• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

France - terrorist attacks [Priest killed in Rouen church attack]

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Let us rejoice that Christians are following the code of ethics set by modern civilization. If they were still exercising their code of ethics and "Christian morals" as they did in the middle ages then we'd be in real trouble.

By that logic, "modern civilization," lead by the secular West, is just as bad. Look at all the wars, the famines, the slavery, and the injustices in the world. Are they due to "the code of ethics set by modern civilization," or are they due to people behaving contrary to that code of ethics?

Christian values are Christian values. There is no such thing as "Christian morals from the middle ages." There are only Christians who behave according to those values, and Christians who behave contrary to those values. And those values have been around since Christianity existed; so, Christians are not following anyone, it is the other way around.
 

The Bidenator

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
By that logic, "modern civilization," lead by the secular West, is just as bad. Look at all the wars, the famines, the slavery, and the injustices in the world. Are they due to "the code of ethics set by modern civilization," or are they due to people behaving contrary to that code of ethics?

Christian values are Christian values. There is no such thing as "Christian morals from the middle ages." There are only Christians who behave according to those values, and Christians who behave contrary to those values. And those values have been around since Christianity existed; so, Christians are not following anyone, it is the other way around.

You should put my reply in its proper context and respond accordingly. I never said the cause of wars etc. is a result of a certain code of ethics. My response is quite clear on the relationship between morality and time period (middle ages vs. modern or contemporary times). It's a rejection of @kmarthe's dogmatic outlook on morality.

People do not read a book and become moral. Likewise, the existence of a book doesn't make a society moral. More importantly, books need people to interpret them.

Thus, there is no such thing as 'Christian morals' per se. But "Christian morals from the middle ages" cannot be more accurate. It has the what, the when, and the who, all of which are highly dependent upon each other. Christian morals in medieval society differ greatly from Christian morals in contemporary times, largely because they were addressing different issues. Still, the Catholic church did not solve societal problems in the middle ages even when they had 'god' in their society, but they did contribute to improving life conditions, particularly for women and slaves. Lastly, the Catholic church was not exactly free of corruption in pursuit of more power (nor is it today; the Vatican is embroiled in financial scandals). How often did the Pope and clergy turn a blind eye to abuses by Lords and other noblemen in return for financial and political gain? Though when you live in Mad Max times, what's a few hundred bastard children of a nobleman?
 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
You should put my reply in its proper context and respond accordingly. I never said the cause of wars etc. is a result of a certain code of ethics. My response is quite clear on the relationship between morality and time period (middle ages vs. modern or contemporary times). It's a rejection of @kmarthe's dogmatic outlook on morality.

People do not read a book and become moral. Likewise, the existence of a book doesn't make a society moral. More importantly, books need people to interpret them.

Thus, there is no such thing as 'Christian morals' per se. But "Christian morals from the middle ages" cannot be more accurate. It has the what, the when, and the who, all of which are highly dependent upon each other. Christian morals in medieval society differ greatly from Christian morals in contemporary times, largely because they were addressing different issues. Still, the Catholic church did not solve societal problems in the middle ages even when they had 'god' in their society, but they did contribute to improving life conditions, particularly for women and slaves. Lastly, the Catholic church was not exactly free of corruption in pursuit of more power (nor is it today; the Vatican is embroiled in financial scandals). How often did the Pope and clergy turn a blind eye to abuses by Lords and other noblemen in return for financial and political gain? Though when you live in Mad Max times, what's a few hundred bastard children of a nobleman?

It seems it always comes down to this one thing: Christian values are what they are. What people do is what people do, clergymen included. It seriously baffles me that so many people insist on conflating the two.

As you said yourself, "people do not read a book and become moral." However, if the ideas and values in said book are moral, then they are moral. Plain and simple. What people choose to do has no bearing on those ideas and values.
 

Abotareq93

Legendary Member
في فرنسا.. طعنَ رجل دين وصرخ "الله أكبر"!

أشارت وسائل اعلام فرنسية الى أن "شاب طعن رجل دين يهودي في ستراسبورغ في فرنسا وصرخ "الله أكبر".
 

HannaTheCrusader

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
في فرنسا.. طعنَ رجل دين وصرخ "الله أكبر"!

أشارت وسائل اعلام فرنسية الى أن "شاب طعن رجل دين يهودي في ستراسبورغ في فرنسا وصرخ "الله أكبر".

Allahu Akbar

Wallaw
 

Ralph N

Well-Known Member
Allahu Akbar

Wallaw


Hey Hanna its out of context, sure the quran says to kill the infidels and the nassara and mushrikin and the jews but hey its out of context.. god didnt actually think that muslims will actually kill all those people... I mean sure its in the quran but out of context, even muhamad didnt get the quran very well, when he chopped heads and hands he got it wrong, the quran is good and muhamad will be forgiven, its out of context dude...
when muhamad took sabaya sure thing man its in the quran but hey god didnt mean it dude... he was high on something he just said something to jebrail, and hey maybe jebrail was high... we dont know for sure, can jebrail make mistakes? if god was god damn serious about it?
All those 270 million people who died from the word Allah U Akbar the muslims who did it including muhamad is out of context.. God didnt mean it... Islam is good but we just dont understand it well... Maybe when they just genocide us all we will understand it... I mean the whole world with the buddhist and hindues and the jews and christians and the pagans,....
 

Ralph N

Well-Known Member
في فرنسا.. طعنَ رجل دين وصرخ "الله أكبر"!

أشارت وسائل اعلام فرنسية الى أن "شاب طعن رجل دين يهودي في ستراسبورغ في فرنسا وصرخ "الله أكبر".


