Sunday, October 08, 2006

Church of England: Multi-faith agenda causes division

In a rare statement of something approaching a doctrine, the Church of England has contributed an opinion to the multi-ethnic / multi-cultural / multi-faith debate. While multi-ethnicity is largely accepted in the UK as a simple statement of the reality, multi-culturalism is increasingly derided in political circles, and the issues raised by a multi-faith agenda are rarely raised, for fear of undermining the acceptance of what is, quite plainly, a multi-ethnic society. Historically, there has been something of a universal acceptance that inherent to ethnicity is much inextricable ‘baggage’, and part of that ‘baggage’ is ‘religion’, and it is therefore left well alone for fear of accusations of ‘racism’.

The Church of England, of course, would never have volunteered an opinion on this contentious subject, so a faithful saint has leaked the confidential report to The Sunday Telegraph. The Church's document is said to challenge the view that the UK is a ‘multi-faith society’ insofar as ‘the contribution of the Church of England in particular and of Christianity in general to the underlying culture remains very substantial’. It further states that Government policies designed to encourage community cohesion and the integration of minority faiths has left society ‘more separated than ever before’, and asserts that the Church has been ‘sidelined’, and Islam given ‘preferential’ treatment.

Cranmer has some sympathy with the Church’s accusation that Government policy in this area is ‘schizophrenic’. How does one address such complex issues when the nuances of debate are reduced to superficial soundbites, causing Muslims to, at best, withdraw into self-indulgent victimhood, or, at worst, aspire to acts of terrorism? How does one offer solutions to separateness when some of those symbols of separateness, as Jack Straw has discovered, are deemed to be beyond criticism? How does one assert any kind of Christian response, when the Established Church appears to have been supplanted by an Established Mosque, and the Government emits signals that appear to encourage the notion that Islam enjoys some kind of privileged relationship?

Perhaps the Minister for Local Government, Phil Woolas, alludes to the nexus of the dilemma when he observes that other faiths might find aspects of Islam ‘frightening and intimidating’. Thus any dialogue appears to carry with it a latent threat that bombs and bullets, metaphorical or literal, are concealed beneath the niqab. This is a justifiable fear, and the Church of England is right to raise the ages-old Reformation question: How, precisely, does one dialogue and negotiate with those who consider that their view of society is the one to which we must all be subject, and in this they are infallible?


Anonymous Ulster Man said...

The document seems to imply the UK is a Christian country, or its culture is Christian, because of its Christian history. Don't these bishops realise that this heritage is being eroded to the point of no return? The UK is far from Christian, even Ulster is becoming secular, leaving it ripe for a 'take-over' by some alien spiritual power.

8 October 2006 at 18:16  
Blogger istanbultory said...

That, ulster man, is the core of the problem.

8 October 2006 at 18:59  
Blogger Croydonian said...

"When people stop believing in God, it isn't that they believe in nothing, rather that they'll believe in anything". Or words to that effect from some wit I can't track down. True for many, if not all.

8 October 2006 at 19:26  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

So, GC, the Church of England is oblivious to the problem? I thought this document was quite risque for an institution renowned for compromise.

8 October 2006 at 19:44  
Anonymous religion of pieces said...

It could be that Dar al-Islam is being taken over by 'an alien spiritual power'.

There are reports that Jesus is appearing to Muslims in dreams and converting them to Christianity:

What are the Religious Police doing about it? How come this sort of stuff can get through censorship into Islamic countries? Can't the authorities put up some kind of dream firewall?

Most likely the Jooooooooz are behind it since they control all the media. And wasn't Jesus a Joooooo?

8 October 2006 at 20:07  
Anonymous dchc said...

Croydonian's comment is usually attributed to GK Chesterton, although I understand that this is disputed.

8 October 2006 at 20:33  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Is the Dean-elect of Westminster still determined that the next coronation should be multifaith?

8 October 2006 at 21:33  
Blogger CityUnslicker said...

The document here was strong by teh Church' sabysmal record of attempting to take a stand on something.

However I was listening to the news earlier and the Bishop who they had on (sorry, joined to late to ge the name) was clearly terrified of seeming controversial and was in full row-back mode.

Shame, it was going quite nicely with the Straw story too. Looking as if a meaningful debate could kcik-off.

Just wishful thinking I guess.

