New TV Series Has 'Extremist' Christian Beheading 'Moderate' Muslim

  • Bookmark and Share

Last week, the BBC aired a new TV series titled "Bonekickers" touted as a "groundbreaking" show where "history comes alive," and a series that is "Based in fact." The premier episode, though features an odd thing if "fact" is the aim of the Beeb's new TV series: a Christian beheading a Muslim. Yeah, THAT is really a "fact" based premise, isn't it?

Of course, the few remaining Christians in Britain have found themselves a bit put out by this "fact based" show where it is a Christian beheading a Muslim instead of the other way 'round.

And it isn't just a beheading, the entire episode turns our current "fact based" reality on its head as the plot gives us a group of "right wing Christians" bent on purging England of its immigrant population, a group the TV series is fictionalizing as the "White Wings Alliance." In a day when extremist Muslims the world over are killing people for not being a Muslim, this show features the exact opposite situation. Christian "extremists" killing innocent, moderate Muslims. For what reason? Only the Beeb knows for sure.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

The whole premise is so ridiculous that Andrew Anthony of the Guardian newspaper said, "A Martian watching TV drama of late would probably conclude that the country is crawling with homicidal Islamophobes, desperate to kill those few Muslims who have not already been interned by the government or shot by the police." In his droll way, of course, Anthony is saying that none of that is happening despite the outrageous plot line that appears in this "fact based" series.

The Independent's reviewer was no kinder saying, "Murderous Christian fundamentalists, like the ones on Bonekickers, are frequently on TV, but their Islamic counterparts rarely make an appearance. Our TV controllers have a tendency to make like the three wise monkeys when it comes to Muslim extremism: hear no evil, see no evil, broadcast no evil." So much for "facts."

From the Bonekickers website, the show is describe as such:

Bonekickers is a highly original six-part series about a dynamic team of archaeologists... As a team their skills combine under a variety of imperatives to extract bodies, books, weapons and all manner of artefacts which lead them into an investigation of the past that will unlock dangers and mysteries in the present.

Based in fact, the series has on board the expertise of Professor Mark Horton, Head of Archaeology at Bristol University, a specialist in the archaeology of historical societies around the world and Bonekickers consultant on the factual evidence and background to the relics featured in each episode.

In any case, many viewers complained about this upending of reality, so many so that the BBC had to respond with a statement. And the BBC has responded to critics of their new series quite unsatisfactorily, it seems.

Complaint

We've received some complaints from viewers who felt the scene featuring a beheading in Bonekickers on BBC One, Tuesday 8th July 2008 was inappropriate viewing.

The BBC's Response

We regret that some viewers felt the beheading scene was inappropriate. It appeared half way through episode one of Bonekickers, by which time the character's extreme fundamental belief' had been revealed, providing the audience with a good build up to the scene in question.

This storyline looked at religious fundamentalism within a fictional Christian group, and one character in particular who took his beliefs to an extreme. His ignorance and misguided behaviour lead to the beheading of a peaceful Asian Muslim character in the drama. His actions are clearly condemned by leading Muslim and Christian clerics. The drama also has the balance of a Christian character that has a deep faith which she uses humbly and only for good.

The killing and the method used reflected the flawed beliefs that the character had. It does not attempt to condone or glamorise such a violent act in any way. The drama seeks to highlight the consequences of a misguided fundamentalist taking his beliefs to violent extremes.

The inclusion of the scene had been carefully considered and was very much central to the story line and reflected the character's extreme fundamental beliefs and state of mind.

They regret nothing, of course.

So, lots of “extremist Christians” running about the countryside beheading moderate Muslims over there in England? There must be. After all, we did mention that this is a “fact based” series, didn’t we?

Speaking of bones, this appears to be another reason why the west hasn't the backbone to stand up to Islamic extremism, doesn't it?

(Photo credit: Blackstar.co.uk)


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Welcome, new masters

Hey, they're just trying to suck up to new management, that's all.

If they want to suck up...

A simple "Gift basket" would have sufficed. ;-)

"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."

   (sigh)  It just makes

   (sigh)  It just makes you realize how much of the potential of PBS is lost due the Right-Wing crazies that control this country.

Funny you should mention PBS

My siblings and myself grew up on PBS (Electric Company, Nova, Sesame Street, This old House etc...) it was a wonderful channel until the "Dark side" of the "left" took over. If I had Children I would block that station for their own protection.

"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."

  Yeah my kids grew up

  Yeah my kids grew up watching those shows.  PBS introduced me to Monty Python and I'ved never recovered from that.  I still watch some PBS selectively.  The thing I seem to notice is the difference in the content of the political talk shows and many feature programs and what they broadcast for fundraising.  The membership drives (at least around here) are heavy on flag waving, Gospel Singing and glowing biographies of great Americans (even if they are white).

