Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
1 registered (True), 123 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by True
Today at 02:22 AM
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 7
True 1
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#11910 - 09/28/06 10:59 PM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"It does not take into count the 100000 wiccans in texas that i personally know of."

I know you have a bit of a problem with math but what you wrote, above, is impossible to take seriously.

You see there is this thing named google that I use to validate claims. And the reality is far more like this:

The sum of all so-called neo-pagan cults (including Wiccans) in America is 768,400 or 0.28% of the population which is slightly smaller than the sum of all Koreans. And Wiccans are a subset of that. Wicca has been repeatedly reported to represent 0.06% of the US population.

Now maybe there are all located in Texas and are your personal friends but I suspect it far more likely your number is a fabrication and, in any case, 0.06% does not qualify as major no matter what you are counting.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
.
#11911 - 09/29/06 03:23 AM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Again the problem is that because of the Christian predijuce most dont admit to being pagan, at least not to non pagans.

I also did that same google search. you know what i found. the people doing the counting were all christians organizations. Once again how do they know the numbers if the people that they are counting are not willing to tell people who claim wiccans are evil, that they are wiccans. Dont you see the problem there. The ones that are claiming that wicca only represents 0.06 percent are christians. Who do you think would have a better count, an organization that is part of it, or people that tend to lose the people that they are suppose to be counting as uncountable, just because their book tells them that its against their god.

granted its not likely that the population of wiccans is higher than 2 percent, but unless your defining strickly by numbers, then it it a major religion.

(if you check the sites of the people reporting it, many times they state that they dont count children claiming paganism, because they are children. they count christian children though.)

Of the number that live in my home town of amarillo texas, there are only a small fraction that will admit that they are pagan. Part of the reason is that many of them are in politics and that would be political sucide to admit to being non christian.

There are methods other than numbers of determining wheither or not something is major.

also, i know that not all of the members of those organizations are all texans. That was likely a misspeak. While dont know all of them, i do know that many showed up at a pagan event. I believe the number was 100800 something.

another problem with this is that you are only counting the ones in the usa, where it is often dangerous to admit to being pagan. Wicca is a world wide religion and in some of those places its more open.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#11912 - 09/29/06 05:18 PM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"Again the problem is that because of the Christian predijuce most dont admit to being pagan, at least not to non pagans."

Doesn't seem to bother the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, practitioners of Shinto, and numerous other groups.
So your argument is weak. Are you claiming that practitioners of Wicca are more likely to lie than everyone else? Nonsense.

But if it makes you feel better lets assume that 90% of Wicca related inviduals lied. That takes you from 0.06% to 0.6%. Still not major by any definition.

So lets return to the original statement that I made. You will find that, in fact, you can NOT point to any MAJOR religion that doesn't have a problem with female nudity.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#11913 - 09/29/06 07:09 PM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
If your going to go by american numbers there are only three major religions: christian, muslim and judisim. Of course that is by their definition. Somehow i dont see the fact that they are all basically related, as stating that they are the only religions that are major ones. They are just the ones that are of the "in you face" variety. the problem lies in the fact that most pagan, have found that they would lose their jobs and such if they claim to be pagan so we normally claim "other" when asked about are religion or (as i did in the military and when i go to the va hospital) claim to be christian. Few christians have a problem with jews or muslems nor do most of those two have a problem with each other or with christianity. All three on the other hand, see wicca as being the same thing as a satanist. you can get into major arguement with most chistians, muslem, and jews, simply by stating that they are not the same thing.


http://www.iowastatedaily.com/media/stor...astatedaily.com

Quote:
By percentage, Labanca is part of the fastest-growing religion in America. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were only 8,000 Wiccans in 1990. In 2001, that number grew to 134,000. The estimates on the number of people who practice Wicca today range from 500,000 to 13 million across the globe.
i would think that 13 mill world wide would qualify as a major religion.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#11914 - 09/29/06 10:26 PM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
dehammer wrote:
"would think that 13 mill world wide would qualify as a major religion."

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

I don't though you may well have substantiated the possibility that Wiccan's were more likely to be liars.

You quote the 13 million adherents number when the actual statement was: "The estimates on the number of people who practice Wicca today range from 500,000 to 13 million across the globe."

Hang your hat on the biggest number you can find? Why not the smallest? Or the average? As Mark Twain wrote:
"There are three types of liars: Liars, damned liars, and statisticians."
You seem to be bucking for membership in category number 3.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#11915 - 09/30/06 04:23 AM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
Quote:
Originally posted by DA Morgan:
wrote:http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
in case you dont know this is a christian site, one that hardly even counts wiccans. period. look at the small print. they discount the number of children who claim to be of the religion even if they are raised in the religion, because they "must" be claiming it for reason of teenage rebelion.

