Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Conservative Muslim Forum shunned by CCHQ

Cranmer covered the establishment of this official Conservative-Muslim website exactly two years ago. There is nothing wrong in principle with political campaigning websites aimed at the micro-narratives of the diverse and disparate. Let us have one for the Christians, one for the Jews, one for the Sikhs, one for the Atheists, etc., etc. As long as their aims accord with the objectives of the Conservative Party, and their understanding of theology accords with conservative poitical philosophy, there should be no problems at all.

But back in 2007, the Conservative Muslim Caliphate Forum was concerned with issues which were so far off the policy radar of the Conservative Party that it was difficult to understand why they were permitted a subsidised presence at CCHQ and why they were able to use the Party’s logo – other, of course, than to garner the votes of like-minded Muslims.

They advocated nuclear weapons for Iran, the cessation of support for Israel, a compulsory history curriculum in schools which gave ‘full recognition to the massive contribution that Islam has made to the development of Western civilisation’, and an immigration policy which permitted the right of entry to the UK of those who reject our democracy and its institutions. They even support Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s message of ‘gay-hate’.

Cranmer knows a good many Conservative Muslims and even more Muslim Conservatives, and they do not hold beliefs or advocate policies which bear any remote resemblance to those advocated by the Conservative Muslim Forum. Indeed, it is not clear to what extent those behind the website are Conservatives at all, as they seek to join President Ahmadinejad in his quest to ‘wipe Israel off the map’; grant support to a barbaric theocracy which executes women and children; and give succour to Holocaust-deniers. And by advocating the admission to the UK of Muslim preachers who wish to destroy British democracy, they fuel the flames of the Islamist agenda and offer them the Conservative brand in support of a totalitarian Shari’a system. The rights and liberties of the British people are inalienable, and the Conservative Party above all parties should stand in their defence.

Here was an opportunity for Conservative ‘moderate’ Muslims to distance themselves from their ‘extremist’ co-religionists, yet they have done no such thing. Instead, they challenge the foreign policy advocated by the Party Leader, repudiate Conservative policy, undermine the FCO, and assert that their way is the only ‘sensible’ way. And further, they demand censorship:

We accept that some terrorists do abuse Islam for their purposes. However, an incoming Conservative administration must deny their attempt to link criminal acts to any religion. The term ‘terrorism’ must be separated from any religious references. We reiterate that the Conservative Party should not explicitly or implicitly link terrorism with Islam as, similar to other major religions, Islam forbids terrorism.’

It is curious that the Conservative Muslim Forum wishes to silence the factual reporting – ‘explicit or implicit’ – of the Islamist terrorists who shoot or blow up innocent people with a cry of ‘Allahu Akbar!’ on their lips and a copy of the Qur’an in their hands. It is concerning that the Conservative Muslim Forum seeks to silence those Muslim Conservatives who perceive a link between terrorism and the rise of Wahhabi Islam. It is worrying that the Conservative Muslim Forum has no place for Muslim Conservatives who oppose nuclear weapons for Iran. It is disquieting that the Conservative Muslim Forum does not tolerate Muslim Conservatives who support the existence of Israel. It is offensive that the Conservative Muslim Forum isolates those Muslim Conservatives who do not want to see homosexuals summarily executed.

There are very many Conservative Muslims who find a natural home in the Party and who view the theology and politics of this Forum with extreme distaste. It is noteworthy that CCHQ have been quick to stamp on MPs or candidates who advocate tax cuts, who support grammar schools, who join Better Off Out, and God help any who dare even quote Enoch Powell. But the odious policies of the Conservative Muslim Forum have been tolerated for years. Global Wahhabism is a far more immediate and real threat to the world than ‘Global Warming’, yet while David Cameron is sledding on the melting glaciers, the Conservative Muslim Forum has been advancing a decidedly anti-Semitic and homophobic agenda - at the Conservative Party’s expense, financially if not electorally.

But it has taken two years for CCHQ to begin to address some of the concerns which were posed by Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome.

And it was The Daily Telegraph’s Mandrake column which prompted the investigation.

It transpires that the Conservative Muslim Forum has been so keen to win the Muslim vote that they have been lifting entire sections of text from ‘IslamOnline’ – a website founded by Yusuf al-Qaradawi. That he happens to be a ‘hate preacher’ and banned from Britain is apparently of no consequence. That he has been described as ‘dangerous and divisive’ by David Cameron is apparently irrelevant.

Can you imagine what wrath, what fire and brimstone would be poured out by CCHQ upon the owner of a Conservative website which happened to quote Enoch Powell?

