₦airaland Forum

Joshthefirst: you used sperm cells as examples. A sperm cell is not a developing human being. A zygote is a developing human being.

Abortion also happens in nigeria too. Its just hidden and not legalized.

Why in the world do you consider a zygote a developing human being whilst ignoring the fact that sperm cells are precisely the same thing?

And also, note your language, developing human being. In other words, they are not human beings yet, yes?

Joshthefirst: the sperm is alive in the same way a cell from your esophagus is alive.
I know where this going.

You do? Then exactly what is wrong with what I posted, genius?

Joshthefirst: a sperm cell is a cell genius. Its when it fuses that it becomes a zygote.

Well, oh learned one, are you saying sperm isn't.....alive??

Another senseless, foo.lish appeal to emotions from your ever insightful mind. Where do you see babies being killed? Could you try to keep your nonsense out of politics?


Anyways, the numbers are far greater than that

http://www.livescience.com/32437-why-are-250-million-sperm-cells-released-during-sex.html

livescience: In fact, the average male will produce roughly 525 billion sperm cells over a lifetime and shed at least one billion of them per month. A healthy adult male can release between 40 million and 1.2 billion sperm cells in a single ejaculation.

Just imagine, how many lives do you end every time you bathe? Hitler has nothing on you..

Lordlexyy: You are not the only one. It happens to almost all the athiest i know of, even those that claim they were athiest from birth that never tasted the God factor before. Isn't this accidental discharge or release, whatever you call it a clear sign that some how we hail from God? But offcourse, as usual, anything that point to God's existence with an athiest will always have an explanation no matter how sketchy to remain defencive of their belief. But isn't it amazing, how the scripture written thousand of years continue to confirm and to update us with proof of its content with respect to the disbelief and malignment that the body of Christ is currently facing. Personaly, i am the least unsurprise when someone wakes up one morning and claim there's no God and that all things including my seat of logic, imagination, thoughts came by what.........i don't know. No Child of God either should be surprise or cast aspersion on them. Their outburst is a fulfillment of the scripture. They make the scripture complete.

Every time you use the lord's name in vain, like say when you use 'god damn!', I suppose you mean it then?

rationalmind: Alfa, I'm confused myself n I'm not a christian. Can molestation be immoral and the intent behind it moral? How can the intent be moral? Maybe you help me explain it better.

My take on it, as already pointed out by alfa, xtians consider the ra.pe in the bible good, no?

Their intentions honest, another example of religious beliefs making otherwise 'good' (but there's no such thing as absolute good, never will be) people do bad things. Actually, only sociopaths don't have honest intentions, but even their actions could be justified depending on the value system, and value systems are subjective.

Most of those brides forced into marriage, say amongst say muslims and their child brides, they don't exactly get in se.x with gusto. The intentions of the 'legal' ra.pist (aka husband) are honest though, no?

Or even say political reasons, you ever seen GOT? Tyrion, the dwarf, should have gone on and ra.ped, more or else, his sweet 13 year old bride on their wedding night. It would have been the sensible thing to do in order to protect his and his family's legacy*. And that $hit was common practice through the middle ages, you don't even want to get started on say japan. You had to tear the leather in order to forge blood bonds. As tyrion didn't consummate the marriage, he might have now caused the death of thousands lives in war.

etc etc


* Indeed, he was a bit of a hypocrite there with not rap.ing her, as he more or else ra.pes someone else later...oops, spoiler? Not really, nothing major. A side note many don't even notice, and guess what? He still remains a staunch favorite after it's pointed out to them. Relativity. But it was, undeniably, ra.pe, just with a pretty face. He might have been sympathetic, but bottom line is he was screwing a woman who really didn't want to participate but had little say in the matter, and he knew it.

Oh boy d folly for dis thread....no b moi moi

caseless: i advice u read his post and then come back and read my post again.
If somebody said 'there is noththe wrong in being a witch', he must have generalised whr he ought not to have generalised. That's why i said he imposed his opinion ö us. If u ar of d conviction that witch-craft is cool , fine, that's ur opinion and u ar entitled to it. And i'm of d conviction that witchcraft is bad, this is my own opinion and it is also for me. If i say what i feel about witches/wicca is what evrybody shld hold against them , then, i'm encroaching on the right and opinion of others.