Quote:
I don't though you may well have substantiated the possibility that Wiccan's were more likely to be liars.

You quote the 13 million adherents number when the actual statement was: "The estimates on the number of people who practice Wicca today range from 500,000 to 13 million across the globe."
let me give you an idea of why. i live near Amarillo, Texas, population: 173,627. the surrounding counties have maybe another 100000, less more likely than more. an average place, with average type people.

every year there are two wiccan events at a local chruch that is pagan friendly. they sell booth space to venders from the area, usually around 15 to 20. the number of visitors is usually in the areas of 200 to 300. Its doubtfull that they have ever had the entire pagan community visit there, likely less than half. many of them will tell you that they dont let others know that they are pagan. you claim that its only 0.06 percent of the population. more than .1 percent of the greater Amarillo area come to these event.

When I was in the military, I claimed to be methodist, since 1) it would have caused trouble if people knew I was wiccan, and 2) I was raised methodist so i could fake it. When I go to the VA hospital, I have learn to never discuss paganism there because there is always trouble. A guy I knew was out, and died because his appoitments kept getting lost, or they would claim he was a no-show, even when he was right in the waiting room. Its dangerous to let people know your name and that you are a wiccan. Ive heard that its the same for Druids.

the world population is 6,547,314,133. .06 percent of that would be 3.9 million. i have a hard time believing that the christian claim that the pagan population of the world is less than a million. if Amarillo's percentage is the norm. it would be closer to the 13 million than a half million.

instead of using the people that persecute wiccans as the guide, why not find a non biased site. I could not find one, all the ones i found were christians or pagan. Show us the much acclaimed (by you) ability to google all relavant facts.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#11916 - 09/30/06 05:49 AM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
You do one of the best jobs of ducking I have ever seen.

You linked to a site that claimed 500K - 13M members and then duck the fact that you, for all to obvious reasons, chose the 13M number.

Strikes me as more than a bit of a statistician there.

And here's another bit of statistical dishonesty. You wrote "if Amarillo's percentage is the norm." when you also note that it is not which is why you live there.

But time to drag you back to the original point yet again. Wicca is NOT a major religion. If it was you wouldn't need to live in Amarillo and members of the cult wouldn't feel the need to lie about their belief system. You don't see Jews claiming to be Lutherans or Shias claiming to be Anglican. Basically you expose the fact that your claim of "major" just isn't. It isn't. Get over it.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#11917 - 09/30/06 08:13 AM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
I dont live near Amarillo because of a cult. Wicca is not a cult, and I lived here before I even knew there were other pagans here. I live here because of family. I have no idea where you get the idea that its not the norm. I certainly did not say so.

Jews have never had christians (nazis were not acting as christians even if they were) say that they should be killed on sight, so why should they pretend they arent Jews. On the other hand, it was not that long ago if christians found some one was a witch, they would use the trail of water the that buy tying a heavy rock to the witches feet and throw them in the lake. If they floated, they were witches and were burned. if they did not float they were just sick minded christians that had been saved.

If Christians would see that you lost your job if they found you were an athiest, do you think you would really have let anyone know. I know people who have lost their jobs, their homes and other stuff because they let their "friends" know they were witches. Of course, once they realise the witch was serious, they were friends anymore.

I know several gay and lesbian witches. they say it is a lot easier to get accepted for being homosexual that being a witch. Of course we dont go around telling people we are witches. We dont want to lose our homes and jobs.

In england where its more acceptable to be a witch there are over 300000 witches. do you really think that the 500000 world wide is plauable when one relatively small country has 60 percent of that number. when a religions numbers in the millions, regardless if the number is 1 million of 50 million, it still is has the right to be considered to be a major one. Just look at scientology, its considered to be a major religion on its own, yet its out numbered in the us by wicca.

Since you refuse to see truths when they are shown to you, go ahead and follow the christian leaders that tell you we are nothing but a handfull of misfits. after all you are a christian no matter what you claim. You listen to them for all their definitions and explination. so you are obviously one.

since there is no way to get through to you the truth, ill let you have the last word and continue to spread the christian teachings.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#11918 - 09/30/06 05:21 PM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
"a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream. Its separate status may come about either due to its novel belief system, because of its idiosyncratic practices or because it opposes the interests of the mainstream culture."

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

And while no doubt you will desparately cling to "recently founded" as an out from being a cult please not the word "often" which indicates that it is not always the case.