Yusuf al-Qaradawi doubtless spouts an awful lot that is ‘in line with mainstream Muslim thought’: it is the custom of the devil to appear as an angel of light. But by quoting even the wholesome sections from a website founded and written by a man who supports suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, which he called a ‘necessary Jihad’, the Conservative Muslim Forum lends credence to and exalts the status of the unofficial leader of the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’.

The Conservative Muslim Forum was established in order to increase the Conservative Party’s ‘understanding of Muslim issues and (to) encourage Muslim involvement in the party’.

It is time that its commitment to our shared values – ‘belief in enterprise, in the sense of community, the belief in the family and in the value of hard work’ – was extended to include democracy, transparency, accountability, scrutiny and an advocacy of the British national interest.

77 Comments:

Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Looks like somebody believed the oxymoron, "Moderate Muslim".

17 November 2009 at 09:41  
Blogger English Viking said...

Looks like somebody believed the oxymoron 'Christian Conservative'.

17 November 2009 at 09:49  
Blogger Jomo said...

Your Grace highlights some aspects of the shallowness of the Cameron project.

Its pursuit of Blair-light policies on "diversity" that includes imposing unsuitable candidates on constituency associations. The electorate may end up asking “What’s the difference between Nulab and Nucon” as it looks like more of the same. Lisbon- Afghanistan – Health - Taxation - to name but a few.

The need to appease Islam and its adherents by providing a forum to allow them to undermine Britain’s interests and its foreign policy. You have bought into this by attempting to separate off the cranks from the moderate mainstream. The lessons from Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan suggest that fundamentalism might be more than just the faded dreams of a few mad students.

17 November 2009 at 09:59  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

It was foreseeable that this was all going to end in tears.

The error lies deep within the ‘liberal’-wing of the Conservative party. On the one-hand they wanted to attract the Muslim vote; on the other they failed to see that loyalty to the Ummah trumps all others.

If only Cameron could study and practice the thoughts of great Conservatives such as William Pitt the Younger.

Then we would see a great British Prime Minister upon whose shoulders would be the government of this one great nation.

Still:

1. There will be a hung parliament;
2. Cameron will occupy an Assured Shorthold Tenancy;
3. the right-of-Centre will triumph in the ‘civil war’; and
4. the man whose name is written on the door of 10 Downing Street will emerge.

Bravo victor!

17 November 2009 at 10:01  
Blogger I am Stan said...

It is time that its commitment to our shared values – ‘belief in enterprise, in the sense of community, the belief in the family and in the value of hard work’ – was extended to include democracy, transparency, accountability, scrutiny and an advocacy of the British national interest.

Well said your Graceness...those are the very reasons my fathers family moved to these blessed shores.

Not to bring harsh and unyielding theocracy but to enjoy and prosper under freedoms and just laws...and I thank the heavens they did.

Cameron must set out his stall were their is no confusion..this is Britain and this is how we live...however votes are needed!

17 November 2009 at 10:36  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

17 November 2009 at 10:37  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, it appears that this Muslim forum has been high jacked by extreme elements. It is meat and drink to the labour party, as they have attempted to do so with the conservative allies in the EU Reichstag.

I fear that the Tories might be in for 1 term only. Even my ever-voting Conservative wife has worries and doubts about Cameron.

Oh yes we will all vote for him, but with very heavy hearts and really we are wanting to vote Brown and Labour out, not Cameron and Tories in. So even from solid Tories, the support, like the builder in the Bible, seems to be on the sand and not the rocks.

I would go so far to say that, as a fellow poster said, we need a Pitt (or a Churchill or a Thatcher) to lead the party now. Let us hope Cameron does come up to the post and demonstrates he can be one of those types of leader.

17 November 2009 at 10:40  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

Rebel Saint, just like there are no fundamentalist christians eh?

17 November 2009 at 10:59  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

It would appear that you have a Trojan Horse within the walls of Conservative HQ. Doubtless his brothers have been wheeled triumphantly into other bastions.

17 November 2009 at 11:08  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Cameron should show his mettle and abolish the organisation.

After all, 'Conservative Muslim Forum' could apply 100% to an organisation run by the Saudi Government.

Saudis are Conservative Muslims.

17 November 2009 at 11:16  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

Christian socialist: Fundementalist christians have not so far produced suicide bombers or flown planes into tall buildings.

17 November 2009 at 11:18  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

Terry Hamblin, so Christian Fundamentalists don't attack and do damage to abortion clincs then?

17 November 2009 at 11:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

My Lord Lavendon

Your vote is not in vain. The right-of-Centre met in Bellamy’s restaurant on 9 November to plan for the future.

