# Silly religious protests



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm

This ties up with the other comments I made about people choosing to live in this country and they can't adapt to it. Things offend them and they go and protest about them. But they get offended far to easily and they behave very silly indeed.

These religious people are so pathetic and they would have to be deported back where they came from.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

No - religion is very silly


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

It's really not gonna help their cause or their integration into the country is it. :?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Clearly then cannot integrate and they must be kicked off this country. All they do is trouble.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Just like the Christians that protested against the GAY Jesus play in St Andrews recently........ just like the Jews..... the Muslims......those hare krishnas that follow u around.....and those Greek Orthodox priests that spit on u when u walk past....


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Which Christian Orthodox spit on you? Haven't heard of this before :?: :idea:

I believe that if something offends a majority of a community that has the right to be somewhere then the protest is justified. So if Christians were demonstrating about something, where Chirstianity is the main religion of a country, then this is more justified than this case here.

People should be allowed to protest but if you see silly things like this it is so annoying.

But in general I do agree that religions are silly and they are nothing more than "businesses" operate secretly in the name of God. :roll:


----------



## Parrot of Doom (Dec 18, 2004)

The great thing about this country is that any citizen can protest peacefully about whatever they fancy. It matters not what that protest is about.

I congratulate them for having the community spirit to organise something like this, although I have no opinion on their chosen gripe.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I think you didn't follow the news. This was not a peaceful protest. 5 police officers were injured, they did damage to property and they cause upset to the local community.

They are the same as football trouble makers but wearing long beards and funny hats.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

ban football then - its a shit game anyway


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Football can be another very long flam thread on it's own. :wink:


----------



## phil (May 7, 2002)

Parrot of Doom said:


> The great thing about this country is that any citizen can protest peacefully about whatever they fancy. It matters not what that protest is about.


Hear hear. But it was a violent protest as vlastan says. If the Sikhs are offended then they should have a right to say so. But anyone who turns to violence should be tried and prosecuted.


----------



## scott28tt (Jul 30, 2002)

It's a play FFS, as far as I am aware there is no suggestion whatsoever that it's 'based on a true story'

It doesn't matter that the protesters are Sikh, that the play features a Sikh temple, the protesters have a right to free speech but NOT violence of this kind :? :x


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

And they already said that the story is fictitious and not real. :roll:


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

They should ban Cluedo too then.

I've played in some games where the insinuation is that the Reverend Green committed a murder in the Kitchen with the Candlestick.

:roll:

What's interesting is that they don't mention whether the Author was Sikh, Muslim, Christian etc. It could have made a difference as to how the play was received. I've taken out of it that it was written by a non-Sikh and therefore, in the protestor's eyes, she's mocking their religion from the outside.

I guess it all depends on your own faith. If you believe in something strongly anough, any suggestion that the thing you believe in is in any way tarnished is considered offensive.

I'm not a huge believer in any religion so when people attack the Christian Church and say that all vicars fiddle with their Choirboys, I don't find it offensive, but sad becaue there is sometimes an element of truth in it. :?

Must be nice to have belief, but I prefer reality.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

vlastan said:


> Clearly then cannot integrate and they must be kicked off this country. All they do is trouble.


Yeah, especially all those that were born here. Should be kicked out right away. What kind of tolerant society do they think we live in? :?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Just read the links:

She is also Asian

Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti 


> Speaking about writing Asian storylines in TV soaps in 2003, she said: "I believe if your heart is in the right place, if you ask the right questions, if you make the right choices, anybody can write about anything.
> 
> "*It is just about doing it with sensitivity and care and passion*."


----------



## sssgucci (Nov 20, 2004)

vlastan said:


> Clearly then cannot integrate and they must be kicked off this country. All they do is trouble.


All they do is trouble?

Is it a common thing, that they cause trouble?


----------



## Chip_iTT (Nov 14, 2003)

vlastan said:


> But in general I do agree that religions are silly and they are nothing more than "businesses" operate secretly in the name of God. :roll:


V, I do so hope that was meant tongue in cheek, cos I would otherwise take a strong exception to that - not all religions are like that and religion generically serves a valuable purpose.

It is however unfortunate that some religions have been 'corrupted' into believing that those that uphold the religion and the processes they instigate are more important than the concept of the belief process itself....


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Religious groups that donâ€™t like our ways/customs, should leave.

What next ban xmas incase someone takes offence?


----------



## imster (Apr 26, 2003)

Kell- The author is Sikh

Vlastan- They aren't silly hats, they have a religious significance and so I would expect you to show a bit more respect

Vlastan- I don't agree with the point you made that if a particular religion is the majority then they have full rights to protest about things. Everyone has a right to free speech.

When demonstartions occur there should be no violence.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Chip_iTT said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > But in general I do agree that religions are silly and they are nothing more than "businesses" operate secretly in the name of God. :roll:
> ...


I come from a very religious background where I used to go to church weekly, sing, kiss the hand of priests in the streets, etc. And I have seen so many things during this time that put me off.



> Vlastan- They aren't silly hats, they have a religious significance and so I would expect you to show a bit more respect
> 
> Vlastan- I don't agree with the point you made that if a particular religion is the majority then they have full rights to protest about things. Everyone has a right to free speech.


