The Most Hated Family In America BBC2 Sunday

aidan24326

Wicknight wrote:

Seen through a literal reading of the Old Testament the stuff that this crowd are stating isn't at all unreasonable. In the Bible God used to do this kind of thing all the time. You cannot go a few pages in the Bible without some group of people getting annihilated because of their sinful actions.

Taken from the FAQ on their website -


Why do you preach hate?

Because the Bible preaches hate. For every one verse about God's mercy, love, compassion, etc., there are two verses about His vengeance, hatred, wrath, etc. The maudlin, kissy-pooh, feel-good, touchy-feely preachers of today's society are damning this nation and this world to hell

Basically they're just doing what the bible is telling them to do. Yes christians that bible.

Hobbes

Someone got a text version of the bible? Run it through Many Eyes and it will tell you if it preachs hate over love or not.

coffee_cake

Hobbes wrote:

Someone got a text version of the bible? Run it through Many Eyes and it will tell you if it preachs hate over love or not.

Will biblegateway work?

Hobbes

bluewolf wrote:

Will biblegateway work?

Appears they have some already.

Here is first half of Old testement.
http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/view/Sh3S9FsOtha6W1Ee30d9F2-

No negative terms jumping out at me there.

Proverbs
http://services.alphaworks.ibm.com/manyeyes/view/SGXXRFsOtha6Mck0IuIcF2-

More interesting. Wicked appears a lot but more or less the same (not many high ranking negative terms). Two word checks shows up "Evil Men", "Strange Woman", "Lying Tongue", "False Witness".

Would be interested to see the full bible run through though.

godtabh

So what did people think of it?

I thought it was very good.

There is a film on the BBC web site. Gona check that out now

mike65

Just watched it and South Park have to raise thier game from this point methinks.

The mother is clearly a hateful nutcase but proberly was'nt once, indeed she was proberly just like her daughters, quite charming and not 'stupid' - but already indoctrinated possibly past the point of no return. The only good news is that like they look like dying out within a few generations.

Mike.

zAbbo

you can grab the extra content from here - http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/downloadtrial/bbctwo/louistheroux-videopodcast/louistheroux-videopodcast_20070401-2100_40_st.mp4


Main Site - http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/noise/?id=louis_theroux

445279.ie

That was one disturbing programme.

Sangre

InFront wrote:

Well the next problem is that this is a logical non sequitur, because you must next prove that God hates those who tolerate for that to be correct. I "tolerate" homosexuals (obviously, I have no right to police somebody's private affairs or lifestyle choices), so by your logic God hates me. No, this statement quoted above just doesn't make sense. Tolerance (tasamuh) is a fundamental principle in Islamic teaching, and is a duty for every Muslim.

Okay, if I extend that logic should I then tolerate those who engage in active raping lifestyle choice? Isn't a sin a sin?

WindSock

I liked how the presenter was trying his best to 'get through' to the daughter. I think he felt she could still be saved. As for the kids getting hit by the drink from the passers by, I found it strange the Mother could keep apologising as if it were her admission of guilt for such a thing to happen, yet she would happily put her kids in the danger again of picketing. utterly nuts.

InFront

Sangre wrote:

Okay, if I extend that logic should I then tolerate those who engage in active raping lifestyle choice? Isn't a sin a sin?

Don't you tolerate rapists? Tell me how you actively refuse to tolerate them in your everyday life?

All I am saying is that in a society like Irish society, in 2007, a community such as the Islamic community (or any other religious community not in favour of the promotion of homosexual lifestyle) actually has no institutions or facilities or mandate or nomination to police things that are not permissable. Therefore, toleration is required, and it is necessary to entrust the Government with punishments.

To that end, I do tolerate rapists, and I have no doubt that you do as well.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

Don't you tolerate rapists? Tell me how you actively refuse to tolerate them in your everyday life?

He votes in governments that make raping someone a criminal offense (I assume), as do most people.

Would you vote for a government that planned to make homosexual acts illegal again in Ireland?

InFront

Most people didn't vote for the Government, let alone a rape bill.

To be honest that wouldn't even cross my mind. Believe it or not religious people (in my limited experience) do not wake up in the mornings wondering how to eliminate homosexuals, nor how to make them go straight. It certainly wouldn't be an election question.
Anyway if you're asking would it stop me voting for a particular party candidate, then depending on how they planned to deal with the issue, no it wouldn't.

Sangre

InFront wrote:

Don't you tolerate rapists? Tell me how you actively refuse to tolerate them in your everyday life?

