There was a guy who used to come onto the bus in central London and start a 30 minute rant about how the Queen was a war criminal or something. He had a bunch of banners and laminated newspaper clippings in a plastic bag which he would stick up around the standing area of the bus before beginning. His speech also made use of a few bible verses.
He gave out leaflets, but the fact that he looked like a lunatic hobo probably limited uptake.
While this bloke is obviously a hateful throbber, I am interested by the notion that it is a widely held view that we are supposed to respect religion and religious beliefs, while simultaneously finding it objectionable to read out passages of these religious texts in public.
NEWSFLASH: some religious texts are hateful. Why the fook should I respect them or anyone who believes in them?
I'd say he's a bit mentally ill. I'm not a brain doctor but to start racially abusing people in the name of a made up creator of the universe seems a little off key.
Many believers in a religion do so because it gives a veneer of "respectability" to their prejudices. They don't have to think about or justify anything because "it says so in the bible".
My point is if we must respect religion (which I don't), sometimes on pain of civil or even criminal liability, how can it be an offence to read out the religious texts words-for-word?
Answer: because it's a massive fudge in the name of wanting to be progressive.
If people want to believe in a sky pixie whose followers have written down words (for example) saying other people should have their heads chopped of in its name, fine they can crack on. But I shouldn't be compelled to respect them. As long as they don't impinge on the rights of others they can crack on, but as soon as they don't they can fook right off. And IMHO that includes being allowed to say (in as respectful a way as possible) that they are bordering on mental.
because it was on public transport, the man was hectoring kids (not just reading it out) who had shown no indication they wanted to speak to him. and because his manner was aggressive and threatening. all v obvious if you watch the video
The reading of any religious tract (rather, anthology of violent, bloody, hateful fairy tales) whether aloud or not, is dangerous and anyone doing so is either likely to be or become a potential or actual terrorist, or is a seriously deranged nut-case. At home, these people are probably real aunts and physically abuse their partners or other family members.
0
0
Mentally ill man scares children
0
0
heh.
0
0
mentally ill or just an unpleasant person?
0
0
There was a guy who used to come onto the bus in central London and start a 30 minute rant about how the Queen was a war criminal or something. He had a bunch of banners and laminated newspaper clippings in a plastic bag which he would stick up around the standing area of the bus before beginning. His speech also made use of a few bible verses.
He gave out leaflets, but the fact that he looked like a lunatic hobo probably limited uptake.
Top quality entertainment.
0
0
While this bloke is obviously a hateful throbber, I am interested by the notion that it is a widely held view that we are supposed to respect religion and religious beliefs, while simultaneously finding it objectionable to read out passages of these religious texts in public.
NEWSFLASH: some religious texts are hateful. Why the fook should I respect them or anyone who believes in them?
0
0
I'd say he's a bit mentally ill. I'm not a brain doctor but to start racially abusing people in the name of a made up creator of the universe seems a little off key.
0
0
Many believers in a religion do so because it gives a veneer of "respectability" to their prejudices. They don't have to think about or justify anything because "it says so in the bible".
0
0
I didn't watch any clip.
My point is if we must respect religion (which I don't), sometimes on pain of civil or even criminal liability, how can it be an offence to read out the religious texts words-for-word?
Answer: because it's a massive fudge in the name of wanting to be progressive.
If people want to believe in a sky pixie whose followers have written down words (for example) saying other people should have their heads chopped of in its name, fine they can crack on. But I shouldn't be compelled to respect them. As long as they don't impinge on the rights of others they can crack on, but as soon as they don't they can fook right off. And IMHO that includes being allowed to say (in as respectful a way as possible) that they are bordering on mental.
0
0
Big Barry Blabbermouth25 Nov 19 10:25
Reply |
Report
At Lynn’s baptism?
THEY ALWAYS GET PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE DOWN LYNN
0
0
because it was on public transport, the man was hectoring kids (not just reading it out) who had shown no indication they wanted to speak to him. and because his manner was aggressive and threatening. all v obvious if you watch the video
0
0
Diceman, I've got no doubt it was all of those things.
And it would likely be all of those things if he read The Tiger Who Came To Tea at them too wouldn't it?
But he wouldn't do that, because he's spurred on by his religious beliefs. And those religious beliefs are actually supported in the "holy" texts.
0
0
The reading of any religious tract (rather, anthology of violent, bloody, hateful fairy tales) whether aloud or not, is dangerous and anyone doing so is either likely to be or become a potential or actual terrorist, or is a seriously deranged nut-case. At home, these people are probably real aunts and physically abuse their partners or other family members.
0
0
I will pray for you SJ.
0
0
Lot of crude racism on this thread
Join the discussion