I don't know what the significance is. But they don't fit in this country. For the same reason that France banned women from covering their heads in schools. If people want to be in this society they have to integrate. If they can't then why do the want to be in a country where they are unhappy and create conflict?

I support peaceful protests with a meaning only, not silly ones.



> Religious groups that donâ€™t like our ways/customs, should leave.
> 
> What next ban xmas incase someone takes offence?


Excellent comment. I fully support this too.

I believe that people that choose to be in another country they have to integrate not try to bring revolution to this country to satisfy their needs. :x


----------



## sssgucci (Nov 20, 2004)

I think this thing has been blown out of proportion.

The author of this play should have been a bit more tactful. Now he/she is probably paying the price.

When it comes to integration, I am all for it, but Vlas I think you should know the facts before you start talking total shit. Yes 5 officers may have been injured, but who knows, the officers may have gone in heavy handed.

Next you will be saying the "guys with the funny hats" are the same as group of people that are associated with Bin Laden.
Or worse still, you will say, "same difference, all look the same anyway" [smiley=dizzy2.gif]

You are a total joker and from someone who went to church you would think you may have learnt a fair few things. :x


----------



## sssgucci (Nov 20, 2004)

vlastan said:


> Clearly then cannot integrate and they must be kicked off this country. All they do is trouble.


By the way, you need to learn how to write.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> The author of this play should have been a bit more tactful. Now he/she is probably paying the price.


Paying the price for writing fiction? :roll:

A lot of plays offend people. If you are a touch character don't go and watch it. You are an adult and can make a choice. Of course if you have a pea brain all you want to do is go watch it, so then you can go and protest that it offended you. :lol:



> Vlas I think you should know the facts before you start talking total shit. Yes 5 officers may have been injured, but who knows, the officers may have gone in heavy handed.


Now you sound like you were there and you were one of them that attacked the police. You also feel that they were heavy handed?

So tell me then...how do you know the facts and I don't? Were you there?

From my experience the church is for hypocrites. They talk about being nice to people and all they do in real life is backstabbing each other. Sorry but this is how life is and if you don't believe it then your brain is smaller than a pea.


----------



## imster (Apr 26, 2003)

I had written a long winded essay in response to Vlastan's narrow minded views, but hey its his right to free speech.

All I have to say it thank god there aren't more people like Vlastan in this world...


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Now this response is very amusing. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You wrote a long essay about what? If it is about narrow minded people then this is not be as I am very liberal. So this long essay gave you a PhD in something? :roll:

But thanks for respecting my views, although you don't share them.


----------



## TTej (Sep 10, 2003)

I have followed this thread for a while now and i find it interesting the way it seems to have developed. If i may now have my say.

Now the facts as i see them are a Sikh writer wrote a play set within a Sikh temple. The local religious leaders were not too pleased and decided to protest. Now what the BBC or most news programmes failed to note was that they had a peaceful protest for 5/6 days. Now this protest was only attended by very few people (majority of which wore turbans) and those i suppose who were most opposed to the play.

Now the next day after 11pm (funny how most violence happens after kicking out time) The 'peaceful' protesters were joined by i think around a hundered young asian boys who started all the trouble and smashed the glass etc. What was significant was that the majority of the younger asians were not wearning turbans so it was difficult to distinguise if these lads were indeed Sikh at all.

Peaceful protest is something i believe in, if you dont like it you should be allowed to have your say. Violent protest is completely wrong. And i am not defending that at all, i think the police should arrest all those people who are out there to cause trouble, just like the pro hunting groups outside Westminister or anything else. You will always find it is the small minority who spoil things for the majority.

That is the story as i have read and believe.

With regards to this thread. Vlastan (and to be honest i find it hard to be polite) I find it 'interesting' the comments you have made about Sikhs, it either shows a complete lack of understanding or just how much of a **** you are . I remember not too long ago when you were crying out some HUGE misjustice when a fellow forum member made some comments which YOU felt were racist, and i myself listened to your story i did stand behind you. I for one believe that this forum is a friendly place where hopefully a number of interesting people get together and discuss things in an open manner.

You DONT know that all 'they' (in which i think you mean Sikhs, or is that aimed at all asians?) do is cause trouble. When was the last time you had trouble? From my memory this is the first time Sikhs have been accused of any violent protest in this country, but of course for the small minded uneducated out there they are easily identifiable with their beards and turbans, just as after 911 many Sikhs in America were subject to attacks as they were belived to be part of Al Qaeda.

Yes we are free to say what we like the forum wouldnt work without it, i do understand that. I suppose i just would wish some ppl would think before they type. :?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

With "they" I refered to the people that protested. Didn't refer to Asians or Sikhs specifically. Also they should include any people that come to this country and can't adapt to it and cause trouble.

The comments were addressed to me directly at the time and were racists. But at the time I didn't attack any police officers or went to protest violently, but just expressed my view in a thread. Hardly the same.