All I am saying is that in a society like Irish society, in 2007, a community such as the Islamic community (or any other religious community not in favour of the promotion of homosexual lifestyle) actually has no institutions or facilities or mandate or nomination to police things that are not permissable. Therefore, toleration is required, and it is necessary to entrust the Government with punishments.

To that end, I do tolerate rapists, and I have no doubt that you do as well.

Well as Wicknight pointed out I'm a voter. Do you think any government would last that did tolerate rape? What if all DPP prosecutions for rape stopped? Do you think they'd last the year, let alone the next general election? Do you think there would be no protests or rallies?

I would also report them to the police or I would simply try and stop it if it was anyway possible, regardless of our legal institutions. So no, I don't tolerate rape, nor would I live in a country that did. Your suggestion that I (or this society) does is quite silly.

Am I going against the Quran? Am I not following 'tolerance'?

No doubt you (and most Muslims) would feel the same about rape and would not allow it to go on without protest. However, when it comes to homosexuality you preach tolerance for sins where I have no doubt you would not apply the same standards to other sins. Essentially I'm asking why do you have a double standard for homosexuality? Is it because modern society forces you to?

InFront

Sangre wrote:

Well as Wicknight pointed out I'm a voter. Do you think any government would last that did tolerate rape?

My point is that you entrust all legislation issues with those who administer: the elected Government, as I do, and rightly so. You seemed to be of the opinion that we don't tolerate rape but tolerate homosexuality. Actually, nobody really goes out of their way to 'not tolerate' either one, but rather entrusts the Government with policy issues on toleration and punishments.
You haven't voted either way on rape, or rapists, and haven't really convinced me that you don't tolerate them. I don't see that you have any choice but to tolerate them, because like me, and speaking in practical terms, it isn't your job to tolerate them or not.

metrovelvet

How soon we forget. The Irish Church, people, police department, and department of education not only "tolerated" child rape but facilitated it. Point the finger and you have three pointing back at yourselves.

And someone remind me exactly when it became illegal in Ireland for a man to rape his wife?

Sangre

InFront wrote:

My point is that you entrust all legislation issues with those who administer: the elected Government, as I do, and rightly so. You seemed to be of the opinion that we don't tolerate rape but tolerate homosexuality. Actually, nobody really goes out of their way to 'not tolerate' either one, but rather entrusts the Government with policy issues on toleration and punishments.
You haven't voted either way on rape, or rapists, and haven't really convinced me that you don't tolerate them. I don't see that you have any choice but to tolerate them, because like me, and speaking in practical terms, it isn't your job to tolerate them or not.

I honestly can't believe you're making this arguement. Its just so silly, quite unbecoming of you Infront.

Tbh, I think your whole arguement is moot because I don't need to 'not tolerate' the rapists because the government and society already does it for me. We have laws against it and police to prevent it. If I saw a rape in progress I would try and stop it or would report it. If there were none of these institutions in place I would protest the government, vote them out, put forward candidates or eventually leave the country in disgust. So NO, I don't tolerate rape, I just don't need to do the above because I don't have to, its already not tolerated. No doubt you'd do the same.

However, homosexual acts are tolerated by society and no doubt civil unions will soon be too. Yet I don't see you doing the above to prevent these despite the fact they are both sins in the eye of God. And theres you're double standard.

metrovelvet wrote:

And someone remind me exactly when it became illegal in Ireland for a man to rape his wife?

A few years ago when a woman finally brought a case against her husband. Tbh, the law was waiting to be abolished with a case like that.

InFront

So NO, I don't tolerate rape, I just don't need to do the above because I don't have to, its already not tolerated.

Firstly, nobody specifically tolerates rape, it is more a question of the rapist.
Secondly, there are different degrees of toleration, the Islamic definition of justice could describe the Irish legislative and judicial systems as 'tolerant' of rapists. Thirdly you do not take an active part in the toleration or otherwise, no more than I take an active part in tolerating homosexual activity, or otherwise. I let Government deal with homosexuals the very same as I entrust them with rapists.
Everyone has their own lives to get on with. In terms of punishment it is the state's problem to tolerate an individual or not. I'm not on a mission for others, if most people want homosexuality, homosexuality they'll have.
You have a get-out clause in that injustice is never committed in the eyes of the judiciary, thus by default, justice is always done, therefore this tolerance is exempt from question.

Sangre

I'm sorry I think you're just taking pure waffle at this stage and I have no idea what point you're trying to make beyond warping the meaning of tolerate to get out of the corner you've backed into.