Wow I thought

PBS was the same everywhere. Where I live PBS leans in the other direction. I'm not knocking your preference (everyone has a right to one) but I would love the flag waving stuff myself.

"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."

  Well I live in the

  Well I live in the heartland and when they do local membership drives they have to appeal to the people who live here.  Out here in bitter-land even the democrats wave flags and they don't know who Che Guevara is.

PBS

In Tampa PBS is soo far left, they supported and defended Sami alArian. It was unbelievable

 

Pelosi + Reid = $ 4.00 per gallon

another troll

The right wing crazies who control this country have stymied PBS?

Come on, don't be so shy - tell us how you really feel. ;)

Please explain your remark about white Americans. We don't take kindly to racial remarks on NB.

candance

i think you misunderstand mid-americas contention; check it again i believe he is saying

PBS shows political crap and biased programming except when they are looking for money, then (for a show) they pull out the patriotic and will even show a white historical figure in a good light

In the End, God will Speak   

LOL

  Slow Down!  Your reading too fast.  Sometimes you have to read between the lines.   : )

oh sorry

Sometimes sarcasm doesn't translate very well on a discussion board.

Our preacher saw that story

Our preacher saw that story this morning before church services. So he wisely cancelled the Muslim beheading planned for todays sermon.

<sarc/off>

They do live in a fantasy

They do live in a fantasy world, don't they.

"Forget change, I want improvement!"

Sorry to hear that..

The BBC prevented another human sacrifice..

Their work is done.  Somebody grab the capes.  They're HEROES!

www.benbarrack.com  

Off with their heads

There's been a huge outcry against this drivel over in England.

Don't forget though my friends!! In Britain, a citizen owning a TV has to pay, by law, $260 a year to the BBC. Doesn't matter whether you watch it or not, just the act of owning a TV makes it compulsory.

You can leave a comment here at the official.


Boneheadkickers site

And www.biased-bbc.blogs... has a few threads on the outrage.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

Political correctness will kill the UK

just as it will kill the USA.  Speak your mind and don't worry what names the left calls you.  Let your voice be heard!!!

Jeff Lebowski

www.angrywhitedude.c...

This BS will end up in the

This BS will end up in the US via BBC AMERICA.

The "PBessives" will love it I'm betting.

Vote 4 change. Vote 4 anything. See Jack & Mr Shy's first campaign ad for the ONLY viable 3rd party candidate.

BBC America comes as part

BBC America comes as part of my DirecTV package, and I must say I'm not impressed.

If that's the best they've got, then I feel sorry for the viewers in the UK.

I get BBCAmerica

on the Dishnetwork, and I too am not impressed. There are only 2 or 3 shows worth watching.

Yep.

No matter what you do you cannot win in today’s world so you might as well say your peace. What’s the worst that can happen you will be called a racist, sexist, or homophobe, well guess what in their eyes (libs) you already are. So whether or not you sit there like a good little boy or girl and take the liberal's abuse or raise hell, you will always be guilty so speak your mind!

"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."

It's just like in V for Vendetta

Where they had the Christian prime minister banning the Koran. What a joke. No Christian leader has ever tried to do that in modern times. Muslims do ban the Bible in the here and now.

I was at the show last night and saw a preview for Bill Maher's Documentary about religion. It looks like he will be using Michael Moore type tactics. These people are so disgusting.

 

"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB

And how about "The Sum of

And how about "The Sum of All Fears" where they changed the terrorists from Muslims to a White Christian Neo Nazi group?

Yeah, that's plausible....

 

Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson

I didn't see Sum of all fears MB

Unbelievable. Hollywood always focuses on things that are not realistic. When was the last time a Neo Nazi group killed thousands of people? There are very limited actions of a person here or there and it's not a growing movement by any means.

Islamic terrorism is a growing movement that has been growing consistently no matter who has been in the White house.

These leftists (especially the ones in Hollywood) are so daft.

 

"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB

Coming to US Audiences in 2009?

It is a further slap in the Brit's faces that their tax dollars fund the BBC propaganda machine.

Expect the same type of government-run media here in the US soon if/when(?) al Pelosi and fellow terrorist sympathizers sneak the Fairness Jihad bill through Congress with a possible fellow traveler in the Oval Office drooling at the prospect of applying his signature. 

I imagine the script

I imagine the script writers from Boston Legal and Law and Order are furiously penning a script for the fall.

 

Oh, what sad times are these when passing ruffians can say `nee' at will to old ladies.

Fact-based?