----------



## was (Mar 24, 2003)

TTej said:


> With regards to this thread. Vlastan (and to be honest i find it hard to be polite) I find it 'interesting' the comments you have made about Sikhs, it either shows a complete lack of understanding or just how much of a **** you are . I remember not too long ago when you were crying out some HUGE misjustice when a fellow forum member made some comments which YOU felt were racist, and i myself listened to your story i did stand behind you. I for one believe that this forum is a friendly place where hopefully a number of interesting people get together and discuss things in an open manner.


Now this response is very amusing :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

was said:


> TTej said:
> 
> 
> > With regards to this thread. Vlastan (and to be honest i find it hard to be polite) I find it 'interesting' the comments you have made about Sikhs, it either shows a complete lack of understanding or just how much of a **** you are . I remember not too long ago when you were crying out some HUGE misjustice when a fellow forum member made some comments which YOU felt were racist, and i myself listened to your story i did stand behind you. I for one believe that this forum is a friendly place where hopefully a number of interesting people get together and discuss things in an open manner.
> ...


Why is it amusing? Do you agree with his comments or you disagree?


----------



## kam (Sep 25, 2003)

I like Tej have been reading this with some interest.

Like many Sikh's, I was born in this country and feel at home here like any other person. Through my time growing up I have come across many comments to the effect of what has been said in this thread.

My father came to this country and did his part in the growth of this nation. He came across this type of negative comments many times, but he just refused to give in. He is a law abiding person and never jugged any race colour or religion. It is times like this that I feel I have to watch my back, as these types of negative comments can be taken and expanded on. Let's face it, we are all not the same and this just seems to go generally saying all Sikh's cause trouble.

Vlasten, Tej has given you the option to answer a few questions on your comments. I think you should at least back up what you feel is right to say on such a "friendly" forum.

I have been on this Forum for just over a year and did not expect this type of comments with others jumping on the band wagon without a thought.

:?


----------



## imster (Apr 26, 2003)

Was, Tej, and Kam save your breath on Vlastan and lets not make this thread bear its ugly head anymore.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

kam said:


> I like Tej have been reading this with some interest.
> 
> Like many Sikh's, I was born in this country and feel at home here like any other person. Through my time growing up I have come across many comments to the effect of what has been said in this thread.
> 
> My father came to this country and did his part in the growth of this nation. He came across this type of negative comments many times, but he just refused to give in. He is a law abiding person and never jugged any race colour or religion. It is times like this that I feel I have to watch my back, as these types of negative comments can be taken and expanded on. Let's face it, we are all not the same and this just seems to go generally saying all Sikh's cause trouble.


But you didn't get offended or upset by this theatrical play and the use of the temple. Did your father? Did he go to the protests? I guess not.

Because you are a good example of an integrated member of this society. You are your own Sikh identity and your own beliefs but you are also a fully adapted member of this society and not a trouble maker. You are one the people tha brings diversity to this country as well as a good example. In other words similar like me. :wink:


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

So a good example of integration is a conformist.....

so integration has to be that a religous belief is thrown out the window to conform to once societies idea of religous belief I dont see how this is "integration", your are borderline on following the opinions of one funny German with a small tash.

I think your points on religious "funny hats" and head scarves is disrespectful and is as stupid as the French Government waisting their peoples money on even trying to make a law on it. If it was the latest French fashion there would be no problem, attacks on religious dress is complete bollocks and an ignorant point of view.

As for the play
Would it be ok to write a play about you walking into a Greek temple or place of worship and commiting a rape.

do you even feel the slightest insult in the suggestion of the above, if there is any ounce of sense in your body you would not like the suggestion it was you and if you had any religion in you, you would not like the suggestion it was in a holy place.....

The protest was about the Plays content the use of a religions sacred place of worship for this depiction.

If you choose to write a blasphemous text that will offend so many then you should be prepared for many voices and opinions to be sounded.

As for your views in integration....you have lost the plot!


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Wak said:


> So a good example of integration is a conformist.....
> 
> so integration has to be that a religous belief is thrown out the window to conform to once societies idea of religous belief I dont see how this is "integration", your are borderline on following the opinions of one funny German with a small tash.


This is not what I said. I never said throw away religious beliefs. People can still believe the religion that they like. We need this diversity to have a complete society.

I am not as religious as I used to be, so a fictitious play displaying Christian Orthodox scenes of any kind wouldn't affect me.

I don't understand the reason why people wear "funny hats" that is why I called them like this. It was not meant to show disrespect.

But I think that the French government is doing the right thing. And one of the reason why it is doing this is to protect these children that cover their hair, from bullying and abuse from others.


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> This is not what I said. I never said throw away religious beliefs. People can still believe the religion that they like. We need this diversity to have a complete society.
> 
> I am not as religious as I used to be, so a fictitious play displaying Christian Orthodox scenes of any kind wouldn't affect me.
> 
> I don't understand the reason why people wear "funny hats" that is why I called them like this. It was not meant to show disrespect.


ok, but the disrespect comes from not investigating the Turbans and understanding their religious context and simply refering to them a funny hats.

The point I am making is that a play depicting you personally as an evil person doing an evil deed is a personally distressing to you as a play depicting an evil deed in a religously holy place and hence what distressed the majority. What the cause of the disturbance was about was the content and context of a particular scene.