8 October 2006 at 22:49  
Blogger Croydonian said...

DCHC - sounds in character, does it not? Thank you.

8 October 2006 at 23:34  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Ah - an answer of sorts to the quote question.

8 October 2006 at 23:37  
Blogger Croydonian said...

And there some of that old time C of E flannel here

9 October 2006 at 00:48  
Anonymous Rabid Atheist said...

I think you are misunderstanding the problem Ulsterman: secularism per se does not turn people into lost souls ready to be sucked in to another ideology. That erroneous belief was peddled by the Catholic Chesterton, who purportedly said that people who believe in nothing will believe in anything. Not true. For a start, secularism is not necessarily atheism, one can be a secularist and a christian (or muslim or jew etc).

The real problem as I see it is that the Christian Church has adopted multiculturism to the extent where it peddles that ideology instead of its own. Listening to the Church is like listening to Ken Livingston or Trevor Phillips these days. Since the Church no longer talks to, or appears to care about the indigenous white majority, so they have drifted away and no longer listen to it. I'm an atheist, but it isn't that that makes me angry with the Church, it's seeing the Archbishop touring Darfur without saying a word of reproach to Khartoum.

9 October 2006 at 01:11  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Rabid Atheist said..

for an atheist to be rabid suggests he has been bitten by something !

9 October 2006 at 09:00  
Anonymous Alfred of Wessex said...

religion of pieces said @ 8:07 PM ...

There are reports that Jesus is appearing to Muslims in dreams and converting them to Christianity:

Praise God! Will pass this info. on to some of my fellow Christians.

9 October 2006 at 13:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This site is full of bigots. You hate Islam. You are irrational. There are not conversions to christianity from Islam, in fact the opposite is true. The son of the BBC director has converted, and Islam is becoming respectable as an intelligient choice of religions.

The church has largely failed and people don't know any more what it stands for. Islam is clear, and people know its standards. They seek security and stability and Islam gives them this.

9 October 2006 at 14:07  
Anonymous Rabid Atheist said...

Well, anonymous, since you are going to be murdered if you convert to Christianity from Islam that would help to explain why there are so few conversions would it not? I wouldn't be too chuffed about conversions to Islam, converts to any religion tend to be either very shallow or downright unstable (see Richard Reid).

I certainly agree with your second paragraph. Security and stability are what many people crave, but when it is supplied by totalitarian ideologies, theocratic or otherwise, it doesn't take long before insecurity and instability violently reassert themselves.

9 October 2006 at 15:02  
Anonymous Voyager said...

This site is full of bigots. You hate Islam. You are irrational

Now those three sentences do need analysis. Assertion that this site is full of "bigots"

Assertion "You hate Islam"

Assertion "You are irrational"

There is no logical connection which suggests a deranged mind. However if we conclude that Islam is bigoted, it would be rational to detest it.

That does work on the Barbara Syllogism - If A, then B, if B, then C

9 October 2006 at 15:18  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Here's a link on Muslim converts to Christianity.

Conversions on a much larger scale took place in Africa under European rule and the Philippines under the Spanish.

9 October 2006 at 15:53  
Anonymous Colin said...


You said You are irrational.

You are right because religion (including Islam) is not based on reason but on believing. How do you want to prove the existence of 17 virgins waiting for each suicide bombers in paradise? What if there is only death and no paradise? What if there is no God or if he/she has better things to do than to bother with the dreams of each individual?

You said There are not conversions to christianity from Islam, in fact the opposite is true.

That's mainly correct. But why is this so? Because Islamic women marrying a Christian man are threatened to get killed whereas Islamic men are allowed to marry a Christian woman if she converts to Islam.

But there is also a small number of Islamic believers who abandoned Islam. If you care to know, here is the link: Testimonies of Those Who Left Islam. It's a website operated by Ali Sina, an ex-Muslim.

You said The son of the BBC director has converted

Fine, why not if it makes him happy.

You said Islam is becoming respectable as an intelligient choice of religions.

That's a claim. Where is the proof? Could you please name one or several highly intelligent individuals who voluntarily converted to Islam.

You said Islam is clear, and people know its standards.

Yes, it is clear and simple: It's followers are proclaimed to be superior human beings and therefore have the permission to subdue, rob or kill the rest of humankind.