  • When was the last Christian beheading of a muslim? How many since 2000?
  • How about the last Christian beheading of anyone? How many since 2000?
  • When was the last Muslim beheading of a Christian? How many since 2000?
  • Or the last Muslim stoning-to-death of anyone? How many since 2000?
  • Or the last Muslim honor-killing, anywhere in the world? How many since 2000?
  • How many homicide bombings have Christians performed since 2000?
  • How many homicide bombings by Muslims?

All I need are the numbers, BBC -- give me the facts, and I'll be glad to endorse your program if the facts warrent it. Otherwise I'll call you what you are -- a bunch of hate-filled propagandists, carrying the Muslim water, pushing your own evil agenda for your hate-filled reasons. You have now given Muslim's the world over another excuse for their barbarian, midevil behavior, and you will have blood on your hands if even one person uses your propaganda film to justify his next bombing.

________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Torn from the Headlines!!!

Oh wait....

Happy Trails...

Perhaps if the producers

Perhaps if the producers had shown a Muslim beheading someone they would have been in violation of some European "Hate Crime" or "Human Rights" laws.

Check out Ezra Levant on similiar issues: http://www.ezralevant.com/

By the way, what happened to the forums?- nothing opens up.

This is

This is outrageously disgusting to say the least...

I hope I live to see the day when people all over this country and others, storm the msm/AP/newspaper offices too and physically eject these leftist loons that encourage the enemy within...

...that's my television series scenario...

We couldn't be so lucky.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

All comes down to cowardice

The only way people who know the truth can make sense of this without opening their windows and screaming is to understand the root cause of those responsible for this dreck at BBC..

Cowardice...

..And the only thing worse than a coward is a coward in denial..

Enter the BBC

 

www.benbarrack.com  

In America

In America we call those cowards in denial Democrats.

 we call those cowards in

 we call those cowards in denial Democrats.

 Cause we are polite

"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg

Wait a minute. . .

If various opposing Christian institutions can define Christianity any way they want to, then why can't the BBC? 

Huh?  How is one any more valid than the other? 

If the BBC has it "wrong" then what's the true definition of taking Christianity to the extreme?

-PJ 

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism. . .and proud of it.

What planet

What planet are you on? The air must be pretty thin there.

Always willing to help.

What part of my previous post didn't you understand, Warner?  

-PJ

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism. . .and proud of it.

How about...

How about the part where you don't mind the BBC making out right lies?

Why is it people like you seem to want to attack Christianity when it is Islam that presents the danger to civilization? You are more sad proof that the west will lose the battle because your head is so far up your rearend that you don't even see the danger surrounding you!

People like you make me wonder if the west deserves to BE saved?

What?

"your head is so far up your rearend .."

Do we really need this from someone NB puts forth as one of their writers?

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

TnT...

Does that offend you or something?

 

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

Clear, not at all. It was

Clear, not at all. It was just a question of Writers vs. Posters, that's all. Not of sentiment.

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

TnT... I do, I

TnT...

I do, I for one, appreciate it.

He is correct too.

While I can't think of a time I disagree with you, I understand WTH's point. 

Besides that trach is just attempting to make a religious thread out of this...I know him well, and why he posted what he did.

Just my two cents.

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Hi bt...

Trach really is that transparent isn't he??? 

45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm

*ahem*

I don't believe I was trying to be all that subtle in the first place, CT.

-PJ

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism...and proud of it.

Good morning! See those "related topics" tags?

If I'm trying to make a religious thread out of this, then I wanna know what it was before that.

I am totally on-topic here. 

You can make up any ulterior motive you want, but it's pretty clear to me that WTH is bringing up BBC's "bias" against some universally-agreed-upon standard of Christianity that's supposed to be soooo obvious that it warrants only a nod and a wink.

What "facts" did the BBC get wrong about Christianity? 

-PJ 

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism...and proud of it.

no you're not

this is about BBC telling lies while advertising "based in fact."

Lies about what Warner? 

Lies about what Warner?  Are you going to give me more rhetorical BS, or some of these so-called "facts" you're alluding to in the OP? 

Why is it people like you seem to want to turn Christianity itself into a watered-down; relativistic non-absolute? 

What is this "Christianity" you speak of when you're obviously defining it according to your standards?   

Why is it people like you preach a double standard as if all Islam were a danger to civilization?  Why can't YOU simply be consistent about two different religions?

You Warner are more sad proof that the West will lose the battle because your head is so far up your rearend that you don't even see the relativism surrounding you!

-PJ

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism...and proud of it.

um, uh, yeeeah...

Insert rolling eyes smiley here.

You call that content? 

You call that content?   

Or is this all some huge secret between you and your fans?

-PJ

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism...and proud of it.

There is a difference

You see, there is a difference between not bothering with a troll (my stance with you here) and not being able to debate the issue. My "content" would be completely wasted on an anti-American, anti-Christian, terror apologizing person like yourself.

