Interesting piece on incitement to religious hatred

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by stoatman, Dec 18, 2004.

  1. A sop to the muslim vote

  2. Unnecessary, dangerous thought-crime legislation, akin to the blasphemy law

  3. Both of the above

  4. I'm in lala land and think that this bill is a good thing, and will be used fairly and even-handedly


Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  2. Oh yes lets not upset the Muslims, Then wish them a happy CHRIST MASS!!! Blo*dy hell why not just rub there noses in it!!! Nice one buddy did you not read about the MP in Holland who got topped for speaking out against the Muslims!! Sounds like this guy has a death wish!!
  3. I quote the following article in full, with source reference:

    Is it only Mr Bean who resists this new religious intolerance?
    By Charles Moore

    (Filed: 11/12/2004)

    Was the prophet Mohammed a paedophile? The question is sometimes asked because one of his wives, Aisha, was a child when he married her. As Barnaby Rogerson gingerly puts it in his highly sympathetic recent biography (The Prophet Muhammad, Little, Brown): "…the age disparity was considerable: she was only nine while Muhammad was 53". Aisha was taken from her seesaw on the morning of her marriage to be dressed in her wedding garment. After sharing a bowl of milk with the prophet, she went to bed with him.

    To me, it seems anachronistic to describe Mohammed as a child-molester. The marriage rules of his age and society were much more tribal and dynastic than our own, and women were treated more as property and less as autonomous beings. Aisha was the daughter of Mohammed's right-hand man, and eventual successor (caliph), Abu Bakr. No doubt he and his family were very proud of the match. I raise the question, though, because it seems to me that people are perfectly entitled - rude and mistaken though they may be - to say that Mohammed was a paedophile, but if David Blunkett gets his way, they may not be able to.

    As I write, I am looking at a Christmas brochure for Channel 4. It contains an interview with Paul Abbott, author of the "current hit show, Shameless". Clever Paul swears a lot, and proudly tells a story about how, when his brothers held him upside down to help him steal a Christmas tree from his Yugoslav next door neighbour, he was so frightened that he started urinating. Ha ha.

    There follows a two-page pictorial spread of Paul's characters, the Gallaghers, having their Christmas lunch. The tableau is presented (sub-Buñuel) as a parody of the Last Supper. (Do Paul Abbott and Channel 4 believe, perhaps, that this took place at Christmas?) The first page shows a line of yobs - mimicking the Apostles - beginning their meal in reasonably good order. The second depicts them towards its end, violent and drunk. The "Jesus" figure is lurching forward, halo awry, beer can in one hand and cigarette in the other.

    The natural inclination of Christians in the face of such affronts is anger. But would it really be a better society in which silly, urinating Mr Abbott could go to prison for such a thing, and perhaps the bosses of Channel 4 with him? Before lots of respectable readers shriek "Yes!", think what it means.

    Why is it that so many people resent religion and turn against it? Surely it is because of its coercive force, its tendency to mistake the worldly power of its priests and mullahs for justified zeal for the truth. It is not God who turns people away, but what people do in the name of God. If a law against religious hatred is passed, even when blessed by St David Blunkett, the natural consequence will be a rise in the hatred of religion.

    Particularly hatred of Islam. The BNP website describes Islam in the hands of some of its adherents as "less a religion and more a magnet for psychopaths and a machine for conquest". If a law says they can't say that, the BNP will, in the minds of many, be proved right. On Tuesday, Mr Blunkett said that it would be illegal to claim that "Muslims are a threat to Britain". People already censor themselves through fear of Muslim reaction to mockery - I don't suppose even brave, incontinent, foul-mouthed Paul Abbott would write a comedy for the start of Ramadan showing Mohammed downloading dubious images from the internet. If the law criminalises such activity, the scope for resentment is huge.

    Iqbal Sacranie, of the mainstream Muslim Council of Britain, wants the new law because any "defamation of the character of the prophet Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him)" is a "direct insult and abuse of the Muslim community". In effect, he is asking for the law of libel to be extended beyond the grave, giving religious belief a protection extended to no other creed or version of history.

    Where does all this come from? Not, I fear, from the right, if misapplied, desire for different faiths to live at peace. Incitement to violence, after all, is already an offence, and so it should be. No, the pressure is chiefly from Muslims. If we want to understand its context, we should look at what happens in Muslim societies.

    According to Muslim law, believers who reject or insult Islam have no rights. Apostasy is punishable by death. In Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan, death is the penalty for those who convert from Islam to Christianity. In Pakistan, the blasphemy law prescribes death for anyone who, even accidentally, defiles the name of Mohammed. In a religion which, unlike Christianity, has no idea of a God who himself suffers humiliation, all insult must be avenged if the honour of God is to be upheld.

