[Kerrigan]

Religion should be regulated by the EU with covert inspectors periodically attending all religious establishments and congregations, in order to weed out extremists who preach hate and tolerate violence. If a church, mosque, synagogue, &c, is found to be in violation of the regulations, then it should be shut down and its members dispersed. The leaders of a closed down religious establishment should face deportation if the threat they pose is serious enough.

It is said that religion is the opiate of the masses, and this is true. It alters peoples' minds and as such its dealers should be held accountable just as liquor shops and bartenders have to be responsible for how they sell their products.

Europe's social harmony is being put in danger by a young generation of religious fanatics, and the best chance of correcting this problem is to go to the source. Religion needs to be regulated just like everything else.

[strictlyplaid]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Religion should be regulated by the EU with covert inspectors periodically attending all religious establishments and congregations, in order to weed out extremists who preach hate and tolerate violence.

[Railroader]

Welll... isn't this why the good ol' US of A was founded? Religious freedom,

Who's going to determine the extremists?

You want religious regulation, go to Egypt or China.

[yakkiebah]

Enough with the hippie talk, something needs to be done.

In the Netherlands there is a strong call for further seperation of church and state. Especially in schools. Unfortunately though i don't think much will happen with our current, and very unpopular, christian government.

We will have to wait for the next election.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Unfortunately though i don't think much will happen with our current, and very unpopular, christian government.

Yep nothing will happen as long as Harry Potter is in command

[Sherwin]

Religion should be regulated? Nope.

Just one of them.

[loki74]

hmm this is pretty touchy... such a thing would be very fragile. I'm sure it would help greatly, but it could also be greatly abused. It would have to be on paper, and damn well though out. And probably temporary.

But there is a certain logic to regulating what is said in sermons, congregations, etc... I mean, the FCC regulates whats on the radio & TV... as long as the govt doesnt say you cant believe such and such, it should be fine if they say you cant preach such and such... right? I'm sure theres something wrong with my analogy, and as I said something like this could definately be abused... but it is food for thought all the same.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Welll... isn't this why the good ol' US of A was founded? Religious freedom,

Nope.

[Kerrigan]

Right after I typed that post, I clicked over to a Times article that says the Government is proposing, essentially, to monitor Islamic radicals and to deport those that encourage terrorism. This is basically the point of my post here, although I didn't want to specifically single out Islam as other religions in Britain have been linked to terrorism as well.

[lil'babykitten]

Muslim leaders need to take greater responsibility for what is being preached in Britain's mosques and Britain's police and security services need to realise that they have a responsibility to provide support for those Muslim leaders that become intimidated by radical Muslims when they attempt to stop the preaching of extremism. This problem will be solved through co-operation between the Muslim community and the government. It's unfair to expect the Muslim community on its own to root out extremism on its own. If your neighbour committed a murder next door, would it be fair for the police to say 'you could have prevented this'? Of course not.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Religion should be regulated by the EU with covert inspectors periodically attending all religious establishments and congregations, in order to weed out extremists who preach hate and tolerate violence.

[Millennium]

If religion is to be brought under the rule of the state, then it should have an official political voice. That's what democracy is: every entity subject to its laws is given a say in how those laws are made.

This is why the separation of Church and State is so important: it's the only way to make government both democratic and secular. Anything else violates the definitions of either or both of these terms.

[NYCFarmboy]

well if we are going to go down this road lets be sure to regulate other religions such as petaism, and environmentalism where terrorism is also employed as a tool of their belief systems.

[RAILhead]

...and we need to regulate fat people in spandex, like we discussed in that other thread.



Maury

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

well if we are going to go down this road lets be sure to regulate other religions such as petaism, and environmentalism where terrorism is also employed as a tool of their belief systems.

No one has been killed in the name of vegetable yet, so no.

[NYCFarmboy]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

No one has been killed in the name of vegetable yet, so no.

it is the aim of some animal rights group extremists to assasinate:


http://www.guardian.co.uk/animalrigh...268819,00.html
Kill scientists, says animal rights chief

Fury as former surgeon calls for selective assassinations

Jamie Doward, social affairs editor
Sunday July 25, 2004
The Observer

A top adviser to Britain's two most powerful animal rights protest groups caused outrage last night by claiming that the assassination of scientists working in biomedical research would save millions of animals' lives.
To the fury of groups working with animals, Jerry Vlasak, a trauma surgeon and prominent figure in the anti-vivisection movement, told The Observer: 'I think violence is part of the struggle against oppression. If something bad happens to these people [animal researchers], it will discourage others. It is inevitable that violence will be used in the struggle and that it will be effective.'