So, have a great night. Me, I have better things to do with my time.

Anti-what? According to what standard?

Orly?  In order to be "anti" you have to have something for me to oppose to begin with.  I'm sorry your own concept of whatever I'm so "anti" about is so vague and ambiguous to begin with.

I'm not trolling and you know it.  You're just to scared to go there.  Some force for good you are.  

Your "content" would be completely wasted because you have none and you're bluffing. 

-PJ

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism...and proud of it.

For you

I am glad that I can help puff up your fragile ego so that you might congratulate yourself on how much better you are than am I.

Congratulations for your perspicacity and superiority.

Insert barfing smiley here.

Argument to the person. . .*YAWN*

You're stalling and stretching it out further, as if it had any effect.  This is no better that the garbage that Syrius pulls.

A bluff is a bluff.

Come back when you grow a pair.

-PJ 

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism...and proud of it.

I don't

I don't fight the unarmed.

Ta ta, friend.

I understand Warner.  Why

I understand Warner.  Why even bother to answer any questions at all, when you're so much more committed to selling out?

-PJ

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism...and proud of it.

Now

Now you've got my interest on that one. "Selling out"? To whom, about what?

Or are you merely casting out non sequiturs to get noticed again?

NO!  This isn't

NO!  This isn't attention-getting and you've been listening to your ass-kissing little sycophants again. 

You know me better than that.  Stop fronting.

Answer my damn questions and I'll retract this conclusion I made in all sincerity. 

I gave you more than enough time to stop stalling.  Let's get down to business and deal with my questions.  Stop flinching and stop with the whole "troll" nonsense.

-PJ

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism...and proud of it.

I have seen

I really haven't seen any "questions" from you. I've seen laughable taunts, pointed name calling, etc. But no substantive questions.

Would you like to actually ask one?

Are we playing stupid

Are we playing stupid now?

Question #1.  If various opposing Christian institutions can define Christianity any way they want to, then why can't the BBC?  How is one any more valid than the other? 

Question #2.  If the BBC has it "wrong" then what's the true definition of taking Christianity to the extreme?

Question #3.  What "lies" are you referring to in the OP?

-PJ

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism...and proud of it.

OK Troll...

I'll indulge your trolling, I suppose...

Question #1 - This was a non sequitur question which is why I didn't imagine you could possibly be serious. The BBC isn't "defining" Christianity. They used it to further their plot line in a show that is supposed to be a "fact based" show. Yet, there is NO "fact" in Christians beheading Muslims. They did not go so far as to "define" anything. They had a hack TV writer merely appropriate the word "Christian" and fit it illogically into their silly story.

Question #2 - Another non sequitur question, really. It has nothing whatever to do with this op ed or what the BBC is doing. The SUBJECT is the BBC using "fact based" plot lines. What they did with their plot has nothing to do with facts. There is no Christian sect running around justifying the behavior as appears in the TV show. Therefore, NO FACT BASED plot resulted.

Question #3 - Christians are simply NOT going around beheading Muslims. No where, any where, it ain't happening. Hence there we have what normal humans call a lie.

You see, this is exactly why you are a troll. You find it impossible to stick to the topic of the thread and, instead, want to go off on some wild Christian bashing with little "fact based" replies.

"Troll" = throw the

"Troll" = throw the conservative under the bus. 

WTH:  This was a non sequitur question which is why I didn't imagine you could possibly be serious.

Surprise!  I'm as serious as a myocardial infarction!  Things have changed around here lately, haven't you noticed?

WTH:  The BBC isn't "defining" Christianity. They used it to further their plot line in a show that is supposed to be a "fact based" show. Yet, there is NO "fact" in Christians beheading Muslims. They did not go so far as to "define" anything. They had a hack TV writer merely appropriate the word "Christian" and fit it illogically into their silly story.

This is yet another open ended statement ---> going nowhere.  This whole time, I've been asking for the alleged "facts" that you're failing (or too frightened) to deliver.

If the word "Christian" is a non-absolute, then they can do anything they want to with it.  If you're arguing against the way they appropriated the word, then you're arguing according to definitions.  Stop doing the weasel, Warner.

WTH:  Another non sequitur question, really. It has nothing whatever to do with this op ed or what the BBC is doing. The SUBJECT is the BBC using "fact based" plot lines. What they did with their plot has nothing to do with facts. There is no Christian sect running around justifying the behavior as appears in the TV show. Therefore, NO FACT BASED plot resulted.

How do you know this for sure?  Are you absolutely sure of this?  What right do you have to define the "facts" about a particular religion? 

WTH:  Christians are simply NOT going around beheading Muslims. No where, any where, it ain't happening. Hence there we have what normal humans call a lie.

Nope.  You're defining Christianity only according to your interpetation of it.  That's a no-no. 

