Evangelical Preacher on Trial After Branding Islam 'Satanic'

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The point is that war happens because someone starts it. If someone starts a war, and claims it's because of something someone else said, that's a lame excuse. The comments didn't start the war; the overblown reaction to said comments started the war.

Hmm. If I rallied 5000 Scotsmen, marched to the border and proclaimed my hatred of the English and announced we were heading South to attack, it wouldn't be my fault if Englishmen reacted? It would be them who started the war? No, it would be entirely at my door, I would have started that war.

So, from your point of view, what was it all about? I am asking honestly. I have read many claims, and all are very biased one ay or the other. It's difficult to get at the actual facts. This isn't something I have studied in depth. I do understand it's been between Catholics and Protestants.

Eeek! I'll do my best, but am willing to stand corrected by an historian, if they appear in this thread.

Parts of Northern Ireland and Scotland used to be one Kingdom, Dal Riada, but this is going back to the Iron Age and really just to give you an indication of a long, long interwoven history.
The English really became involved much later (or the Anglo-Normans, to be precise) in 1160's during the Norman invasion.
There were tensions during the time of Henry VIII, and a Catholic revolt was defeated. More uprisings took place, but were thwarted by then (mainly) Protestant supporters of the monarchy (British).

Fast forward to Oliver Cromwell and the planters. These were Scots and English colonists in Ireland. Plantations were gifted to these people, land taken from the Irish. Cromwell massacred thousands of (mainly) Catholic Irish people, and so you can start to see the Protestant/Catholic divisions.

By the time of the Battle of the Boyne (1690) when Catholic King James was defeated by Protestant King William, Protestants held the upper hand. Even at this time, there were calls from Irish nationalists for home rule.
Sinn Fein was established in 1905, keen on home rule and proud of Ireland's gaelic past.
By the 1960's tensions were high between both sides and fights broke out during the 50th anniversary walk of the Battle of the Somme. The whole history is incredibly complicated and so I'll defer to wiki:

On 8 March, a group of Irish republicans dynamited Nelson's Pillar in Dublin. At the time, the IRA was weak and not engaged in armed action, but some unionists warned it was about to be revived to launch another campaign against the Northern Ireland polity.[53][60]
In April 1966, loyalists led by Ian Paisley, a Protestant fundamentalist preacher, founded the Ulster Constitution Defence Committee (UCDC). It set up a paramilitary-style wing called the Ulster Protestant Volunteers (UPV)[53] in order to oust Terence O'Neill, Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. Although O'Neill was a unionist, they viewed him as being too 'soft' on the civil rights movement and opposed his policies.[61]

At the same time, a loyalist group calling itself the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) emerged in the Shankill area of Belfast. It was led by Gusty Spence, a former British soldier. Many of its members were also members of the UCDC and UPV.[62] In April and May it petrol bombed a number of Catholic homes, schools and businesses. A firebomb killed an elderly Protestant widow, Matilda Gould.[53] On 21 May, the UVF issued a statement declaring "war" against the IRA and anyone helping it.[63] On 27 May the UVF fatally shot a Catholic civilian, John Scullion, as he walked home. A month later it shot three Catholic civilians as they left a pub, killing a young Catholic from the Republic, Peter Ward

The Troubles

And so on and so on.

As far as I can see, the Muslims are getting away with it. They preach and encourage actual violence, and nothing is done, but he makes a simple statement, and he's charged? That's just not right.

No, no, Muslims are not getting away with it, there have been arrests and deportations for a number of hate preachers. But if we want to be able to stop them from spreading their vicious 'sermons', then it has to work both ways. It cannot be for one religion only.

I'll leave you with a clip of Ian Paisley, who sprang to mind immediately when I read the article, to give you a flavour of him.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Replace 'Islam' with 'Christianity' and see how you feel.

Yes, this is the crux of it. Religious fundamentalism is dangerous, it dehumanises others. My 'sect' is right, my God is better. It knows no peace, it doesn't even seek peace, just righteousness. Mix it with politics and it becomes deadly.

originally posted by: itsallmaya
a reply to: infolurker

Thank you infolurker for the link to Walid Shoebat. Within the past year I have grown from being an agnostic to a follower of Christ Jesus. I have found Mr. Shoebat resonates a lot with me and find his life from a former PLO member to a Christian very interesting.