Or maybe it was me? I showed I don't tolerate rape (but don't actively do it because it is already done for me). If it was tolerated I would do something. To say its not me directly but the legislature ignores the fact we live in a democracy where free assembly is also permitted. Homosexual acts are tolerated (and you said they should be). However the Quran says they're a sin so I'm asking why don't you protest against the act being allowed like I would protest against rape/murder being allowed? Since you don't why not? Would you protest if they made rape legal? If so why is there a difference? Does the notion of 'tolerance' that you described above not lead to such absurd situations?
Tbh, the only reason I think you're trying to dance rings around this is because society wouldn't like you to say you would protest homosexuality. Either that or you don't think it really is a sin and the Quran is a bit off.

InFront

Or the alternative would be that you're reading into my posts what you want to read into them.
I'm not sure how many more ways there are of saying it: it isn't up to me to tolerate a rapist or not. The same goes for people who live as homosexuals. In fact, the same goes for people who drink alcohol, and the same goes for people who have heterosexual relationships outside marriage.

Why don't I protest against these things? Because they don't effect me, none of them particularly worry me. To each their own, I can live my life as much in line with Islamic teaching as possible regardless of who is gay, straight, rapes, or drinks alcohol. It isn't my job to cure, teach, or enlighten any of these guys beyond what is reasonable.
I happen to think rape should be dealt with in a far more serious way, yet I "tolerate" this not happening, because if everyone were to go around protesting everything they disagreed with, they'd never get anything done.

Schuhart

Sangre wrote:

Tbh, the only reason I think you're trying to dance rings around this is because society wouldn't like you to say you would protest homosexuality.

FWIW, that's my reading of the situation too.

InFront

But that's ridiculous, Schuhart what are you doing to delete mention of God from the constitution? From what i remember you're opposed to the circumcision of baby boys - what are you doing to prevent this from happening?

Saying that it's a double standard to hold certain values and not live as a sort of 'eternal protestor' is a pretty strange comment tbh

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

what are you doing to delete mention of God from the constitution?

I would have thought that flatly stating that he doesn't exist might, in some small way, have some relevance to that point.

InFront wrote:

From what i remember you're opposed to the circumcision of baby boys - what are you doing to prevent this from happening?

I don't remember addressing that specific topic (I'm thinking it might have been female circumcision but I'm not trying to drag that in here) but I'll take your underlying point. All most of us do is participate in elections/referenda and discuss whatever is happening amongst ourselves. I suppose we do hope that out of that process an agenda arrives that addresses what concerns people have. If I'm the only person in Ireland who wants a referendum banning Eastenders from our airwaves, then I probably won't get very far. If lost of people share the same concern, you hope that it gets to an agenda. I think the slow untying of Irish family planning legislation is a reasonable example of that kind of process - the law slowly following how peoples thoughts and behaviours changed over time.

In discussions like this, I just see it in terms of been clear about where we stand. If someone asks would I vote to ban female circumcision (I can't remember if its specifically outlawed here) the answer is I probably would. I find it hard to envisage anything that would convince me otherwise. If someone said asks would I vote to ban male circumcision, I probably wouldn't unless convincing medical evidence was produced to show this caused a similar level of damage to the person.

I think that's all that's expected in these kinds of discussions. If someone put criminalisation of homosexuality on the constitutional agenda, I'd vote against. I'm not campaigning one way or the other on the topic. But I'm open to a clear exploratory discussion of it should the matter arise.

InFront

I would have thought that flatly stating that he doesn't exist might, in some small way, have some relevance to that point.

Not really, I can say that homosexual activity is categorically wrong, but I still "tolerate" homosexuals.
It's not that I expect an atheist to be out there protesting against this mention of God (or the performance of infant circumcision), but I do find it strange that an atheist expects a theist to be out there protesting his beliefs. It's a pretty unreasonable suggestion to make that anyone should carry on like that.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

Most people didn't vote for the Government, let alone a rape bill.

I'm not sure what you mean. Most people do vote for politicians that enact a system of law and order that outlaws crimes such as rape. That was not always the case. Within recent history it was legal for a man to rape his wife. That was changed because the views of the society changed and this change was reflected by our elected representatives.

To say that people today in Ireland tolerate rapists is nonsense.

InFront wrote:

Believe it or not religious people (in my limited experience) do not wake up in the mornings wondering how to eliminate homosexuals, nor how to make them go straight.

I think the whole point of this thread is that some of them clearly do.

InFront wrote:

It certainly wouldn't be an election question.

Homosexuality in Ireland was an political issue, in so much as anything is, and still is. The outlawing of homosexual conduct that had been on the books since the 19th century were only over turned in Ireland by the European Court of Human Rights in 1988 after a successful (albeit not at first) campaign by the gay rights movement lead by David Norris, amongst others. Under pressure from Labour the government eventually brought the law up to speed in 1993.

