This person seems to be creating quite a stir. What are your thoughts.

LEA

I must admit I had to look this guy up Leap, as I had never heard of him. What I found certainly amused me!
Some of his videos made me laugh out loud :)

Underneath all the humour though, I found his message to be a very wise one, and very true.
I do however, know that this thread will upset some of our own loveable contributors with 'apocalyptic delusions' of their own!

I found info on Pat Condell at the following site:

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

...and a very insightful quote from him:

"It seems to me that fundamentalist Christians, jihadist Muslims and settlement-building Jews are causing more than their share of trouble in the world. World events are being driven by people with apocalyptic delusions, while here in Britain a paralysing liberal guilt allows religious bigots to use intimidation and violence to stamp out free speech. If you can’t get laughs out of all that, you can’t get them out of anything."[6]

suzi you make me laugh. You write 'World events are being driven by people with apocalyptic delusions

No more so than the secular gw alarmist making billions out of a very corrupt industry. To think they use 'science'as a mask for their hypocrisy.

runner far more laughter is generated for me in your posts.
Interesting stuff never heard of the bloke but want more.

My only gripe with Mr Condell is he weaves up higher stakes of the loony subjects he talks about than what they necessarily are (although having said that he is often not far away from the accurate case).
Having said that I generally agree with him.

And find it that our resident nutcase is in a position where, faced with an anti-Christian AND anti-Muslim anti-theological viewpoint, he instead attacks the same science that gave him a computer to share his inane thoughts.

So far this thread is going quite well!

Runner <"suzi you make me laugh. You write 'World events are being driven by people with apocalyptic delusions"

Dearest Runner, my sole porpose in joining in these discussions is just to make you laugh :)

In actual fact, it wasn't me who made up the words above, but Pat Condell.

I would have thought you would have embraced his discussions on jihadist Muslims?

Sue, king, runner.

"I must admit I had to look this guy up Leap....yes, forgot to leave an EG. I think the mans an inspiration to us all, with telling it as it is. The amount of extreme fundamentalist, which some are invited to stay in our lands, seem to make jolly old England/Australia/Netherlands/US...ETC into a New Muslim world, and I can understand his anger regarding religion, with these crack-pot's/ idea's which really dont work in a modern world.

I think the bloke is a breath of fresh air and the more you read into what he has to say, well.... its self-explanatory really.

Oh and king-bo:) You have got to be kidding. You dont need me to define in-sane/nut-cases for you,do you....if you have a close look at all the..in-sane world-leaders, government policies, CEO's , wall-street economics and money-madness, religion crazies that dont believe in condoms for the poor in second and third country's ( AIDS and gross negligence for birth control ) , corruptible officialism, and the list go far and beyond, so Iam in quite good company really:) and Runner! The perfect opportunity to let it rip, and I would of thought every Christian would of came to there defence of their beliefs.......But I guess you dont really believe in all that written stuff, when it comes to religious scripture.

Kingy this one's for you:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA3OzSCdCUk

Religion must be told what to go and do with its self. The bible said........one must only practice religion at home.

If us normal people are mad......what your excuse:)

LEA:)

Quantumleap,

You seem very typical of those who rubbish the bible and then mis quote what it says. I say secularism should only be practiced at home and far more unborn babies would be safe instead of being slaughtered. More kids would also be safe from child abuse, drugs, sexualisation, violence and every other ill that increases dramatically through the secularisation of a community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovg0eYjM64w&feature=related

Runner, Pat Condell was brought up surrounded by religion and so was I. In this clip, right at the end, he tells you whats in the bible, and I checked it myself....Jesus said....do not publicly practice your religion, so you don't really know the book yourself.

You said..."You seem very typical of those who rubbish the bible and then mis quote what it says." Runner I don't rubbish it, I just don't believe in it, however You can live with Christians.

"I say secularism should only be practiced at home"

Great! Consider it done, and you? Runner again you said...."and far more unborn babies would be safe instead of being slaughtered.

Well if condoms were handed out, and not frowned upon by the Catholic church, and not to mention your beliefs, and the over-populations problems THE WORLD IS EXPERIENCING, and that again...falls on religious shoulders.

Religion is just a menace.

More kids would also be safe from child abuse, drugs, sexualisation, violence and every other ill that increases dramatically through the secularisation of a community........Runner! for 6000/2000 years, religion has shaped all of humankind through out history, so before "secularisation" was invented, all of what you wrote above, has to be the responsibility of our religious teachings.

However, the question is,"Pat Condell. Is this person going over-board?...and can you as a Christan give me your opinion.