Keeping ‘tight-lipped’ until the G.E. is in the bag.

17 November 2009 at 11:37  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Shssh!

17 November 2009 at 11:56  
Blogger Hank Petram said...

Keeping ‘tight-lipped’ until the G.E. is in the bag.

But there's six months still to go. What politician is capable of remaining tight-lipped for so long?

Mr. Singh, I am indebted to you for your help on the Dispatches thread last night. Thank you.

Hank

17 November 2009 at 12:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

The way forward for the Conservatives on this issue is to establish a Conservative Women's Muslim Forum.

They are the ones who are concerned about what their sons are getting up to.

The nutcases should be left to those who are going to be standing in Ken Livinstone's loafers.

Mr Petram, your welcome.

17 November 2009 at 12:52  
Anonymous Stewart Cowan said...

What a good lesson in why not to vote for the Tories (I no longer call them the Conservatives).

As far as I'm aware, the major aim of Islam is to conquer the world and enslave its people. So-called moderate Muslims aren't going to get in the way of the ones on a mission.

Will one party worth voting for stand up for Christian values and save civilisation as we know it?

17 November 2009 at 12:58  
Blogger Matt Wardman said...

It is worth reading Johan Hari's piece in yesterday's Independent on the subject of recanting Islamists:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/renouncing-islamism-to-the-brink-and-back-again-1821215.html

17 November 2009 at 13:14  
Anonymous Kwelos said...

"The term ‘terrorism’ must be separated from any religious references. We reiterate that the Conservative Party should not explicitly or implicitly link terrorism with Islam as, similar to other major religions, Islam forbids terrorism.’

... and yet Mohammed, the 'Perfect Man' and role-model for all Muslims said "I have been made victorious with terror"

See Taqiyya

17 November 2009 at 13:51  
Anonymous Hugh Burling said...

Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention, Your Grace. When I was Chairman of the Cambridge Uni Conservative Association the CMF contacted me to plug their events to members: I shall be advising my colleagues to start ignoring their e-mails henceforth!

17 November 2009 at 14:03  
Blogger Kenpachi said...

Yet another stealth-Jihad front group for Islamic supremacists, reaching positions of unimaginable influence, were it a sane world.

Yet again we are tasting the fruits of social engineering in the name of polictal correctness and multiculturalism.

"Christian" Socialist,

Since 9/11 the score is roughly 14396 to 0 for Muslims vs Christians, but who's counting? Actually these guys are,

www.thereligionofpeace.com

17 November 2009 at 14:13  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

I was merely pointing out that other religions have their extremes as well, what about the catholic backed IRA then?

17 November 2009 at 14:18  
Blogger Hank Petram said...

I was merely pointing out that other religions have their extremes as well, what about the catholic backed IRA then?

Ah yes, I remember it well. The Al-Eire terrorists crashing their hijacked De Havilland Comets into Windsor Castle with the bloodcurdling cry, "The Pope is great!"

17 November 2009 at 14:28  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

Hank Petram the IRA still murdered people, just different religion.

17 November 2009 at 14:33  
Blogger Hank Petram said...

The IRA murdered people in the name of the Catholic Church? Under orders from the Vatican? If you believe that, you're an even bigger fool than you look.

17 November 2009 at 14:48  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

If you cannot see me , how can I "look" like a fool ?

It does not matter who ordered it, it was done in the name of a certain religion and funded in part by so called Irish Americans.

I am simply pointing out that terrorists can use religion as a pretext for murder and terorist activities.

It goes without saying that the Muslim terrorists should be stopped and their ilk tried just as the Nazis were after WWII, with the appropriate death penalty.

17 November 2009 at 14:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘I am simply pointing out that terrorists can use religion as a pretext for murder and terorist activities.’

As can socialists:

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)

49-78,000,000

Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)

23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)

Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945)

12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)

Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)

1,700,000

Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)

1.6 million (purges and concentration camps)

Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987)

570,000

Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII)

300,000

17 November 2009 at 15:10  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘If you cannot see me, how can I "look" like a fool?’

‘A fool uttereth all his mind.’

Proverbs ch.29 v 11

17 November 2009 at 15:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D Singh, I would not disagree with you, it is terrible when people use ideology and religion to carry out mass murder. Just look at the Crusades and what the west did to the muslim world then.

17 November 2009 at 15:22  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Anon

Do you know what century you are living in?

Socialism, like lice, spreads from head to head.

It is a pestilence that must be eradicated.