WTH:  You see, this is exactly why you are a troll. You find it impossible to stick to the topic of the thread and, instead, want to go off on some wild Christian bashing with little "fact based" replies.

What facts again?  They claim facts, but all you got are "just so" statements to oppose their "facts" with.  Gotta do better than that.

But I'm afraid here on NB that's not allowed.  So you'll just have to take your "facts" to a religious board I'm afraid.  NB isn't about religious discussion you know.  Go ahead & slap your hand for me.   

Sorry W, I just don't make the rules around here. You'll have to take that up with our Commissar.

-PJ

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism...and proud of it.

wow pj, you are really

wow pj, you are really trying to do another religious thread, despite Matt's new policy, anyway you can.  No one is defining Christiananity, they are just labeling a bunch of villians as Christian, its called propoganda...and it makes all Christians look no better than the Muslim terrorists.  But you don't want to talk about the subject at hand, you want to restart your favorite argument on what it means to be a Christian, as if YOU are the defining authority on the matter. Good thing most people here can smell this bait a mile away.

So pj, in your definition of what it means to be Christian, does that include beheading people?  Because if not, stop trying to pick another religious fight.  If so, well then there isn't much we can do for ya, is there?

CV... Yep...and it is

CV...

Yep...and it is despicable...

I have had my fill of this with trach...he is the reason so many things happened here when it is cut and dried.

I am closing out for the night, but I was wondering how he would attempt to make everything his way or no way ...you follow what I am saying...

I am going to start complaining to the mastheads...and I do not do that.

I have had it up to here...and then some.

Catch you later....

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

"Cut and dried" only

"Cut and dried" only according to your interpetation.

And by complaining to the mastheads, how can you possibly get even more religious relativism here than you have lobbied for already?

-PJ

The definition is as ambiguous as you have established it to be.

Don't be silly CV.  I asked a series of simple questions and was accused of trolling.  Now you're arguing to motive. 

According to the new rules, your accusation of "propaganda" here is (of course) relative only to you.

You made your bed, now sleep in it.

-PJ

you were accused for it for

you were accused for it for the very reasons I described.  The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.

You still think fallacious

You still think fallacious reasons count?

Besides, it's only true from your interpretation.

There are no absolutes if all you have is no more than a "just so" statement. 

Therefore, you're no better than a secularist.

-PJ

and its false according to

and its false according to yours?  Please prove me wrong.

I didn't assert a single

I didn't assert a single thing, man.  Why, that would be a crime here, wouldn't it?

-PJ

stop your whining trach,

stop your whining trach, everyone can see you are still arguing NB's policy on Matt's religion thread.  You aren't as clever as you think.

As you have told me in the

As you have told me in the past CV, you are only but...a simple man.

So I'll put this as simply as I can.

These blogs don't matter a whit, with ambiguous claims to "facts" that are merely implied with nothing more than a wink and a nod.  

I'm not the one that mobbed for a "zero absolutes policy" around here. 

So when in Lib-land, do as the libs do.  I'll call every religious thread into question from now on, seeing as how such truth assertions aren't allowed by Comrade Commissar to begin with.

-PJ 

thanks for being honest

thanks for being honest about being a troll trach.

http://en.wikipedia.... Ju

http://en.wikipedia....

Just so you get your "facts" straight.  I'm pushing for the objective opposite.

Religious threads are useless with an undefined absolute...and liberals find them most tasty. 

So why not be consistent and ban all religious threads?

The hypocrisy is truly galling.

-PJ

"Villains" according to

"Villains" according to what standard again, CV? 

As if YOU are the defining authority on the matter.

-PJ

You really want to go

You really want to go there?  Can you tell me which hero of yours beheads in the name of God?  Or rather which Christian hero-warrior?  Are you applauding the idea that Christians should behead muslims, just because they are muslims?  Didn't realize villian was a slippery definition, seems pretty obvious to me.

Go where. . .and according

Go where. . .and according to who's individual interpretation?

Your "villains" label is entirely subjective according to your little consensus mob.  I didn't re-write the rules here.  You and your relativism-gang did.

-PJ

I love this

I love this trach:)!!!

finally kickin some anti-Muslim bigot ass around here

plenty of work to do trach ol buddy

high five

....ROFLMAO.... I can't

....ROFLMAO....

I can't help it, I am, I have a big bad day ahead tomorrow and that response made my day for me tomorrow WTH...

I will laugh to myself just thinking about this, which I will.

Like I said, I am sorry...I just really can't help it...it's your descriptive picture that did it for me. 

"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh

Ha ha

Bigtimer,

No problem, I thought I'd leave the troll with as flippant reply as he deserves. Have a good day tomorrow.

WTH

Just

Just asking...