    Under Islam, Christians and Jews, born into their religion, have slightly more rights than apostates. They are dhimmis, second-class citizens who must pay the jiyza, a sort of poll tax, because of their beliefs. Their life is hard. In Saudi, they cannot worship in public at all, or be ministered to by clergy even in private. In Egypt, no Christian university is permitted. In Iran, Christians cannot say their liturgy in the national language. In almost all Muslim countries, they are there on sufferance and, increasingly, because of radical Islamism, not even on that.

    The ancient plurality of the region is vanishing. Tens of thousands are fleeing the Muslim world, and in some countries - Sudan, Indonesia, Ivory Coast - large numbers die, on both sides. In Iraq, the intimidation of Christians is enormous. Five churches have suffered bomb attacks this year. Christians in Mosul have received letters saying that one member of each family will be killed to punish women who do not wear the headscarf. According to Dr Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund, a charity working for persecuted Christians, "Christians in Iraq are isolated and vulnerable this Christmas, and feel that they have been let down, even betrayed, by their fellow Christians in the West, especially the Church leadership".

    The push for a religious hatred law here is an attempt to advance the legal privilege that Muslims claim for Islam. True, Muslim leaders are happy that the same protection should be extended to other religions in this country. But to a modern liberal society which claims the freedom to attack all beliefs, this should be no comfort. It says a good deal about the quality of churchmen and politicians in Britain that the most prominent opponent of the Bill is Mr Bean. The Archbishop of Canterbury is more or less invisible. The Government is on the side of repression.

    Because it is usually called Boxing Day, people forget that December 26 is the feast of St Stephen, the first martyr. Somewhere in the Muslim world on that day, there will be more Christians martyred, as there are every day of the year. Muslims are not martyred in Britain. For once, the mote is in our own eye, and the beam in somebody else's - or will it soon be illegal to say that?
  4. Here we go again, simple answer is "If you don't like our ways,culture and religous beliefs hop it" I know that sounds a glib statement and nowhere near as informed as the splendid article above, however there is a reason for that! I don't care about their beliefs and have no interest in their faith or culture, I am an Englishman and proud of it, I have been CHRISTened in this country and have been taught to respect god, I very rarely go to church but however that is not the point. If I was to visit any of the Muslim countries in the world then I will uphold their beliefs and respect them as such, When in Rome etc.
    However Great Britain is a CHRISTian land and seen as our Ruler Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of The Church of England , ie CHRISTian. Then our values should be retained and respected by those entering our country.
    This sort of discussion is starting to get on my mammaries now, we have all typed till we are blue in the face, we are all very angry about people not listening. However is it not getting to the point when we are just pi55ing in the wind in the face of adversity?
    The fact is everyone is sh*t scared that radical islamic groups will quickly shift their operations to our little bit of turf so those that can actually call a stop to it are cowering on their green leather seats in westminster doin fcuk all about it.
    Operation Sealion seems to be in full swing though with a different gang at the helm and assistance through government approved bills !
  5. i agree with the "if you don't like it shove off" sentiment from rapierman. if i visit a country with different laws then i do what is required to not offend. its no drama because i respect that country's right to decide its own laws and moral standards. it bugs me when people try to bring their country and all its laws to another country. try asserting your right to freely practice your beliefs as a christian, and demand the freedoms under christianity, in a country under sh'a'ria law and see how far you get. private beliefs should stay just that - private. you worship your way and let the rest of us get on with our lives. saying that i don't agree with people who go round attacking law abiding citizens just because they are of a different faith, colour, race etc - get a life you oxygen thieves.

    tolerance and acceptance of religious and cultural differences IMHO is the key to being able to live in peace. you want your women to wear a bhurka and speak arabic go for it but don't have a go at me because i wear shorts and speak english. fundamentalists of any religion are despicable and are not a reflection of the moderate majority. it is also a pretty poor reflection on a group if they have to threaten people within the group "if you aren't with us totally you are against us" that's just sad. if you need to do that you can't be much cop.

    most normal people don't care and just crack on its just the w@nkers that need to control other people that are a problem. get rid of them the world would possibly be an easier place in which to live.
  6. Remember she's only the head of a tiny sect within christianity. The Anglican church hardly represents the UK and it's another reason why the monarch of a G8 nation should not also head a religious movement.