17 November 2009 at 15:28  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

D Singh, oh I agree that mad and bad people will use anything to justify slaughter, which is of course terrible, whether it is the far right or the far left or killing in the name of religion.

It seems strange, but we really do agree on most matters. Yet you still hate me and try and imply that all socialists are like Stalin or all follow Marx, which I am afraid to say, if you took off your blinkers and used your Brain is not true.

But then the point of you as a character is to spice the debate up and get people ranting away on this blog isn't it?

17 November 2009 at 15:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D Singh, do you know what century you live in ?

17 November 2009 at 15:30  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

So D Singh, how are you going to eradicate socialists then?

17 November 2009 at 15:31  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘Yet you still hate me…’

Look kid. A man cannot live by hate.

Do us all a favour, read some Seneca; and why don’t you just go in peace the Guardian.

17 November 2009 at 15:33  
Anonymous Christian Socialist said...

D Singh, yes you are probably right. There is little chance of me being able to debate the issues of the day here, with people who are the opposite of what I believe in.... I shall be happier with a Guardian reader.

Good -bye!

17 November 2009 at 15:37  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'Good -bye!'

God be with you, kid.

17 November 2009 at 15:39  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Yo grace,

I agree with those commentators who see that any terrorist group will use any religion or parts of it`s texts to further their aims.

Religion is the glue that binds the fanatics together for one unholy purpose from crusades ,inquisition.to today...

For me they are plain and simple murderers their numbers are small but their impact is huge.

17 November 2009 at 15:57  
Blogger English Viking said...

My tu' penneth worth;

The atrocities carried out by the IRA were due to a disagreement over the allocation of land in one nation by another nation, and who was going to run that nation. That's always guaranteed to get things going.

The argument divided down religious lines, mainly because the Prods were in the part of the country that the Catlicks wanted.

No prods died as a result of their penchant for the ABofC. No Catlicks were killed because they venerated Mary. It was a fight over land.

'The Troubles' were not a religious war, carried out by devout Christians of differing denominations because of their doctrinal differences.

The Crusades were a legitimate response to the naked aggression the Muslims were displaying (and still do) in the Middle East to anyone who would not go along with their moon-worshipping idolatry. Just because they came off worst, we never stop hearing about the military history of over 800 years ago.

The death toll of the Spanish Inquisition was in the region of 1400, over many decades. About half the number of those slaughtered on 9/11.

What medieval religionists did in medieval times was, well... medieval. A pertinent question would be; Why is Islam the only 'religion' which has made absolutely zero progress from it's medieval brutality, and why do those most like to become the victim of it try and excuse it?

That might have been a Shilling's worth, so I'm off.

17 November 2009 at 16:31  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace is sensative to both sides of the argument , and I do not doubt that CGHQ would indeed pour its wrath upon anyone who quoted Enoch Powell, perhaps even Heroditus these days !.

D Singh is pragmatic that hate is not really is not usefull.

The conservatives are trying there best to offer a new approach within there party , and they would indeed be upset at a website churning out miltant islam as pro there thinking , in as much as militant islam is an obstruction to dialogue .

To put it mildly militant islam is running out of mental road , it offends the liberal and even the devout Blairists now .

It is funny that even the words "wreckless policy" seem to have politicians wishing for a change of subject, time will tell if it is the mines of moria ,where they dug so deep that they awoke the belroc .

17 November 2009 at 17:03  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

Rebel Saint - I would suggest to you, and to His Grace, that there are plenty of "moderate muslims" out there.

The problem is that there is no such thing as "moderate islam" (I fear I cannot bring myself to give the word islam a capital letter, but, then I always spell the eu in lower case, too. A tiny victory, sad, I know, but it brings happiness even so)

17 November 2009 at 17:23  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

A frivolous comment I know, but I still don't really like the new Tory logo. Why can't we go back to the good old torch? Or even better have the Union flag as the logo?

[Clearly Labour would have a fit about this, but they could change their logo to a red version of the EU flag- as they are the traitors who have surrendered us to Brussels]

17 November 2009 at 17:36  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Old Grumpy,

His Grace is perfectly well aware of the millions of perfectly normal, reasonable, rational or 'moderate' Muslims that exist. He has never suggested otherwise.

17 November 2009 at 17:54  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Your Grace is right, it is only a minority who preach the islamic fundamentalism. I am shocked by the sheer ignorance of people who just do not understand the Islamic faith (I am a Jewish Christian convert, so I know quite a bit about what it means to lose something and to gain it).

17 November 2009 at 19:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D Singh is very quiet? Is he perhaps gloating over his victory with Christian Socialist ?