No one in a cult ever seems their situation as do others. Your inability to see Wicca as it is perceived by the majority of this planet's inhabitants says everything that needs to be said.

I am terminated my participation in this thread as we are obviously going down a path where you will just put your back up against the wall and that will be totally non-productive. The last word is yours.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#11919 - 10/11/06 04:48 AM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
terrytnewzealand Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/02/06
Posts: 1031
Loc: Whangarei New Zealand
Dehammer and DA you've got away from the point of this post. I understand what the muslim cleric meant. His fear is summed up in the statement:

"The report says Bashir warns that watching such women on television can destroy the faith of a believer."

Ah! there's the rub. No-one to control or make money off if everyone gets too interested in actually living. I agree with dehammer that it is mostly religions derived from Judaism that have a problem with nudity (especially female nudity).

Dehammer you wrote:

"Few christians have a problem with jews or muslems nor do most of those two have a problem with each other or with christianity."

I beg to disagree. The point of most religions is to provide cohesion within a group. By definition they must therefore be exclusive. I was particularly interested in arguments in the US a few years ago. Fundamental Christians had difficulty accepting Muslims and Christians worshipped the same god. I found the argument amusing. All three religions maintain there is only one God (although Christians seem a little confused on the subject). Surely if there is only one God they musy all be worshipping the same one!

Top
#11920 - 11/05/06 07:50 AM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
G'day all,

I missed something here. Polynesian society, historically, has been the least clad societies aside from aboriginals around. Maori's often wore little but New Zealand is cooler and so clothing became a common sense thing. I'm pretty sure that there isn't any research that shows Polynesian society had more rapes than normal or that aboriginals had the most rapes of any traditional society because many tribes had no genital covering at all or the covering actually emphasised rather than hid.

The Polynesian societies became the target of missionaries who told them it was shameful. So where did the problem of believing less clothing is wrong come from? The lack of clothes or the guilt instilled?

Last week a Muslim cleric in Australia (the most senior Mufti in Australia) said that 90% of adultery was the fault of women because the devil gave them the tools to use. He also likened women to meat left out in the street and men to cats that chose to eat the meat. He then asked, ?Is it the fault of the cats for eating the meat, or the person who left the meat uncovered in the street?? Apart from the offensive comparison between women and meat, his argument was that those women that were locked up in there homes, safe behind their hajibs, were protected against rape. Those that went clad in fewer clothes were inviting rape.

Personally I thought what he said was an insult to Muslim men. Obviously they have no ability to control their urges and so naked women are too tempting to avoid committing a sin that the Koran says is punishable by death (providing of course you have four male witnesses to the act itself - now if that's not a get out of jail free card I don't know what is).

If this issue about scantily clad women is right then surely rapes in nudist resorts and communities where nudism is the norm, would be astronomical and rapes in societies where women were covered would be non existent. Having lived in Kuwait and worked in Saudi, the anecdotal evidence that came to me indicated that your chance of being raped in Saudi was very high indeed. Your chance as the perpetrator of being caught was non existent. The "security" and "protection" of women by their isolation actually acts to ensure that the shame of the rape goes to the women. If they do report it, the assumption is they did something wrong. You can actually get prosecuted for reporting a rape in Saudi (or at least you could when I was there).

And goggling at naked or partially clad women, Alnitak, is not quite the same as the sight enticing you to commit a rape.

I don't like billboards with women with little or no clothes or for that matter male models with similar lack of clothing. Not because I find them offensive but because they are erected in positions where they do distract drivers and accidents then happen. That's just common sense that you don't put things near a road that lead to accidents. You also wouldn't stick up on a billboard a really funny joke, or one of those adorable kittens, that is, if you believe that accidents are caused by distraction.

Not much science in here, since no one has brought up any sociological or anthropologic research that supports one position or another, but sometimes freedoms come at a price.

If women were locked up in a small room at all times except when guarded by suitably strong males who themselves somehow could be trusted not to commit rapes, then rapes would not happen. Of course most rapes are by those that are known so the guards would need to be eunuchs to ensure that there was no chance of rape. How about returning to harems, that would keep women safe and sound? Would anyone wish to live in a society like that?

And since we are on the subject of rapes, how about male rapes? Are the men raped responsible because of the clothing they wore? ?It was the 10 year old boy's fault, your honor. He was wearing shorts that were alluring. No one could avoid that much temptation?. ?Of course you were provoked. Case dismissed?.