    Secular wins it every time. Outlaw religion.
  7. Ok it was a bit of a sweeping statement,but the point was there, and the point without splitting hairs is more than clear, if you want to come to our country and benefit from our way of life adopt it, if you don't want to please just fcuck off and do not collect £200 when u pass go!
    Even more disturbing news this week too, now we seem to have the Sikhs at it too, and against their own as well (ring any bells to our lovely muslim communities??? , can they not all go back to their own playgrounds if they want a fight! It really is getting daft,it gets to a point when you can't be arssed to turn on the news as very little of it is relating to upholding our values anymore, its just a soapbox for others to get their point over.
  8. I beleive there is only two ways that this crap is going to end,
    1. The rise of the Christian Church again in the UK to a level sufficient enough to have power and hold over the government, (sound familiar)
    2. Bloodbath
  9. Skjold , it horrifies me to say it but I reckon there is a bigger chance of your second prophecy! Oh well, best get that sharpening stone out, the old Blade sword is lookin a bit blunt!
  10. In 1968 Enoch Powell, Memmber of Parliament for Wolverhampton SW, said in a speech

  11. Oh! how his words inflammed the nation and caused his downfall!!!!!!! :evil:

    I wonder how many who were so upset at his vision are now kicking themselves for not acting on the words of a man who had the courage to tell it like it is and call a spade a spade!!! no pun intended. :evil: :evil:
  12. quote]
    Remember she's only the head of a tiny sect within christianity. The Anglican church hardly represents the UK and it's another reason why the monarch of a G8 nation should not also head a religious movement.

    Secular wins it every time. Outlaw religion.[/quote]

    What complete b@ll@cks. The Anglican church is a worldwide congregation with immense influence. Scratch the surface of this country and you will find Christians abound - how many times on operations have I seen cynical jack the lad soldiers (I would not want them any other way) take time out to attend church or seek the padre - there was a famous (ish) spot by an Army Padre on Radio 4 that described just such an event in XMG, and I know of soldiers seeking out the padre for solace and prayer after they have killed their first enemy.

    That our church leaders (like others) have lost their way is a sign of the times and I note that our African brethren are the most vociferous in ensuring that the word of the Bible is followed.

    The Church, our Head of State and our unwritten constitution are all tied together and cemented by hundreds of years of history. You don't have to go to Church to have Christian values.

    Rant over.
  13. Dream on. None of our country's most prominent figures are die-hard Anglicans. There are quite a few conservative types (with a small c) who want to retain the status quo i.e. monarch as head of state and the whole "twinset and pearls" pattern of upper-crust British life, but their beliefs are always understated in that beautifully quintessential British way.

    You just don't get fundamentalist CofE rabid preachers. The nearest we have is that presbyterian nutter Paisley. And then he's always obsessed with catholics. That would be bound to cheer up Tonly Bliar, since he's maried to one and he worships Lord Irvine (also a left-footer).

    Furthermore, there are a lot of prominent Jewish figures who have a lot of influence - no I'm not getting all 'conspiracy theory' here. It all goes towards the inalienable fact that our country is a multicultural one - and it won't change without some wierd CofE fundamentalist rebellion. Can you imagine it..."burn the witch at the stake - she isn't wearing a hat in church" or your local vicar - "I'm awfully sorry old bean - but you spelt 'Xmas' instead of 'Christmas' so you're being stoned to death for heresy straight after the village fete on Saturday. Bit of a bind I know but stiff upper lip eh".

    Ban religion. It encourages far too many loonies. God told me to do it. Far more likely that "gold"told them to do it.
  14. Couldn't agree more.there is no "fun" in fundamentalism but plenty of "MENTAL".On this track what about rosy-cheeked,family girl new piece of skirt at the Home Office(Sorry-Ministry of The Interior)Ruth Kelly's membership of sinister papist f*ckwit sect Opus Dei.Will she use the secret police to hunt down heretics,freemasons and Anabaptists while she seeks to destroy the Holy Grail?
  15. They would go to any available padre, not just because they're Anglican. I bet if there was a presbyterian minister they would goto him - just cos it's the same perceived side - not because they have any link to god.

    Yes - but remember that it's the bits that they want to follow. If the bible provided sense and clarity then there wouldn't be so many breakaways.

    I agree that our British values have been shaped by religion. Unfortunately all the events have been negative ones. Kings and Queen (in the last couple of hundred years) killing each other for the sake of whether they like Henry VIII's customised version of christianity. After all, Anglicanism was based's wish to divorce his wife. Wow...a theological giant amongst men huh? Surprised he didn't just claim that he was a God. That issue over affinity to Rome and definition of Biblical teachings will go on for many decades to come (with the traditional ceremony taking place at the Glasgow Old Firm football match :)

    I reaffirm my belief. Religion is evil and all Gods are hoaxes...think of them as a kind of Santa for grown ups.