17 November 2009 at 19:24  
Blogger English Viking said...

Bag Lady,

I, amongst others, are tired of hearing about the 'tiny minority' of Islamic fundamentalists (with the emphasis on mental). There are estimated to be 1,000,000,000 muslims in the world today. If just 1 % of them are extremists (a more than generous under-estimate) 10,000,000 of them are just waiting to blow you up.

To put that into context, imagine every single person now alive in Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland. Imagine every last single one of them is intent on 'world domination', by any means. Imagine them all to be be-headers, suicide bombers, hijackers, terrorists. Imagine all the 'moderates' who will jump ship once the fundamentalists hit their stride.

If you genuinely believe that Islam and ANY other form of religion or government can co-exist, I think you've got Stockholm Syndrome.

17 November 2009 at 20:19  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

So then Mr English Viking (goodness me people said Christian Socialist was an oxymoron) what is your solution ? Try and do what Hitler did to my people and gas every single Muslim out there , put them into camps? Do you not realise that people were saying the same things about 'the jew' in Germany before 1933? In fact I don't want to know .Keep your BNP views to yourself.

Oh- and I am waiting for people to hound me out like you did with the young christian socialist- but unlike him I have seen enough of this world to never give up, so do your worst.

17 November 2009 at 20:28  
Anonymous Deutscher Faschist stützt englischen Wikinger said...

English Viking, I agree with you.

17 November 2009 at 20:50  
Anonymous Христианский социалист said...

Если вы можете понять это, то вы нет всех ханжей

17 November 2009 at 21:11  
Blogger English Viking said...

Ahh, your mocking strengthens me.

I assume you are unaware of the Viking invasions if you think it not possible to be both English and Viking at the same time - Google 'Rape and Pillage'.

Comparisons with Nazi Germany ( Mr Godwin, anyone?) are most apt in this discussion. Nazi = muslim. National Socialism = Islam.

I hound no one, so why say I do? Perhaps to brand me the belligerent, the BNP supporter, the knuckle-dragger? No evidence required, no trial, just call him Nazi and he'll go away... well I'm still here.

As a Jewess, you really ought to know better. Wake up and smell the coffee, before the odour is replaced with rotting corpses.

17 November 2009 at 21:41  
Blogger English Viking said...

Bag Lady = Deutscher Faschist stutz Englishen (with a capital 'E', if you please) Wikinger (and a 'W');

@Sie shienen, Stockholm-Syndrom zu haben!

Two can play at that game.

17 November 2009 at 21:57  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

I see that we now have a Russia 'Christian Socialist' posting, if post 21.11 is anything to go by (like English Viking and Bag Lady, I do also have a grasp of a few foreign tongues).

So 3 can play at that game!

17 November 2009 at 23:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

English Viking @21:57
I don't think that Bag Lady has Stockholm sydrome.
The Nazis blamed the recession on Jewish people, as a pretext to stigmatise Jews then persecute and kill them. Also to bring in a totalitarian state which also attacked other groups including dissidents and those not deemed perfect like those with physical and mental illnesses. Also the gypsies,?Jehovas Witnesses? and homosexuals were abused (if I have forgotten a group, I apologise).

Stockholm syndrome is where a victim falls in love with the perpetrator(s), excusing and enabling any bad behavior of the perpetrator(s). The "bad" one(s) on whom the victim depends become perfectly "good" in the eyes of the victim.

I think that the term "Islamic extremism" has been used by some as a pretext for building up state control. It is not the only one. Falsely demonising all Muslims as potential Jihadis is similar to falsely demonising all Jews or any other group. It does not help to stop terror attacks, it creates an unnecessarily large haystack and also increases injustices against law-abiding Muslims.
Ditto looking for crime by criminalising everyone(guilty until proven innocent) and abusing the public's distaste of paedophilia and their wish to protect children. Ditto climate change and "protecting the vulnerable". What will be next?

17 November 2009 at 23:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Lord Lavendon speaks Russian then? Perhaps he is also a Soviet labour spy? I agree with Viking, we need to deal with the Islam-terror threat. It is 5 th column.

17 November 2009 at 23:47  
Blogger Owl said...

I would like to suggest that the time for the Islam reformation is long overdue. The trouble seems to be that the Islamic world is already so splintered that a modern islamic Luther would not know who to give his 95 theses to.
The reformation stopped the stranglehold of dogma as a means of controlling thought. In the twelf century, Islam replaced thought by dogma and soon lost their precedence in the scientific and medical world.
Just a quick word concerning the previous discussion. The IRA and the problems in Ireland had very little to do with religion. It was, and still is, about power and religion just got misused as an excuse to keep control by any means. I might also add that some of the more prominent historical leaders of nationalistic Irishmen were protestants (Wolfe Tone, Robert Emett etc.).
Any comparison with militant Muslims is completely irrelevant as I don't think the IRA was ever trying to convert anyone to catholicism or force women to wear a tent.