However, the claim that robbery and killings are justified by some superior reason isn't new at all. It's part of many religions including racism, nationalism, communism...

You said They seek security .. and Islam gives them this.

Are you talking about the security that the Islamic believers (including the women) enjoyed during the last millenium in Islamic countries with its oppressions of people's wishes and its endless wars against each other?

You said They seek ... stability and Islam gives them this.

Yes, you are right about the stability in Islamic countries. It's the stability of the Middle Ages: fanatic believers in religion + oppressive regimes + lack of freedom = underdevelopment = poverty.

If Islam is so superior in providing security and stability, why are so many people from these countries migrating to Western countries? To enjoy insecurity and instability?

Did you ever ask yourself, why Islamic countries are still underdeveloped and poor while other similarily poor countries such as Korea and China have developed and are now threatening the West with better products? Could it be that they used reason instead of beliefs, hard work instead of loud boasting, product development and trade instead of bombings and conquest?

Oh, I see you are claiming the Jews in America are behind it. Why would they want to make China rich and strong? Isn't this conspiracy theory a little bit - how did you say again - irrational?

But you said, we are irrational . I guess we simply have to take your word for it.

May peace be upon you.

9 October 2006 at 16:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's a claim. Where is the proof? Could you please name one or several highly intelligent individuals who voluntarily converted to Islam."

The son of the BBC director is an Oxford graduate. That is one. Highly intelligent. Respected. He has taken a Muslim name. Now I've proved you wrong, you will request a list. That is your irrationality.

9 October 2006 at 16:39  
Anonymous Colin said...


I apologize for having forgotten to comment on your first sentence: This site is full of bigots

Isn't it rather bigot to claim the label "religion of peace" while harming one's own children , killing believers and infidels .

You are right, these pictures prove that "Islam is clear, and people know its standards.

More standards can be found at Learn about Islam through pictures .

9 October 2006 at 16:53  
Anonymous Colin said...


Thank you for kindly responding and for giving me at least one individual as requested.

Unfortunately, being the son of the BBC director or being an Oxford graduate is not a proof of being highly intelligent. Many university graduates are not highly intelligent. High intelligence is defined as an IQ of 130 and above. The mean IQ of university students is between 115 and 120.

But I guess you are probably right. There might be some highly intelligent individuals who have converted to Islam. High intelligence does not protect one from doing all kinds of strange things, e.g. the Unabomber was highly intelligent.

Therefore, I withdraw the argument concerning intelligence. That should encourage you to try to disprove more of my points. I am waiting to be entirely disproven by you.

9 October 2006 at 17:13  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Yahya Birt's father ceased to be the Director General of the BBC in 2000. Do keep up.

9 October 2006 at 17:17  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

If somebody wishes to convert to a religion then so be it , but is there anything in the Quran that says you have to wear a turban and robes?
That and change your name to that of a kebab salesman.

9 October 2006 at 17:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The son of the BBC director is an Oxford graduate. That is one. Highly intelligent. Respected.

Initially, Birt said he had no coherent reasons for converting, but "in the longer term I think it was the overall profundity, balance and coherence and spirituality of the Muslim way of life which convinced me," he said.

Meanwhile, it emerged last weekend that Emma Clark, the great-granddaughter of a British prime minister has converted. She said: "We’re all the rage, I hope it’s not a passing fashion."

See it is a fashion statement to be different..............John Birt has dumped his wife and moved in with another woman

9 October 2006 at 17:38  
Anonymous Colin said...


I am waiting for you trying to disprove me.

Waiting ....

Maybe I can help you with Ayesha Ahmed's posting of October 03, 2006 .

"When Allah awarded Prophet-hood to our Prophet, he ordered him to continue the peaceful teachings of prophet Jesus. These instructions came in the initial 87 Meccan Surahs (verses of Quran).

Our poor Apostle toiled with these ineffective Suras for 13 years without much success. With these useless verses, he managed to convert only his immediate family, friends and a few destitute pagans. Others mocked and laughed at him. They called him a fake, a liar and a charlatan.

After his miserable failure in Mecca and not being able to convince even his own uncle and guardian Abu Talib, he went to Taef to preach Islam. They not only laughed at him, they beat him up and chased him out of the town.

Finally Meccans got so sick and tired of his sermons that they told him to take a hike or face consequences. He took a hike to Madina to save his neck.

