Corries Easter rant at Christians.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/95201 /Outcry-over-Corrie-Ken-s-Easter-rant-at-Chris tians

What would have been the response, if the storyline had happened to criticise the Muslim faith?

Would they ever dare to screen such a soap story?

[R1Geezer]

They'd never have slagged off the Muzzies, the cast and crew would have had a fatwa on their ar5es. I mean they killed that Cartoonist the other year for publishing cartoons. It's well know that Islam can't take any form of critiism.

[R1Geezer]

ah docspock, me old china, the picture is clearing further, you hate the police, love muslims, love violent demonsrators a picture is forming, not in the Libdems by any chance are we?

[123everton]

Theo Van Goch made films not cartoons, you're getting confused.
Attacking Christianity is a common sport in media circles.

[Postdog]

true, steve, true.

[sp1814]

Yeah...coz Christians never complain do they?

Life of Brian

Madonna's Live To Tell 'Crucifixation' scene last year

Jerry Springer The Opera

They're pretty noisy when riled.

Last year CH4's Dispatches broadcast two VERY critical (and excellently researched) documentaries regarding the radicalisation of young Muslims. I don't recall any demonstrations after the show. All I can remember was an interesting debate (from Muslims and non-Muslims) in my paper about the issues and challenges raised.

But then, I read The Independent, which tends to deliver news quite dispassionately, if you see what I mean.

[jno]

I expect the response from Muslims would have been much the same as the one from Christians. So?

[Whickerman]

it's a valid viewpoint
it criticised all religion (admitedly whilst naming Christianity) as I assume the Muslim god is the same as the Christian one
it representd the views of a section of the population whilst other storylines in the same prog show people getting a positive outcome from religion
But most of all, it's a tv programe and the storyline is fictional, spoken by fictional characters, and I'm convinced some people watch tv in the hope of being outraged.

[anotheoldgit]

He wasn`t telling any untruths

How do you know Steve, how does anyone know?

Some believe there is a superior being.

Some believe Darwin's theory.

Some believe in the Big Bang theory.

Some believe in beings from a distant planet.

So who can say that their particular belief is the correct one?

=============================================

I expect the response from Muslims would have been much the same as the one from Christians.

I don't think the producers of Coro. have had a fatwa issued against them, and I don't think that the Christians will take to the streets demanding Ken Barlow's head. So?

[funnygirl]

Very well put AOG!

[jake-the-peg]

And total nonsense

Some people believe there are fairies at the bottom of their garden

That doesn't mean their beliefs are worthy of respect.

Belief based on scientific findings is not the same as the belief in invisible friends and magic books.

There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang and Evolution.
With the right kit anyone can go and see for themselves

The only "evidence" for Christianity is tradition and a bunch of books of no verifiable author making outlandish claims.

And the Koran is little better

[youngmafbog]

b*gger, I have to agree with you Jake.

[anotheoldgit]

Jake, You smugly say 'total nonsense'

Some people believe there are fairies at the bottom of their garden

As far fetched as it is, can you or anyone else definitely say for very certain there are not? Perhaps not as we have become to recognise as fairies from illustrations, but who knows?

Pixies, elves, leprechauns.Gnomes, all part of folk law past down through the centuries. Just the same as other things that we have lost the knowledge of magic cures for illnesses, six senses etc. All these were common to past peoples who had never set eyes upon other races. All beliefs are worthy of respect until they are defiantly dis-proven, such as the belief that the World was flat.

There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang and Evolution.

I don't think so somehow or they would not be called Theories.

Big Bang Theory, no definite proof that our own earth was created in this way, just as there is no proof that there are people on other planets.

Darwin's Theory of Evolution, Do you really think that we started off as marine life that developed limbs to enable us to scramble out of the sea onto land, then began to stand upright on two legs etc, etc? Yes almost as silly as believing there is a God, maybe.

The only "evidence" for Christianity is tradition and a bunch of books of no verifiable author making outlandish claims.

For centuries, we have used books written by scholars centuries ago, to enable us to gather evidence of events that happened long ago. Who is to know what outlandish claims they made?

This is definite though Jake, I have a few Gnomes round my garden pond, but whether or not they come to life and dance around the garden at night, that's a different story.

I will have to keep an eye out and see if I can disprove it.

[beso]

Sure nobody can say for sure there isn't a God. But neither can anyone prove there is a God. The total lack of even a shred of corroborating evidence suggests there is not. God is not required to explain any part of the observable Universe from the largest to the smallest scale.

The argument that calling something a Theory means it has no credibility is totally lame and shows a complete lack of any grasp of the meaning of the word. You think simply saying that God is more than a theory lends it more credibitily? If so you are truely a fool.

There is plenty of anatomical evidence that we evolved from fish which in turn came from Echinoderms. We share large parts of our genome and basic metabolic chemistry with flies and earthworms. Our cells have the same structures as single cellular organisms.

Scholarly books are reference sources. They are compared to each other and any available physical evidence. Their assigned validity is proportional to their agreement with other information. Those which conflict with facts are largely disregarded.

There is not a shred of physical evidence for the claims in the Bible and no contemporary comparative sources. Moreover its claims are in stark contrast to known physical limitations of plausibility.

The Bible does not even stand up to critical analysis for self consistency. It contradicts itself repeatedly. Moreover it upholds genocide, the worship of wealth and the oppression of women as evidence of its divinity. If published today it would probably be banned. Frankly those who promote it disgust me.

[anotheoldgit]

beso

Pretty impressive stuff, I don't know which text book you copied your text from but it doesn't exactly flow off one's tongue does it?

Where did I say that God is more than a theory? I Didn't, therefore I think you should retracted your rather rude statement that I am a fool.

If you further wish to try and impress folk with your academic qualities, I suggest you first brush up on your spelling.

You think simply saying that God is more than a theory lends it more credibitily? If so you are truely a fool.