This one hits home quite personally. I have two female persons close to me that were brutally raped and it happened to me as a child. Out of the three incidents that have effected me very personally, the two women were conservatively dressed. I was wearing a school uniform. It isn't funny when the appalling criminal behaviour happens to someone you love. In the case of one of the women, she had the habit of wearing small bikinis on the beach and was never molested or accosted but if she had been raped at the beach or coming to or from it, even suggesting that the bikini was the cause, is a good way to really increase the odds of a suicide. Being in law enforcement when much younger, I saw this a lot. So the comments about clothing are not just intellectual or something to joke about. To women that have had such experiences it can trigger terrible distress.

I'll finish this with a memory that stuck in my mind for years and still isn't a pleasant memory. I was doing court duty and a 15 year old girl was to give evidence in a pack rape. She was the only one of more than a dozen girls willing to testify. She had already done this two times previously for this particular defendant but because of an overturned conviction and a mistrial, was going to have to do it again. This was in the days before questioning about what you wore was banned in rape cases.

This young girl started to crack up and I called for a women Constable to support her. She had gone through the trauma of giving evidence, I think six times so far (multiple defendants) and each and every time she was mercilessly queried about what she wore and how she wore it and surely she realised that hiking up her school skirt would tend to attract untoward attention. She kept asking: "You're a man. Do you think it really was my fault because I pulled up my skirt? It was wrong, wasn't it? I shouldn't have done it. They raped me because I didn't like the school uniform below the knee. It looked daggy. It really was my fault, isn't it?"

She didn't give evidence and the defendant walked free. Oh, and she had done what every other girl did then at her age. She had rucked up the uniform skirt, that really did look very out of date, probably about 4 inches (100mm). This brought it a little above the knee.

I never did find out what happened to the girl but imagine her trying to live a normal life after all this. I just cannot.


Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#11921 - 11/05/06 08:31 PM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I think research has conclusively proven that that which is forbidden is given heightened value to arouse. That which is openly displayed is not.

Simple proof ... when women were completely covered an exposed ankle was the object of sexual scandal. Walk your way through 20th century dress codes to the bikini. Once they were the height of sexual scandal. Today no one older than 18 or younger than 70 pays much attention.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#11922 - 11/05/06 10:52 PM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
I have to agree. im one of these rare guys that doesnt bother with nude magazines, because i think the womans hair is more entricing that bare boobs (when you live a life style that nudity is not a big deal seeing bare body is nothing). On the other hand, a sexy outfit that doesnt show a thing can be very attractive. I love bikinis, the smaller the better, as long as they are big enough to not actually show anything.

on the other hand, i was taught that a woman should have control over her body, and a man (or another woman) has no rights to it that she does not give. the same for the man is also true.

the moslim leaders are saying in essence, that no one has any rights to their own body, that men as a whole have a right to anything they see. They are also saying that women have only the rights the men give them. this is so totally wrong i could not get started on why.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
#11923 - 11/06/06 12:34 AM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
I'd really like to go just one day without finding something you write offensive. You wrote:

"the moslim leaders are saying in essence, that no one has any rights to their own body"

First of all Islam is a religion and you owe the believers in that faith the respect and courtesy of spelling it correctly and capitalizing it just as you would want them to do when referring to yours.

Secondly not all members of their faith have their collective heads stuffed up their bums. Please do not tar an entire culture and religion with the attitudes of some.

There are plenty of misogynistic people, of all faiths, to go around.

Thank you.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#11924 - 11/06/06 03:38 AM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
RicS Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/26/06
Posts: 310
Loc: Sydney, Australia
G'day Dan,

I too believe in respecting the rights of religion, providing they do not interfere with the rights of others.

To be critical because of poor spelling is not nice at all. And actually, while I capitalise "God" and "Islam" etc because it is the correct convention, if someone doesn't have they done anything except perhaps say that the religion doesn't have to be given a special place by capitalising it.

And you are right that in the Muslim religion there are a great many that do not agree with their leaders but dehammer wasn't talking about all the followers of Islam. He actually did say "leaders" and it is very difficult to find a "leader" of the Muslim religion currently who would say that women are entitled to go nude or where bikinis in any society including those where it is generally acceptable. There was a question in a Muslim newspaper answered by someone that almost universally is considered to be a progressive, tolerant thinker. The question was "Can a women deny sex to her husband". The answer: "No". After a bit of an uproar the answer was modified to "If she is sick, nursing, has a physical problem or wishes to divorce the man then she can refuse." Even the last one actually required that she take the steps to be divorced before she could refuse.

A valid argument can be made as follows: The Koran is rasist, sexist and unsuitable for modern society. The Bible is also racist, sexist and generally unsuitable for modern society.