LEA

Quantumleap

you write 'ánd I checked it myself....Jesus said....do not publicly practice your religion, so you don't really know the book yourself.

I suspect you have not checked it out. Please give me chapter and verse in context instead of making up porkies. Jesus publicly and privately 'practiced His religion'. Until you point to what you are saying in Scripture you severely lack credibility.

Pat's a hypocrite. Been watching him for a long time and yeah, he's articulate, entertaining, and generally raises some points worthy of thinking about. On the flip side, he hates fundamentalists, but he is one. He once called himself a fundamentalist agnostic BECAUSE he KNOWS how ludicrous it is to be fundamentally anti-fundamentalism.

A fundamentalist agnostic. Yeah, I know.... *crickets*

...then, in his next vid, he became atheist again because being agnostic made him vilifying religion ridiculous. Agnostic infers no preferential leaning.

I like him, but he stirs up the ignorant and hate filled mouth breathers, and he knows it. Banning religion for freedom of belief is retarded at best.

Sorry Runner, wrong link.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEt20PgKmcU

STG...No-one is going to ban religion, just keep it off the streets/public domain. Christians or any other religion, as NO right to tell others how and what to think and live.

LEA

Hey Runner, I know the part in the bible where Matthew repeated what Jesus apparently said:

"“Be warned: Do not show off your religion in public places, in order to be seen by others. For that there is no reward from your Father in heaven.” Matthew 6: 1-6, 16-21

Cheers,
Suze

Quantumleap,

"Christians or any other religion, as NO right to tell others how and what to think and live."

But it's alright if atheists do? It's alright for people like yourself and Pat say what you want, but "just keep it off the streets/public domain."? The internet is public domain. Should we cover the front of churches and religious book shops.

Suze,

You'll never get rid of references in society to religion. I reckon atheists - coz really, these are mostly the only ones who want to rid the world of faith - just need to concentrate on the fundamentalists who infringe on EVERYONE'S right to freedom of belief and not getting it shoved down their throats by the nutters.

Or ... here's a crazy idea ... maybe stop immersing yourself (not you specifically, but those with weird s*&t going on in their head about how faith - on the whole - is too much for them) in internet religious issues and it won't seem as bad. Because I've NEVER had anyone pin me against a wall and infringe on my right to be left the @#$% alone in public. Nothing I can't deal with, anyway. Damn Greenpeace.

Quantum- As I was actually averaging when I said he was making an exaggerated case in some cases as an overall reflection of Christians and Muslims in the west (who are mostly non-practicing or at worst moderate).
Having said that his expectations go way short of how far runner can go.
His points about how religion interferes with society and should not are spot on.

StG- much in the same way a person demanding somebody else wear clothes in public, or doesn't start inappropriately touching people in public, is imposing their will on a person who would rather walk outside naked and start touching them?

I would assume he means he does not want religious displays outside temple grounds; such as wearing burqas in public, Muslims blocking off streets to pray (like in France) or World Youth Day. And by further extension, does not want religious lobbyists chiming in on policy affecting others such as abortion and euthanasia (not to mention censorship), and wants religious people's beliefs to be held secondary to things like Freedom of Speech (the Muhammad Cartoons)
As far as those go, I would have to agree.
Or more specifically, only unless everyone else in that town/city/country is fine with it.

Well said King Hazza :)

Religion should be kept out of politics and state schools.

I will go one step further and say I actually totally AGREE with the sentiments of Mr. Condell.

He is definitely not going over-board.

Being a Christian I agree church and state should be separate, although everyone having a voice in the way a state is run is a god given right - so to speak - and that should include people of faith. It's up to the state AND the people's right to vote for referendums/da(?) to change the constitution. Everyone gets that vote.

I wouldn't have a problem with churches having some sort of display somewhere, as much as I don't have issue with atheists or Greenpeace doing the same. If you're not interested, walk past.

As with Pat Condell, I have issue with ANY one groups excessive influence over government. Curious why people choose faith to target and not the real enemy of your rights, and that's big business. Capitalism and true democracy is like oil and water.

Don't think I'M gonna touch this one:

"...is imposing their will on a person who would rather walk outside naked and start touching them?"

As far as I know allowing people to come up to you have a discussion of faith in the street isn't a crime. Sure, spruiking your stuff in public can be but long may it live that we can discuss theology and ideology in public. What you gonna do if we can't; gas us in chambers?

I love this discussion StG
"What you gonna do if we can't; gas us in chambers?"
Do you really need to resort to this level?