The specific rights of homosexuals is still an issue, such as the right to legally marry, legally adopt children etc. At the moment the Greens and Sinn Fein support legal marriage between homosexuals, where as FG, Labour and the PDs support civil partnerships. Not surprisingly the Christian Solidarity Party opposes it

luckily for homosexuals living in Ireland Irish people seem to be generally welcoming to the idea of equal status of homosexuals and heterosexuals. Nearly 41% of the population support full marriage between homosexuals, and 51% supporting civil partnerships.

It is a different matter in countries such as the USA where conservative religious groups have mounted organised campaigns against homosexual rights.

InFront wrote:

Anyway if you're asking would it stop me voting for a particular party candidate, then depending on how they planned to deal with the issue, no it wouldn't.

Would you vote for who ever you normally vote for if they planned to bring in civil partnerships between homosexuals (as most parties do) or full marriage (as some do and most probably will)

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean. Most people do vote for politicians that enact a system of law and order that outlaws crimes such as rape.

Most of the electorate did not vote in the last election. Even of those who voted, or have ever voted, to ascribe themselves some great tag of "I don't tolerate rapists" doesn't make any sense. Does that mean that everyone who voted for parties in the 1970s and 80s were voting in favour of rape within marriage, since it was legal? Or was voting in favour of banning homosexuality? No of course not, they were simply going with the flow, as voters today do.

Would you vote for who ever you normally vote for if they planned to bring in civil partnerships between homosexuals (as most parties do) or full marriage (as some do and most probably will)

No matter who is sitting on the Government benches, that party will introduce some sort of act to this effect. So I will vote for the better of all of those parties.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

My point is that you entrust all legislation issues with those who administer: the elected Government, as I do, and rightly so. You seemed to be of the opinion that we don't tolerate rape but tolerate homosexuality. Actually, nobody really goes out of their way to 'not tolerate' either one, but rather entrusts the Government with policy issues on toleration and punishments.

You are kinda missing the point that is how we tolerate or not tolerate something, through our elected representatives.

We don't tolerate rape because we elected governments that reflect this position. We do tolerate homosexuality because we elect governments that reflect this position. That is how it works.

Using homosexuality it isn't up to the government to decide what is or is not tolerated. The government reflects the wishes of the people that elected it. If the people didn't tolerate something like marriage between homosexual couples then the government would be pretty stupid to enact that in law, because they would find themselves out of government pretty quickly

Equally if a government bizarrely decided to repeal the rape laws in Ireland they would be replaced pretty sharply by another government.

InFront

You are kinda missing the point that is how we tolerate or not tolerate something, through our elected representatives.

No, I don't agree that is always the case. Are you saying that most Irish people used to tolerate rape within marriage? Well it was in the law, they consistently voted for governments who kept it in the law, so did the public not tolerate it? No. And it wasn't an election promise.

Zombrex

InFront wrote:

Most of the electorate did not vote in the last election.

That doesn't really matter. If you don't vote in an election you automatically accept the results of that election by default.

InFront wrote:

Even of those who voted, or have ever voted, to ascribe themselves some great tag of "I don't tolerate rapists" doesn't make any sense.

Who said anything about "some great tag" Allow rape isn't a great issue because no one would be stupid enough to run with the policy to legalise rape because no one in Ireland would vote for them. No one tolerates rape.

InFront wrote:

Does that mean that everyone who voted for parties in the 1970s and 80s were voting in favour of rape within marriage, since it was legal?

If you voted for a party that didn't aim to change the law it means you were tolerating it, yes.

InFront wrote:

No of course not, they were simply going with the flow, as voters today do.

Going with the flow is tolerating something (or not tolerating it, depending on what the flow is doing). In fact its a pretty good definition of what we are talking about.

No one in Ireland tolerates rape, so naturally none of the political parties tolerate it either. The political parties go with the flow of the general population. That is how they get elected.

The "flow" in Ireland at the moment is to tolerate homosexuality and to not tolerate rapists. That is what most people do, but if you don't agree with this flow you can vote for elected representatives who you feel represent your views.

InFront wrote:

No matter who is sitting on the Government benches, that party will introduce some sort of act to this effect. So I will vote for the better of all of those parties.

That is fair enough, but in doing so you are tolerating homosexual partnerships.

InFront

Wicknight wrote:

If you voted for a party that didn't aim to change the law it means you were tolerating it, yes.

For goodness sake, this is up there with "unthinking racism" and "brain waves" wicknight. So all of these millions of votes cast since 1922 that voted in the government of the day, were all votes tolerating rape within marriage?

That is fair enough, but in doing so you are tolerating homosexual partnerships.

That was my point to begin with, actually. I know I am, I said that tolerance was important.