Allah soon realized that his order of peaceful teachings cost Jesus his life and got Mohammed kicked out of his hometown.

He said enough is enough and decided to abrogate all the peaceful Meccan verses:

2:106 Whatever ayas We abrogate We bring better ones.

16:101And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals.

Allah then decided to try a different approach to make Islam successful. He changed the rules and launched all evil acts, which were previously prohibited.

In his reformed Madina Islam, deceit, torture, murder, assassination, massacre, genocide, pillage, robbery, enslavement and rape were made halal (legal) acts, deserving of paradise, as long as they were perpetrated on infidels.

Allah also changed some social laws from his previous scriptures to accommodate existing Arab customs and habits. He permitted polygamy, temporary marriages (muta), pedophilia, marriage with adopted son's wives, wife beating, and sex with slave girls.

The new Islam became an instant hit. The Medina Suras were able to achieve in a few months what the Meccan Suras could not do in 13 years. Arabs began converting in droves and started gaining Allah's blessings as well as booty and captured women. The rest is history."


"24.33, 4.3, 4.24 , 23.6, 33.50,70.30 Your slave girls are your possessions( you can have sex with them, gift them, sell them or ransom them). Just don't force them to sell their bodies to earn you a livelihood. But if you are under a compulsion (hard up and starving), then go ahead do it, Allah may forgive you.

Our Prophet lived these ayas to the fullest. By Allah's order Prophet Mohammed received 20% of all booty including captured women. His biggest takes came from Mustaleeq and Quraiza raids where his 20% booty came to hundreds of captured women. He sold them, gifted them or ransomed them as the following hadiths say:

"Sirat e Rasulullah", by Ishaq, pge 466

"Apostle sent Sad b. Zayd Al Ansari with some of the captive women to Najd. He sold them for horses and weapons"
Muslim Book 019, Number 4345:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) sent the young captured woman to the people of Mecca, and surrendered her as ransom for a number of Muslims who had been kept as prisoners at Mecca.
(Ref: Waqqidi, Tabari, Ishaq)"

The bigots on this blog don't understand that Islam is a religion of peace. Here is the proof:

"021.107 : Mohammed has been sent as a mercy for all creatures.

Our prophet strictly prohibited killing of women during jihadi raids. That showed his great mercy. His standing orders were to round up all captured women and to distribute them among jihadis. He also prohibited his jihadis from using coitus interruptus when having sex with their captured women. That was to make sure that the experience is enjoyable for the captured women also and that they are not left high and dry and unfulfilled by the selfish act of premature withdrawal for selfish reasons. That shows how caring he was even in case of enemy women. Here is a famous hadith.:

Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 34, Number 432:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:

that while he was sitting with Allah's Apostle he said, "O Allah's Apostle! We get female captives as our share of booty, and we are interested in their prices, what is your opinion about coitus interrupt us?" The Prophet said, "Do you really do that? It is better for you not to do it.

Prophet Mohammed had a heart of gold and always shared his bed with the wife of the murdered infidel chief.

Ishaq. Page 766:

Abu Ayyub al-Ansari guarded the tent of the Prophet the whole nigh (after Kaybar raid). When, in the early dawn, the Prophet saw Abu Ayyub strolling up and down, he asked him what he meant by this sentry-go; he replied: "I was afraid for you with this young lady (in your bed). You had killed her father, her husband and many of her relatives, and till recently she was an unbeliever. I was really afraid for you on her account". The Prophet prayed for Abu Ayyub al-Ansari."


Maybe I also should convert because I would like to get my share of the booty and all these girls, some on earth and the rest in heaven. For men, such a religion is a temptation hard to resist. I only have problems with the cancellation policy of the club. Cancellation of membership is forbidden by the penality of death.

May peace be upon you, dear Anonym.

9 October 2006 at 17:52  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Anonymous,


His Grace is reluctant to engage with anonymice, and encourages his communicants to ignore them, yet he perfectly understands that, very occasionally, one appears who becomes jolly good sport.

So, please find yourself a name - Ashok or some such will do perfectly (now that Colin is spoken for, and His Grace has no idea what the Arabic equivalence might be) - in order that we may all refer to your contributions without confusion, and you begin to acquire a semblance of character.

Many thanks.