And you did not do the same or worse?

You read again and tell me exactly what is wrong with he said. Exactly where did he say all must follow his views or impose anything? You, on the other hand, generalized when you stated Nigerians don't celebrate it. I am Nigerian, no?

And that siri line....

But on a serious note, it is true...

ejirocap: Sir why would any man prefer suffering over paradise? Some may say "Hey other people are there and living" if they were given a second chance do you think they will end up there? GOD is our maker it time we honor him.

Actually, that's the case of most of the people who have absolutely no interest in singing $hitty songs for a sociopath forever.

Are you telling that you'd be happy while your loved ones suffered excruciating pain for eternity? That such an existence is heaven to you?

Actually, the victim doesn't even have to be someone dear to you. Are you comfortable with anyone roasting in hell forever?You don't care about their condition?

Well..

And this is actually a nice, root problem with humanity in general. So long as it doesn't affect your pocket personally, you do not care. We're all guilty, it's inescapable, but I doubt there are many proud of it... Ah, except judeoxtians..

caseless: u ar imposing ur opinion on everyone. If u think that, there is nothing wrong in being a wicca or pegan..that's ur opinion. U put it as if witches can come out here in nigeria and declare they'r witches and we'll celebrate them. What is right in the u.s might not b right in other places.
Afterall, dem say whites and blacks get winsh, we de use our own to destroy and dem dey use their own build cars, ships, planes etc.

Apt username. What in the world are you on about??

YOU ARE THE ONE IMPOSING YOUR OPINION ON EVERYONE!!!

Sam Harris: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bV710c1dgpU

Watch the above video. (Then watch it again.) And then read the (unedited and uncorrected) description of this footage written by the organizers of this Muslim “peace conference”:

muslim:
When Muslim organizations invite Shaykhs who speak openly about the values of Islam, the Islamophobic western media starts murdering the character of that organization and the invited speaker. The question these Islamophobic journalists need to reflect upon is; are these so called ‘‘radical’’ views that they criticize endorsed only by these few individuals being invited around the globe, or does the common Muslims believe in them. If the common Muslims believe in these values that means that more or less all Muslims are radical and that Islam is a radical religion. Since this is not the case, as Islam is a peaceful religion and so are the masses of common Muslims, these Shaykhs cannot be radical. Rather it is Islamophobia from the ignorant western media who is more concerned about making money by alienating Islam by presenting Muslims in this way. Islam Net, an organization in Norway, invited 9 speakers to Peace Conference Scandinavia 2013. These speakers would most likely be labelled as ‘‘extremists’’ if the media were to write about the conference. But how come this conference was the largest Islamic Scandinavian International event that has taken place in Norway with about 4000 people attending? Were the majority of those who attended in opposition to what the speakers were preaching? If so, how come they paid to enter? Let’s forget about that for a moment, let’s imagine that we don’t really knew what all these people thought about for example segregation of men and women, or stoning to death of those who commit adultery. The Chairman of Islam Net, Fahad Ullah Qureshi asked the audience, and the answer was clear. The attendees were common Sunni Muslims. They did not consider themselves as radicals or extremists. They believed that segregation was the right thing to do, both men and women agreed upon this. They even supported stoning or whatever punishment Islam or prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded for adultery or any other crime. They even believed that these practises should be implemented around the world. Now what does that tell us? Either all Muslims and Islam is radical, or the media is Islamophobic and racist in their presentation of Islam. Islam is not radical, nor is Muslims in general radical. That means that the media is the reason for the hatred against Muslims, which is spreading among the non-Muslims in western countries.