I dont condone the violence, but the protest did start peacefully and to make a comparison, the advertising authorities will act on much smaller complaints about distressing adverts but there was no authority to manage this kind of distress hence the protest, hence the escalation that occurred.



vlastan said:


> But I think that the French government is doing the right thing. And one of the reason why it is doing this is to protect these children that cover their hair, from bullying and abuse from others.


You can not be serious! :lol:
You really believe its to protect the children....
:x 
I think the government should lock up the bullies and abusers!

Its not the governments role to decide that, thats absolute nonsense! :evil: 
Its parents of wearers that should decide what is best for their children and the parents of bullys and abusers that should be given a kick up the arse and their kids dealt with. :twisted:


----------



## TTotal (Aug 12, 2002)

imster said:


> Was, Tej, and Kam save your breath on Vlastan and lets not make this thread bear its ugly head anymore.


Well said Imraan, Wak you are also banging your head against a brick wall mate.

:?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Wak said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > This is not what I said. I never said throw away religious beliefs. People can still believe the religion that they like. We need this diversity to have a complete society.
> ...


Apologies for the rurbans then. I was not meant to cause disrespect.

And as I said ONE of the reasons is to protect the children at school. NOT the only reason. Bullys and abusers will always exist at school and you cannot avoid them. I was bullied at school as I had teeth pointing out (I fixed them with braces later on). Nobody got locked up because I was bullied. It is not that easy.

TTotal, I guess you have nothing interesting to add to this discussion and no views to share?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Unfortunately, by drawing attention to the content of the play, the protestors managed to bring it to a FAR wider audience than would have originally heard of it / seen it. Who here would have heard of Salman Rushdie, but for the fatwah he "earned" for Satanic Verses?

The Sikh religion must be more sensitive than most to the way their holy places are portrayed. Certainly there appears to have been no religious backlash from other popular works of fiction depicting acts of violence and murder in churches. In fact I would go as far as to suggest these things are considered "mainstream"...

Part of integration to another society, however, is understanding the society you are becoming a member of. The differing attitudes that WE have to religious and spiritual matters are important to us, just as the beliefs of Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims etc are to them.

The Western world in general, and the UK in particular, place a MUCH lower level of importance on religious matters. There is little or no reverence, and an increasing split between "western" culture and religion. Rightly or wrongly, it always seems that anyone showing Christian devotion is more likely to be an object of ridicule than held up as a pillar of the community. It is no surprise, therefore, that we extend this to members of other religions as well.

This attitude we (in general) hold towards religion is almost certainly at the root of our lack of understanding and (in some cases) tolerance.

I accept that the play may have been considered offensive by the Sikh population - but I also understand it was written by a Sikh (so had no racist or religious hatred associated with it) and I can also understand why many people in the UK are saying "what is all the fuss about?".


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> Unfortunately, by drawing attention to the content of the play, the protestors managed to bring it to a FAR wider audience than would have originally heard of it / seen it. Who here would have heard of Salman Rushdie, but for the fatwah he "earned" for Satanic Verses?
> 
> The Sikh religion must be more sensitive than most to the way their holy places are portrayed. Certainly there appears to have been no religious backlash from other popular works of fiction depicting acts of violence and murder in churches. In fact I would go as far as to suggest these things are considered "mainstream"...
> 
> ...


Do you write for Jerry Springer :lol: its like the end of one of his shows.
but many truths in your comments

The fuss as about the "deformation of character" as such, of a sacred place of worship... simple as that... had the play had a rape scene in a less controversial place it would still be running.

Its a fact that if you are going to use something that effects the religous beliefs of many who are far more religous than you (or I) then you may touch a nerve and get a backlash.

Go to and Arsenal game in Chelsea gear and sit in the Arsenal stand cheering Chelsea and you may get pummeled. it aint religion but it is to some! Whats the fuss about there!  The sensible supporter stays on his side and avoids confrontation.

And you are correct about many issues are brought to light by the media attention hence possibly why the peaceful protest turned sour as more found out.

no religion is immune to extremists who take things further than others or even twist religion to their favour and their cause. 
I believe its mainly this twisting of design and minority extremists that have reduced faith in believers and encouraged distrust and fuelled hatred from western society that spawn comments like we should ban Head scarves with no sense behind them!

V, what other reasons do the French Government have? I'd like to understand the morality of that decision so what else do you know?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

You will find this link interesting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3619988.stm

What you will also see is that when the ban was enforced two French people were taken hostages. I believe that the hostages were allowed to go home later, but the "backlash" that you mentioned before is unbelievable. And just to think that religions teach us to love each other and all it brings (the religion brings this) is trouble and conflict between people.

So Wak I believe you are Muslim too. Why your wife isn't covering her hair or face? Does this mean that she is a bad Muslim or does it mean that she evolved and she doesn't need it? I always meant to ask this question. I think you would agree with this statement below.



> Binnaz Toprak is a political science professor at Bosphorous University in Istanbul, Turkey, a secular country with a Muslim majority.
> 
> I think they have got it right in France. Civil servants and schoolgirls should not wear the veil. Personally, I am against it, it is a symbol of the inferior status of women in Muslim countries. In many situations, males have great authority over under-age girls and we cannot be certain that the girls are wearing the hijab because they want to or because their fathers and brothers are forcing them to. They should, therefore, be protected.


