Rees Mogg hasn't broken the law by saying what he said.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:35 am

Greenmile wrote:Do you?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... don-attack" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You honestly think the Guardian didn't look long and hard for that particular spin?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrx6FL_0iCI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDLVbQxhiQQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enkbVfimrYo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSzSTd3kN3E" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vev-OzHQy94" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_6wEZJT9dM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuG2lOowXjE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgrc1QIDLOo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Took me about 5 minutes. All are Imams and preachers who have devoted their lives to their holy book and understand it a lot better than some trendy liberal in London devoted to improving Islamic PR.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:39 am

[quote="Imploding Turtle"][/quote]

"There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights." Imploding Turtle January 2017.

You should have had a large banner knocked up, with your disgraceful statement, and displayed it outside the Manchester Arena last night.

I reckon you'd have lasted...........

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:46 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:You honestly think the Guardian didn't look long and hard for that particular spin?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrx6FL_0iCI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDLVbQxhiQQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enkbVfimrYo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSzSTd3kN3E" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vev-OzHQy94" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_6wEZJT9dM" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuG2lOowXjE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgrc1QIDLOo" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Took me about 5 minutes. All are Imams and preachers who have devoted their lives to their holy book and understand it a lot better than some trendy liberal in London devoted to improving Islamic PR.

You've missed my point, of course, which was that not all Islamic clerics have identikit beliefs on terrorism etc, in the same way that not all Catholics share the beliefs of JRM. Do you deny this?

Your post amounts to a "no true Scotsman" argument.

Do you think the Guardian had to "look long and hard" for what was presumably a press release from The Muslim Council of Britain (amongst others)? Really??

PS I haven't clicked on any of your YouTube links.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:53 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:Yes. But if what Abu Hamza says, breaks the law, he should be dealt with accordingly.

Rees Mogg hasn't broken the law by saying what he said.

So you'll "defend to the death" my right to free speech, as long as no one gets the law involved? Glad you have the courage of your convictions on this one.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:59 am

martin_p wrote:He said 'human life' not human, there's a huge difference. On the basis of your argument anyone who throws away their toe nail clippings is a mass murderer!

No, because toenails clippings aren't alive. That's a bit thick of you, frankly. A human being needs to be human, and it needs to be alive. There are two questions with an unborn child - is it human, and is it alive. I think yes on both counts. People who support the principle of abortion must, by definition, do so on the basis of EITHER it's not a human being, OR it's a human being but there's not a problem with killing it.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:02 am

RingoMcCartney wrote: "There is no limit to the number of terrorists I'd rather commit atrocities than have us abandon the principle of human rights." Imploding Turtle January 2017.

You should have had a large banner knocked up, with your disgraceful statement, and displayed it outside the Manchester Arena last night.

I reckon you'd have lasted...........

You don't give a **** about the victims beyond the extent to which you can use their suffering.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:07 am

Greenmile wrote:You've missed my point, of course, which was that not all Islamic clerics have identikit beliefs on terrorism etc, in the same way that not all Catholics share the beliefs of JRM. Do you deny this?

Your post amounts to a "no true Scotsman" argument.

Do you think the Guardian had to "look long and hard" for what was presumably a press release from The Muslim Council of Britain (amongst others)? Really??

PS I haven't clicked on any of your YouTube links.

I know, didn't expect you to in all honesty.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:10 am

dsr wrote:No, because toenails clippings aren't alive. That's a bit thick of you, frankly. A human being needs to be human, and it needs to be alive. There are two questions with an unborn child - is it human, and is it alive. I think yes on both counts. People who support the principle of abortion must, by definition, do so on the basis of EITHER it's not a human being, OR it's a human being but there's not a problem with killing it.

I bite my cuticles - they are composed of living cells. Your understanding of the basic science here seems way off. Something can be made up of "human" cells and be alive without being a human being. Sperm for example. Am I murdering millions every time I use a condom, in your opinion?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:11 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I know, didn't expect you to in all honesty.

Just as I didn't expect you to address my argument.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:32 am

On the one hand you've got Muslim groups representing mullions upon million of muslims condemning every single terrorist attack that ever happens and is attributed to a Muslim. And on the other hand you've got Moffit and his 8 youtube links.

My problem with people like you Moffitt isn't that you hate Islam, i hate Islam too, my problem with people like you is that you use Islam to hate Muslims. You view the Koran as a literal document and take a literalist view of it, just like how many of the people in those YouTube links i didn't fully watch take it, and you use their literalist interpretation of the Koran to smear anyone who holds the Koran to be their holy book regardless of what their personal beliefs are. And yet you don't do this for any other religion.

Just recently we had a prominent UK politician express the opinion that women shoudl be forced to carry their rapist's baby to term and here's what you had to say about that particular expression of religious extremism -

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I usually don't like overtly-Religious people in high office, but for the sheer amount of pure rage he is causing the snowflake scene, I would vote fro him as PM.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:38 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:On the one hand you've got Muslim groups representing mullions upon million of muslims condemning every single terrorist attack that ever happens and is attributed to a Muslim. And on the other hand you've got Moffit and his 8 youtube links.