This is a remarkable document. Read it closely, and you will pass through the looking glass. The organizers of this conference believe (with good reason) that “extremist” views are not rare among Muslims, even in the West. And they consider the media’s denial of this fact to be a symptom of… Islamophobia. The serpent of obscurantism has finally begun to devour its own tail. Apparently, it is a sign of racism to imagine that only a tiny minority of Muslims could actually condone the subjugation of women and the murder of apostates. How dare you call us “extremists” when we represent so many? We are not extreme. This is Islam. They have a point. And it is time for secular liberals and (truly) moderate Muslims to stop denying it.

Now, I hope all you pusillanimous "liberals" get it.....

In particular, you, LB.. I doubt it though... if I come across anything with pictures in it I'll put it up

random; look at how they justified their stance sef... "Islam is the truth!!"... SHIKENA!!!
What sort of liberals support intolerance.... How is intolerance liberal?? Kayi..

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/islam-or-islamophobia2

Sam Harris: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bV710c1dgpU

Watch the above video. (Then watch it again.) And then read the (unedited and uncorrected) description of this footage written by the organizers of this Muslim “peace conference”:

muslim:
When Muslim organizations invite Shaykhs who speak openly about the values of Islam, the Islamophobic western media starts murdering the character of that organization and the invited speaker. The question these Islamophobic journalists need to reflect upon is; are these so called ‘‘radical’’ views that they criticize endorsed only by these few individuals being invited around the globe, or does the common Muslims believe in them. If the common Muslims believe in these values that means that more or less all Muslims are radical and that Islam is a radical religion. Since this is not the case, as Islam is a peaceful religion and so are the masses of common Muslims, these Shaykhs cannot be radical. Rather it is Islamophobia from the ignorant western media who is more concerned about making money by alienating Islam by presenting Muslims in this way. Islam Net, an organization in Norway, invited 9 speakers to Peace Conference Scandinavia 2013. These speakers would most likely be labelled as ‘‘extremists’’ if the media were to write about the conference. But how come this conference was the largest Islamic Scandinavian International event that has taken place in Norway with about 4000 people attending? Were the majority of those who attended in opposition to what the speakers were preaching? If so, how come they paid to enter? Let’s forget about that for a moment, let’s imagine that we don’t really knew what all these people thought about for example segregation of men and women, or stoning to death of those who commit adultery. The Chairman of Islam Net, Fahad Ullah Qureshi asked the audience, and the answer was clear. The attendees were common Sunni Muslims. They did not consider themselves as radicals or extremists. They believed that segregation was the right thing to do, both men and women agreed upon this. They even supported stoning or whatever punishment Islam or prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) commanded for adultery or any other crime. They even believed that these practises should be implemented around the world. Now what does that tell us? Either all Muslims and Islam is radical, or the media is Islamophobic and racist in their presentation of Islam. Islam is not radical, nor is Muslims in general radical. That means that the media is the reason for the hatred against Muslims, which is spreading among the non-Muslims in western countries.

This is a remarkable document. Read it closely, and you will pass through the looking glass. The organizers of this conference believe (with good reason) that “extremist” views are not rare among Muslims, even in the West. And they consider the media’s denial of this fact to be a symptom of… Islamophobia. The serpent of obscurantism has finally begun to devour its own tail. Apparently, it is a sign of racism to imagine that only a tiny minority of Muslims could actually condone the subjugation of women and the murder of apostates. How dare you call us “extremists” when we represent so many? We are not extreme. This is Islam. They have a point. And it is time for secular liberals and (truly) moderate Muslims to stop denying it.

Now, I hope all you p.ussyfooting liberal clowns get it.....

MyJoe: I see we've turned full circle. I mean, over 200 years ago Benjamin Rush, a professor and "the father of American psychiatry", said not believing in God was a mental disorder.

More seriously, though, a lot of the attributes Wiegraf describe would apply to many, if not most, of the religion pioneers. But I guess their believing in tooth fairies would make theirs "bad madness".

"Madness" is subjective, not objective. For the most part.

