1. Saudi Arabia Bans Dog Walking in Capital

Comment #230555 by ricky173 on August 14, 2008 at 9:30 pm

kkelly:

You just reminded me of the Ali G. classic when interviewing the animal rights professors:

"what if...I put a Big Mac 'ere...or a chicken McNugget..would you eat it?...or if I paid you a hundreds squid?...what if I said ere's a chicken and if you don't eat it I'll kill another chicken!!"

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=aN38gHinXWo

Haha absolute classic!

2. Saudi Arabia Bans Dog Walking in Capital

Comment #230113 by ricky173 on August 14, 2008 at 9:37 am

Great Teapot:

There is nothing moral or righteous about not eating meat.

Vegetarianism on the basis of morality is absurd. However, much the same as religion, it becomes morally bankrupt when it is imposed on one's children.

We have evolved to be omnivorous, lions and tigers to be carnivorous and cows to be herbivorous. Morality doesn't figure in evolution.

End of argument.

3. Saudi Arabia Bans Dog Walking in Capital

Comment #228570 by ricky173 on August 12, 2008 at 8:00 am

I'm in Thailand at the mo. In a small village just outside Chaiyaphum, a van visits regularly. Crammed inside this van are loads of dogs looking fairly sorry for themselves. On top of the van are lots of wicker baskets for steaming 'sticky rice'. As this van cruises the small streets, the passenger rings a hand bell. Not being able to make the connection, I enquired as to the fate of these poor beasts. I was reliably informed that anyone who wishes to give away one of their 'stray' dogs is given a new sticky rice steaming basket in return. This van then travels to a region of Thailand where dog is eaten as a delicacy!

This doesn't actually cause me any problems. I can't see the difference between eating pigs, cows or dogs. I guess that it is just a difference in culture. They also love eating fried roaches, ants, beetles...in fact you name it and they eat it. Good for them I say!

4. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204925 by ricky173 on July 6, 2008 at 7:49 am

Splitter!!

5. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204918 by ricky173 on July 6, 2008 at 7:24 am

Rachel:

Yes....but what ARE the principles of Sharia Law that Phillips is referring to? And as 'Apathy Personified' above asks when would they be preferable to any other non - Sharia mediation?

Can you give an example to help me get this straight in my head?

I was always under the impression that the principles of Sharia are: theocracy taking precedence over democracy; men being superior to women; homosexuality being an abomination; denial of individual autonomy etc.

If there is a different list of principles, I am not aware of them and need enlightening. Please help.

6. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204904 by ricky173 on July 6, 2008 at 6:16 am

Fanusi

I totally agree with your sentiments...

However he did phrase it in a weasel like way by adding the caveat that anything he was advocating had to be within the confines of UK law. Basically outlawing parts of Sharia that are misogynistic, homophobic, barbaric etc. which are all prohibited under UK law i.e. MOST OF IT!!

He also said it was misunderstood...which is total bollocks.

7. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204888 by ricky173 on July 6, 2008 at 4:52 am

Comment #204883 by Fanusi Khiyal on July 6, 2008 at 4:26 am

Wait a second - this discussion is about the introduction of Shariah law, and we can't use the term Shariah? By what standard does that make sense?

This is about the use of Shariah - in whatever format - amongst Muslim populations. Yes, it's an unpleasant term, but that is because Shariah is an unpleasant thing. Because some knuckledraggers will 'use this wrongly' or whatever, we should avoid clarity and accuracy?

I am reminded of how superstition ridden people in the Middle Ages wouldn't name the Devil, for fear that he would appear. Seriously - do you think that if we do not discuss this, it will dissapear?

I find myself baffled.

Fanusi, you've totally missed my point.

Of course I wasn't saying that we can't use the term Sharia in a post all about Sharia???

What I was saying is that there will be a *justified* backlash from people like you and I if the term Sharia is introduced by a man of such standing; in the context of it having *any type* of legal influence within the UK.

My point was that *Phillips* should be more careful in the use of *his* language; if all he was advocating is that which Rachel Holmes and Eric Blair summarise.

I personally don't think this likely however and am more inclined to believe that Phillips knew exactly the reaction he was going to get - especially after witnessing the response Williams received saying a very similar thing.

8. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204879 by ricky173 on July 6, 2008 at 3:45 am

Comment #204666 by Eric Blair

There was really no need to state the obvious, or make it sound like existing alternatives only applied to Muslims, as this may have created false "hope" for fundamentalist Muslims and a false issue for those who oppose them.