I quite stick with my stance that the only political input religious warrants is a referendum majority demanding what is constitutionally acceptable, and never anything else (and of course, ensuring that bull$hit like WYD is never allowed to happen without the public's permission ever again should be a standard law).

Protesting does raise a good point and I will probably re-evaluate it (on the other hand, I generally dislike traffic stoppers anyway- so maybe not, given the context that a theological display would operate under virtually any excuse, grievance or non-grievance).
But like any protest, if a freakish subgroup blocks traffic because it feels it deserves more hegemony (eg Scientologists) I would happily publish online/letters to papers the petty context that said subgroup was brought to stopping decent people going about their business.

For being approached by a stranger I could effortlessly insinuate a charge of harassment (which IS exactly what it is)- of course, my first course of action is to not-very-politely tell the hawker to show some respect and refrain from bothering me- after which if they refuse to respect my wishes to be left alone the harassment charge would then strongly apply.

King,

"I love this discussion StG
"What you gonna do if we can't; gas us in chambers?"
Do you really need to resort to this level?"

Unlike the molesting each other in public because we're all naked? That level, you mean?

"Charge of harassment"? The cops would laugh at you. Just keep walking.

This is going nowhere. Thanks for the chat.

Oh Dear...lol

LEA

Oh and check mate! Pat Condell is more of a man than some Queen-Hazza, and if you check the constitutionals "all" have right to exercise there beliefs, and whats this infatuation with naked people and touching them in public? I dont think your self interests in that type thinking, is warranted or acceptable.

That neutral ground pat speaks of, is looking better by the moment:) Sorry King Hazza about the queen thing, I thought you might of been a member of the gay nudist community since you mentioned naked people out of the blue:) Please except my apologies.

And this is by far the best you have said so far...

"For being approached by a stranger I could effortlessly insinuate a charge of harassment (which IS exactly what it is).....yes again! your quite right...... Mormons, televangelists, religious groups using politics to cheat for what they need, yes, Harassment is a wide open field with many deep-holes, that can bite you back:)

- of course, my first course of action is to not-very-politely tell the hawker to show some respect and refrain from bothering me- after which if they refuse to respect my wishes to be left alone the harassment charge would then strongly apply."

hawker....He means evangelist, and Pat did note the endless harassment.

STG...Dont say the thread is going no-where, Thats what people say when they have lost the debate.

peace:)

LEA

I didn't, I meant the convo with King.

suzi you have the wrong end of the stick. You write

'Hey Runner, I know the part in the bible where Matthew repeated what Jesus apparently said:

"“Be warned: Do not show off your religion in public places, in order to be seen by others. For that there is no reward from your Father in heaven.” Matthew 6: 1-6, 16-21

You sadly confuse the obligation one has to share the good news of the gospel with those displaying acts of kindness and mercy which are not to be done by believers in order to display self righteousness. It has nothing at all to do with keeping one's beliefs to oneself.

No Runner, like all readers of the 'stories' in the Bible, I took my own meaning from that sentence, just like you did.

Self-righteousness is a common failing of radical believers of all religions, unfortunately.

See you all on another thread.

Cheers,
Suze.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA3OzSCdCUk

Yes Sue, I think its time the truth be put to bed by our chain-rattlers:) Law now has lost all credibility/ prospective as well. well!....wont this century be fun, while the "Greenpeace" and all that stands for there equal animal rights, as well as you...... its since been proven, that the NEW HUMAN BABY....will inherit mans past bullsh!T..:) AND THATS NO laughing matter.

PEACE....and all that jazz.

Oh and just one more of many for the hypocrites.....and even an idiot, like some:),I can see the one-sided opinions about everything:)..as well as...surprise, surprise......even Mr King of what I don't know, will just love the fairness, that all can enjoy:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ana9w3uSNA&feature=related

Peace...........and what is human rights and what does it stand for?

LEA

'No Runner, like all readers of the 'stories' in the Bible, I took my own meaning from that sentence, just like you did.

Sorry Suzi you changed the clear intent of what Jesus said in order to suite your own dogma. That you can't accuse me of on this occasion. No wonder you often get things so wrong. Next thing you will be saying adultery is not adultery as you seem to put your own meaning on things.

StG your reading ability is just as bad as your ability to maintain any subtelty or reason:

Firstly, Harassment. Quoting myself.
"of course, my first course of action is to not-very-politely tell the hawker to show some respect and refrain from bothering me- after which if they refuse to respect my wishes to be left alone the harassment charge would then strongly apply."
This would require 'keep walking' to have no effect on the person doing it.
Now you make an interesting case of police response;
So, if a police officer was on standby, and saw me approach them while being pursued by a raving nutcase or a protester, and I told them that I told my pursuer to leave me alone already- that officer wouldn't be particularly reactive?