Article continues

Vlasak, who likens animal experimentation to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews, said he stood by his claim that: 'I don't think you'd have to kill too many [researchers]. I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.
Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (Shac), which campaigns for the closure of Huntingdon Life Sciences, has close links with Vlasak. He has also advised Speak, the organisation that last week forced out the contractor building an £18 million primate research laboratory in Oxford.

David Martosko, research director at the Centre for Consumer Freedom, which monitors activist groups on behalf of business interests, responded by saying Vlasak was 'one of the most dangerous animal rights zealots on the planet'. He added: 'He's not making bombs, but he is making bombers.'

Vlasak will address an animal rights conference organised by Shac and Speak in September. Legal experts warned that, if he uses his speech to promote violence, he could be charged with incitement.

Vlasak has made a series of incendiary claims that will alarm moderates in the animal rights movement and reinforce claims that Shac and Speak are fronts for extremists.

Three months ago, he told a US television audience that violence was a 'morally justifiable solution'. Earlier this month, he gave a speech in Virginia in which he said: 'It won't ruin our movement if someone gets killed in an animal rights action. It's going to happen sooner or later.'

Vlasak meets Shac leaders regularly. He has played a big part in writing speeches, directing its strategy and advancing scientific arguments against animal experimentation. He also worked with Speak in its successful effort to prevent the building of a primate research centre in Cambridge and says he plans to work with the group on its Oxford campaign.

Other animal rights groups have distanced themselves from him. Until recently he was a member of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), a group funded by the powerful lobbying group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) and endorsed by Shac.

But a PCRM spokeswoman told The Observer: 'He is not a member of the organisation.' Vlasak confirmed he was not working with the PCRM 'at the moment'.

While acknowledging that his views might alienate some people, Vlasak, who claims animal experimentation 'wastes billions of pounds a year', said more and more people in the animal rights movement were drawn to violent action. 'The grass roots are tired of writing letters. The polite approach has not worked,' he said.

Patricia Hewitt, the Trade and Industry Secretary, last night promised that the law would be strengthened to tackle the growing number of incidents. On Friday Home Office Minister Caroline Flint will unveil measures designed to clamp down on protesters. It is believed ministers are frustrated that the CPS and the police have not taken a sufficiently robust stance against the movement.

One of the City's largest institutions, the National Association of Pension Funds, is about to offer a £25m reward to help catch protesters who threaten businesses associated with animal research firms.

Yesterday, 300 Speak activists celebrated their coup in forcing building firm Montpellier to pull out of the new Oxford primate research centre with a march through the city centre. Protester Robert Cogswell attacked the NAPF's offer of a reward. 'It should stop wasting money and start looking at why people are taking illegal action,' he said.

Yesterday Natasha Avery, a spokeswoman for Shac, declined to comment on its links with Vlasak. Speak did not return calls.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by NYCFarmboy

it is the aim of some animal rights group extremists to assasinate:

These groups are already being treated accordingly because that is terrorism.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Religion should be regulated by the EU

No, religion should not be regulated.

But of course religion must stick to the laws of the nation.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

covert inspectors periodically attending all religious establishments and congregations, in order to weed out extremists who preach hate and tolerate violence.

That is already done. See "The Calif of Cologne" Metin Kaplan for example.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

That is already done. See "The Calif of Cologne" Metin Kaplan for example.

Good, I'm glad to see that this idea is not as far-fetched as some people have suggested. Now I think that there should be a systematic way of deporting radicals in the UK and Europe.

[saab95]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Religion should be regulated by the EU ......

NO it should not.

Freedom of religion is an inalienable right.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by saab95

Freedom of religion is an inalienable right.

So you think it is a bad idea to have a system to investigate religious establishments and deport people who are encouraging or condoning the murder of civilians? That is not an inalienable right, that is a crime.

[Railroader]

What religions encourage or condone the murder of anyone? I think it's man who does that.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Railroader

What religions encourage or condone the murder of anyone? I think it's man who does that.

Most religions have their bad elements that promote violence. Religion should not be a cover for radical Islamic preachers anymore. They are promoting extremism, terrorism, and they are causing a backlash towards Middle-Eastern immigrants who now have to worry about getting dirty looks on the streets or worse.

These people have no place in European society. They should not be allowed to hide behind religious freedom.

Luckily, anti-extremist laws are already being put into place. From the Times

Extremist clerics and jihadi recruiters will face prosecution under a range of new anti-terrorist offences announced by the Government last night.
Preachers who glorify atrocities could face a new charge of “indirect incitement” but there are already concerns in legal circles that measures will be difficult to prosecute.

The new offences are part of a two-pronged assault on the threat of militant Islamic fundamentalism in the Muslim community.

[Railroader]

Ahhhh... so you are strictly anti-Muslim. Do you think the religion Muslims follow encourages or condone the murder of anyone

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Ahhhh... so you are strictly anti-Muslim. Do you think the religion Muslims follow encourages or condone the murder of anyone

The Koran (and the Bible for that matter) is packed full of life-destroying gibberish, which gives people the spiritual motivation to kill innocent people. Clerics who emphasize the violent aspects of religion in order to encourage terrorism need to be held accountable.