No, Thank You!

May you walk in knowledge, salvation, and eternal life through Yeshua HaMashiach!

originally posted by: beansidhe
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

The point is that war happens because someone starts it. If someone starts a war, and claims it's because of something someone else said, that's a lame excuse. The comments didn't start the war; the overblown reaction to said comments started the war.

Hmm. If I rallied 5000 Scotsmen, marched to the border and proclaimed my hatred of the English and announced we were heading South to attack, it wouldn't be my fault if Englishmen reacted? It would be them who started the war? No, it would be entirely at my door, I would have started that war.

If you want to pretend that you see no difference in someone stating their opinion, and a declaration of intent to attack, then there is no point in bothering to discuss this with you. Your little scenario would only work if this man had stated that Islam was Satanic, then called for people to destroy it. He didn't do that. There was no call to atack, no declaration of such intent. :down:

originally posted by: beansidhe
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
So, from your point of view, what was it all about? I am asking honestly. I have read many claims, and all are very biased one way or the other. It's difficult to get at the actual facts. This isn't something I have studied in depth. I do understand it's been between Catholics and Protestants.

Eeek! I'll do my best, but am willing to stand corrected by an historian, if they appear in this thread.

Parts of Northern Ireland and Scotland used to be one Kingdom, Dal Riada, but this is going back to the Iron Age and really just to give you an indication of a long, long interwoven history.
The English really became involved much later (or the Anglo-Normans, to be precise) in 1160's during the Norman invasion.
There were tensions during the time of Henry VIII, and a Catholic revolt was defeated. More uprisings took place, but were thwarted by then (mainly) Protestant supporters of the monarchy (British).

Fast forward to Oliver Cromwell and the planters. These were Scots and English colonists in Ireland. Plantations were gifted to these people, land taken from the Irish. Cromwell massacred thousands of (mainly) Catholic Irish people, and so you can start to see the Protestant/Catholic divisions.

By the time of the Battle of the Boyne (1690) when Catholic King James was defeated by Protestant King William, Protestants held the upper hand. Even at this time, there were calls from Irish nationalists for home rule.
Sinn Fein was established in 1905, keen on home rule and proud of Ireland's gaelic past.
By the 1960's tensions were high between both sides and fights broke out during the 50th anniversary walk of the Battle of the Somme. The whole history is incredibly complicated and so I'll defer to wiki:

*snip*

Appreciate the info. The whole thing is indeed complicated, and the long history of the region certainly plays a role.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

If you want to pretend that you see no difference in someone stating their opinion, and a declaration of intent to attack, then there is no point in bothering to discuss this with you. Your little scenario would only work if this man had stated that Islam was Satanic, then called for people to destroy it. He didn't do that. There was no call to atack, no declaration of such intent. :down:

This is where I think you're missing my point, and that the 'satanic Islam' statement is really a red herring. Given the ancient history, which I have omitted tonnes of information from as it is, I think that the issue is really that here is a presbyterian minister, in the mould of Ian Paisley, stirring up religious division. That I think is the crux of the matter - a shadow of the troubles returning. That is what I think is at the root of the matter and has very little to do with the minister's opinion of Islam.

originally posted by: beansidhe
This is where I think you're missing my point, and that the 'satanic Islam' statement is really a red herring. Given the ancient history, which I have omitted tonnes of information from as it is, I think that the issue is really that here is a presbyterian minister, in the mould of Ian Paisley, stirring up religious division. That I think is the crux of the matter - a shadow of the troubles returning. That is what I think is at the root of the matter and has very little to do with the minister's opinion of Islam.

Fair enough. When it comes to Islam, though, I don't call that a case of anyone else stirring up religious division. In this case, you have a group that is known worldwide for having people who want to kill anyone who doesn't believe as they do. With the troubles, you had old political issues which became mixed in with religious divisions, because those happened to be mostly along the same lines as the political divisions. With Islam, it's different. Everywhere in the world, when the number of Muslims reaches certain points, trouble follows.

As Muslim population grows, what can happen to a society?

