Christians arrested for defending their beliefs

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

no
i am asking if you want the title altered to fit your point of view ,i hope that clears things up for you, if not I'll try to simplify the question so you can understand it .

Well, I've not made any suggestions as to what it should be, only that it doesn't appear to be accurate, last time I checked what they were arrested for at least.
What do you think? Is the title accurate in your opinion?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well, I've not made any suggestions as to what it should be, only that it doesn't appear to be accurate, last time I checked what they were arrested for at least.
What do you think? Is the title accurate in your opinion?

It is understood that they suggested that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage. [this was deemed as an offense]
that allegedly is what they as Christians believe [do i think all Christians have the same belief] no i don't, but as an atheist i also have issues with the dress code for Muslim women ,i think its a form of oppression . so to round up. these particular Christians are defending there belief that mohammad was a war lord,and that Muslim dress is a form of bondage [in there opinion] so given this information i see no need to alter the thread title.

[Gary L]

Christian's arrested for defending their beliefs

Some Christian's were arrested for defending their beliefs.

2 Christian's were taken to the Police station and charged for what they believed.

A man and a woman who were Christian's were taken to the Police station and arrested for something they personally believed in. no other Christian's were involved, and any resemblance to other Christian's is purely coincidental.


I've done all my tests, and the thread title is accurate.

[Stuart]

Although, the story doesn't actually mention the muslim woman attacking the Christian beliefs. In fact it doesn't mention what she did, apart from to say she made a complaint. Therefore, we do not know that the Christian faith actually was under attack. If it wasn't, then it didn't need defending and it could be said they were attacking Islam..

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Although, the story doesn't actually mention the muslim woman attacking the Christian beliefs. In fact it doesn't mention what she did, apart from to say she made a complaint. Therefore, we do not know that the Christian faith actually was under attack. If it wasn't, then it didn't need defending and it could be said they were attacking Islam..

Which of course wouldn't sell as many copies of the Mail.
"Muslim complains and defends her belief" isn't as interesting a headline, is it?
Making out that the couple were arrested for defending their christian beliefs, when the articles suggests that they were arrested for insulting a muslim woman over her beliefs, panders to some people's anti-muslim/asian feelings.
You'll notice that it took the woman to make a statement before it was clear she was white and British.
However if the CF Team are stating that what they were actually arrested for is indeed a christian belief, then who am I to argue

Originally Posted by foreverwar

I found it amusing that you used a quote to support your proposition from someone who had campaigned vociferously against the law outlawing incitement to religious hatred - who would have thought he didn't think this prosecution was a bad idea.

btw, Christian faith also holds the ideals of "love thy neighbour", be respectful of others, and treat others as you would like to be treated - being harangued over the breakfast table by your host seems not to fulfill any of those (imho).

Re Islam and killing unbelievers - funnily enough, there are passages in the Bible (Deuteronomy) saying the same thing; strange you didn't point that out.

I am sure that the quote I used would be said by any lawyer regardless of their beliefs, do you not accept that ?
The couple, just like anyone, can use whoever they wish to defend them in court, is that ok with you ?

" Hang on m'lud, the lawyer is clearly a christian representing a couple of christians, that cannot be right ? "

LMAO.

Yes there have been murders on both sides of the different faiths, but I would place my wages on there being more butchery being committed by the Islam faith.

As recent as 2007 Sheik Ahmad Bahr, acting speaker of the palestinian Legislative Council declared in a sermon at a Sudan Mosque that America and Israel will be annihilated and called upon Allah to kill Jews and Americans " to the very last one "

Sounds just like the type of guy I would enjoy a pint with

But to read some on here, you would think there is only one side to the argument.

This so called offended woman engaged herself in a discussion about religion, as I have said before, if she cannot stand the heat she should stay out the kitchen.

Interesting to note that she has been spouting off to the press while the arrested couple have been told they can say nothing until the case.

But to some on here it is ok, because it gives them the one sided story they want to believe, that there was only one guilty party in all this episode.

From what we have read, mohammed was accused of being a warlord, this is fact, and if somebody feels that the muslim dress is oppressive so what if someone does not like what you wear ?