18 November 2009 at 00:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘D Singh is very quiet? Is he perhaps gloating over his victory with Christian Socialist ?’

Anon

I think it was the Duke of Wellington who said after the Battle of Waterloo as he surveyed the carnage: ‘Next to a battle won is a battle lost.’

I lost.

18 November 2009 at 08:01  
Blogger D. Singh said...

My apologies:

'Next to a battle lost, is a battle won.'

The Lord corrects all those whom he loves.

18 November 2009 at 08:17  
Blogger Kenpachi said...

Christian Socialist,

Apologies for the late reply, but i've only just managed to pick up my jaw again. You see, it hit the floor rather hard when you made a moral equivalence argument, in which you compare nearly 15,000 seperate and horrific instances of human slaughter by Islamic supremacists with one or two cases of Christians vandalising a centre for infanticide.

Where is your moral compass man? His Grace posted something like this a while ago:

"There is no right or wrong anymore, everything is relative."

You have shown that to be completely true.

18 November 2009 at 09:05  
Blogger English Viking said...

Anonymous,

The problem with your comparison with the Nazi Government blaming all ills on the Jews and today's Government do the same with Islamic Extremists is that the Nazi's were lying, the Jews were not troublemakers, the Islamists most certainly are.

The Jews do not want to cut off your head if you disagree with them, a significant amount of muslims in our own country DO. If you don't believe me, research the dancing in the streets, quite literally, that occurred in parts of Birmingham on 9/11.

Perhaps Bag-Lady would like to travel to the capital of Islam, Mecca (or Medina, depends on which sect you're into) and espouse her love of all things Islamic. Oh dear, I forgot, 'No Jews Allowed', on pain of death. Sound familiar?

18 November 2009 at 12:12  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"The term ‘terrorism’ must be separated from any religious references. We reiterate that the Conservative Party should not explicitly or implicitly link terrorism with Islam as, similar to other major religions, Islam forbids terrorism.’

I would agree that not all muslims are terrorists, however they should take note that all islamic terrorists are muslim.

With regards to D Singh trotting out the old religious argument for slagging off the atheists by naming a string of dictators.

All the people you mention killed to take power. None of them killed in the name of atheism.

They were maniacs who were atheists.

And Hitler was a Christian. People often make the claim that Adolph Hitler adhered to Atheism, Humanism or some ancient Nordic pagan mythology. None of these fanciful and wrong ideas hold. He justified his fight for the German people and against Jews by using Godly and Biblical reasoning. Indeed, one of his most revealing statements makes this quite clear:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Being an atheist and killing someone does not equate to killing someone in the name of atheism.

If a man who was christian found his wife sleeping with another man, and shot that man, did he kill him in the name of Christianity? No, he had other reasons for killing that man. His religion had nothing to do with it.

18 November 2009 at 13:55  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"The term ‘terrorism’ must be separated from any religious references. We reiterate that the Conservative Party should not explicitly or implicitly link terrorism with Islam as, similar to other major religions, Islam forbids terrorism.’

I would agree that not all muslims are terrorists, however they should take note that all islamic terrorists are muslim.

With regards to D Singh trotting out the old religious argument for slagging off the atheists by naming a string of dictators.

All the people you mention killed to take power. None of them killed in the name of atheism.

They were maniacs who were atheists.

And Hitler was a Christian. People often make the claim that Adolph Hitler adhered to Atheism, Humanism or some ancient Nordic pagan mythology. None of these fanciful and wrong ideas hold. He justified his fight for the German people and against Jews by using Godly and Biblical reasoning. Indeed, one of his most revealing statements makes this quite clear:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Being an atheist and killing someone does not equate to killing someone in the name of atheism.

If a man who was christian found his wife sleeping with another man, and shot that man, did he kill him in the name of Christianity? No, he had other reasons for killing that man. His religion had nothing to do with it.

18 November 2009 at 13:56  
Blogger D. Singh said...

"If God is not, everything is permitted."

