It is interesting to note that since his remarks about no go areas in the UK for non-adherents to the so-called “religion of peace” the Bishop of Rochester, Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, has received death threats.
Confidentially folks, I may be wrong here - but I suspect the threats were not from Seventh day Adventists, Buddhists, Jews, or Quakers, who were homicidally enraged by his daring to point out the bleedin’ obvious.
One suspects that if the good Bishop’s surname hadn’t been Nazir-Ali then he would have been attacked by some of his less rabid critics employing the dubious combination, Non-Sequitur/Ad hominem erroneous accusation of being ‘racist’ by now. It would certainly not be the first time they have played the race card by any means.
That seems to be their usual first attack that many will reflexively fall over themselves to kowtow to. It cannot be racist to criticise a religion, unless possibly it is one that only allows adherents of one ethnic group with no conversions.
Clearly Islam is not such a religion as it’s ultimate goal is a world Islamic state and it currently has adherents from many different ethnic groups.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
But wasn't that the original aim of Christianity?
Crushed, You confused me there slightly, but I think you are saying Christianity is also a religion who’s ultimate goal to convert everybody.
What this has to do with the point I was making is rather lost on me, but I’ll run with the ball on this.
It may have been, but it is probably not now. If it were it would be a threat to any individual who did not agree with it. Agreeing with it would in any event clearly be impossible as there are various different versions.
Islam on the other hand is clearly bent upon the establishment of an Islamic world state. The most likely form would be a theocratic world state. Any non Moslem might theoretically be allowed to practice a religion if they were ‘of the book’. Where agnostics or atheist would stand in that I am not clear. But idol worshipers get to convert or die.
Practically they would be in deep do-do as you only have to see how non Moslems are treated in much of the Moslem world – second class citizen is often a good outcome.
i have to agree with ingsoc, and question some of the assumptions in your reply.
the idea that there are christian leaders who support an effort to convert all those who don't share their faith is hardly news--and the history of that effort certainly seems to be as substantial as the efforts of islamic leaders in that regard.
the idea that this desire has somehow abated suggests an unfamiliarity with evengelical christianity and mormonism as practiced in the usa and elsewhere.
as to islam's intent: there is no islamic pope, no islamic heirarchy of "church leadership", and no monolithic commitment to jihad.
there are islamic leaders who support jihad...but there are also those who don't.
look at the three largest islamic countries: indonesia, india, and pakistan don't seem to be fundamentally disposed toward jihadism (even though conditions in pakistan are changing all the time...and even though some of those changes are the fault of western policies as well).
as to the question of how non-islamic residents do in islamic societies: there is considerable division on the question, and the status of jews in the ottoman empire, in the arabic world during the crusades, or during the moorish occupation of andalucia offer excellent examples of religious tolerance that were practiced in islamic societies.
all of this dances around the bigger question, however, of what can be done to create better relations between the groups now; and we would be far better off, i suggest, trying to develop that set of positive relationships than trying to somehow "defeat" islam.
“Sigh”. All reasonable points – but did anyone read the actual post?
Bishop makes comment about ‘no go areas’ (And the fact that he is a Bishop is, I contend, largely irrelevant.)
I submit that ‘No go areas’ are a symptom of something deeply wrong with the way ‘society’ is functioning in the UK. It is ghettoisation, dangerous if allowed to continue - and almost certainly at least partly due to the creed of ‘multiculturalism’. We should be open to other cultures, but that is not ‘multiculturalism’.
Bishop receives death threats following the comments and apparently as a result of the comments, almost certainly from Islamicists. The fact that he was a Bishop does not invalidate the central point of what he said.
I shall leave aside the question of religion in general, but make the observation that anyone who is utterly convinced their way is exclusively right and that they are obeying a divine mandate is someone to be wary of, no matter what flavour - and someone it would be best to avoid allowing ever having any power over one.
you are correct to return the focus to "no go" zones, but in response i offer the comments that the most radical of islam's adherents can be cleaved off from more moderate elements in communities, given the desire to develop more positive relations among those who are more willing.
without additional evidence, it seems reasonable to presume that every single adherent of the faith is no more a jihadist than every christian is a crusader.
and it's with that in mind that i'm suggesting contact and connection--otherwise the arguments of those who promote isolation from the greater population are bolstered, and the situation turns...french, shall we say.
FC, It is my belief that the majority, Christians, Moslems, Atheists, Whatever, would prefer to get on with their lives in peace, be reasonably satisfied in making modest progress along the road of life and would prefer to leave their children better educated, more healthy and more prosperous than they.
That is almost certainly one of the main driving factors behind the presence of so many Moslems in a country that only 50 years ago had hardly any.