Defination doesnt change, application does. It even relies on morality, more or else, which is obviously sunjective. I use their respective cultures, in tandem with the average man's value system, as a yardstick to determine (or at least try to) what is harmful, and I would think that's what most posters here are doing. But of course it remains sibjective

Religions do originate from eccentrics most of the time, albeit not from those bent objective mathematical rigour. We all agree on that I think

Deep Sight: Lol. Indeed that's true.

I prefer, and refer to, good madness, the madness of Einstein, Freud, Darwin, Jackson, Mandela, Fela, Marley, Fawehinmi, Galileo, Copernicus, An Sun Su Kyi, Mahatma, Churchill, Plato, Aristotle, Confucius, Sankara, Che Guevara, Achebe, Soyinka, Luther, Martin Luther King, Columbus. . . . . a zillion others - and then the greatest of all men, of all time - Leonardo Da Vinci.

Most of these 'mad' people are simply, and at best, eccentric. Imaginative and idealistic, and so for the most part simply dancing to their own tunes rather than their respective societal norms. They're usually not actually harming anyone, can give you justifiable, sane reasons for their actions even if they may seem odd on the surface, etc etc.

This sort of madness leads away from religion, not towards it. Would you describe the scientists on that list as religious? Their idiosyncrasies generally pushes them away from religion, etc. Especially blind groupthink. Actually, most of them can be described as iconoclasts. And like all good eccentrics they can give you solid, valid reasons for their actions.

Even the writers/etc on that list, even if they usually like to believe in a sky fairy because it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy, they don't tend to be traditional religionists, yes? In fact, they often start new religions or have their own version of whatever religion. And they can often give you good (well..) reason for their behavior

Good and proper madness would involve, for instance, believing something patently false to be true. Eg, believing that santa does indeed deliver presents to all good kids yearly, donkeys talk, people walk on water, etc etc. Especially when they unjustifiably cause harm with their crazy

Bidam: Nope, my prayer is for you to give your life to Christ before you die.

Yes bros, I know you're a tool. As I've made it crystal clear I have no desire to indulge in your nonsense, but you still seem to think you know better than me. Without giving any valid reason whatsoever. In fact, giving nonsensical, mysteriousnesse, whargarbl reasons.. Yet you still think I should concede, just because. The arrogance of you clowns still bewilders

Shove that prayer up your a$$, as far as you can manage please.

Then again, it's a prayer... Spiritual? Please carry on

alnaijiri: I've never said Islam promoted anything OTHER THAN good values. Courage, stubborn tenacity to faith, pride in being Muslim, discipline and a deep sense of shame are what many societies (especially African ones) desperately needs.

Islam did not silence the revival of Greek learning in its midst. That tradition (books and scholars alike) was lost due to invasions by the Mongols and the Turks. Oppression by outside powers further encouraged radicalism in our midst.

Greek ideas were not very civilised by today's standards. They were moral relativists. They believed that homosexual relations between men were the highest form of love. They accepted that men could use little boys sexually. They were one of the first to espouse racist beliefs. They were a sick lot.

We human beings have NO RIGHT to judge God's laws for us (Islamic law). We could not possibly understand His ways and His nature. The best we can do is to faithfully accept His rules and instructions for us to live in which we can better the world around us, bringing God's light to his creation.

The created world is naturally dark, why? Because this created world seem to be independent of a Creator. Our daily lives seem random, material, not spiritual. Even when people believed in juju, we had to satisfy the whimsical desires of immoral gods. Life seemed devoid of a purpose.

Only a life in the Islamic way can bring Godliness in everything that we do, through a meticulous adherence of Islamic law. Sometimes it's obvious that the law is beneficial. Sometimes we don't know why the law is the way it is. We need to realise that the world is not what could be seen and measured and sensed, that there is a spiritual dimension behind it, and that there is a grand purpose to all creation, as set forth by our Creator.

lol

Absolutely no such thing as objective morality.

So many blatant lies and myopia. Pot and kettle doesn't even cut it, at all. And the pick of them all is the bolded text. That's a glaring symptom of acute sheeplepopia

You're in too deep... Too much trouble..