For a minister to state that this sort of thing seems Satanic to him is quite logical, all considered. If a Catholic priest said the same as this fellow, how would you feel? I'd agree with either one. I do believe the degree of hatred and violence we see from Muslims is something the enemy would use. If we didn't see what we see, as the linked article details, I don't think this pastor would be saying what he did.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

To put it in perspective, old presbyterian ministers like him think it's a sin to do housework on a Sunday. So anything which doesn't fit his Old Testament world view will be demonic and heretical to him.
My mother was brought up in this way, but in Scotland. I remember her really struggling when shops began a Sunday opening in our town because she knew it was logical and reasonable, but her upbringing was so against this.

If a Catholic priest said it, I'd feel the same. I stay out of the whole Catholic/Proddy shebang. It was the fact that this fellow likened Muslims to the IRA that made me see through his feeble attempt at Muslim bashing.

Trust me, Islam is just a happy excuse for him to continue to stoke the hate. Anyone who likens Muslims to the IRA is clearly insane and just looking for any chance they get.

Anyway, wishing you well on Hogmanay and may our 2016 be peaceful from ALL nutbag terrorist blokes, regardless of the god they claim to worship.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

That's an interesting link, it really shows how aggressive belief systems can be used to sway an entire population can't it? People in power love experimenting on the human race, to see how people react, to see how a cashless society would fare, facebook... No one is learning from the past, and doomed society will be if they continue to bend over and obey stupidity.

a reply to: awareness10

That article is the biggest crap I have read in a long while.

I am totally lost as to how any government thinks it can penalise someone criticising islam when the offences islamics commit against innocent people in this country are happening. Do they think we are all stupid or just plain blind.

My family fought in two world wars so we would have freedom of speech which is something I believe everyone should have. We don't have to listen if we don't agree with them, but we also don't have the right to prosecute them for a different opinion to ours either.

What gave the moral high ground to this type of prosecution? They should be prosecuted for interfering in our basic rights.

a reply to: beansidhe

I'm sure it is, heh...

a reply to: shooterbrody

If you are a Christian and believe in the "UFOs are demons" argument, technically Islam is a satanic religion. From my research, the words of the Koran were passed down by a spirit (orb) that confronted Mohammed (a pedofile) around the year 666 AD. This is how the religion of Islam was started. Sounds satanic to me!

Oh yeah, the Koran also says it's ok to kill Christians, only it is so biased it does not refer to Christians directly, but refers to them as "those who worship the God born to Mary" [I'm paraphrasing].

a reply to: DebtSlave

And that sounds bat shut bonkers to me...
And we wonder why aliens will not say hi when we have fools saying they are demonic...

a reply to: shooterbrody

This is getting stupid now in the UK.

Unless your trying to incite a crime then you should be free to say what you like.

a reply to: boymonkey74

It's bonkers to you because it violates your world view belief system.

originally posted by: akushla99
I'd say his best defence would be to plead insanity...

Å99

He shouldnt have to make a defence to beguin with.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm glad we have the right to be stupid idiots in the US, even though I'm not one. I'm surprised the EU is that extreme in its suppression of individual speech/thought. I've known about the German thought crime laws regarding the holocaust, etc., but figured that was a guilt-assuaging (legit word?) abberation of history. I guess not.

I agree.
I still can't believe a civilized country like the uk has these kinds of limits on free speech. No wonder why they question our gun laws...no one over there has real freedom they can not understand.

Bollocks to that.

.USA not exactly much freerer. You Freedoms are being eroded too, just in a different way.

You don’t know what true “freedom” is either.

a reply to: DebtSlave

No it is bonkers because the people who believe bs like that are just afraid that aliens destroy their world view And religion.
Sad really that some are so afraid.
Don't worry et reading this most on earth do not think you are demons only frightened fools.

a reply to: crazyewok

I think people watch brave heart and think it is all true.
Freedom in the states? At least we can cross a road where we want.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: crazyewok

I think people watch brave heart and think it is all true.
Freedom in the states? At least we can cross a road where we want.

Yup.

I got a gun pulled on me in NY for jay walking.

Freedom my arse.

When jaywalking can = summary execution that aint free.