----------



## Mayur (Jan 29, 2004)

vlastan said:


> Because you are a good example of an integrated member of this society. You are your own Sikh identity and your own beliefs but you are also a fully adapted member of this society and not a trouble maker. You are one the people tha brings diversity to this country as well as a good example. In other words similar like me. :wink:


I'm sorry but I feel I have to add my bit to some wide ranging issues that this thread has touched on. They do say that debate is good. Here goes...

Interesting quote V, I can almost see you patting Kam's head with YOUR benevolvent blessing. I'm sorry to say that your "endorsement" of how society should be sounds somewhat patronising and bigotted.

You could have also added:
"I will never allow anyone to divide this people once more into religious camps, each fighting the other" - quoted by Adolf Hitler. BTW, he was true to his word...he simply annihilated any religious group that didn't meet with his version of how society should be.

We live in a fairly priviledged society where choice and freedom for all to pursue thier faith is crucial. This is in most cases pursued without compromise to other members of our society. It also means that one does need to stay within the bounds of "cultural" and "religeous" decency and where the majority of any society are not offended or compromised. That is where I think the play has caused problems and where the initial sensible voice of protest got drowned.

You are entitled to your beliefs and opinion about state controlled dress codes etc. Do please bear in mind that regardless of the reasons, enforcement laws such as the one's in France only take us closer to the fundamentalist laws in certain nations and organisations that we are opposed to. Do you wish to live in such a state?

And finally.... I do not like fundamentalists of any sort and am fundamentally opposed to fundamentalists... hmmm...am I therefore opposed to myself? It is a serious question.

Ooops one more finally... Nick (V) I suggest that you take a keener interest in Sikhism before laying down your sort of fundamentalist views. You will no doubt find that loyalty, faith, and acceptance form the cornerstones of their culture... as they do with most other cultures too.

That's my 2p's worth anyway.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Mayur.

All constuctive comments are welcome of course.

But your judgement is wrong if you believe that I gave Kam my blessing or that I follow Adolf's views.

With Kam I simply agreed that he and his dad are happily living in this country, their home and they still have their own beliefs.

Also something else that I was reading earlier on in the BBC web site. France is the first country that have banned the scarves but Germany and Belgium are considering similar moves.

I don't understand the reasoning behind scarves for women but I found this quote:



> The scarf is a symbol of the inferior status of women"
> Binnaz Toprak, Turkish academic"


And this makes me wonder why women wear them. Are they forced?

It is like Christianity. You are baptised a Christian when you are only a few months old. You are not given the choice to have a different religion.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Do you guys think the play should have been censored/cancelled etc?

I'm personally leaning towards the free speach aspect of this as I feel censorship is a more dangerous path to take than upsetting some people.

I'm interested to hear your views.


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> Do you guys think the play should have been censored/cancelled etc?
> 
> I'm personally leaning towards the free speach aspect of this as I feel censorship is a more dangerous path to take than upsetting some people.
> 
> I'm interested to hear your views.


I think they should have just taken the complaints on board, realised the distress to the community and rewritten the scene to not be in a Temple....Thats what I understood the issue to have been. :?


----------



## imster (Apr 26, 2003)

vlastan said:


> Now this response is very amusing. :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> You wrote a long essay about what? If it is about narrow minded people then this is not be as I am very liberal. So this long essay gave you a PhD in something? :roll:


Can't believe I missed this snidey remark! :roll:

My long winded essay was going to be about how traditional asians contribute a hell of alot of money into the British economy. These traditional asians DO NOT and WILL NOT conform to british/english culture and they will carry on their lives just like they were back home in India, Pakistan or where ever else they come from. I do not agree with this way of thinking but if you do what Vlastan says then you will have the same situation that happened in the 60's when General Idi Amin threw out all the asians and gave those business's to the indigenous population. The Economy collapsed overnight.

This is of course the shortened version of my essay but it still deserves a PHD. 

And as for amusing responses, I can take all of your responses Vlastan and laugh whole heartedly at them. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## imster (Apr 26, 2003)

scoTTy said:


> Do you guys think the play should have been censored/cancelled etc?
> 
> I'm personally leaning towards the free speach aspect of this as I feel censorship is a more dangerous path to take than upsetting some people.
> 
> I'm interested to hear your views.


I am not even sikh and I say that it should have not been set in a temple. Thats just taking things too far!

I know how I would feel if the same thing was depicted in a mosque.

With regards to free speech would you allow me to write a play that shows picture slides of naked children being sexually abused? I am very sure that would cause a problem or two..


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

imster said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > Now this response is very amusing. :lol: :lol: :lol:
> ...


What this has to do with this discussion? The scope of your essay is of no importance. People have come to this country and they have contributed to the economy of this country but they also made money out of it. They can live their lives the traditional Asian way as they like, no issues about this. Provided that living this way don't cause any upset to the other people living in the UK now, that they follow the laws and pay their taxes. They are free to believe in any religion they like and eat any food they prefer. Absolutely, nothing wrong with this.