9 October 2006 at 18:37  
Anonymous Colin said...

Ashok aka Anonymous,

The son of John Birt, Yahya Birt, received financial rewards for his conversion.

Yahya Birt works at The Islamic Foundation in Leicestershire, is Contributing Editor to the Muslim World Book Review, is member of Islamica Magazine’s Editorial Board, Advisor to the City Circle in London, and a regular contributor to Q News, the British Muslim magazine, according to Wikipedia . Here is a picture of him with the Q News leadership. Some might say that he has been bought by Saudi Arabian money. However, the assumption of selfish motives is probably wrong. More likely is the assumption of an idealistic individual. Here is Yahya Birt's website in support of this view.

According to Islam Thousands Of British Elite Embrace Islam ,

Jonathan Birt, the son of Lord Birt and Emma Clark, the granddaughter of former liberal prime minister Herbert Asquith, are only two of 14,000 mostly-elite white Britons having reverted to Islam.

In the first authoritative study of the phenomenon, carried by the Sunday Times on February 22, some of the country’s top landowners, celebrities and the offspring of senior Establishment figures have embraced the Muslim faith after being disillusioned with western values.

The new study by Yahya (formerly Jonathan) Birt, son of Lord Birt, former director-general of the BBC, provides the first reliable data on the sensitive subject of the movement of Christians into Islam.

He uses a breakdown of the latest census figures to conclude that there are now 14,200 white reverts in Britain...

Birt argued that an inspirational figure, similar to the American revert Malcolm X for Afro-Caribbeans, would first have to emerge if the next stage, a mass conversion among white Britons, were to happen.

Speaking publicly for the first time about his faith this weekend, Birt argued that an inspirational figure, similar to the American revert Malcolm X for Afro-Caribbeans, would first have to emerge if the next stage, a mass conversion among white Britons, were to happen.

“You need great transitional figures to translate something alien (like Islam) into the vernacular,” Birt, whose doctorate at Oxford University is on young British Muslims, was quoted by the Times.

We can only guess who he had in mind as leader for converting white Britons to Islam? Could it be that - inspired by his doctorate on young British Muslims - John Birt's son caught fire and is now trying to become more famous and successful than his father by a career as Britain's Malcom X ?

And what does it prove if celebrities convert to one religion or another? The list of celebrity converts to Scientology is even longer.

May peace be upon him, Britain's aspiring Malcom X.

9 October 2006 at 20:05  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

May I point out to any Muslim reading these postings the example set this week by the Amish of Pennsylvania. Having seen their children murdered by a lunatic, not only did they forgive him, they invited the murderers widow to the funerals of their children and then attended the funeral of the man who took their children and prayed for him and his family.
That strength is the strength that will defeat you.It is called love, something sadly lacking in your own nasty cult.

9 October 2006 at 20:16  
Anonymous Colin said...

According to Jonathan Birt's study, some of the country’s top landowners, celebrities and the offspring of senior Establishment figures have embraced the Muslim faith after being disillusioned with western values.

What are Western values?

What made the West successful and rich?

What makes East Asian countries such as China more successful and richer?
More liberty than before.

Why is North Korea poorer than South Korea and why was East Germany poorer than West Germany?
Lack of liberty.

Why are Islamic countries poor?
Lack of liberty.

Why did the intellectual elites of the 20th century adopt the religions of socialism and national socialism resulting in poverty and enslavement?
Disillusionment with western values (líberty)!

Why does the intellectual elite of the 21st century adopt Islam?
Disillusionment with western values (liberty)?

What will be the likely outcome?
See above.

9 October 2006 at 21:04  
Anonymous Colin said...

Peter Hitchens,

You wrote "That strength is the strength that will defeat you.It is called love"

I beg to differ with your view that love can defeat aggression.

There probably is no other religion as peaceful and loving of all creatures on earth as Buddhism. What happened to Buddhism in Central Asia and India after the advent of Islam?

Buddhism in Central Asia started to decline with the expansion of Islam and the destruction of many stupas in war from the 7th century. (From History of Buddhism )

The world famous historian, Will Durant has written in his Story of Civilisation that "the Mohammedan conquest of India was probably the bloodiest story in history".