Ah, josh, you remain an uncouth sociopath. Or genuinely dumber than a toaster.

Kudos brah. No hard feelings abeg

Bidam: I guess you believe in NOTHING then.

Bros, you've mixed up your 'logic'. That means you believe in NOTHING...

I'll be here waiting for your spiritual and yahweh to show up...

Let's see, yahweh is rather vain, no? So, I'm a jewish leftist atheist heathenous professor

In fact, YAHWEH, YOU'RE A YAHWED DAMNED GENOCIDAL PE.DO!!! NOW STRIKE ME DOWN!!!!!!!! ROAST ME IN HELL!!!!

Nah, noticed nothing...

I suppose we'll have to wait till after I die to verify, abi? Good luck with that..

Bidam: In the sense,they use every day occurrences in the human world to drive home spiritual truths.As for Yahweh (another topic for another day).

And this is your problem. That right there, that's mysteriousnesseses. The ultimate cope-out of the lazy, or desperate, mind. It explains absolutely NOTHING

But please, proceed using your non-human logic to explain things away.

Joshthefirst: it seems you did not read the op. Belief in yhwh is not the central matter, it doesn't change the fact of his existence. People go to hell because of sin, wrongdoing, law breaking.

It seems you've read, or comprehended, absolutely non of the thousands of lines meant for you and your likes on this forum. The bolded is the problem.

But please, I've wasted enough time on you. Proceed with your folly

Bidam: Why don't you accept the answers,they proffer? Why reject them since they are logically conclusive?

In what language are they logically conclusive?

BTW, you yourself used the term 'human logic', what does that mean? Is Yahweh logic different?

So, theyre going to hell simply cause they dont belive in yahweh. Thank you, that will be all.

Random; foing with the evidence, I don't think you're foo.lish because you believe in God, you were likely foo.lish first and that led you to god. Only way you can hod god culpable is if you blame him for creating you.

You no try for me. I should be doing other things, but alas, just a peep, and there's so much in here I couldn't help myself...
I will try to keep it simple and limit the nature of subjectivity...I hope

alnaijiri: You pose a legitimate question. True, many if not most Islamic societies exhibit terrible dysfunctions, but they also showcase some of the good that Islam can provide: a family structure for children to grow up in, a deeply-rooted sense of shame and duty and above all,

Erm, bros, are you telling me islamic cultures are the only ones that provide this. Many others have these, and guess what, without the bolded, or at least to the degree islamic cultures do (they are unavoidable considering subjectivity, but we can at least try).

You do note this has been pointed out to you already (eg far east), yes?

alnaijiri: a society where people can be stubbornly courageous to fight for their ideals.

What is wrong with you? This is alarmingly myopic on many levels, eg the "my own view of the world is the only valid one". You wouldn't have a problem with apostates if you encouraged people to courageously fight for their ideals, no?? You are the very antithesis of this notion. It's about blow yourselves up (and a few kaffirs) and get yourself 72 virg.ins. Us vs them on steroids. Get in line or suffer the consequences. You breed the ultimate zombies.

I mean really, let's consider long term proof ubiquitous in 9ja but blissfully ignored. Sango, essu, amadohia etc, igbo/yoruba. Cool, now list for me 2 hausa deities from the top of your head, don't google...

Or are you telling me that hausas of pre-islami did not want to fight for their own ideals? Really? Are you telling me that since the subjugation of hausas, others did not try to establish new faiths? Or even other constructs such as new systems of government? You do realize you still use a legal code forged 1400 years ago by some barbarian goat herders? Do you think that's normal??

alnaijiri: These traits that are prominent today are not the only ones promoted by Islam. For in its golden age (clearly documented not only by Islamic historians but also their neighbours), Islam was a force for reason, temperance, and creativity.

Let me just highlight, clearly, that by using the word "only", you accept that less than desirable traits, eg those of the traditional islamists, are also, validly, islamic (you gain no arguments from me in this regard. good honesty). You do not state they're unislamic, you state they are, just not the best. So it's right to place the blame of these ills squarely at islams's doorstep, yes?