Here are some example quotes:

Dr Azzam Tamimi, of the Muslim Association of Britain, writing in the Jakarta Post on suicide bombers “To them, the eventual destiny of their short trip to Tel Aviv, Natanya or other Zionist-infested Palestinian towns is eternal life in a world of divine bliss”

Abu Qatada “Rome is a cross. The West is a cross and Romans are the owners of the cross. Muslims’ target is the West. We will split Rome open. The destruction must be carried out by sword. Those who will destroy Rome are already preparing the swords. Rome will not be conquered with the word but with the force of arms”

People who move to Britain and say things like that should be deported. They cannot hide behind the veil of "religious freedom".

Religion is the source of too much violence in the world, whether it is Catholicism or Islam or Protestantism. Right now Islam is obviously the main problem, and the squeaky wheel should get the grease. Islam needs to sort out its radical elements or it will face a major backlash within Europe.

[Wiskedjak]

Religion shouldn't be regulated ... but neither should it have a political voice

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

(and the Bible for that matter) is packed full of life-destroying gibberish, which gives people the spiritual motivation to kill innocent people.[/i].

Proof? Any verses you know about I don't?

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Proof? Any verses you know about I don't?

there's that bit about how wearing clothing of two threads will send you to hell, or about how god killed an entire city of homosexuals, or where god says that men who sleep with men will be condemned to eternal suffering, or the part where nonbelievers are thrown into a lake of fire at the day of judgement, how god flooded the whole world and killed all the non-believers in order for noah to inbreed with his own family... death and destruction abound, silly!

I know that the majority of religious people in Europe do not focus on this aspect of Christianity/Islam, but there are some who focus entirely on the negative side of religion, and they have plenty of passages to go to for inspiration.

[loki74]

yes it is very very important to notice the diff between the OT and NT... so many people justify sick sh!t with stuff from the OT... Look at the NT, and if anything from the OT, look at the 10 Commandments. Thats what I say anyway.

as far as banning... I can see where it would have a possibly positive effect, but it would be much to easy to abuse.

[Kerrigan]

I never said religion should be banned, just that the very bottom elements of religion should no longer be allowed to preach death and be protected by some notion of religious freedom.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I never said religion should be banned, just that the very bottom elements of religion should no longer be allowed to preach death and be protected by some notion of religious freedom.

Why did you ignore his comment about OT and NT?

You seem to like to take the OT out of context.

[Kerrigan]

With all due respect, I'm not concerned about which half of the Bible is more ridiculous and violent. People can be allowed to practice their faith in almost any way they like. But if you, or some radical from another country, moves to Britain and starts preaching and writing about how suicide bombing is noble and should be encouraged, then you do not deserve your religious "freedom" any longer. You should be deported so that you won't cause any more problems.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

With all due respect, I'm not concerned about which half of the Bible is more ridiculous and violent.

Then you are showing your ignorance of the Bible. Ignorance is not bliss, I assure you.

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

People can be allowed to practice their faith in almost any way they like.

I thought you wanted to regulate that

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

But if you, or some radical from another country, moves to Britain and starts preaching and writing about how suicide bombing is noble and should be encouraged, then you do not deserve your religious "freedom" any longer. You should be deported so that you won't cause any more problems.

Sorry, but until you show me where, in a specific religion's creed, that what you are talking about is true, then I say you are truly ignorant and your views are worse than the KKK or any other hate group out there.

[Kerrigan]

For God's sake, do you have any idea what terrorists are ?? They are people who use (distort) RELIGIOUS teachings to encourage people to kill innocent civilians. Have you learned nothing from September 11th? This sort of thing is dangerous, do you need flash cards?

There are people right now in Britain who are trying to destroy our way of life and yet they are allowed to carry on because it is part of their faith. Young, impressionable Britons are being recruited by religious fanatics and if nothing is done this problem will grow.

FIND all the religious leaders who promote terrorism, DEPORT THEM. Religion is no longer an excuse to stir up anti-Western violence.

Frankly I find it insulting that you support the right of dangerous terrorist sympathizers to continue living in the UK. That is utter crap, and you ought to know better.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by loki74

yes it is very very important to notice the diff between the OT and NT... so many people justify sick sh!t with stuff from the OT... Look at the NT, and if anything from the OT, look at the 10 Commandments. Thats what I say anyway.

as far as banning... I can see where it would have a possibly positive effect, but it would be much to easy to abuse.

bah--I meant to say regulation!!

[Railroader]

Why do you associate religion with terrorism?

Terrorists are people who strike fear into people by their actions. Religion is simply a tool they twist to do this.