Those statements can get you jailed in many countries in the world including so called liberal countries. Generally, they breach laws such religious vilification laws. Truth is not an excuse. If you got up in front of a crowd and did nothing but read sections of the Koran to them, you could be jailed in Australia, and I believe the UK. The passages that would be deemed to be inciting religious vilification are things such as you cannot be friends with a Jew or a Christain. In the Bible you have, if a person attempts to persuade you away from your faith kill them. In the Koran, however, you have a great many more passages relating to the rights of women, such as they are able to inherit a fraction of what a male can, they are property, they are inferior.

Why do we "owe" the believers of any faith "respect and courtesy". If you are rude to me, and you certainly are in many posts, does that mean anything other than you should improve your manners? It is good manners to show respect to a culural rite or to a religion. However, you wouldn't see me showing any such respect if I was witnessing genital mutilation of a child because it is part of a culture. I'd object to it. I'd object to an adulterer being stoned to death.

No one says that those that gather outside US jails to chant and protest at executions do not have the right to do so. Actually, the law says they have the absolute right to do so. Same with protesting outside abortion clinics. It is when that protesting becomes harrassment, that the law may be able to act.

By think about it for a moment. Can you see anyone in the US tolerating the protest outside a Mosque or a Evangelistical church? Same applies to Australia and the UK, so I'm not picking on the US here (except the US is the only place that provides a fundamental right to free speach).

The Pope quotes an obscure Muslim scholar and your end up with non Catholic nuns killed and a number of churches (again non catholic) burnt down.

Think about what a cartoon did to Denmark. Wear a quote from the Koran on your clothes or an image said to be of Mohammad in any city in the US and see what happens to you.

This is not a religion of tolerance, either as written in the religious text or even practiced. Neither is fundamental Christains for that matter. Ask the widows and widowers or ophans of abortion clinic doctors how tolerant they think fundamental Christains are.

Sometimes disrepect has its places to. dehammer owed nothing to any particular religion because he is on a science forum. He is not discussing religion with members of a religious faith. And even if he was, I would have thought that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights includes the right to be rude. Society suggests that we should not do so but that certainly isn't a command.

And personally, I don't think dehammer actually meant any offence at all. His spelling and grammer are not the best in any posts. That means nothing by the way, only that he might not be a fast typist, or he has a really crappy computer that keeps on locking up on him and he is trying to get his point across before it is all lost again.

So your little diatribe about taring a culture and the suggestion that dehammer fits the category of misogynistic seems to be based on one word "moslim", not capitalised and not spelt correctly. Wow! Now that is a leap of faith. It really looks like you really wanted to find something to belittle dehammer about. You actually started with:

"I'd really like to go just one day without finding something you write offensive". I would suggest from how much you read into one word that this isn't even close to how your really feel.

Now you are free to attack my take on religion. Mine is not a mistake in grammer. It really is an assertion that the Muslim religion has some very serious problems in a modern society and that even the very liberal interpretations of the religion do not really fit in with Western society. I fear this is going to be a very very big problem in years to come and being respectful now is reasonable to those that deserve it but smacks of Chamberlain's appeasment principals for the rest.

Just how many newspapers in the US stood up for free speech and published the cartoons that started out in Denmark? How many Christain cartoons have you seen? Why the "respect" for one religion and the freedom of speech for the other. Could it be that Christains rarely burn down embassies, kill citizens of countries that print cartoons, and cause riots that kill people? You could argue that this is simple ethical journalism. Knowing what the consequences are likely to be, you refrain from publishing something that will cause those consequences. But really all that shows is that those willing to commit horror and attrocious crimes in the name of their religion dictate what is printed and what is said.

And now we have completely left any suggestion that this is science behind and ventured so far into the politics of religion that to go further may actually be dangerous to the participants. I suggest we end this thread. Mr Morgan you certainly have the right of reply of course.


Regards


Richard
_________________________
Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness

Top
#11925 - 11/06/06 05:19 AM Re: "Nude women more dangerous than bombs," says Muslim cleric
dehammer Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 1089
As i have said before, my spelling is never that great, but esp when im barely awake which is often due to the narcolepsy.

i did not mean any insult to anyone, so the spelling was not big deal. As you might have noticed many times i fail to capitlize . christianity, wicca, judaism, buddhism, druidism or any other religion. considering the things you say about christianity, you really are not in any position to lecture me on rudeness to a religion.

as has been pointed out, this is no longer science. so ill leave the last word to you.
_________________________
the more man learns, the more he realises, he really does not know anything.

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.