___________________________________ 

If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber

Tune in next week for

Tune in next week for another "fact" filled episode where extremist Jews exterminate millions of peace loving Nazis in the notorious Israeli concentration camps.

When asked if he went to war with Iraq to derail the impeachment vote: “I don’t think any serious person would believe that any President would do such a thing." - President Clinton (Dec 1998).

When has a Christian

beheaded anyone?

The BBC is singing the old song "Fairy tales can come true"

sick and sad

it is ridiculous - we burn

it is ridiculous - we burn people at the stake dammit...

been burning witches all over Africa lately:)

STOP THE PRESSES!

It seems a group of Christians beheaded two Muslims in Indonesia last year. I did a search (Goodsearch) and found numerous links to this incident.

It is, however, the only incident I could find. And it is obviously an aberration. AND it was done as revenge, not for religious reasons. But, shamefully, it did happen.

So I guess the BBC apologists could point to this as the "fact" on which they based their story. But it happened in Indonesia, and had nothing to do with a fundy group trying to "purge" Britain of Muslims.

Ouch!  Thanks IJ.  Glad I

Ouch!  Thanks IJ.  Glad I didn't hastily jump on the bandwagon.

Guess we'll have to find a different standard for defining Christians now.  :\

-PJ

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism...and proud of it.

You are OUT there!!

You know Trach, I have to say, I have no clue what the hell you are on about. Up above, before the thread responses go one character wide (In fact, the columns got so thin that I couldn't make heads nor tails of the last few replies there is no way to continue up there because of that!), I found that I simply can't understand what you are saying. You just don't make any sense with your silly little pseudo intellectual cryptic comments.

You don't seem to be on the same op ed that everyone else here is on. Every reply of yorus has been such an out of left field non sequitur that I have no idea what you want me to say?

At first I thought you were just an average troll, but it seems to me that you have some serious disconnection problem. Now, I am not familiar with you or your past postings, I have to say. But, from the replies to you here by others I have to see that you are one of those single issue guys that turns everything into that one pet issue no matter what else is going on. For you, it all goes back to your obsession.

I get the feeling that you are a militant Christian hater. OK, well and good. If that is your "thing," then I get that. Unfortunately for you, however, Christianity is responsible for modernity. It is responsible for science, democracy, freedom... everything you take for granted in your sad little life finds its genesis, its beginning, in Christianity.

Everything you are you owe to Christian beliefs, Christian concepts and Christian followers.

Fight against it all you like. But the truth is there whether you like it or not.

Now, I am not going to reply to you any more because I simply do not "get" you or what you are saying and, frankly, I just don't care enough to waste any more time with you. So, go off on what ever tear you like. Or stay on your meds and be serene.

I wish you good luck, good health, and good eating.

Oh, and remember... Jesus still loves ya, pal.

Shh!

WTH:  You know Trach, I have to say, I have
no clue what the hell you are on about. Up above, before the thread
responses go one character wide (In fact, the columns got so thin that
I couldn't make heads nor tails of the last few replies there is no way
to continue up there because of that!), I found that I simply can't
understand what you are saying. You just don't make any sense with your
silly little pseudo intellectual cryptic comments
.

I suspect you're deliberately calling them that, because you don't want to deal.  Yet here you are all the same.  

WTH:  You don't seem to be on the same op ed that everyone else here is
on. Every reply of yorus has been such an out of left field non
sequitur that I have no idea what you want me to say?

How much clearer can I possibly get?

I-want-you-to-actually-state-your-alleged-facts-instead-of-limp-wristedly-implying-them.

WTH:  At first I thought you were just an average troll, but it seems to
me that you have some serious disconnection problem. Now, I am not
familiar with you or your past postings, I have to say. But, from the
replies to you here by others I have to see that you are one of those
single issue guys that turns everything into that one pet issue no
matter what else is going on. For you, it all goes back to your
obsession
.

What single issue is that Warner?   Is this a single issue you and I can agree on?  What's the foundation of your truth, or is that too taboo a subject?

WTH:  I get the feeling that you are a militant Christian hater.

Given the rulings here, I might as well be, since NB is suddenly so accommodating towards them as of late.

WTH:  OK, well
and good. If that is your "thing," then I get that. Unfortunately for
you, however, Christianity is responsible for modernity. It is
responsible for science, democracy, freedom... everything you take for
granted in your sad little life finds its genesis, its beginning, in
Christianity
.

Who's Christianity?  The one that's merely limited to your interpretation?

WTH:  Everything you are you owe to Christian beliefs, Christian concepts and Christian followers.

According to what standard?

WTH:  Fight against it all you like. But the truth is there whether you like it or not.