Hindunet has some details on the Islamic conquest of India:

India before the advent of Islamic imperialism was not exactly a zone of peace. There were plenty of wars fought by Hindu princes. But in all their wars, the Hindus had observed some time-honoured conventions sanctioned by the Sastras. The Brahmins and the Bhikshus [believers in the teachings of Buddha] were never molested. The cows were never killed. The temples were never touched. The chastity of women was never violated. The non-combatants were never killed or captured. A human habitation was never attacked unless it was a fort. The civil population was never plundered. War booty was an unknown item in the calculations of conquerors. The martial classes who clashed, mostly in open spaces, had a code of honor. Sacrifice of honor for victory or material gain was deemed as worse than death.

Islamic imperialism came with a different code--the Sunnah of the Prophet. It required its warriors to fall upon the helpless civil population after a decisive victory had been won on the battlefield. It required them to sack and burn down villages and towns after the defenders had died fighting or had fled. The cows, the Brahmins, and the Bhikshus invited their special attention in mass murders of non-combatants. The temples and monasteries were their special targets in an orgy of pillage and arson. Those whom they did not kill, they captured and sold as slaves. The magnitude of the booty looted even from the bodies of the dead, was a measure of the success of a military mission. And they did all this as mujahids (holy warriors) and ghazls (kafir-killers) in the service of Allah and his Last Prophet.

According to Kamil-ut-Tawarikh of Ibn Asir, "The slaughter of Hindus was immense; none were spared except women and children, and the carnage of men went on until the earth was weary."

The women and children were spared so that they could be enslaved and sold all over the Islamic world. It may be added that the Buddhist complex at Sarnath was sacked at this time, and the Bhikshus were slaughtered.
The link is here.

The fate of the Amish would probably not be much different from the fate of the Bhikshus. History tells us that the strength able to defeat Islamic imperialism is unlikely to be love.

9 October 2006 at 23:39  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Peter Hitchens as he calls himself should recall that the Amish are in fact Anabaptists and Mennonites who do not believe in infant baptism, so none of those murdered were baptised Christians by Amish standards.They survive in the US as a tourist attraction and the legacy of William Penn -few survive in France or Southern Germany whence they emigrated.

Muslims worship Mohammed, he is reality their god and they have made him analogous to god which is why they resent the doctrine of Jesus as son of god, it is a status they wish to arrogate for the market-trader of medina.

Whatever Jonathan Birt does is irrelevant, his father is a dalek from Sodom College, Oxford and I doubt any of them were devout Christians in any sense, so the chance to join the lates New Age Cult must have seemed fun - and probably was a toss up between Islam and Crystal therapy.

It probably does not bother them that they are damned by associating with a pagan cult, but so what it probably allows them to spout anti-Jewish and anti-Christian diatribeswithout fear of police arrest, which seems to be the key aspect of Islam nowadays, that just as police were reluctant to arrest those spouting Nazi slogans in the 1920s, they seem to have the same problem in 2006

10 October 2006 at 07:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My name is NOT Ashok, and I don't see that my name is any business of yours at all. Your blog permits anonymous comments so there's no pint complaining.

And I don't have to 'prove' to any bigot any aspect of Islam. If you are not a believer that is your choice, but my opinions are as valid as any of yours. You might think you're all very intelligent and clever, but you are blinded by your own prejudices.

10 October 2006 at 11:07  
Anonymous Voyager said...

And I don't have to 'prove' to any bigot any aspect of Islam.

You couldn't prove it to anyone if you tried since it does not admit of "proof" simply because you cannot construct a hypothesis that you can use in a predictive form.

The only issue the host of this blog raised was that if we all post as "anonymous" it will be hard to tell one opinion apart from another...........seems a reasonable point

10 October 2006 at 11:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My name is NOT Ashok

but my name IS Ashok !!!!

10 October 2006 at 11:15  
Blogger Croydonian said...

I think we have the makings of an irregular verb here:

I am principled, you are dogmatic, he is a bigot.....

10 October 2006 at 11:55  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

colin by "love" I meant love of self and your own kind, and if that loves means you have to resort to violence then so be it.
By praising the Amish I was praising their fortitude and ability to look forward, I think they would be better off dropping the pacifism and buying some more guns.

10 October 2006 at 11:59  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I think they would be better off dropping the pacifism and buying some more guns.