In fact this is what I am doing. I came to this country from a poorer country, compared to the UK, I still eat Greek food and speak the language and I am still a Christian, althought, I don't like going to the church. I pay my taxes (lots of them) and I obey the laws.

So what value did your essay add to this discussion? :roll:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

imster said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > Do you guys think the play should have been censored/cancelled etc?
> ...


If you didn't like it don't watch it. Or if it really offends you and you MUST do something about it, write and complain about it. Make fuss using the media. The media is the best way to express your views openly, without affecting the liberties of the other population. But DON'T go and punch up with the police.

Your example about the kids is irrelevant. Sexual abuse of children has nothing to do with religion and it is not tollerated irrespictive of what religious beliefs you have.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

imster said:


> With regards to free speech would you allow me to write a play that shows picture slides of naked children being sexually abused? I am very sure that would cause a problem or two..


I'm hoping when you reread this you'll see how irrelevant abuse of children is to the expression of free speech. :?


----------



## imster (Apr 26, 2003)

vlastan said:


> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/4107437.stm
> 
> This ties up with the other comments I made about people choosing to live in this country and they can't adapt to it. Things offend them and they go and protest about them. But they get offended far to easily and they behave very silly indeed.
> 
> These religious people are so pathetic and they would have to be deported back where they came from.





vlastan said:


> What this has to do with this discussion? The scope of your essay is of no importance. People have come to this country and they have contributed to the economy of this country but they also made money out of it. They can live their lives the traditional Asian way as they like, no issues about this. Provided that living this way don't cause any upset to the other people living in the UK now, that they follow the laws and pay their taxes. They are free to believe in any religion they like and eat any food they prefer. Absolutely, nothing wrong with this.
> 
> In fact this is what I am doing. I came to this country from a poorer country, compared to the UK, I still eat Greek food and speak the language and I am still a Christian, althought, I don't like going to the church. I pay my taxes (lots of them) and I obey the laws.
> 
> So what value did your essay add to this discussion?


So Vlastan, the 1st quote has nothing to do with foreigners coming into England and not conforming to the British/English culture?

My essay simply addressed your comments about foreigners not "fitting in" with the British/English society.

I hope you understand now because I honestly havenâ€™t got as much time as you do to â€œdiscussâ€ these issues with youâ€¦.


----------



## imster (Apr 26, 2003)

scoTTy said:


> imster said:
> 
> 
> > With regards to free speech would you allow me to write a play that shows picture slides of naked children being sexually abused? I am very sure that would cause a problem or two..
> ...


I did not say the act of abusing children I said a play (fiction) about abusing children. Sorry if you misinterpreted what I said.

Some religious people will see the depiction of child abuse in the same negative light as the depiction of rape in one of their sacred temples.


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> imster said:
> 
> 
> > With regards to free speech would you allow me to write a play that shows picture slides of naked children being sexually abused? I am very sure that would cause a problem or two..
> ...


I think this has a very strong and valid reference in the sense that being a taboo that may offend incite protest and possibly violence.....

By V's opinion, If you dont like it dont watch it! That's just rubbish.

It may be illegal in real life but as a play if depicted with enough effect it would be as harmful to parents as a group to the play in the sikh temple is to Sikh's as a group.

There are simply things that are offensive to groups of all religions and to non religious groups as well ......

free speech either applies to all topics or has to to be "moderated" to respect the distress it may cause.... which is something a moderator has to understand! :wink: :?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

imster said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > imster said:
> ...


There are plenty of plays / films etc about child abuse. There are even some about children abused by Christian priests / vicars / clergy or whatever.

My point, which I tried to put across rather gently, was that we (as a nation) have no respect for our OWN religion, and even less for the religions of others.

Whether this is necessarily a bad thing is down to personal opinion.

I totally respect other people's rights to worship however they choose, or hold whatever beliefs they feel to be "right". That is tolerance as far as I am concerned. It works both ways, though. They should also be tolerant of the society they have chosen to live in, and respect the fact that the majority of its people either do NOT hold the same beliefs, values or reverence for religion in general, and their religion specifically...

As an analogy, I was an Englishman living in Wales. If anything, it made me more devoutly "English" than when I've lived in England. I stood up for my right to be "English", knowing full well I was in the minority and understanding it might not always be either popular or safe for me to do so. Being English was my sense of identity, but living amongst one of the most fiercely proud and defensive parts of the UK, where the English are often still seen as "invaders", I was well aware of the strong sense of Welsh identity as well. It made for interesting times, and I'm not sure either "side" was as tolerant as they should have been (or as peaceful). Moral of the story? When minority factions stick their head above the parapet, they get shot at...


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

vlastan said:


> You will find this link interesting:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3619988.stm
> 
> What you will also see is that when the ban was enforced two French people were taken hostages. I believe that the hostages were allowed to go home later, but the "backlash" that you mentioned before is unbelievable. And just to think that religions teach us to love each other and all it brings (the religion brings this) is trouble and conflict between people.


The link is interesting but highlights nothing other than the French government acting unlawfully with trying to influence religions.
All they are doing is causing their own trouble and providing ammunition to the extremists.

You are unfortunately one of the influenced, blinded by the media and too blinkered to see it.

