Man Sexually Assaulted in Pakistan
 

That shits pretty fucked.

But the real question is: WHERES HIS JESUS NOW?

I was that man. My Jesus is apparently in Jesusland.

:)

I don't get it. They are so devoted to Islam, but where in their religion does it say it's ok to sodomize a man for not believing in the same thing as them? Who's the sinner there? Hypocrites.

youve been listening to too much bright eyes.

although i do agree with the idea that organized religion is a joke, i never agree with bashing what someone believes in. unity in diversity... who do you love?

I agree that you shouldn't bash people for their religious beliefs (unless they actually ask you for your views, in which case they're pretty much telling you to slate them). At the same time, I find it hard not to think that somebody who would practise Christianity in Pakistan is lacking in some vital survival instinct. Gang rape is very obviously wrong in every possible circumstance from any angle you can think of (no pun intended), so there's certainly no justification for the gang rapist's actions... at the same time there's not much self-preservation in that particular Christian's lifestyle choice either.

I'd be tempted to send out the message: If you want to live in Pakistan, become a Muslim*. If you want to practise Christianity, don't live in Pakistan.

Seriously, why not just become a Muslim if you live there? Everybody else does it and it's not like the whole religion malarky is real anyway.

*Or maybe a Sikh, if you want to live in the Punjab.

He's got more devotion then I could ever have for anything.

In the same situation though, I'd pretend to be christian just to get a good c0ckin'.

I absolutely detest religion. it's just bullsh[i]t propoganda, and is responsible for some appaling atrocities over mans time on earth.

--I'd be tempted to send out the message: If you want to live in Pakistan, become a Muslim*. If you want to practise Christianity, don't live in Pakistan.--

In the U.K a predominantly Christian countyr we allow many religions to practise and indded; have their own places of worship in our country. It's a shame that these countries don't reciprocate. However I am not going to get into a religious debate. As I said I hate religion and believe in myself and my family, not some unseen deity.

In religious terms, you can't draw a parallel between the UK and Pakistan, as the UK isn't really a predominantly christian country. From experience the majority of the ethnically British population in England would fall into the atheist or agnostic categories (atheist for men, agnostic for women... you know how many girls say "I don't believe in religion but I think there's a higher power" on crappy quizzes!) the Welsh, Scottish and N. Irish do tend to be more christian but still it's not the majority of the U.K.

Anyway, the majority of the U.K. population doesn't give much of a toss about religion WHEREAS Pakistan itself was founded as a MUSLIM COUNTRY. Until 1947 the region was part of India but then it and Bangladesh became seperate states in what was called the partition. Muslims from India moved to Pakistan and Hindus from India moved to India. Once again, the state was established with the purpose of being a Muslim state. So it can't be assumed that other religions should be able to exist in Pakistan without significant friction, because in some ways that goes against the ideas on which the state was established.

And now you have extremist Muslims demanding Shariah law.

As I said..i'm not going to get into a religious debate. I think that my own personal views can be derived from my posts.

Religion isn't responsible for ****. People who believe in religion and take it too far are responsible. Don't use religions as some scapegoat to avoid the truth.


It'd be like a bunch of Star Wars nerds killing thousands of trekkie fans. George Lucas didn't make them do it, just like God didn't cause the Crusades or the Holocaust or any other tragedy based on religious prejudices.

If religion never existed none of that shit would've ever happened.

If religion never existed, Christianity would never exist, and if Christianity never existed, a lot of our hospitals, schools and charities wouldn't exist. Since many were founded by Christians and funded with Church money.

Banning the idea of gods existence because of how you see most religions? Thats probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

Its not the idea that god exists that is the problem, its the idea that if god exists he would be spending the majority of his time talking to guys like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson that is the problem. Relgion inspires many people to do good, OMFG but it inspires people to do bad things too.

Well I have to ask you guys a good question, what inspires you to hate all religious people with extreme prejudice, hmm? Because whatever it is it should be banned, right?