It isn't pacifism as such - they do not believe in a nation state nor in legal systems - they are very other-worldly

10 October 2006 at 12:27  
Blogger Peter Hitchens said...

They would still be better of with armed school teachers.
"An armed society is a polite society" also a safer society.

10 October 2006 at 12:40  
Anonymous Colin said...


You said And I don't have to 'prove' to any bigot any aspect of Islam. If you are not a believer that is your choice, but my opinions are as valid as any of yours.

Certainly, you don't have to prove anything because in a free society you can do whatever you like as long as you do not harm others.

However, since you said You are irrational we asked you to provide the "ratio" (reason) behind your claims. Now your supposedly superior rationality appears to boil down to "my opinion is as valid as yours."

Unfurtunately, this statement is only correct if you completely abandon logic because the worries about the "bloody borders of Islam" voiced here by people you call "bigots" are not fantasy but facts. Data of killings committed by Islamic believers have been collected world-wide and visualizated . Here is the animation .

These endless atrocities are hardly in agreement with Yahya Birt's claim of "the overall profundity, balance and coherence and spirituality of the Muslim way of life".

Yahya Birt's claim - contrary to the available evidence - rather seems to support the view of the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer that "A certain amount of general ignorance is the condition of all religions, the element in which alone they can exist."

Another observation of Schopenhauer might be of interest in regard to Birt's conversion: "As I have said, childhood is the time to sow the seeds
of belief, and not manhood; more especially where an earlier faith has taken root. An acquired conviction such as is feigned by adults is, as a rule, only the mask for some kind of personal interest."
From The Essays of Arthur Schopenhauer; Religion, A Dialogue

And again Schopenhauer from the source above: "People have tried to make the expression and communication of truth, even the contemplation and discovery of it, impossible, by putting children, in their earliest years, into the hands of priests to be manipulated; to have the lines, in which their fundamental thoughts are henceforth to run, laid down with such firmness as, in essential matters, to be fixed and etermined for this whole life."

You have doubts about the manipulation of children by religion?

"Dubai's International Holy Koran Award" posted at Croydonian's blog supports Schopenhauer's observation. Here is the NY Times report and the picture of a beautiful child .

Finally, Schopenhauer again in "Religion, A Dialogue": "Ah! if it were only a conviction based on insight. Then one could bring arguments to bear, and the battle would be fought with equal weapons. [That's why you were forced to say: "And I don't have to 'prove' to any bigot any aspect of Islam."]

But religions admittedly appeal, not to conviction as the result of argument, but to belief as demanded by revelation. [That's the reason for your statement "If you are not a believer that is your choice, but my opinions are as valid as any of yours."]

And as the capacity for believing is strongest in childhood, special care is taken to make sure of this tender age. [Here again as proof the NY Times report.]

This has much more to do with the doctrines of belief taking root than threats and reports of miracles. If, in early childhood, certain fundamental views and doctrines are paraded with unusual solemnity, and an air of the greatest earnestness never before visible in anything else; if, at the same time, the possibility of a doubt about them be completely passed over, or touched upon only to indicate that doubt is the first step to eternal perdition, the resulting impression will be so deep that, as a rule, that is, in almost every case, doubt about them will be almost as impossible as doubt about one's own xistence. Hardly one in ten thousand will have the strength of mind to ask himself seriously and earnestly--is that true? To call such as can do it strong minds, _esprits forts_, is a description more apt than is generally supposed. But for the ordinary mind there is nothing so absurd or revolting but what, if inculcated in that way, the strongest belief in it will strike root.

If, for example, the killing of a heretic or infidel were essential to the future salvation of his soul, almost every one would make it the chief event of his life, and in dying would draw consolation and strength from the remembrance that he had succeeded."
[As demonstrated by suicide bombers.]

10 October 2006 at 14:42  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I think His Grace would be well advised to open a thread asking how the Church of England could let Tom Butler, Heretic of Southwark pen a response to the Govt on unmarried couples getting legal rights on separation akin to married couples.....................letting Butler produce the response was clearly an attempt to place gay couples without civil partnerships in an analogous situation to marriage.

Before long Rowan Williams will have a full Gay Marriage Service in the Liturgy. It is just ECUSA in slow-motion over here, I suppose soon we will have Wiccan and Druids officiating and a resident Imam as ECUSA managed in Colorado.

This deceit must stop

11 October 2006 at 18:31  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older