Dostoyevsky

18 November 2009 at 14:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'The poverty of the atheist argument becomes clear with a bit of examination. What does it prove to say that Hitler was raised Catholic? Stalin was raised in the Orthodox Church. Mao was raised as a Buddhist. Lots of people repudiate their religious upbringing. Hitler vehemently rejected the traditional Christianity in which he was raised. During the period of his ascent to power, he needed the support of the German people — mostly Christian, mostly Lutheran — and he occasionally used boilerplate rhetoric such as “I am doing the Lord’s work” to try and secure this. This rhetoric, it should be noted, is a commonplace rhetorical device among atheist writers. Nietzsche, for instance, regularly compared himself to Jesus, even titling one of his books Ecce Homo (“behold the man,” a biblical reference to Christ). But no intelligent reader of Nietzsche can doubt that he was a rabid atheist, as was Hitler. One should not confuse political opportunism with personal conviction. Not surprisingly, Hitler invoked Christ’s death at the hands of the Jews in order to solicit Christian support for his (secular and racial, not religious) anti-Semitic agenda.'

D. D'Souza

18 November 2009 at 15:18  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

It would be nice if you replied to points by your own hand instead of continually quoting others.

The point I make still stands, these men did not carry out their attrocities in the name of a lack of belief in a god.

Thier crimes were not carried out in the name of atheism. You may as well suggest that as Stalin and Hitler had moustache then their crimes were carried out in order to further the cause of having a hairy top lip.

Where as religious attrocities that have been carried out over the centuries are most definately carried out in the name of religion when the religion itself is so readily trotted out as the reasoning behind it.

18 November 2009 at 17:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Glovner

Communism and its variants are explicitly atheistic.

It is your philosophy, supported by the standard reading of history, that is murderous.

Your god Glovner is 'Glovner'. You can do anything you like.

On the basis of atheism it does not matter if you kill or don't kill someone.

It does not matter if you believe or don't believe that the sun may rise or not rise tomorrow.

If you believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow - then you believe it on the basis of faith in the god 'Glovner'.

18 November 2009 at 17:22  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

English Viking, you misunderstand me . I am not about to convert to the religion of peace nor would I ever want to turn UK into a Mecca. I just wanted to 'test the waters' and see how you would argue your case.

I would point out some good matters with the muslims- e.g. curry (although even there standards seem to have slipped. I was in the Midlands in September and had my food practically thrown at me- only later did I realise there had been race riots in Brum).

18 November 2009 at 20:07  
Blogger English Viking said...

Bag Lady,

Were the race riots of which you speak started by a 'tiny minority'?

18 November 2009 at 22:05  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Mr English Viking.

No idea- strange thing was this was in leafy Lichfield , which is the tory end of the west midlands.

18 November 2009 at 22:16  
Blogger English Viking said...

Bag Lady,

Lichfield?

Not the very same city that the residents of which are opposing the construction of a 'Mega-Mosque'?

Who'd a thunk it?

19 November 2009 at 00:25  
Blogger English Viking said...

Bag Lady,

P.S. Lichfield is East Midlands, not West Midlands. I should know, I've lived about 30 minutes away from it in the past.

In fact many, many years ago I bought the engagement ring I needed to fool my wife into marrying me from a jeweler in Lichfield.

The Islamic domination of this city is precipitated by the destruction of Burton on Trent, a very large town (bigger than Lichfield, in fact) located about 12 miles away from Lichfield.

Burton on Trent was the Town in which the Police were forced to close one of the local Mosques, because of a riot which started outside. It has been proven in a court of law to have been caused by a serving, uniformed Police Officer. Guess which religion this Officer was an adherent of.

That 'tiny minority' doesn't look so tiny if one considers all the facts, does it?

19 November 2009 at 00:40  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Absolute nonsense Mr D. Singh.

Where all Communists may be Atheists not all Atheists are Communists.

Atheism is not a belief structure, it does instruct you to act a certain way it just requires that you lack any belief in a god.

You can argue that all you want with your messy logic but that is the facts on being atheistic.

All these groups that you mention done the things they done for political gain, not for furthering the cause of atheism (of which I am not aware there is one).

The same can not be said for attrocities carried out over the centuries in the name of whatever particular religion supported each one.

"Your god Glovner is 'Glovner'. You can do anything you like.

On the basis of atheism it does not matter if you kill or don't kill someone."

Correct in some sense that on the basis of atheism it does not matter if you kill or don't kill someone. But again I refer you to my previous point. Athiesim is not a belief structure that requires "believers" to act in a certain way. It is merely a label to show that you lack any belief in any gods.

However my in built humanity tells me that I shouldn't kill people as it isn't beneficial to them, myself or the general population. However I aslo accept that killing in some circumstances would be the preferable option. This is a grey area though and would require a lot more room than would be available here to discuss it. At the end of the day I won't kill people because I choose not to (nothing to do with atheistic tendencies), you however wouldn't kill out of seeking reward after you die and fear of what would happen if you did.

