Monday, February 16, 2009

Rowan Atkinson incites religious hatred



Insofar as this would doubtless be prohibited if Mr Atkinson were dressed as an Imam, or mocked Mohammed, or satirised his deeds – all of which would surely incite some Muslims to violent frenzy – Cranmer can only conclude that this video constitutes an incitement to hatred.

Should Mr Atkinson receive an invitation to perform in the Netherlands, he should be prepared to be detained and deported.

What would transpire of Mr Atkinson strode on to a stage with a raucous ‘Assalam Aleikum’. And then he said: "For those who don't know what that means, I'll explain it to you. It means: 'I'm gonna kill you’.”

Would the audience burst into laughter, or what there be a hundred sharp intakes of breath with which they have subliminally been programmed to respond?

Perhaps Glasgow University has already provided the answer.

There is an unbridgeable gulf between the God who laughs (Ps 2:4) and the one in whom there is no humour. Protests over cartoons satirising Mohammad combined with images of Muslims criticising frivolous aspects of Western culture leave the distinct impression Islam and comedy are incompatible – it is haram. The most concerning thing for Britain is that those Muslims who dare to express humour or satrise aspects of their religion are derided by those who hold to the Ayatollah Khomeini school of Islam. He once said: "An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."

And it is the Khomeini doctrine of Islam which Labour have pledged to uphold. It is the extremists, fundamentalists and Lord Ahmed who do not get the joke.

It is the Government’s fault, aided and abetted by most of the media, that what comes to mind when you hear the word ‘Muslim’ is more likely to be beards, bombs and burqas than stand-up comedians.

One should thank God – whichever one – that there are British Muslims confronting what the British government dare not. It is just a pity they have to go the United States to do it.

18 Comments:

Blogger McKenzie said...

I enjoyed that Cranmer. I'm off for a walk on the beach with my MP3 Player now, but before I go, maybe some more humour.

"What do you call a Muslim who owns a goat and a camel?"

"Bisexual"!

More very funny jokes HERE

And an interesting video of related nature HERE

16 February 2009 at 10:00  
Anonymous Gnostic said...

"A spokeswoman for Glasgow Caledonian University said: “The university’s responsibility is to listen to and respect the views of all students on campus."

Did she listen to the people who protested her decision? I think we should be told...

16 February 2009 at 10:16  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace
I thought it was quite funny too.
Remember Alan Bennet in the Vicar sketch in Beyond the Fringe?
"For you are an hairy man but I am a smooth man..."

Did Christ laugh? That was the hotly disputed question in the 'Name of the Rose'.

It seems strange even to dispute this as the issue was resolved at one of the early councils where Jesus was declared to be true God and true man.

16 February 2009 at 10:49  
Blogger Forlornehope said...

It is clear from the Gospels that Christ was happy to use humour. Atkinson's target seems to be po-faced clerics and popular culture. I recall a rugby playing Irish priest pointing out in a sermon that the amount of wine provided would have kept a typical village more than happy for a week. Of more concern with the general sense of humour failure is that this has been the great defence of the English against tyranny. George Orwell wrote that fascist movements had great difficulty in Britain because nobody could look at their posturing without bursting out laughing. The greatest argument against Islamic terrorists is that they are an incompetent laughing stock. Making intolerant preachers the subject of ridicule is an essential response.

16 February 2009 at 11:09  
Blogger Forlornehope said...

I have just checked your Glasgow University link. My ancient alma mater is innocent! The culprit is Glasgow Caledonian, a jumped up technical college. It is not even a true "poly", that became Strathclyde University, and has become quite distinguished in its own right.

16 February 2009 at 11:15  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Forlornehope,

You are quite corect, notwithstanding that the headline of the publication states 'Glasgow University'.

His Grace could correct, or qualify with 'sic', but has decided to leave it as it is because he does not believe your beloved alma mater would have responded any differently.

16 February 2009 at 11:25  
Anonymous no nonny said...

At least ten years ago, a Korean professor told me that all humour is Politically Incorrect. I repeated this to an American professor, who said: "I hope not!" Like the rest of us, I guess he put up with PC for - well, political reasons.

P.S. I regard one of the universities mentioned as my step-mater. In fact, doing some work on a respected American academic website, I sat in the library there (all unawares) during 9/11. Oddly, some mozzie man stood behind me while all was going on, emanating what felt to me like hatred. I wished he would go away: it was unpleasant, I had work to do, I know no mozzies, and I had certainly done nothing but ignore him. After maybe an hour some other people noticed him, and he left. As I drove home, 9/11 was breaking on the news.

Perhaps that's why I wonder how such establishments manage to respect ALL their students at once? Or is it now an entry requirement that students subscribe to one PC opionion - and that 'ain't' Christian?