This statement alone...


vlastan said:


> And just to think that religions teach us to love each other and all it brings (the religion brings this) is trouble and conflict between people.


Is media and extremist led bollocks.

IMO religion is about life, good living, decent behaviour and faith in where you are why you are here and faith in where you are going.

The extremists and the media together catalyse each other fuelling the narrow minded and creating opinions like yours. Thats where the trouble comes from and stupid French governments!

These same extremists may well be some parents forcing kids to wear head scarves, jewish caps, Turbans etc but blanket bans is not the answer. Thats just 'kin stupid.



> Binnaz Toprak is a political science professor at Bosphorous University in Istanbul, Turkey, a secular country with a Muslim majority.
> 
> I think they have got it right in France. Civil servants and schoolgirls should not wear the veil. Personally, I am against it, it is a symbol of the inferior status of women in Muslim countries. In many situations, males have great authority over under-age girls and we cannot be certain that the girls are wearing the hijab because they want to or because their fathers and brothers are forcing them to. They should, therefore, be protected.


So this guy is talking about a veil and hijab not head scarf and its one mans opinion, does it count? is there a majority of supporters? I dont remember seeing Veils and Hijab being forced on anyone outside of the middle east, or Edgeware road.

Its the duty of any Religious parent to educate their children in academics, life and religion. Its should be the childrens decision to decide on what they want to follow after having learnt the principles.
This guys sole opinon means nothing and seems unfounded! Veil and hijab are old practices kept going but I dont think that is happening to french schoolchildren.
If a Parent makes his daughters cover their heads why is that so wrong if he feels it protects their integrity and keeps them from prying eyes.



vlastan said:


> So Wak I believe you are Muslim too. Why your wife isn't covering her hair or face? Does this mean that she is a bad Muslim or does it mean that she evolved and she doesn't need it? I always meant to ask this question.


It depends on how you look at it, you have no right to presume or assume anything about my wife, she is a good muslim. Wearing a headscarf doesnt make her any better a muslim, neither does it make her an extremist. Not wearing it doesnt makes her any worse and serves no input to this discussion. :evil:


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

imster said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > imster said:
> ...


I don't think I misinterpreted. Actually you didn't say what I think you meant. You said "a play that shows picture slides of naked children being sexually abused". At no point did you state or intimate that the picture weren't real. It was this that prompted my comments. If you intended to say the pictures were fake for use in a play, then as JampoTT says many films etc have covered this. In this context I think they are acceptable as it uncovers an undercover abuse and also opens it up for debate plus of course there are no child victims. Debate is vitally important so people can make educated contributions and then in this case legislation be put into place to deal with the guilty parties.

I firmly believe that it is every persons write to peacefully protest and it is also vital that people have freedom of speech (assumming of course this is within the law i.e. doesn't encourage racism, incitement to riot etc).

If we went down the path of stopping people expressing view points, whether in fiction or as pure opinion then it gets very oppresive. Imagine if you could only publish anything that no one found offensive. This could ultimately mean no religous text of any sort could be published as some other religous followers may be offended by it.



wak said:


> free speech either applies to all topics or has to to be "moderated" to respect the distress it may cause.... which is something a moderator has to understand!


I understand that moderating is a lose/lose roll and the line between moderation and censorship is not always very clear. Fortunately all the moderators have a set of rules to enforce which helps, as does bouncing issues of debate off fellow moderators.


----------



## Mayur (Jan 29, 2004)

scoTTy said:


> Do you guys think the play should have been censored/cancelled etc?
> 
> I'm personally leaning towards the free speach aspect of this as I feel censorship is a more dangerous path to take than upsetting some people.
> 
> I'm interested to hear your views.


In this case I don't feel censorship or cancellation is a way forward.

I do however think that anything controversial should have adequate education/information behind it so that those that are offended can possibly be pacified.

It is sad that even in this case it is utlimately the art form that has suffered. I doubt that the play was deliberately meant to offend.


----------



## stephengreen (May 6, 2002)

When this play was being shown, was it in a theatre with transparent walls? Were passing religious groups subjected to the performance while innocently walking by? Or was it only seen only by people who CHOSE to be there? In this country we are allowed free speech. What these religious zelots seem to be saying is " We dont trust you to know the difference between fact or fiction so we will take away the chance of you making the mistake" what a load of patronising bollocks. This was a legal showing in a legal venue in a free country if you dont like the concept piss off to a country that shares your view that tolerance is ok, as long as it fits in with your own personal views.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

stephengreen said:


> When this play was being shown, was it in a theatre with transparent walls? Were passing religious groups subjected to the performance while innocently walking by? Or was it only seen only by people who CHOSE to be there? In this country we are allowed free speech. What these religious zelots seem to be saying is " We dont trust you to know the difference between fact or fiction so we will take away the chance of you making the mistake" what a load of patronising bollocks. This was a legal showing in a legal venue in a free country if you dont like the concept piss off to a country that shares your view that tolerance is ok, as long as it fits in with your own personal views.


