• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

London's new mayor says sexy ads gotta go

By passing an ordinance? Like the ones that stop us from displaying cigarette ads or loudly drilling your mom before 7am.
 
vadimivich said:
I support anyone's right to believe whatever religion (or politics) they want - no matter how racist, bigoted, sexist or offensive I find out.

Where I start to have a problem is when they attempt to enforce those viewpoints on the rest of society via legislation (or the avoidance of legislation). That goes for Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn who remove bicycle lanes off the street every time they are painted because they don't want to see girls in shorts riding through their parts of town, Christians who won't serve people because God told them not to or Muslims who throw people from the roof to their deaths because they might be gay, hijack planes full of innocent civilians and fly them into buildings full of other innocent civilians by design and walk into night clubs and shoot over a hundred people for potentially being gay.
Click to expand...

Edited for context.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Edited for context.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here condones any violence in the name of any religion, anywhere.

That also does not mean I do not, and will continue to, respect anyone's wish to worship in whatever way they choose or to believe whatever they want. I will ridicule them, campaign against them and fight in the arena of politics to keep those beliefs limited to houses of worship. I will not however condone any situation whereby we as the greater society begin to exclude members of that society solely on the basis of their professed beliefs (i.e - I accept this means we have things such as a National Socialist White People's Party, crazy Imam's who call to burn the whole country to the ground, pastors who pray for the President's death and God only knows what else levels of hate and lunacy in the name of religion).

We are a nation and culture of laws. What you believe is sacrosanct, and we only oversee it when it steps outside of worship and into the greater circle of society. In which case it is dealt with by our existing structure of laws based on the ACTION you took, not the belief behind it (and yes, I find the concept of "hate" crimes to be absurd for this reason).

I currently live in a country which does not view these basic civil rights in the same way. Political parties can be outlawed here (and are) as well as effectively some religious practices. I find it quite bothersome and it is one of the things that marks me out most distinctly as an American.
 
I understand what you're saying. Sure, ALL RELIGIONS have bad elements (and most have good elements, it's worth pointing out).

Some of them don't bake the right people a wedding cake, others throw gay people to their deaths, car bomb pizza joints and shoot up magazines because they don't like the pictures they draw. Tomato, to-mah-toe. The take-home here is that all religions are equally bad and that you can't judge.
 
Pat Robertson suggested that a Christian should let the gays and Muslims kill each other. Seems like a step closer to throwing people to their deaths than denying someone a cake.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I understand what you're saying. Sure, ALL RELIGIONS have bad elements (and most have good elements, it's worth pointing out).

Some of them don't bake the right people a wedding cake, others throw gay people to their deaths, car bomb pizza joints and shoot up magazines because they don't like the pictures they draw. Tomato, to-mah-toe. The take-home here is that all religions are equally bad and that you can't judge.
Click to expand...

Who wants to tell this guy about The Troubles?
 
DeaconSig said:
Pat Robertson suggested that a Christian should let the gays and Muslims kill each other. Seems like a step closer to throwing people to their deaths than denying someone a cake.
Click to expand...

One has to wonder, given Robertson's perspective, which one is his friend?
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Who wants to tell this guy about The Troubles?
Click to expand...

Listen, you don't have to convince me. All religions are exactly the same. I'm all in on this tenant of secular faith. I can hardly tell them apart. Pat Robertson's words are completely the same as the Brussels actions. Also, BUT THE CRUSADES!!!!!11111
 
jhmd2000 said:
I understand what you're saying. Sure, ALL RELIGIONS have bad elements (and most have good elements, it's worth pointing out).

Some of them don't bake the right people a wedding cake, others throw gay people to their deaths, car bomb pizza joints and shoot up magazines because they don't like the pictures they draw. Tomato, to-mah-toe. The take-home here is that all religions are equally bad and that you can't judge.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think all religions are equally bad - some I find far more offensive, violent, disruptive and objectionable than others.

I just believe that people have the right to believe what hateful garbage they want, and our legal system should not be involved in any way until they act on those hateful beliefs.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Listen, you don't have to convince me. All religions are exactly the same. I'm all in on this tenant of secular faith. I can hardly tell them apart. Pat Robertson's words are completely the same as the Brussels actions. Also, BUT THE CRUSADES!!!!!11111
Click to expand...

 
vadimivich said:
No, I don't think all religions are equally bad - some I find far more offensive, violent, disruptive and objectionable than others.

I just believe that people have the right to believe what hateful garbage they want, and our legal system should not be involved in any way until they act on those hateful beliefs.
Click to expand...

Which is the law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism, isn't it?
 
jhmd2000 said:
Which is the law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes. Where I disagree with much of the rhetoric is the "ban group XYZ" or other such tactics, where we are taking action against people solely on the basis of their beliefs or their speech, and not based on any actions they have taken. Or to take that a step further, this idea that we should somehow declare war on a specific religion on a global scale (as if that was even possible).

We need a strong, effective law enforcement strategy for dealing with terrorism that does not cut away the core of who we are (the concepts of freedom of religion and expression cannot be violated in the process).
 
vadimivich said:
Yes. Where I disagree with much of the rhetoric is the "ban group XYZ" or other such tactics, where we are taking action against people solely on the basis of their beliefs or their speech, and not based on any actions they have taken. Or to take that a step further, this idea that we should somehow declare war on a specific religion on a global scale (as if that was even possible).

We need a strong, effective law enforcement strategy for dealing with terrorism that does not cut away the core of who we are (the concepts of freedom of religion and expression cannot be violated in the process).
Click to expand...

I respect the thoughtful nature of your posts, but that last sentence is skrong on platitudes and low on results. I didn't expect you to advocate for a weak, ineffective law enforcement strategy that undercut who we are as a country; the question is what does that look like? Waiting for the next terrorism attack and pretending to be totally surprised when the attacker turns out to be Islamic, followed by a finger-wagging lecture about nomenclature to your domestic political opponents isn't working.

If the thought is, "We feel so badly about treating these attacks a religiously motivated that we're going to actively avoid (at the very least, geographic) profiling in our strong, effective law enforcement strategy", then the people that advocate for that are not making a very different compromise than the people who say "I'm comfortable with mass shootings so that nobody infringes on my right to own a gun." (Invariably other people's) Lives in exchange for a principle.

As a person who owns several guns, I'm willing to trade a small amount of the range of my choices for the freedom of others. I'm also at the point where it is reasonable---from a national defense perspective and not from a law enforcement perspective---to screen and monitor international communications and international travelers for potential ties to terrorism.
 
sadiq-khan-segregation-640x480.png

London Mayor Sadiq Khan gave a speech in Manchester on behalf of the EU ‘Remain’ campaign, with women noticeably absent from the front of the crowd.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/06/16/women-sent-back-khan-remain-speech/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top