Religion doesn't espouse hate, man does. You are missing what is causing the terrorism.

You've already stated you have no respect for religion basically in your first post in this thread:

It is said that religion is the opiate of the masses, and this is true. It alters peoples' minds and as such its dealers should be held accountable just as liquor shops and bartenders have to be responsible for how they sell their products.

And why is that? You later proved it's because of your ignorance. You won't answer my questions regarding hate and religion. OT in context of NT.

I don't support the "right of dangerous terrorist sympathizers to continue living in the UK." I don't grant them that right anywhere. But to regulate religion simply due to your ignorance of it is simply wrong.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

FIND all the religious leaders who promote terrorism, DEPORT THEM.

Why not find all who promote terrorism? Why limit it to religious leaders?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader

And why is that? You later proved it's because of your ignorance. You won't answer my questions regarding hate and religion. OT in context of NT.

If the New Testament is meant to be such crucial context for the Old Testament, God probably shouldn't have waited almost a thousand years to mention it. If anything, you're ignoring context — specifically, that the New Testament was written in a completely different one, and cannot reasonably be taken as context with stuff that had been God's only word to a hundred generations (simply because it did NOT come with it).

[loki74]

Railroader makes an excellent point--we should just totally crack down big time, all across the board!

of course, there are soooo many people who would object to that... cracking down on terror that is.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

If the New Testament is meant to be such crucial context for the Old Testament, God probably shouldn't have waited almost a thousand years to mention it. If anything, you're ignoring context — specifically, that the New Testament was written in a completely different one, and cannot reasonably be taken as context with stuff that had been God's only word to a hundred generations (simply because it did NOT come with it).

Have you read the Bible? Do you realize that the NT is the prophecies fulfilled from the OT. You can't have one without the other.

The OT proves we can't measure up to God's standard. The NT tells us we don't have to.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Have you read the Bible? Do you realize that the NT is the prophecies fulfilled from the OT. You can't have one without the other.

Surely you realize the Old Testament contains a lot more than prophecies that need fulfilling.

[Railroader]

MY post above yours pretty much sums it up.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Why not find all who promote terrorism? Why limit it to religious leaders?

For the most part, our countries are doing this. But quite a lot of people get away with encouraging terrorism simply because they put it into a religious context, and thus they are free to say whatever they want if it is part of their faith. This shouldn't be allowed anymore, that's my point.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by saab95

NO it should not.

Freedom of religion is an inalienable right.

Give Kerrigan a break! Even though the desire to control everyone's actions IS a decidedly liberal tendency.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

If the New Testament is meant to be such crucial context for the Old Testament, God probably shouldn't have waited almost a thousand years to mention it. If anything, you're ignoring context — specifically, that the New Testament was written in a completely different one, and cannot reasonably be taken as context with stuff that had been God's only word to a hundred generations (simply because it did NOT come with it).

Yeah, Chuckit! Go ahead and tell GOD what HE should or shouldn't do.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Then you are showing your ignorance of the Bible. Ignorance is not bliss, I assure you.

I thought you wanted to regulate that

Sorry, but until you show me where, in a specific religion's creed, that what you are talking about is true, then I say you are truly ignorant and your views are worse than the KKK or any other hate group out there.

I think I read that hate speech is illegal in the UK. Kerrigan isn't referring to the religion's prohibition, Kerrigan is saying that the Gubmint, even though they support freedom of speech and worship should draw the line at "preaching and writing about how suicide bombing is noble and should be encouraged..."

It's not where our forefathers drew the line, but who's to say that is a bad idea.

Where do you get the KKK thing from, dude? I think you got some bad peyote or somethin.

[iLikebeer]

New laws, new laws, new laws.
Why can't people ever think that maybe instead of screwing everybody over and giving away more basic rights, maybe we could use laws already on the books to go after people. They can say whatever they want until they break a law. As soon as they do, prison or deportation. I'm sure the mosques will be watched even more closely now than they already were, and the gov'ts will be more likely to take action rather than simply observe.

Can someone be found guilty of treason for speech advocating terrorist "kind of stuff"?

[Railroader]

Why is "hate speech" made illegal? "Hate activities" should be illegal.

Again, what groups are "preaching and writing about how suicide bombing is noble and should be encouraged..."?!?! Why isn't anyone answering this?

KKK? It was the most obvious hate group I could come up with.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Railroader

"Hate activities" should be illegal. Why is "hate speech" made illegal?

Because "hate speech" is a "hate activity".

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Again, what groups are "preaching and writing about how suicide bombing is noble and should be encouraged..."?!?! Why isn't anyone answering this?

Answer: islamics here in the UK.

Hence new laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4687189.stm):

Other proposals include making it illegal to incite terrorism indirectly by "glorifying" bombings.