Sorry Warner, but Dee, CV, Bigtimer, Matt, and a host of others would beg to differ.  See, all of them are convinced that "the truth" is relative to the individual or relative to an individual institution.

WTH:  Now, I am not going to reply to you any more because I simply do not
"get" you or what you are saying and, frankly, I just don't care enough
to waste any more time with you
.

That's okay.  Not many want to "get" what I'm saying anyway.

WTH:  Oh, and remember... Jesus still loves ya, pal.

Who is this "Jesus" you speak of?  Better not talk like that anymore or the admins will hear about it.  Their spies are everywhere. 

-PJ

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism...and proud of it.

Trach - you are in violation of at least two new rules here

STOP IT

You are trying to define Christianity for everyone and argue religion and you are calling people out who were not even involved in your conversation. If you want to comment that you think the BBC accurately reflects Christians then go a head and do that. If not, then say why they don't. Otherwise buzz off.

Everyone else can understand the difference. You don't get to turn Newsbusters into your personal forum for your single issue.

It's funny how when I suggested a Yahoo group, and that I'd even join, that you had no interest. It seems you only like to play for a captive audience that has been cultivated and paid for by someone else. If you started your own group you'd have to be cordial to people or they wouldn't stay. That's rough.

Your behavior is extremely trollish.

 

"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB

That was then, this is now.

Dee:  You are trying to define Christianity for everyone and argue religion and you are calling people out who were not even involved in your conversation.

Quite the opposite actually.  Please do try to keep up. 

Dee: If you want to comment that you think the BBC accurately reflects Christians then go a head and do that. If not, then say why they don't. Otherwise buzz off.

According to what standard of "why" again?  I wouldn't want to be banned for "promoting" my individual interpretation of Christianity now, would I?

Dee:  Everyone else can understand the difference. You don't get to turn Newsbusters into your personal forum for your single issue.

Everyone can understand what difference again?  I'm sorry, but rules are rules. 

Dee:  It's funny how when I suggested a Yahoo group, and that I'd even join, that you had no interest. It seems you only like to play for a captive audience that has been cultivated and paid for by someone else. If you started your own group you'd have to be cordial to people or they wouldn't stay. That's rough.

Stop attacking me Dee.

Dee: Your behavior is extremely trollish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Best to take a refresher on that.  I'm simply telling people what the new rules are.  You think you're a special case or something?

-PJ

Stop attacking me Trach

No one is fooled by your silly game

"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB

Stop attacking me Dee.

Where did you come in on this thread and why?  You're off topic.  Stop attacking me when I'm asking questions that are on topic.

-PJ

Stop attacking me Trach

According to the person who wrote the blog you are off topic. I'm done with this - have your last word that no one will read.

 

"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB

Warner, let me introduce

Warner, let me introduce you to trach.  He is NB's resident religious authority.  He claims to be Christian, who likes to hold the authority to declare who is and who isn't a Christian, whose religion is Satanic and such, and is very obnoxious about it.  He has started several anti-Mormon threads, anti-Catholic threads here, and anytime anything remotely close to Mormon or Catholic he would take the opportunity to bash that religion.  In any case after many many months of non-stop obnoxiousness, Matthew made the policy

Trach is of course still upset that he can't make this Catholic Busters or Mormon Busters, and is so here trolling and baiting and calling everyone hypocrits.  He isn't really fighting this issue, he is still on Matt's policy thread.  He doesn't understand Matt's policy of course, which is why he is calling everyone in this thread a hypocrit.

I'm sorry CV, I never

I'm sorry CV, I never claimed to be a religious authority.  I only quoted the Bible.  I'm not doing that anymore, because that is of course considered an attack on another person's relative truth.

Tell me again why this policy only applies to Catholics and Mormons exclusively? 

-PJ

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism...and proud of it.

"I never claimed to be a

"I never claimed to be a religious authority", lol coming from one who called certain religions the church of Satan, or who kept trying to tell others what I believe. 

Since you are still stuck on Matt's policy thread, please go back there and make your case instead of making every thread that has the word "Christian" in it your soap box.

Never said the policy only applies to Catholics and Mormons exclusively...you are just upset that you are forbidden to continue your direct assault, so are being passive aggressive about it.

Exception that proves the rule

Sorry, PJ, but I don't think this one incident "re-defines" Christians. And it certainly doesn't work as an excuse for the BBC's "fact-based" claim. Maybe as the seed for an idea for a TV show, but that's about it. I just included it because many here were claiming that such a thing "never" happened. I have a personal rule about the wisdom of using "never" or "always."

Just about any outrageous human behavior has probably happened at some time or another. To claim this isolated incident defines all Christians is ridiculous. Note that this is the only incident that came up on my search. Feel free to search for more. On the other hand, there are PLENTY of incidents that define large numbers of Muslims. But that topic is verboten in most of the media. Survival instinct, ya know.