16 February 2009 at 13:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know God has a sense of humour because I have one, and I believe upon reason of biblical scripture that I am made in his image.
We of Irish descent are probably counting too heavily that God's sense of fun is still live.

Having no sense of humour is normally a prerequisite for entry into the Police Force or the mohamuddan creed. Both regimes appear baffled and annoyed by it, and the latter is an unfunny joke in itself.

George

16 February 2009 at 13:51  
Blogger Microcosm said...

Speaking of Ayatollahs, Iranian comedian Omid Djalili manages to get me in stitches of laughter.

I wonder if he would get away with his humour in Iran, or did he have to come to England to do it.

All religions if taken to serious will make you anal retentive, but whats better than laughing at religion is the ability to laugh at yourself, I have known one or two muslims, or more to the point Asians who were brought up in the Islamic faith but are realy not that religious, who like me are perfectly capable of seeing the ironic side of life.

British muslim?

How Ironic is that :D

16 February 2009 at 14:26  
Anonymous churchmouse said...

I thought the video less than funny.

It is highly offensive; and it's pure deconstructionism - and therefore childish. I remain unclear as to whether the piece is meconnaissance directed at Christ; satire directed at present-day clergy; or contempt directed at all Christian audiences ever. Or perhaps it's whichever permutation of the above we want to make it.

Anyway - deconstruction and illusionism nauseate me equally - and the actor here has marked himself party to both. I'd have walked out of that performance - although I know lots of PC people who would condemn my response as rudeness...

16 February 2009 at 15:38  
Blogger McKenzie said...

churchmouse

I think a major factor though is that nobody will be getting 'skewered to the pavement'. Its good that we can be offended and still talk about it in a grown up sensible way.

16 February 2009 at 16:08  
Anonymous Dave J. said...

When some Christians get offended, Rowan Atkison loses a member of his audience. When Muslims get offended, Rowan Atkison loses his head. Therein lies the difference.

16 February 2009 at 19:59  
Blogger Dissenter said...

I can't be bothered to watch the video, I have a long memory with too many dirty jokes I wich I could forget in it already, but in any event Dave J hits the nail right on the head.

But while we let off steam harmlessly here, the process continues.

Chris Huhne is my MP, he spoke on the radio last week in support of banning Geert Wilders for 'hate speech', although as viewers of Fitna can attest, he was REPORTING hate speech-and hate action- not making it. Chris Huhne a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT? Don't words mean anything any more?

There is only one thing these people care about-power. I will write to him and the Tory (its a 2 way marginal) asking for their views on the Wilders case, ongoing Islamification of UK, equality of right to be offended and persecution of Christians and inform them that their response will decide my vote (UKIP last time).

Go thee and do likewise?

But it may be too late. As we read in Psalm 2, God does have a sense of humour, but it sometimes consists of punishing a wicked nation by giving it the fruit of it's deeds. What has Britain been asking for during these last 4 decades of Christ-rejecting hedonism, sexual anarchy, and seven million abortions? What consequences will these choices bring us to?

There are plenty of examples in the old testament of God allowing a nation which had fallen from righteousness to be ruled by crooks and fools, invaded by violent foreigners and humiliated until it cried to Him for forgiveness. What virtue would enable Britain in 2009 to bypass this principle?

There is no salvation in Westminster, and the church leaders are too busy bending over to kiss Darwin's **** , too lazy to do the research which reveals the falsfication of the Darwin mythos and in fear of being called names by the Dawkinists, and also queuing up to be seen as 'more inclusive than thou' to avoid being called names by the various thought police quangos, too lazy and scared to take a stand for the historic Christian message.

And so it goes. And where it's going, no one knows.

re humour: it would be very grimly humourous for a nation which has rejected the many blessings of the Christian faith heritage in favour of self seeking 'rationalism' and 'liberty' (really hedonism and idolatry) and an ignorance of history, to sleep walk into being absorbed into a new global Caliphate and suffer the many pains of Sharia law. Then they would find out that all religions are not the same.

Hopefully I'll be dead by the time of the Muslim takeover of the UK. If not, then together with Cranmer and a few others, probably very soon afterwards! However, perhaps that is selfish thinking, and perhaps most of the people in power who might be able to do something about it are my age or older and think the same.

Taquiyya knows this, and is patient.

16 February 2009 at 22:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What disturbs me about many of the self professed christians who post to all the debates on stories like this is that their oft repeated comment "You wouldn't dare insult muslims like this, they'd riot in the streets!" seems to hold a slight tinge of jealousy. Rather than envying the violent extremists their current undue influance, wouldn't it be better to reflect on how much better the world would be if no-one was trying to kill 'heretics' and that those who are willing to laugh at themselves will normally carry the audience.