I don't know if that was aimed at me or not, but I wasn't saying christians and churches didn't do good I was only pointing out that to go 'oh its the people who acted under the influences fault not the influence' is bullshit because if the influence was never there, the act wouldn't have happened. They're rolls were just as big in the act.

Music has inspired people to do bad things. Just look at Nazi Punk, or the horrible influence Gangster rap has on black youth.

I guess this never would have been a problem if music didn't exist in the first place.

In that case, then we should blame guns for killing people. I mean, forget the fact that you need a person to pull the trigger.

And with that same logic, I blame my keyboard for 5p311i/\/6 er0rz!

Even if religion didn't exist, people would still find a reason to hurt someone, rather than just simply admit that they enjoy hurting people.

It wouldn't have been, and same with the gun thing. Honestly, I wish weapons have never existed.

If you take away their guns, they will just use knives, if you take away their knives, they will just use rocks, if you take away their rocks, they will just use fists, if you take away their fists. Well, lets have a head start and cut off the hands of every living person in the world. Why not?

Everything can be a bad thing in the hands of a human being.

I know, but point is without bombs, guns and all that people would probably talk things out instead of blowing eachother up.

Naw, violence has existed before guns, before swords, before spears. It will continue to exist without them.

Violence has nothing to do with the weapons we use, its simply a part of human nature.

I wasn't saying it would eliminate violence, it probably wouldn't make a huge difference in several countries either but it would cut down on some wars, and thats a start. Its not going to happen anyway, so theres really no point getting in a debate about it.

The existence of violence existed before humans started to use their tools as weapons, true, it's not just part of human nature, it's just a part of nature in general. All mammals have violent sides (even a hamster will bite you when it's annoyed!), so the idea that human society could exist completely free of violence is almost certainly incorrect.

Although it can be argued whether the existence of advanced weaponry pushes people towards or away from violence, weapons certainly increases the effectiveness of violence, in terms of the amount of injury which can be inflicted with one weapon.

So even if weaponry is unrelated to the motive or desire for violence, weaponry has a very strong relationship to the outcome of that violence.

Some people say "guns/weapons don't kill people, people kill people." But if you take away the weaponry then a lot of people wouldn't kill people, because that killing involves a hell of a lot more effort and personal risk. Even if they do try to kill people then they're a lot less likely to succeed with their bare fists than they are with guns.

well said. :thumb:

Dude, you can kill a person by snapping their neck. You'll have to learn how to do it, of course, but people will learn how to if it means being the most effective way to kill people.

You are right. Weapons do increase the effectiveness of killing people. But even without guns and bombs, we'd still find some way to kill people. On some level, we all wanna kill. We all feel anger and the need to push back. Just some people accept this barbaric trait alot more than others.

And you can evade somebody who is trying to kill you in this way by not standing right next to them. Have we been playing a bit too much Splinter Cell?

Never played Splinter Cell.

The point is that you can still kill people without weapons. It'll make it a little difficult, but difficulty won't stop people from killing each other.

Do you think Seung-Hui Cho could've walked into VT and karate-chopped 30 or so people to death?

Of course he could. He was Asian. DUH! [/sarcasm]

I'll give you that one. Yes, if we didn't have guns, he wouldn't have been able to commit that massacre as easily as he did.

It was just one of many examples I could've chose.

Do you honestly think all people are as killing obsessed as you? Maybe you need to get out more and spend less time on the internet talking to death metal fans, there is plenty of nice people in the world who don't care for violence.

Oh, will you just go berry picking, tree hugger?

You love peace, I love war! You believe in tranquility we'll find power, I believe in hostility we'll find power. Neither of us is going to admit we are wrong, so just drop it.

Someone needs a nap and peace and love.

Well, that would be nice, but could I trade it in for a blowjob and a gun..... that way I can shoot both loads into her mouth?

If you pulled a Hemingway that'd probably make my day.

You're a dumb bitch if you "love war". I'm going to bet all my mp3's that you

A). Have never seen a war
B). Are not even in the military.

Saying something as ignorant as "I love war" when so many horrible things come out of war is, frankly, both disappointing and hateful.

Making money