Goot, at least you understand that there are lots of other less than ideal mores promoted by Islam. In fact you concede that "many, if not most" are, in my own words, proper $hit. So, what makes islam superior? This one positive period as opposed to all the other dross we see around? Wouldn't that be more indicative of a....fluke?

And going back to the golden age, cultures are aggregations of memes, building on the old and occasionally introducing new ones, just as new genes are introduced into a gene pool, and eventually new species (or religions/cultures) would be formed. What was successful during the islamic golden age was the culture of enquiry, borrowed from the.....greek. They were directly influenced by greek text they discovered, and built from there. It was greek memes at work there, not islamic ones.

Greek culture is the basis for most of what the modern world considers successful. Xtianity came along with their nonsense, crushed that culture and plunged us into ~1000 of darkness. Suddenly disease was caused by spirits, SHIKENA!! Islam came across the Greek treasure tomb, indulged for a while, but figured out it would rain on its parade eventually. I mean, it had the audacity to feature petty questioning of GOD??!! and rubbishing claims from religion, etc. So Islam did what xtianity did as well a few hundred before then; plunge into it's own (and islamic's default mode) age of darkness. And remains so.

It took, surprise surprise, the rediscovery of hellenistic principles to lift the xtian world from darkness. It took the direct rediscovery of Greek culture (even if via rome's), just as islamic scholars had earlier before they were silenced, to spur the age of enlightenment. Rediscovering the writings of cicero etc, of democracy and reason, etc. Today we enjoy its fruits.

Most of the memes we value today originated in ..... greece. Islam, if anything, crushed this culture. The golden age was a success in spite of islam, not because of it... Proof is visible in today's world, and the default decay that is islamic cultures.

And btw, I'm ignoring persian culture (one the locals are trying to resuscitate, mind you, despite what you hear about khomeinis etc)

alnaijiri: These traits coupled with a deep sense of responsibility, morals, and courage is enough to enliven any society.

Let's not get far into subjectivity. That's another novel. But really, these your deep morals involve child marriages and spanking your wives (yes, they can't have husbands for some reason, but the males can boss). By the standards of most of the rest of us, those morals are $hit, so I can't see what you're on about. And rabid blind disobedience is nonsensical as well.

ALL CULTURES HAVE MORALS, it's silly to state otherwise.

Bump for justice.

Too lazy/busy to be actively involved. Along the line I might do some coding though.

Aha, don't have much time to burn, not sure why I'm wasting the little I have on you. This your appeals to emotion mean absolutely nothing. Just as you claim genocide in the bible is good simply because...god is good!! Hitler appealed to emotions as well, jews are bad simply because they're bad. End result?

Joshthefirst: christians are accountable for their actions to God, just like everyone(including you) is. Everyone will give account to God.
Anyone who blames satan for his sin is foolish. Man is a free moral agent.

Omni.xx god isn't in control then.

Choose one, we either have free will or your god isn't omnixx.x.

And don't spout illogical nonsense or quote your nonsense story book. Don't insult my intelligence. You do so I'll be back with quotes from hustler.

Joshthefirst: Take a judge for example, if you're found guilty of commiting a crime, say stealing, will you say to the judge(let's call him stevens)
"Come on judge stevens, I just washed your car"
Or
"Come on judge stevens, I just built you a house" ?

No, that will be bribe, and a good judge will not be bribed and will ebven punish you more for insulting his integrity.

God is a good judge, he cannopt be bribed. You cannot pay for your evil deeds with good deeds. That would be trying to bribe God. Self-righteousness is like a filthy rag before him.

Self righteousness is a filthy rag, then what the exactly are you doing now?

You've heard of parole? People getting time off for good behaviour? You've heard of people who've had their punishments mitigated because of other acts of theirs deemed beneficial to society? In fact, you do understand that in order to properly curtail crime, it's advisable to tailor fit the punishment, thereby rewarding good behaviour and reducing potential problems. Eg, if the punishment for armed robbery and murder were the same, then once an armed robber thinks there might be a chance he would be caught, he might as well kill witnesses, no? I mean there's no difference, he might as well do the crime if he's going to do the time.