This is more or less how I see this too. We live in a free world and we can make choice. Good play, lets go watch it. Bad/offensive play lets not watch it. But I guess we will never agree to this. Which is fine as we are different people.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> It depends on how you look at it, you have no right to presume or assume anything about my wife, she is a good muslim. Wearing a headscarf doesnt make her any better a muslim, neither does it make her an extremist. Not wearing it doesnt makes her any worse and serves no input to this discussion


It serves input on why you think that French are so wrong to ban it. If it is not so significant for the religion then nothing to worry about.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Mayur said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > Do you guys think the play should have been censored/cancelled etc?
> ...


As far as I know, there WAS a fair amount of "education" being offered. The management were reading out a statement to the audience prior to the play starting. Before the run started, when management became aware that the local Sikh community weren't happy, they met and listened to their views - but (I gather) decided that ensuring the audience were fully aware that it was a work of fiction, and not a general reflection on the Sikh religion, the play should still go ahead.

What is more worrying is the reaction of the British Government to the (violent) protests. Despite injuries to the police, public death threats to the author AND damage to the theatre itself, the government appears to be supporting the demonstrators right to protest. I do, too (up to a point) but these groups should lose the backing of the government (as they have lost the support of their own religious leaders) when the protests turn to violence...

Why was the play cancelled? Not because the B'ham Rep decided to make peace or agree with the views of the minority... but simply because it couldn't guarantee the safety of its audiences following the violent protest. I find this shameful, and this kind of "trouble" has the ability to reflect worse on the Sikh community as a whole than one play running for 3 weeks in a provincial city EVER could...


----------



## Mayur (Jan 29, 2004)

jampott said:


> As far as I know, there WAS a fair amount of "education" being offered. The management were reading out a statement to the audience prior to the play starting. Before the run started, when management became aware that the local Sikh community weren't happy, they met and listened to their views - but (I gather) decided that ensuring the audience were fully aware that it was a work of fiction, and not a general reflection on the Sikh religion, the play should still go ahead.


Tim, I wasn't aware of the above.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Mayur said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I know, there WAS a fair amount of "education" being offered. The management were reading out a statement to the audience prior to the play starting. Before the run started, when management became aware that the local Sikh community weren't happy, they met and listened to their views - but (I gather) decided that ensuring the audience were fully aware that it was a work of fiction, and not a general reflection on the Sikh religion, the play should still go ahead.
> ...


There were several changes made to the play as a result of the talks, but not enough (it seems) to make a difference.

The statement being read out was also distributed to every audience member, and was written by the local Sikh community itself - a chance to "express their views".

I think it important that "difficult" issues can still be discussed. One method of "discussion" is to portray such events in film, TV or theatrical settings and allow people to think about what is being shown.

There are some very strong voices in the world of serious drama AND comedy who are voicing concerns about the new "religious hate" laws which are on their way.

To quote Rowan Atkinson:

"To criticise a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous but to criticise their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticise ideas, any ideas - even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. A law which attempts to say you can criticise and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed."

He argues that a number of the sketches he has performed would have rendered him liable to prosecution under these new laws.

The ideas of conformity and integration are very interesting ones, and worth exploring. There will always be conflict between the beliefs of one religion or another - as well as cultural differences. Despite what I said about Wales, when I travel abroad, I try my hardest to adhere to the local customs and show respect for the beliefs of the local inhabitants. This means taking their religion and culture seriously, abiding by their laws regarding alcohol and their wishes regarding dress code etc. If I were to settle abroad, I would choose somewhere I could "fit in" - somewhere with a culture similar to mine, where I didn't have to pay quite so much attention to not causing offence by doing the wrong thing - else life could be constant torment. I doubt very much whether I could walk into a non-western / Christian country and expect them to tolerate my beliefs without question and to protect my minority views with the same force that the UK does for its multi-cultural society...

The differences between people, classes, races and religions is part of what makes life so interesting. Unfortunately, its also the cause for the most bloodshed. :?


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Tim,

I think that one of the best posts you've made. I wish I was as eloquent....

....as Rowan Atkinson. :wink:


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

scoTTy said:


> Tim,
> 
> I think that one of the best posts you've made. I wish I was as eloquent....
> 
> ....as Rowan Atkinson. :wink:


 [smiley=dude.gif]


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

Vlastan - you are a twat (still).
Dubcat


----------



## imster (Apr 26, 2003)

:lol: :lol:


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Dubcat said:


> Vlastan - you are a twat (still).
> Dubcat


Are you always so amusing? :lol:


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Iâ€™m sure no such debates would happen if I wanted to open a pub or a strip club in a Muslim country.

Integrate or ship out is now my stand point. Iâ€™m fed as a white heterosexual male been discriminated against.

We canâ€™t even stop or reduce immigration for fear of been labelled a racist nation

Sum countries seem happy to take our aid money, but fail to back positive action such as Iraq when itâ€™s taken.


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Kell said:


> They should ban Cluedo too then.
> 
> I've played in some games where the insinuation is that the Reverend Green committed a murder in the Kitchen with the Candlestick.
> 
> ...


Hang about: wasn't it Colonel Mustard with a candle stick in the conservatory :roll:

But I agree, debate about religion is never going to produce any satisfactory solution: too many people feel offended when it comes to any debate about their belief!


----------