Now for your other analogy;
Me- comparing forms of harassment to having a mentally unsound religious fanatic bug me in the street
You- comparing demands that people not be allowed to do this to autocratic Nazi genocide policy.

Need I go on?

Runner <"... you seem to put your own meaning on things."
Ditto.

You- comparing demands that people not be allowed to do this to autocratic Nazi genocide policy....What rubbish! And harassment in the case of harassment, pulls a legal Zero. Is this what you are referring to?

Hitler did extended his rationalizations into a religious doctrine supported by his criticism of traditional Roman Catholicism. In particular, and closely related to Positive Christianity, he objected to Catholicism because it was not the religion of an exclusive race and its culture. Simultaneously, the Nazis integrated to Nazism the community elements of Lutheranism, from its organic pagan past. Hitlerian theology integrated militarism by proposing that his was a true, master-religion, because it would create mastery by avoiding comforting lies. About religions that preached love, tolerance, and equality “in contravention to the facts”, Hitler said they were false, slave religions, and that the man who recognized said “truths” was a “natural leader”, whilst deniers were “natural slaves”; hence, slaves, especially the intelligent, continually hindered their masters with false religions.[citation needed]

Have a good read, and find that Pat Condell is with-in his rights of law when dealing with False religions. And don't ever try to intimidate me, that a from of harassment:)

So, Not one of you can find a valid reason to why Pat should not proceed as the Constitution allows, and runner....your interpretations of the bible is exactly the point of what the vast majority is seeing, when it comes to truth.

Since I find his thoughts are just as equal as mine and billions of others, I suggest you start typing out billions of LAW-SUITS for just that reason.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReYfDlIa-Z8&feature=related

The Question I asked in the first place again! Pat Condell. Is this person going over-board?

And not one of you said YES!

Peace:)

Quantumleap

Rarely have I watched anyone as self righteous as the one on the video. He claims that religious people don't like many people including 'gays,. Sorry mate you might be into 'gay pride'but it disgusts many people. He ignores the fact that Christians built hospitals and often look after 'gays'infested with aids. He also conveniently ignores the fact that non religious people show their 'love'for the unborn by slaughtering them at a rate that makes Hitler look mild. He forgets to list his own brand of secularism among false religions.

Runner.

1.."Sorry mate you might be into 'gay pride'but it disgusts many people."

Yes only the loony left liberals.....and Iam not into anything. Socialism is freedom, not like your slave religion.

2.."He forgets to list his own brand of secularism among false religions."

lol.....like yours:)

3...He ignores the fact that Christians built hospitals and often look after 'gays'infested with aids.

Yeah! with tax-payers money they con and put the building in their name.......... "gays'infested with aids."....lol....who's the one's that bans condoms/contraception?.....that's right religion:)

Do you know why no-one says NO! to this man.....coz the people fully agree.

And last but not least...

"Rarely have I watched anyone as self righteous as the one on the video".

Oh runner...if you could only read what you've written;)

So in conclusion, Pat Condell speaks for all the gutless white trash in the UK and others, and that's exactly why when he says, you whites are nothing but cringing cowards at the face of false gods and stone-age beliefs.

Truth! Some of you wouldn't know truth, if it tripped up behind you, and lodged its head up your bums:) or maybe its just best that way:)

LEAP

Well pat! Despite all that are aloud to speak that......My birth right was Innocent:) But what direction will we evolve in, with mans ivory tower stance:) Pat! If any one has the love and heart of a human-being, its you mate, and thanks.....for yours truly:)

But lets see what the world does tomorrow......you ever know.......they just might save themselves.

Good night and all the best.

LEA

Did you know that Capitalism, Jesus rejected! But the bible is the book of truth.

LOL.........its with-in 100 years.....all natural resources will be gone:) I wonder how there going into explain that one:

There going to leave you all, with a dead planet..........dont believe...lol Watch how the world thinks:)

All the best

LEAP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEt20PgKmcU

Iam best going back to the pervert Iam labeled:) That just might give you the chance to think:) Yes! Iam bad....Apparently:) Thank god that the burning people is no longer permitted:)

You know what to do with yourselves:) Dont you:)

Yes! no-one's demoralizing you, are they.....lol.....

Thank you Pat............Iam white and will fight to the death, just like they want!:) Peace.............it will come...lolololololololololololololol!