Sledgehammer/Nut

---------- Post added at 04:44 ---------- Previous post was at 04:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Although, the story doesn't actually mention the muslim woman attacking the Christian beliefs. In fact it doesn't mention what she did, apart from to say she made a complaint. Therefore, we do not know that the Christian faith actually was under attack. If it wasn't, then it didn't need defending and it could be said they were attacking Islam..

You like everyone will have to wait and see, but it seems some on here already know the guilty party.
My knowledge in the case is not as good sorry, all I do know is that there are two sides to any argument, and that it's normally the " British " way to listen to two sides of the said argument.
Correct ?

---------- Post added at 04:51 ---------- Previous post was at 04:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Well, I've not made any suggestions as to what it should be, only that it doesn't appear to be accurate, last time I checked what they were arrested for at least.
What do you think? Is the title accurate in your opinion?

Xaccers, what title would suit you?

Perhaps, " Couple arrested for saying Mohammed was a Warlord " ?

Or " Holy Burkha " !

What do you reckon ?

The thread title is only true if their beliefs were attacked - do we have evidence to support that proposition?

How about "Hoteliers seem to have p'd off a paying customer"?

btw, you are right that some people seem to have made up their minds about who is the guilty party.

[papa smurf]

[QUOTE=foreverwar;34882326]The thread title is only true if their beliefs were attacked - do we have evidence to support that proposition?

How about "Hoteliers seem to have p'd off a paying customer"?

.................................................. .................................................. .....................


< allegedly >

until proven or disproven in a court of law



on a side note - perhaps those of you who are unhappy about thread titles should start some of your own instead of trying to find fault in other peoples ..

[Julian]

My report of the "minor prophet" comment was taken from HERE

Sorry should have posted the linky at the time.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

You like everyone will have to wait and see, but it seems some on here already know the guilty party.
My knowledge in the case is not as good sorry, all I do know is that there are two sides to any argument, and that it's normally the " British " way to listen to two sides of the said argument.
Correct ?

Correct, there are two sides to every argument. However, that article only presents one, and implies the couple are being persecuted by the Muslim woman who, the article admits seemingly grudgingly, is White and English.

Still it is about as good as I have come to expect from the Fail..

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by arcamalpha2004

This so called offended woman engaged herself in a discussion about religion, as I have said before, if she cannot stand the heat she should stay out the kitchen.

Interesting to note that she has been spouting off to the press while the arrested couple have been told they can say nothing until the case.

But to some on here it is ok, because it gives them the one sided story they want to believe, that there was only one guilty party in all this episode.

From what we have read, mohammed was accused of being a warlord, this is fact, and if somebody feels that the muslim dress is oppressive so what if someone does not like what you wear ?

We do not know exactly what was said, all we know about the warlord and islamic dress is what the couple and their support team have said in the papers, you know, which you've claimed they've been told they can't tell us

The aggrieved woman, from what I have seen has not discussed matters relating to the case (ie what was said to offend her), but has been forced to go to the media to show she is a white Brit due to recieving death threats and other awful comments.

Xaccers, what title would suit you?

Perhaps, " Couple arrested for saying Mohammed was a Warlord " ?

Or " Holy Burkha " !

What do you reckon ?

Neither are accurate given the information we've been shown by the media.
Papasmurf, perhaps if you put a bit more thought into your thread title accuracy in future?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

We do not know exactly what was said, all we know about the warlord and islamic dress is what the couple and their support team have said in the papers, you know, which you've claimed they've been told they can't tell us

The aggrieved woman, from what I have seen has not discussed matters relating to the case (ie what was said to offend her), but has been forced to go to the media to show she is a white Brit due to recieving death threats and other awful comments.





Neither are accurate given the information we've been shown by the media.
Papasmurf, perhaps if you put a bit more thought into your thread title accuracy in future?

[Stuart]

Are you laughing at Xaccers request for you to put a little thought into your thread titles?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Are you laughing at Xaccers request for you to put a little thought into your thread titles?

affirmative guv

I might have missed something but all i saw was the couple saying there was a debate is there anything that says the woman in question was having a debate or was willingly taking part in such a debate rather then just on the end of some ignorant abuse ??. Why do i get the feeling if this was reversed ie a muslim couple attacking a single hospital patient christian woman we would be seeing different responses from some posters.