God and Muhamad and Gebrail came to him in his sleep they told him to do that, then he called Khaled el daher just to be sure of his dream the guy told him its true man, what your feeling, its true. Just go like a rocket man just kill the guy and you will end up in heaven having sex in front of god and he will give you 72 houriyes and many slaves too, and who knows he may jump in with the prophet and join the move....


[ ]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

HannaTheCrusader

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
Burkini response from the prime minister Manuel Valls:
using France s icon and fictive symbol "Marianne" as a compelling argument he roars:
“Marianne has a naked breast because she is feeding the people! She is not veiled, because she is free! That is the republic!”
The below painting of Eugene Delacroix, inspired from Les miserables shows Marianne guiding the people in their struggle for freedom, it's definitely one of my favorite paintings displayed in the Louvre.
It s quite understanding that a country with such a rich culture refuses to return to the veil times...
Would one day the moslem world have its own liberating Mariannes?

 

HannaTheCrusader

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
UK jihad preacher Anjem Choudary gets 5 1/2 years for urging support of the Islamic State

SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 9:29 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER36 COMMENTS

“Among police there was some disappointment at the sentence of five-and-a-half years, meaning Choudary and Rahman are likely to be out of prison in just over two years.”

And then what? He will resume his jihad activities. Why won’t he? Will anything be done in prison to disabuse him of his jihad sentiments? Of course not. That would be “Islamophobic.”



“Anjem Choudary jailed for five years and six months for urging support of Isis,” by Vikram Dodd,Guardian, September 6, 2016:

Anjem Choudary, who preached hate over two decades with seeming impunity from legal punishment, has been jailed for five years and six months for his activities to support Islamic State.

Choudary was sentenced at the Old Bailey in London after his conviction in July for urging Muslims to support Isis in a series of talks posted on YouTube. He was convicted alongside his acolyte Mohammed Rahman, 33, who was also sentenced to five years and six months in prison. Choudary’s supporters in the public gallery shouted: “Allahu Akbar” (God is greatest) as the judge finished sentencing.

Choudary, 49, avoided serious criminal charges for years, but his conviction for terrorism was agreed unanimously by a jury.
 

HannaTheCrusader

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
he deserves it


France: Far-Left Antifa writer and 12-year-old son savagely attacked by Muslims shouting ‘filthy white’

SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 11:54 AM BY CHRISTINE WILLIAMS62 COMMENTS

Islamic supremacists are once again enforcing their Sharia law in the West and trying to silence free speech with violence and intimidation. How dare anyone insult Islam or its prophet? Such shame and blasphemy is worthy of death according to their zealously-held ideology. These jihadi thugs need to be severely dealt with in the West, perhaps with stiffer sentences, as they not only victimize the people who supposedly violated their Sharia, but such crimes are also an assault on democracy itself.

Ghislain Gilberti and his twelve-year-old son were “savagely attacked” while his 11-year-old daughter watched her father being beaten unconscious. The attack was said to have been committed by a group of men shouting “filthy white” — apparently Islamic supremacists enraged “that the prologue title of the novelist’s bestseller is ‘jihad.”

His family had already been suffering harassment, attempted break-ins and death threats “from Salafis.”

This attack is highly ironic, since Antifa is a far-Left group that frequently brutalizes opponents of jihad terror. In light of that, it is not surprising that Gilberti thinks his attackers are “unintelligent” and only “skimmed” his book, and insists that he did not insult Islam. This is a misconception held by many Westerners, particularly on the Left. Jihadist thugs are not unintelligent. Islamic supremacists consider themselves to have been shamed by any trace of negative response to Islam that draws widespread attention. They see such criticism as an insult to Islam and worthy of punishment. Antifa’s thuggish activity on their behalf does not exempt them from that punishment if they are seen to have crossed the line.



“Antifa Writer Beaten Up By Muslims Shouting ‘Filthy White’”, by Virginia Hale, Breitbart, September 5, 2016:

Writer Ghislain Gilberti and his son were savagely attacked on Saturday by a group of men shouting “filthy white”, seemingly Islamists enraged by one of his novels, police in France have heard.
 

Impera

Active Member
I sincerely hope this photo is photshopped.

 

Indie

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
UK jihad preacher Anjem Choudary gets 5 1/2 years for urging support of the Islamic State

SEPTEMBER 6, 2016 9:29 AM BY ROBERT SPENCER36 COMMENTS

“Among police there was some disappointment at the sentence of five-and-a-half years, meaning Choudary and Rahman are likely to be out of prison in just over two years.”

And then what? He will resume his jihad activities. Why won’t he? Will anything be done in prison to disabuse him of his jihad sentiments? Of course not. That would be “Islamophobic.”



“Anjem Choudary jailed for five years and six months for urging support of Isis,” by Vikram Dodd,Guardian, September 6, 2016:

Anjem Choudary, who preached hate over two decades with seeming impunity from legal punishment, has been jailed for five years and six months for his activities to support Islamic State.

Choudary was sentenced at the Old Bailey in London after his conviction in July for urging Muslims to support Isis in a series of talks posted on YouTube. He was convicted alongside his acolyte Mohammed Rahman, 33, who was also sentenced to five years and six months in prison. Choudary’s supporters in the public gallery shouted: “Allahu Akbar” (God is greatest) as the judge finished sentencing.

Choudary, 49, avoided serious criminal charges for years, but his conviction for terrorism was agreed unanimously by a jury.

Deport him, and slap the allahu akbar chanters with contempt of court.
 
Top