17 February 2009 at 10:43  
Anonymous DavidMWW said...

I am interested in unpacking the thinking behind Anonymous's oft-repeated comment, too.

When Christians complain "You wouldn't dare insult muslims like this", do they mean to imply that "therefore you shouldn't insult Christians"?

Or do they mean to say "behold how peaceful and forebearing we are compared to Muslims"?

Or are they simply saying "you are a coward for fearing violent repercussions"?

Or something else?

17 February 2009 at 16:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We need to get smarter with the language of offense. It is incorrect to say that "the video is offensive". Because, to me, it isn't. Instead you should qualify the statement by saying that "the video is offensive to me". This puts it into the correct context and allows the appropriate follow-up remark: "so what?". Rather than putting the onus on whether the video is actually one thing or another - which is not likely to be resolvable and therefore totally non-productive.

By using the first form of language, you are forcibly ascribing your own viewpoint to an entire society. You are purporting that everyone will find the video offensive. It find this itself offensive in the same way as racism tarnishes an entire group with a common brush. I would also suggest it is a weak form of argument to seek support from an imaginary crowd of like minded people.

17 February 2009 at 19:31  
Anonymous Najistani said...

MAKING ISLAM A LAUGHING STOCK

The Muslims are currently waging a propaganda war against us, trying to intimidate us and weaken our morale. They are also trying to destroy our right to free expression with regard to criticism of Islam.

We need to counteract this by destroying their morale and belief in their death-cult, but to do this we need to understand their psychology.

The Muslim mind is pre-rational, predatory and tribal . Appeals to reason are no use because they believe that faith is superior to reason, and the fact that the Koran is full of contradictions doesn't bother them in the slightest. Islam hasn't had an enlightenment and is still in the Dark Ages. In fact, the cult justifies itself in terms of a power-structure maintained by physical threats and lynch-mobs rather than reason or spirituality.

Appeals to normal human decency as an antidote to Islam are pointless. Muslims believe it is their duty to kill, maim, rape, swindle and rob the kaffir (unbeliever) - this is an intrinsic part of their cult. The 'Golden Rule' - 'do unto others as you would they do unto you' , does not extend beyond the boundaries of the Ummah-tribe. So displaying picture of the aftermath of Muslim atrocities is a waste of time - this will actually encourage them. Many Muslim men and boys get sexually aroused by watching jihad-snuff videos of kaffirs being tortured and beheaded.

Pointing out that Muslims are useless parasites on the West is also not going to make them change their ways, because that's what they are unashamedly here for.

The way to get at them, is to damage their inflated and fragile egos. Because Muslims are at a tribal state of pre-civilised development, they venerate the totems of their tribe, and will go into tantrums if these are 'disrespected'. Like unstable adolescents they are constantly seeking 'significance' and 'respect'.

The quest for 'significance' often appears as dhimmi TV programs
and exhibitions which claim that the Muslims invented everything and the success of the West is due to Islam.

The quest for 'respect' is aimed at silencing any criticism of their death-cult by use of bullying, intimidation and censorship. The UK Muslim party is called 'Respect'.

Islam is an honor/shame and dominance/subjugation culture, which places great emphasis on humiliation, both of self and other.

Allah is the only deity that can be 'humiliated' by humans!

Muslims do not want kafirs to like them, in fact they are not allowed to take kaffirs as friends. Muslims expect to be feared and hated (the gangsta's version of respect) by the kafirs. However what they don't expect is to be mocked. This is their great weakness,
as Ali Sina pointed out.

Above all Muslims expect to be taken seriously, they just can't stand being ridiculed themselves, and especially having their totems ridiculed. In fact, since every Muslim models himself on Mohammed - 'the perfect man' - to insult Mohammed is to insult each and every Muslim. This is what the cartoon riots were about.

So to undermine Muslims' self worth and destroy their morale, we need to ridicule and humiliate their three major totems - Allah, Mohammed and the Koran. Note that because of their pre-rational state, intellectual criticism is relatively ineffective in producing a response. The totems have to be physically 'humiliated' to get masses of Muslims into rage mode.

So theological critique of Allah, a biography of Mohammed or textual criticism of the Koran might attract a few death threats, but it won't cause full scale riots. However, if Allah appears on an ice-cream wrapper , Mohammed in a cartoon
, or the Koran is parodied or left down a toilet , then a billion fragile egos are punctured.

More mockery, satire 'desecration' and humiliation can be found at Muslim jokes.

17 February 2009 at 22:32  
Blogger Babs G said...

Glasgow Caledonian University and Glasgow University are entities separated by a couple of miles and about 400 years. They are not to be confused

29 November 2010 at 13:35  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older