I agree, too, that many comments on this thread are drifting - or being pushed - away from fact to paranoia

The use of language is very important in all of this. The term "Sharia" comes with a lot of baggage and stigma attached. If you strip away the misogyny, homophobia and use of violence contained within the Sharia, you are left with a skeleton that bears little resemblance to what you started with. Therefore, as with other terms that come with baggage - such as "coloureds" when referring to a race of people with dark skin - the term should be avoided at all costs. *EDIT - In the context which Phillips was using it - END EDIT*

If all that Phillips was advocating is the use of culturally based guidelines for mediating disputes or creating agreements strictly within the framework of UK law, then he should have limited his comments to just that. By introducing the term Sharia, he is guaranteed a backlash from rational freethinkers who know exactly what Sharia really means.

To object to Sharia in any guise is as far from paranoia as you can get. It is a repugnant set of rules that we should repudiate at all costs and in as stern a tone as we can muster!

Phillips is a very intelligent individual and doesn't need well intentioned people to interpret what he 'really' meant. He knew full well what he was saying and shame on him for doing so.

9. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204263 by ricky173 on July 4, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Comment #204230 by Rachel Holmes on July 4, 2008 at 12:55 pm

And yes, if racist BNP types want to settle a dispute by asking the biggest thug among them to give his verdict, why not? The fact that Lord Phillips would never say this indicates how pointless and misguided his statement was, though

Why wouldn't Lord Phillips say this? Is it because Islamic Sharia Law is any less bigoted than the racism of the BNP? Or is it simply because once again religious values are accorded undue respect automatically?

If I can quote Styrer's concise description: "This morally bankrupt, female-fearing, female-hating, human-demeaning cult's practices" make the racist mandate of the BNP look positively tame in comparison.

© James Arlandson
Islam commands that drinkers and gamblers should be whipped
Islam allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
Islam allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge; physical eye for physical eye.
Islam commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off
Islam commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated
Islam commands that homosexuals must be executed
Islam orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
Islam orders death for Muslim and possible death for non-Muslim critics of Muhammad and the Quran and even Sharia itself.
Islam orders apostates to be killed.
Islam commands offensive and aggressive and unjust jihad

10. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204223 by ricky173 on July 4, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Comment #204199 by mrjonno on July 4, 2008 at 11:30 am

More right wing drivel.

People should be aware that in a civil dispute people can use any set of rules that is agreed by the 2 people involved and that does not go against the law of the land

Yes that does include the Koran

It can also include a pasta eating competion in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or who can balance the God Delusion on their head for as long as possible

Mrjonno, I sympathise somewhat with your comment above, but only in so far as I think that comments like "If you don't like our countrie's laws then go away - we didn't force you to come here" don't add anything to an enlightened debate.

Where you and I part company, however, is that I find it appalling that a man of such standing can advocate using a set of misogynistic, homophobic and violent rules to mediate any dispute in the UK. Would it be "right wing drivel" to criticise Lord Phillips if he said in public forum that it was acceptable to use a BNP representative to mediate between a couple of racist Neo-Nazis?

Unfortunately such "tolerance" is widespread among the politically correct left of the UK and is in my opinion left wing drivel.

Remember "Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice"

11. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190628 by ricky173 on June 9, 2008 at 9:55 am

The simplest proof (yet one that no atheist has ever been able to counter effectively) is that a universe of this size and magnitude does not somehow build itself, just as a set of encyclopedias doesn't write itself or form randomly from the spill of a massive inkblot.

He may have a point here.... If one curls a large one onto a computer keyboard, how on earth does it mutate into an article such as this? I'm mystified??

12. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177657 by ricky173 on May 9, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Cardinal Murphy O'Connor - The man's an anathema.

13. The OUT Campaign has its own Flea!

Comment #106902 by ricky173 on January 3, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Steve Zara wrote:

As a gay man, I actually find this offensive. I had no objection to Dawkins basing his approach on the gay "out" campaign, because of the oppression of atheists by religion was undeniable.

Geoff:

I understand your motives are good, but I am not sure I am really comfortable with that. Being gay and abusing young boys is not the same! Sorry to make a fuss, but... "out" does have that gay association.

Steve, whilst I fully concur that this new approach from the Christian lobby is laughable at best, I was unable to square the principle of the right to free speech - to offend and to be offended - with your whine of 'taking offence' and not being 'comfortable' with Geoff's irony. After all it is the suppression of our right to 'offend' that is stultifying the necessary challenge to religious dogma, particularly Islam, in Western Europe at present.

For a quick refresher about what I'm talking about please see Christopher Hitchen's (PBUH) brilliant free speech lecture:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/03/free_speech_6.html