And btw, most modern societies don't even punish for punishment sake, because they're pissed and want to enact an eye for an eye. The aim is to rehabilitate and prevent, not retribution. The aim is to produce a citezen that would be productive to society, and also make others thinking of becoming criminals think again. But with your yahweh, considering heaven, there's absolutely no need to rehabilitate or prevent. I mean, isn't heaven the final destination? Rehabilitate to what end? Prevent which crimes (or can you still sin in heaven?). It would seem your god just wants to be vindictive, punish people grievously, for eternity. Sometimes even for sins such as being born in the wrong part of the world and simply listening to your parents/society. That's all they are doing, just as you are; listening to tradition. Yet because theirs is the tradition of allah or virshna it seems yah'weh is going to roast them forever.

This is even ignoring the implications of omnixx, which are he's basically punishing people for his own mistakes. Instead of rehabilitating productively, an ideal we modern humans wish we had conquered but have so far failed at due to lack of resources (unlike an omnixx), he chooses to punish forever. For these silly 'sins' no less. But he's good. And he loves you.

Anyways, it seems like this is exactly what you're trying to do; gain favor from yahweh. You've been shown the folly of your ways, time and again, yet you return with the very.same.gaddem.thing... time and again. We've told you time and again we do not care, in fact, if there really were a hell most of us would much rather be there than singing nursery rhymes to feed the ego of an omnixx monster for eternity. The oxymor.on of an omnixx needing you for something sef, let alone singing for eternity...

What in the world do you hope to achieve? Do you actually believe your nonsense has any effect of people capable of the most basic of reason? Look at the amount of nonsense you've spouted in just this post alone, and I'm not even trying. How many times now have these been pointed out to you, yet you still persist? Are you trying to make up for something, some 'sin' you've indulged in that haunts you? You do know this is how people that have something to hide, like say, pe.do priests, behave, right? Is there something you want to tell us?

Logicbwoy: @ bold
I didnt know that you were this silly.

I suppose I have to get out the crayons, as usual....

Logicbwoy: lol....I bash Islam 24/7, however I do it factually. I am not going to be hypocritical about freedom of expression in order to bash muslims.

No one should tell women what not to wear. If a woman chooses to wear iron pant, so be it. If a woman chooses to wear Burkha, so be it.


I am not trying to appease anyone.

You're not going to be hypocritical? Lb, you have no issues being a hypocrite, o believe that's already established, so don't try to pull some holier than thou cloak. And I didn't say you were looking for savors, I said you're trying to be liberal. Try to think before you post, open topics etc

Now, this isn't about freedom of expression primarily, how many times am I going to point out that only the Muslims, as far as major religions are concerned, get this sort of treatment? Do you see this issue being debated for joins? This is about their intolerance for the most part, it's what separates them from the test. For one, please explain why our peaceful Muslims are the only ones with their own section.

For these sheeple that are pleased grazing, there are also women in those societies robbed of their rights, atrociously. Child brides to a reduced legal stand in the eyes of the law. Some not even allowed to be out and about without a male relative. Not even allowed to drive.

The burkha is an advert for that culture, one that if allowed to succeed, will repress the rest of us sane folk. When they grow up, no one will have these sorts of issues with them, till then though this sort of treatment is well justified in order to protect freedom.

And that smell is likely your folly

ummsulaym: Sharia is the CODE and muslims(individually) are responsible for their interpretations, understanding, implemention and execution of the Sharia just as other talkers/haters(e.g wiegraf) are responsible for their opinion (which doesn't matters anyway) concerning the Sharia... So stick to it(everyone entitled to his/her opinion)...

waiting to see how it ends with briton and the banning of burqa(the real issue)...

Yes, and the foreigners forced to dress up as ninjas are Muslims, yes?

How many times have I mentioned that now? You continue to address nothing.

I'm beginning to think you have some deep seated issues op