Of course, these are just my "definitions." Or "opinions," if you prefer.

i see our new religous ban

i see our new religous ban is panning out swimmingly matt!

what's your next big idea, brainiac?

Hopefully banning some

Hopefully banning some pissy little whiners. 

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985

→ I'm uncomfortable with this thread

Any discussion of any religion which portrays said religion in either favorable or unfavorable light is contentious.

I'm mortified and hurt.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE

Another one who

can't understand. How sad.

edit: especially because he apologized for past behavior. I guess some people's apologies are just empty and mean nothing.

 

Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB

Stop attacking Dee.  We

Stop attacking Dee.  We should all just get along without you being a self-appointed moral authority. 

-PJ

Yeah - right on Trach - lets let the Liberals and the religous

zealots (who want to define the one true religion) should define it for Newsbusters. No one else matters. Just liberals and the religious zealots who have different goals and seem to agree that derailing is the best thing for Newsbusters. I'm sure they'll take that under advisement. Good thinking.
Maybe they'll even change their name to Conservativebusters just for you guys.

 

"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB

Sorry, but "zealots" is

Sorry, but "zealots" is only according to your individual interpretation of it. 

And stop derailing the thread, Dee.

We should all just get along without you being a self-appointed moral authority.  Any discussion of any religion which portrays said religion in either favorable or unfavorable light is contentious.

Stop being contentious, Dee.

-PJ

My lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism...and proud of it.

Me too CA.  And I'll

Me too CA.  And I'll follow you around and say "me too" a lot.

I don't like the way they sound when they talk either.

-PJ 

Wow - this sounds just like someone else

do you share ID's with a liberal poster here?

 

"Constantly attacking (peaceful) religions rather than politely sharing your own shows lack of faith " DB

Stop attacking Dee. 

Stop attacking Dee.  You're making me uncomfortable.  You're also hijacking the thread for personal reasons.  

-PJ 

It appears WTH has,

It appears WTH has, unwittingly, re-opened the Forum right here to some extent.

Thanks Warner. Thanks alot.

→ Yes, Karma

Perhaps we should join Obama in the understanding that there are many ways to Heaven.

I was so young when pablum was removed from my diet that I can't remeber its taste.

Think I'll buy a box an see.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE

No thanks, Cool Arrow.

Join whichever man, group, band you want, just count me out.

Kama

Kama,

Yeah, I really do have to apologize for this. I was completely unaware how deranged this guy was. I remember seeing him reply on my posts in the past, but I had no idea how off his rocker he really is.

I have to admit that I don't often read the comments on other NB threads. If I did, I wouldn't have time for anything else, I'm sure you understand. So, I was unaware of this guy's past trollish behavior. I wasn't aware that special rules were created here just to smack this nut down, for instance.

I'll know better than to ever reply to him again after this lesson. I would think that we should all just ignore this class A troll in the future. If we're lucky, he'll fade away.

Still, I won't make the mistake of replying to his inane, insanity in the future.

Mea Culpa, folks. I apologize for shaking his cage.

Jesus: "Love your enemies,

Jesus: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;" - Mt. 5:44

Muhammed: "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." - K 8:012

→ Lovely passages

Now that's more like it.

We should treat all "sacred writings" with equal respect regardless of the forum.  Those who read them are free to reach their own conclusions and kindly refrain from comenting on them.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE

Of course.  After all,

Of course.  After all, these passages can be interpreted millions of different ways, right?

And if you say there's only one way, well then you're just a zealot.

-PJ

*sighs loudly*

The point of this article is to discuss the BBC's choice of content. It's interesting that given a rife of religion tension in the UK, the bombing back in '07, the concessions made over bomb sniffing dogs, etc, that the BBC would choose to cast a Muslim in a sympathetic light at the expense of a Christian.

That's it. No need to discuss doctrine because there's no "there" there.

I have respect for Trake and he knows that, but this smacks entirely too much of looking for a backdoor entrance into an argument over theology. And IMO this argument to motive is not a fallacy because the motive is too obvious to ignore.

I'm not trying to be mean or embarrass anyone - just trying to prevent anyone from being disciplined.

→ You're ight candance

It's not as though America has room to talk.

"24" is a popular show, but they seem determined to paint Germans as terrorists.

I went to a family reunion at a German heitage town this week, and I was looking for suicide bombers at every crosswalk.

  • LYDSEXICS UNTIE

exactly cool

It annoys me how Hollywood picks "safe" people to portray as enemies so they don't get accused of stereotyping.

Trust me Candance, I came

Trust me Candance, I came to bury doctrine, not to praise it.

I'm not the one arguing "facts" here, (since they're all subjectively interpreted here anyway).

-PJ