Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I am slowly coming to the conclusion that enforcement of Protestant preeminence within the law is the only way to stop Islam within Britain.

    I have also realised that Islamophobia doesn't exist and is a false creation of Islamist's and copied Progressive Liberal Secularists. Islam means submission to Sharia law, I believe people who want this are anti-British Puritan scum. Also the word which was used for the religion of people who follow story of Muhammad was Muhammadanism. I think this word must be brought back and replace the word Islam to describe the religion. I also think Muhammadanist should replace the word Muslim.

    I basically support the return of the Penal Laws against Muhammadanism within the British state.

    This would mean making conversion of Muhammadanism illegal, ban its teaching in schools, ban Sharia Courts, curtail the location, size and style of mosques. I believe these anti-Muhammadanism laws would have to be enforced for 80-120 years before the Muhammadanism population has the legacy within the British state to constrain their faith within it.

    As many of you know I am a Loyalist Reactionary High Tory of the Church of England. I support the English Bill of Rights and Protestant preeminence within the law. So things from the English Bill of Rights like only Protestants have the freedom to keep arms.

    I also wouldn't be opposed to enforcing such Penal laws against other immigrant religious groups like Hindu's, Sikh's and Buddhists.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    I am slowly coming to the conclusion that enforcement of Protestant preeminence within the law is the only way to stop Islam within Britain.
    Will that include the burning of Catholics again?

    (Original post by william walker)
    I also wouldn't be opposed to enforcing such Penal laws against other immigrant religious groups like Hindu's, Sikh's and Buddhists.
    What about people who use apostrophes in plurals? I want them stabbed slowly to death for crimes against English.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    Will that include the burning of Catholics again?

    What about people who use apostrophes in plurals? I want them stabbed slowly to death for crimes against English.
    No Catholics already put the British state on a par with their faith. They have already been forced to accept the Protestant British state.

    If that is a crime passed by Parliament and signed into law by the Monarch. Fine.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    That sounds like shooting yourself in the head to get rid of a brain tumour.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    Will that include the burning of Catholics again?

    What about people who use apostrophes in plurals? I want them stabbed slowly to death for crimes against English.
    Catholics were never burned, they were hanged, drawn and quartered for treason :grumble:

    (Original post by william walker)
    No Catholics already put the British state on a par with their faith. They have already been forced to accept the Protestant British state.

    If that is a crime passed by Parliament and signed into law by the Monarch. Fine.
    I wouldn't say it's on a par with, just that our faith agrees with the law in the main. We can accept the Protestant British state whilst still praying for a return to the true church :wink2:

    I really hope this is a troll thread...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aula)
    I wouldn't say it's on a par with, just that our faith agrees with the law in the main. We can accept the Protestant British state whilst still praying for a return to the true church :wink2:

    I really hope this is a troll thread...
    Your primary allegiance is to the British state and not Rome isn't it? So you want everybody in the British nation state to be Catholic? Or do you mean Catholic law is enforced from Rome through the Monarchy alone?

    It isn't good enough for people to simply accept the Protestant British state, they must be forced to actively support and defend it. Otherwise they are swayed by a foreign entity like the Catholics were by the French and the Muhammadanist's are by Al Qaeda and ISIL.

    No this thread isn't a troll thread, it is serious.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aula)
    Catholics were never burned, they were hanged, drawn and quartered for treason :grumble:
    Many millions of people were murdered in the Reformation Catholics and Reformists. The Reformation wasn't a good thing. However what come out of the Reformation is good Protestantism and the nation state.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xMr_BrightSide)
    That sounds like shooting yourself in the head to get rid of a brain tumour.
    It is targeted radiotherapy and chemotherapy to destroy the bad cells, after which undertaking a replenishment program to increase the number of healthy cells.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    I am slowly coming to the conclusion that enforcement of Protestant preeminence within the law is the only way to stop Islam within Britain.

    I also wouldn't be opposed to enforcing such Penal laws against other immigrant religious groups like Hindu's, Sikh's and Buddhists.
    Yes because enforcing ideas and banning others always works (heavy sarcasm). Even though I dislike Islam (heavily) this doesn't work.

    So really banning anything but "Protestantism" because it is "the only correct religion". Buddhism isn't a religion more of a way of life, quite hard to ban. Will this "cleansing" of faiths include getting rid of those without faith and anyone who disagrees with your religious beliefs?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Torum)
    Yes because enforcing ideas and banning others always works (heavy sarcasm). Even though I dislike Islam (heavily) this doesn't work.

    So really banning anything but "Protestantism" because it is "the only correct religion". Buddhism isn't a religion more of a way of life, quite hard to ban. Will this "cleansing" of faiths include getting rid of those without faith and anyone who disagrees with your religious beliefs?
    I don't want to ban any idea's I want to constrain their power.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    I don't want to ban any idea's I want to constrain their power.
    DEATH TO THOSE WHO USE APOSTROPHES FOR PLURALS!!!

    Sorry. Just had to get that out of my system.

    Were you saying something?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    DEATH TO THOSE WHO USE APOSTROPHES FOR PLURALS!!!

    Sorry. Just had to get that out of my system.

    Were you saying something?
    Boring.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)

    What about people who use apostrophes in plurals? I want them stabbed slowly to death for crimes against English.
    Grammar Nazi. 😜
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    This would mean making conversion of Muhammadanism illegal, ban its teaching in schools, ban Sharia Courts, curtail the location, size and style of mosques. I believe these anti-Muhammadanism laws would have to be enforced for 80-120 years before the Muhammadanism population has the legacy within the British state to constrain their faith within it.
    (Original post by william walker)
    I don't want to ban any idea's I want to constrain their power.
    Seriously, that's like 4 posts apart.