I make the choice, you do it through fear and obedience, who is the better person really?

"If you believe that the sun is going to rise tomorrow - then you believe it on the basis of faith in the god 'Glovner'."

Wrong again, if I believe the sun is going to rise tomorrow then I believe on the basis of evidence.

Namely that since I have been alive (and to my knowledge, ever single day before I was alive as far back as we are aware) the sun did not fail to rise.

If however the sun failed to rise tomorrow then my "belief" would have to change and a different theory proposed based on the new evidence.

You however, given the same situation, would firmly plug your fingers deep in your ears, screw your eyes tightly shut and scream "I can't see that the sun did not rise, therefore the sun must rise, because I blindly believe it".

19 November 2009 at 09:45  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Glovner,

You have made an unscientific statement:'Namely that since I have been alive (and to my knowledge, ever single day before I was alive as far back as we are aware) the sun did not fail to rise.'

The sun as scientists state: was not always there.

19 November 2009 at 10:06  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Lichfield is in Staffordshire, 10 Miles North of Birmingham and has a massive cathederal in its own right. I would not call that east midland (which is Leicester, Northants, Notts ,Derbys) . Plus all the accents were tyical west midlands/Birmnigham. If they were east midlanders I'm the pope !

19 November 2009 at 10:40  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"The sun as scientists state: was not always there."

I see your usual method is being applied yet again.

Let us just ignore everything else that was in the post and nit pick on one basic thing, even though (I believe you are anyway, apologies if you are not) you are intelligent enough to understand the point that is being made.

But since you want to be like that I will spell it out for you once again, hopefully clearer for tyou this time, which should allow you to actually answer the point of the posting rather than focusing on ommissions which (for most people) wouldn't have to be present for you to understand the post.

Yes the sun was not always there. But since there has been a sun, and our solar systems planets have orbited around said sun, then as far as I am aware (based on my personal evidence and other peoples eye witness throughout history. Although people haven't documented daily that the sun did rise this morning I would assume that had the sun failed to rise at some point in the past this would surely have been well documented) the sun has continued to rise.

Given this, and provided that the sun and the solar system continue to exist, along with the cosmilogical laws which govern the objects movment through space due to gravatational pull exerted on them by each other, then I will continue to "believe" based on the available evidence and documented theories written based on this evidence that the sun will continue to rise(metaphorically speaking of course, as the sun does not phyiscally "rise" but this is just how we percive the event from our vantage point on the planet's surface). If of course the sun fails to rise and I witness it then this change will have to be taken into account within the available theories based on the evidence up to that point in time and altered to allow for this new hypothetical evidence.

I assume you will now take issue at something in this and still completely ignore the point I made which (I believe) answered the statment you made concerning dictators (some of them communist) and the role atheisim played on their actions. But that's fine, it say more about you with childish playground debating tactics than it ever will about me.

19 November 2009 at 11:01  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Glovner

Although the sun did rise on a particular day, it is documented:

'I will make the shadow cast by the sun go back the ten steps it has gone down on the stairway of Ahaz.' " So the sunlight went back the ten steps it had gone down.'

Isaiah 38:8

Now I invite you to change your general hypothesis! Please.

19 November 2009 at 13:05  
Blogger D. Singh said...

I've won! I've won I've won!

A laurel wreath for Mr Synge, please!

19 November 2009 at 13:06  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

And so we once again see the level of your debate, reasoning and logic.

The points you raised were answered and you can do nothing more than sink to your usual level.

Every point you raise D. Singh is laughable at the very best and I have grown tired of you.

Your debating tactics are childish and I sometimes wonder of you real age.

But regardless of your age you probably sit at your computer composing your illogical rants with a permanent google window open in order to find quotes from others to save answering yourself.

You continually deflect the deabte away from the real issues when you cannot answer the points raised. You make statments of fact for which you can never offer any proof.

I would not be at all surprised that after reading this you jump up from your chair with a look of glee over your face sure that deep down inside you have won and that it has made your existence seem a little more worthwile (even though my walking away from this does not constitute any win or loss for anyone i'm quite sure that is how you will see it).

Good day.

19 November 2009 at 13:22  
Anonymous Adrian Peirson said...

Much as I do not want Islam to rake over Europe, I for one do not believe that Muslims carried out 9-11 or 7-7.....the world is much more complex and we are all being worked, now who would like to see Christianity and Islam Clash.

Christmas Wishes

22 November 2009 at 20:50  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older