And let’s face it: the best that we can figure in real terms is the Jesus is nothing more than a character in a book. At least Mohammed might have actually existed. But to defend anything in the way that religious people do by telling free-thinkers how they should think is fucking hypocritcal.

What bothers me B’liar driven no doubt by his (ugly) Catholic wife are playing right into the hands of extremists by continually defending them. They way things are going, the free west isn’t going to be free for very much longer.

I didn’t select the colour of my skin, and I had no control over the country of my birth, but I damn sure have a choice in what I believe in: all religion sucks and deserves to be ridiculed. There isn’t a single shred of evidence for any god of any kind other than what was written down by a bunch of self-serving historical clerics; and their ancestors keep it going to keep themselves in a job.

Worse,leaders like B’Liar and Bush use that faith to drive home their own agendas.

Interesting points from a real muslim. Obviously they have a fatwa on him.

He’s clearly using ‘Muslims’ as a racial epithet even though they aren’t a race. How exactly are his comments related to ‘religion’? He brands Muslims ‘pig-shit’, not Islam. I’m afraid the old ‘BNP two-step’ doesn’t get you off anywhere outside a court of law.

This refers to Comment 14. No, no, no. Let’s lay this thing about race versus religion to rest. You can’t avoid bring in a race of people by default when you talk of Muslims, only because most Muslims are of South Asian origin. You need only one counterargument to blow the shit out of an argument. This is mine. When you conflate race with religion like this and say someone being racist by referring to Muslims, think of Cat Stevens and Yvonne Ridley. They will have been included in the word ‘Muslims’, yet they’re white and English (well, British – not sure about their actual origins in these isles).

You say he brands Muslims as pig shit, not Islam. But a Muslim is a follower of Islam, not (necessarily) a Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indonesian or whatever. So I’m afraid he is sticking to his brief: Muslims, he says, not people of a certain skin colour.

I detest the BNP and believe that they may well be using religion, as you say, as a way to criticise a race, although we can’t prove that and, if you keep arguing that, and then at some time in the future you’re proved wrong, you’ll look a prat.

I actually agree with some of the stuff the BNP has said, here and there, on this and that (I suspect I disagree with much more). But, then, I know that ACLU has on occasion supported the KKK. Not to do so would be black-or-white thinking. It depends on the issue, not the organisation (by all means condemn the organisation in another argument).

It turns out that those sympathetic lefty anti-racists who believe censorship will protect Muslims are actually missing the point. Many Muslims want the same freedoms as everyone else to debate, criticise and challenge their religion.

From Munira Mirza in Spiked Online

He brands Muslims “pig-shit”, not Islam. I’m afraid the old “BNP two-step” doesn’t get you off anywhere outside a court of law.

Wow, you are clearly reading what you want to, not what was actually said. Read this again:

Except muslims say that their religion is superior to all other religions – when they are all a load of pig-shit…

He calls ALL RELIGIONS pig shit, NOT Muslims. Again, this is ANTI-RELIGION, NOT racist. Your insistence on twisting the meaning towards race says more about your own attitude than G. Tingey’s.

This is a last diplomatic effort to solve this mess – just have to wait and see…