Andrew Neil and Squeaking Little Shít Owen Jones should settle this like men.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Is it fine to discriminate against someone based on what they say, believe and openly espouse as being indisputably true?

Yes. Yes, it is. In fact, it's how we judge people all the time.

Does that have anything to do with race? No. There are plenty of white muslims. Their beliefs are fvcking idiotic as well.

---

Right, but this isnt just a belief that people on the dole are lazy ****s.

This is discrimination on the grounds of religious belief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Right, but this isnt just a belief that people on the dole are lazy ****s.

This is discrimination on the grounds of religious belief.

---

There's nothing special about religious beliefs. They're just a set of ideas like any other and their bearers can be held accountable for them. They are not deserving of special protection.

If I walked into a job interview with you and told you I believed the earth was flat and run by lizard people, you wouldn't give me the job. Why would me claiming this was as a result of my religious beliefs make any difference to you?

Hang on - your original assertion was that Burney declaring he’d rather no Muslim had ever come to the UK is evidence of his inherent prejudice against muslims (by his own standards). You said nothing of this being illegal and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don’t think expressing such a belief should be illegal.

So why are you bringing legality into the conversation?

We were merely talking about what is and isn’t racist. Burnley’s comment about Muslims is very, very easy to justify as not being driven by inherent prejudice. To do the same for an equivalent claim about Jews is almost impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

Hang on - your original assertion was that Burney declaring he’d rather no Muslim had ever come to the UK is evidence of his inherent prejudice against muslims (by his own standards). You said nothing of this being illegal and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don’t think expressing such a belief should be illegal.

So why are you bringing legality into the conversation?

We were merely talking about what is and isn’t racist. Burnley’s comment about Muslims is very, very easy to justify as not being driven by inherent prejudice. To do the same for an equivalent claim about Jews is almost impossible.

---

Everything both of you say about them is sufficient evidence of your prejudice against muslims. I am quite frankly stunned that you are even denying it having boasted of it so proudly in previous conversations.

My original point was that I found it puzzling that B could clearly be anti-muslim yet so 'appalled' by the notion of anti-semitism in the labour party. The defence that it is purely their religion that you are opposed is nonsense, but when it came up I asked why you felt it was ok to discriminate against one person because of their religion but not another because of their race. It was then I pointed out that in eyes of the law both carry an equal penalty.

THe defence of 'having nothing against the individuals themselves' is as old as the hills and has been used by pretty much every exponent of particular prejudice in the modern era. 'I have nothing against you personally, mate, just your religion'.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

There's nothing special about religious beliefs. They're just a set of ideas like any other and their bearers can be held accountable for them. They are not deserving of special protection.

If I walked into a job interview with you and told you I believed the earth was flat and run by lizard people, you wouldn't give me the job. Why would me claiming this was as a result of my religious beliefs make any difference to you?

---

You may well believe that but the law doesnt. Of course, you could say you had no problem whatsoever with jewish people but you ****ing hate the religion and are disgusted by the fact that it has its own state which you are also fanatically opposed to. Were I to do that, do you think the majority of people would think I was anti-semitic? Why???? I just dont like the religion, thats all. Nothing against jewish people at all (apart from the fact that they are jewish).

I would give you a job if you were a flat earther. Nothing wrong with that at all....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Monty92

That's b*ollocks. If I said I didn't want the UK to take in a single unvetted Muslim "refugee" in case one of them is a Jihadi, that isn't prejudice against Muslims in the slightest. It's entirely legitimate and reasonable pragmatism that has absolutely nothing to do with hating individuals because of their religion. Every Muslim who holds beliefs compatible with western values prevented from entering under my preferred policy would have my absolute sympathy.

I'm assuming this same pragmatism was behind Burney's comment.

---

You don't see a logistical issue with vetting someone's beliefs? Or an ethical one with assuming that a specific religion needs vetting while another does not? As an example, if you made believing in equal rights for homosexuals part of the vetting process you would ban fundamentalist Christians but probably not Anglicans. You'd be happy with that, would you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

You may well believe that but the law doesnt. Of course, you could say you had no problem whatsoever with jewish people but you ****ing hate the religion and are disgusted by the fact that it has its own state which you are also fanatically opposed to. Were I to do that, do you think the majority of people would think I was anti-semitic? Why???? I just dont like the religion, thats all. Nothing against jewish people at all (apart from the fact that they are jewish).

I would give you a job if you were a flat earther. Nothing wrong with that at all....

---

The law is bullsh1t and you know it. It doesn't stand up to a moment's intelligent scrutiny - as with all the absurd, repressive, authoritarian hate legislation brought in by Blair et al. Someone is entitled to believe what they want. However, I am equally entitled to judge them on those beliefs.

And your other argument is disingenuous. Nobody hates Judaism, they hate Jews. Anti-semitism is about hating Jews because of what they are, not what they believe. That renders your analogy meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by World's End Stella

You don't see a logistical issue with vetting someone's beliefs? Or an ethical one with assuming that a specific religion needs vetting while another does not? As an example, if you made believing in equal rights for homosexuals part of the vetting process you would ban fundamentalist Christians but probably not Anglicans. You'd be happy with that, would you?

---

No-one is suggesting vetting on the basis of belief. The point is that personal beliefs ought to be just that - personal. Believe what you want, but don't expect the world around you to bend to you. However, if you choose to put your beliefs on display, it isn't unreasonable for me to judge you on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

The law is bullsh1t and you know it. It doesn't stand up to a moment's intelligent scrutiny - as with all the absurd, repressive, authoritarian hate legislation brought in by Blair et al. Someone is entitled to believe what they want. However, I am equally entitled to judge them on those beliefs.

And your other argument is disingenuous. Nobody hates Judaism, they hate Jews. Anti-semitism is about hating Jews because of what they are, not what they believe. That renders your analogy meaningless.

---

I still cannot see the moral basis for justifying one hatred and castigating the other.

If I talk to an anti-semite they will say they have nothing against individual jews. THey will say they****ing despise zionism, that it has imprisoned the jewish faith and the jewish people in political dogma, that it is the brainchild of bankers and globalists that want to control foreign oil and plant US military might in the middle east. They will tell me they don't have the slightest problem with individual jewish people.

If you can sit there, in all honesty, and tell me that you are 100% comfortable that your prejudice is justified by being solely about a belief system whereas anti-semitism, in all it forms, must and shall be the hatred of all jewish people on the grounds of race then I will let this go right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

No-one is suggesting vetting on the basis of belief. The point is that personal beliefs ought to be just that - personal. Believe what you want, but don't expect the world around you to bend to you. However, if you choose to put your beliefs on display, it isn't unreasonable for me to judge you on them.

---

I can't be bothered reading the rest of the thread. So what is Monty's 'preferred policy' then? How is he going to 'vet' Muslim immigrants?