My problem with people like you Moffitt isn't that you hate Islam, i hate Islam too, my problem with people like you is that you use Islam to hate Muslims. You view the Koran as a literal document and take a literalist view of it, just like how many of the people in those YouTube links i didn't fully watch take it, and you use their literalist interpretation of the Koran to smear anyone who holds the Koran to be their holy book regardless of what their personal beliefs are. And yet you don't do this for any other religion.

Just recently we had a prominent UK politician express the opinion that women shoudl be forced to carry their rapist's baby to term and here's what you had to say about that particular expression of religious extremism -

Thing is he didn't say that women should be forced, did he? He said that in his opinion, women should respect "life" but women can an should be free to do as their personal values see fit. I don't agree with his personal opinion, but so long as it only ever remains that, a personal opinion. Then there is no issue.

And I don't know what you are on about I use Islam to hate muslims? If Islam had a revolution tomorrow, and suddenly violence in its name, oppression, extreme forms of bigotry and totalitarianism all suddenly just stopped. Or at least sat more on a level with the type of crap with come to expect from your average Christians. Do you honestly think I would still hate Islam? I focus on it because it is way worse a threat than any other religion or ideology in my opinion at the moment, not because I hate muslims...

If Islam had a revolution tomorrow, nobody would be happier than me.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:42 am

"You view the Koran as a literal document and take a literalist view of it...." - As do Muslims, they are the words of the prophet.

".....you use their literalist interpretation of the Koran to smear anyone who holds the Koran to be their holy book regardless of what their personal beliefs are. ...." - a Muslims personal beliefs are those of the prophet.

"And yet you don't do this for any other religion." - The Bible was not contemporaneously written as the Koran was. The Bible is from many authors and hundreds of years after Christ...... etc etc

I lived in the Middle East for 14 years and I respect Islam, but get it right IT.

And no, I'm not going to argue with you all day, there's gardening to do and I need to re-arrange my sock draw. Then there's summat else going on this afternoon for which I intend meeting a friend (remember them?), albeit of a different political persuasion, and enjoying a pint or 2 together in front of a big screen with a bit of friendly banter.

TTFN old chap.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 10:44 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Thing is he didn't say that women should be forced, did he? He said that in his opinion, women should respect "life" but women can an should be free to do as their personal values see fit.I don't agree with his personal opinion, but so long as it only ever remains that, a personal opinion. Then there is no issue.

And I don't know what you are on about I use Islam to hate muslims? If Islam had a revolution tomorrow, and suddenly violence in its name, oppression, extreme forms of bigotry and totalitarianism all suddenly just stopped. Or at least sat more on a level with the type of crap with come to expect from your average Christians. Do you honestly think I would still hate Islam? I focus on it because it is way worse a threat than any other religion or ideology in my opinion at the moment, not because I hate muslims...

If Islam had a revolution tomorrow, nobody would be happier than me.

Link?

claretspice · Post by **claretspice** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:18 am

The Koran was written down and began being presumed in the generation after Mohammed died, much like the gospels and teaching of jesus (to the extent you believe in either). So im not sure why you'd argue that the Koran has to be interpreted utterly literally when today most christians take a pretty pragmatic view of much of the teaching ascribed to jesus.

But anyway, to Rees Mogg. Any liberal would defend his right to hold offence views and he certainly shouldn't be banned from holding them. But the fact theyre honestly held is a pretty poor trade for the fact that theyre views which anyone with an iota of respect for women ought to find repugnant and theyve no more place in public life in the uk than those of fundamentalist islamists.

There's just been a series on TV (The Handmaid's Tale) imagining a dystopian world on which fundamentalist christian conservatives have seized power. Thats all fiction, but Rees Moggs views on women are alarmingly close to the ones imagined in that book. It should scare us all he's being touted as a possible prime minister.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:21 am

claretspice wrote:...
There's just been a series on TV (The Handmaid's Tale) imagining a dystopian world on which fundamentalist christian conservatives have seized power. Thats all fiction, but Rees Moggs views on women are alarmingly close to the ones imagined in that book. It should scare us all he's being touted as a possible prime minister.

Yeah, but Corbyn wants to privatise the railways so, you know, they're they same.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:40 am

Imploding Turtle wrote: You don't give a **** about the victims beyond the extent to which you can use their suffering.

As you well know, I prefer not to engage with idiots as they only lower you down to their level and beat you with experience.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:47 am

Greenmile wrote:So you'll "defend to the death" my right to free speech, as long as no one gets the law involved? Glad you have the courage of your convictions on this one.

If you want to continue to pretend that there's no difference in what Abu Hamza is likely to say, and Rees Mogg expressing his legitimate opinion. That's absolutely fine.

But I'll politely decline joining you down that particular rabbit hole.

There's a game on in less than a couple of hours you know!

Give my regards to Alice

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:50 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:If you want to continue to pretend that there's no difference in what Abu Hamza is likely to say, and Rees Mogg expressing his legitimate opinion. That's absolutely fine.

But I'll politely decline joining you down that particular rabbit hole.

There's a game on in less than a couple of hours you know!

Give my regards to Alice

It's not really freedom of speech if it depends on what the speaker is likely to say, is it?

What you meant to say is that you'll defend my free speech rights to the death as long as I'm not a Muslim.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:52 am

RingoMcCartney wrote:As you well know, I prefer not to engage with idiots as they only lower you down to their level and beat you with experience.

You could always report me to the police again.