In the post I pointed out that the probability approached unity that those making the threats were adherents of Islam. I effectively highlighted their lack of reasonableness and precarious mental balance by indicating that they felt moved to make such an unbalanced response to a perfectly reasonable contention, that if it were not so could and should easily be refuted by argument.
I contend that ‘multiculturalism’ has resulted in ghettoisation, the formation of specifically faith and/or ethnicity based ‘communities’. I contend that this is bad for society in general, we need to undo this and we should be looking for full integration of all citizens within a mainstream UK culture that can encompass all – Whatever that might be ;-), along something like the US, or possibly Australian, models. Not lots of mini contending separate isolating cultures, that breed suspicion and intolerance of one another.
There are also issues of liberty involved here, as you can’t just force people to move and anything to address the problem will probably now take decades.
Meanwhile we have to contend with the problem of a susceptible minority who have been deliberately radicalised based on selected religious texts by outside forces and a majority who are reluctant to openly criticise them because their actions are based on religious texts they must respect - and possibly in some cases a sneaking understanding of ‘where they are coming from’.
you express the very concerns i share as well...but i would offer some variation on the theme.
what you reference as "ghettoization" well describes the situation for the islamic groups you're presenting in the uk, as well as the situation in france at the moment--but it also describes the state of american immigrants as the various waves have come ashore.
little italy, chinatown, the irish and jewish communities, brighton beach's russian quarter...and that's just new york city's history.
in seattle you today see somali enclaves and various asian immigrant groups forming neighborhoods. oddly, the growing indian population seems to have no geographic point of focus, as some of the other groups do.
but all that said, the older groups (european immigrants, hispanics, chinese, and japanese) seemed to find their integration in economics--and i'm here to suggest that a similar approach is how to accomplish the "cleaving off" of the more radical elements we hope to isolate.
getting the kids in public schools to the extent possible, language education (both ways), small business loans, the chance to buy a house in the 'burbs (or some similar version of the uk dream), and after a decade or two you begin to see not just social and economic integration, but a "buying in" on the part of the new citizen families, as their interests begin to align with the general population's.
the other option seems to be taking a law enforcement and incarceration (or deportation) approach: investigate the community using all governmental resources, try to identify the leadership and isolate or otherwise remove them from the population, and try to convince the islamic population that they must accept the rule of uk societal norms and voluntarily end their communal isolation.
i would submit that the first option is more likely to be succesful than the second, and at lower long-term cost to the taxpayer.
this is no be-all and end-all prescription; but it is a path that can potentially take the uk down a more profitable road, can save the taxpayers quite a bit over the war and incarceration alternative, and could enrich the culture to boot.
I tend to broadly agree. Not only in the States, but here, groups have arrived from time to time. They have settled, some integrating directly, but others taking a generation with their children integrating.
When all is said and done the British could probably justifiably be called a ‘race of mongrels’ and we are largely the better for it.
My concern is that, though integration is happening,in the case of Moslems it is not happening in anything like the numbers needed for a healthy society - In fact to some extent the reverse.
I suspect their integration has been prevented, even reversed, by ‘multiculturalism’ and it's baggage, combined with a desire to not be able to be interpreted, even unreasonably, as racist in any way by the authorities. This has been taken advantage of by certain inimical elements to help radicalise some of their youth.
This is helped by a tendency for the Moslem community to bury their heads in the sand about such things and a visible marked reluctance to criticise themselves, particularly in public, or take such things in hand.
It has also been exacerbated by the Government not dealing with these radical elements they had often foolishly allowed to take ‘asylum’ here from their own justice systems, prior to 9/11, presumably not recognising the real threat they posed, but deciding to, evidently ineffectively, ‘keep an eye’ on them.
I think the State could legitimately Identify those non nationals who are a promoting radicalisation here and deport them. Though I recognise that they have probably effectively hog tied themselves with their recent human rights legislation and even more by the judiciaries interpretation of it.
The best outcome would be for Moslems to accept British law, and ‘do in Rome’. I suspect not helped by the likes of the Arch Bishop of Canterbury’s recent comments. Once Catholics were in a comparable position - no one would view them as other than loyal British citizens, or any threat to the nation - or their fellow citizens today. Surely this is no less possible in the case of Moslems?
I would add that the state should license and thoroughly vet any clerics brought into the country. Too often ‘moderate’ seems to be a rather elastic concept when it comes to Islamic clerics.
It would probably incentivise the acquisition of English the business of mosques were conducted in English. It would also make it more difficult for anyone to preach hate in them and help promote transparency and mutual understanding.
Post a Comment