    (Original post by william walker)
    t isn't good enough for people to simply accept the Protestant British state, they must be forced to actively support and defend it. Otherwise they are swayed by a foreign entity like the Catholics were by the French and the Muhammadanist's are by Al Qaeda and ISIL.
    Pro-tip: I'm an atheist, so no control from Rome, but there is no way you'd get me to do that. I owe no loyalty to the British Crown or the British State and as far as I'm concerned the sooner we can get rid of such inherently oppressive institutions the better.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    Seriously, that's like 4 posts apart.

    Pro-tip: I'm an atheist, so no control from Rome, but there is no way you'd get me to do that. I owe no loyalty to the British Crown or the British State and as far as I'm concerned the sooner we can get rid of such inherently oppressive institutions the better.
    I never said I wanted to ban anything. I said I wanted to ban its teaching in schools and ban conversion to it. I also said I wanted to constrain the size, location and style of mosques.

    Well I am a Protestant the one who actually created the British state, so why would you as an atheist support the Protestant parts of the British governmental system. I don't support the secularist parts of the British governmental system the media, House of Commons and the government. However I understand these institutions and worth while because they can constrain the power of the House of Lords, Monarchy, Church of England and Courts. Your total opposition to the institutions you don't like and wanting remove them from the governmental system is Puritanical. I don't want you to have power over me, and I don't want to be able to have power over you. I want us to constrain each other, in doing so we are both assured of our power and are able to increase our freedom.

    In the end I support the British governmental system and British nation state. No everything it does or every institution within it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by william walker)
    I never said I wanted to ban anything. I said I wanted to ban its teaching in schools and ban conversion to it. I also said I wanted to constrain the size, location and style of mosques.
    So you want to ban those things that are involved in the practice of Islam (not so much the school thing), just not Islam itself? I'd argue that the difference between the two is negligible at best.


    (Original post by william walker)
    Well I am a Protestant the one who actually created the British state, so why would you as an atheist support the Protestant parts of the British governmental system. I don't support the secularist parts of the British governmental system the media, House of Commons and the government. However I understand these institutions and worth while because they can constrain the power of the House of Lords, Monarchy, Church of England and Courts. Your total opposition to the institutions you don't like and wanting remove them from the governmental system is Puritanical. I don't want you to have power over me, and I don't want to be able to have power over you. I want us to constrain each other, in doing so we are both assured of our power and are able to increase our freedom.

    In the end I support the British governmental system and British nation state. No everything it does or every institution within it.
    Firstly I'm capable of working with those outside my religious 'group'. If the Protestant government institutions were doing a good job or more importantly, weren't inherently oppressive by their very nature of vaulting a particular few above the many then I could support them. I don't, but that's not what I'm trying to say if you see what I mean.

    That bolded part I agree with fully and it's the reason why I am an anarchist. As I see it, the State/government is an institution of illegitimate authority who's monopoly on violence and ability to control discourse is not a defender but the main aggressor to our human rights and personal freedoms. That is why I oppose them, they are not only unnecessary, but also harmful.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    So you want to ban those things that are involved in the practice of Islam (not so much the school thing), just not Islam itself? I'd argue that the difference between the two is negligible at best.




    Firstly I'm capable of working with those outside my religious 'group'. If the Protestant government institutions were doing a good job or more importantly, weren't inherently oppressive by their very nature of vaulting a particular few above the many then I could support them. I don't, but that's not what I'm trying to say if you see what I mean.

    That bolded part I agree with fully and it's the reason why I am an anarchist. As I see it, the State/government is an institution of illegitimate authority who's monopoly on violence and ability to control discourse is not a defender but the main aggressor to our human rights and personal freedoms. That is why I oppose them, they are not only unnecessary, but also harmful.
    No Muhammadanist's will be able to practice their faith. However they will be constrained from forcing it upon others. I understand that it is all about power, the Muhammadanist's want more power, I want them to constrain themselves within the British nation state. Also just stop using the word Islam it means among other things submission to Sharia law. Instead start using the English word and call the faith Muhammadanism.

    You seem to have no understand of the British governmental system or its creation. It isn't about the institutions doing a "good job" it is about them each of them protecting their own interests and their own power. Yes Protestant institution are oppressive, which is why they must be constrained by other institution within a nation stat.

    I was an anarchist at one point and an atheist. However I realised that the only why to stop the government or state is to constrain their power against each other. Rather than attempt to destroy them both and have anarchy. I understand anarchy just means lack of a state, where people create their own government to do specific voluntary things. However in the end it will lead to government tyranny. I believe the best option is a power balance between many different institution, called a nation state.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    (Original post by Simes)
    What about people who use apostrophes in plurals? I want them stabbed slowly to death for crimes against English.
    Grammar Nazi.
    Grammar Methodist, actually.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    Grammar Methodist, actually.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsX5TgWkWYw
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know how the anarchists and feminists sleep at night, knowing there is all that oppression out there that they are powerless to avoid. Securing individual liberties doesn't mean you need to tear down all the national institutions like marriage, church, government and law. What happens when you achieve absolute anarchy and absolute individualism is a complete breakdown in social cohesion and I guarantee a greater increase in warped, disorderly and depressed individuals.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.