Thursday, November 25, 2010

On burning the Qur'an and desecrating the Bible


It is widely reported (at least by the BBC and The Daily Mail and the New Statesman) that a 15-year-old girl has been arrested on suspicion of 'inciting religious hatred' for burning a copy of the Qur'an.

Yes, a 15-year-old girl: a child.

Contrast the response of the police over this girl's decision to burn a copy of the Qur'an with their complete indifference to the decision taken by Glasgow's Gallery of Modern Art to desecrate the Bible.

The response to that 'exhibit' was measured, but the offence to many Christians was no less palpable.

Yet the state permits freedom of artistic expression, and the Bible is considered fair game. One cannot coerce the non-believer to revere that to which he or she is completely indifferent and, in an increasingly post-Christian and secular context, the Bible is perhaps no different to the Conservative Party's last manifesto.

They vie equally in a public library for the bottom shelf.

But Cathrerine Heseltine of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee reminds us that the burning of the Qur'an is one of the most offensive acts to Muslims that she could imagine. She said: "The Qur'an is the most sacred thing to over a billion Muslims worldwide. You can see that in the way Muslims treat the Qur'an - washing before touching it and in many Muslim homes you will find it on the top shelf above all other books. We will never destroy the quranic texts. We believe it is the word of God. God’s guidance for us in this life."

And so in public libraries it must sit on the top shelf.

Even though not everyone agrees that it is 'God's guidance' on any matter whatsoever.

His Grace has said many times that he is not one to condone the burning of books; that is, unless he is cold and has run out of logs. And he certainly would never condone causing gratuitous offence.

But there is an emerging state coercion here which is moving perilously close to the need for an 'I am Spartacus' moment: not, in any sense, to cause offence to Muslims; but to stick two fingers up to the ubiquitous, illiberal totalitarianism which denies freedom of expression by negating the right to offend against the supposed sensibilities of minorities. The doctrine of the state is compelling respect and enforcing reverence for that which the majority may consider profane. That is not only an offence against democracy: it is an offence against the conscience and a negation of the religious liberties for which (inter alia) His Grace laid down his life.

100 Comments:

Blogger Phil Taylor said...

You do realise that after previous comments this week this doesn't really ring true.

That said, I agree with you that the actions of burning books that religions hold to be sacred is nothing short of idiotic. I will be interested to find out why the teenager decided to do it.

2 thoughts occur to me:
1 - What about the right of all to express themselves, whether it's by living their faith or burning books? Is stopping someone from burning the Koran or Bible actually an inhibition of their human rights?
2 - Why can't it be the celebrity atheists that do this? And why can't they go do it in Iran or Saudi Arabia?

25 November 2010 at 19:39  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"You do realise that after previous comments this week this doesn't really ring true"

'Ring true'?

To what precisely are you alluding?

You're surely not so obtuse as to somehow be attempting to link this with the fate of +Pete?

No, surely not.

25 November 2010 at 19:49  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Phil Taylor "Why can't it be the celebrity atheists that do this?"

Because ultimately they don't have enough conviction to lay down their lives for anything ... unless Gert Wilders is an atheist?

25 November 2010 at 19:58  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

Are we surprised it is the West Midlands Police force behind this? They have form.

25 November 2010 at 20:07  
Anonymous len said...

How totally illogical to accuse someone of 'inciting religious hatred' by burning the Koran when the Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with non believers.
Does no one see the irony or the injustice?

25 November 2010 at 20:18  
Blogger cymraeg said...

Whatever the advisability /idiocy of burning books, it is surely a step in the right direction to merely burn the written text of any religion, rather than reinstate the auto da fe!

25 November 2010 at 20:29  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Cranmer observes:
"But there is an emerging state coercion here...... that is not only an offence against democracy: it is an offence against the conscience and a negation of the religious liberties for which (inter alia) His Grace laid down his life.

Very good comment Cranmer and you have set out the primary principles, namely
1. Coercion by the State over a private matter of conscience. It is unacceptable.

2. Liberty of the individual to express an opinion, whether by a symbolic act of destruction in this case, or by any other means, notwithstanding "offence" that may be caused.

3. The right under our Common Law (an extremely important principle) that all acts or words are allowed as long as they are not prohibited, that is, does not infringe (English/British) Statue Law, or is the cause of actual harm to another person.

4."His Grace laid down his life" for religious liberty. Indeed our historic Cranmer did do so, and with countless other Martyrs who died in the flames at the stake for the sake of conscience and religious liberty, and not least too was the same principle held as precious by many thousands who laid down their lives in 2 world wars to preserve freedom and democracy.
These, these, are what our contemptible politicians count as trivial, unimportant, and to be subject to their new totalitarianism. Again. Unacceptable.

There is one other point. Whilst opinions will differ about the wisdom or otherwise of any 'book burning' - it is a matter of small consequence when compared to the far greater issue of the freedom of the individual about which you, Cranmer rightly and passionately object to. I and countless other Brits share that conviction.

Lastly, there is the small matter of property rights If the copy of the Koran in question belonged to the young girl, then it is not the business of the State, or of self appointed clerics, Mullahs, atheists, or anybody else to interfere. It is a matter of private judgment.
She was free to do what she would with her own property. That, as you infer Cranmer, is the very essence of democratic freedom and expression.
An actual burning of the EU flag (rag) took place in the UK earlier this week by some activists, which too was certainly a symbolic act of defiance against the usurped "authority" of the EU. The act may have "offended" someone. So? What is the difference in principle between the one act and the other?
I suspect that many angry young Irish protestors on the streets of Dublin may well burn one or more EU flags on Saturday as they gather on the streets this week-end to vent their fury against their own brand of treacherous Irish politicians. Will the Garda arrest them for an 'offensive' act? I very much doubt it.

25 November 2010 at 20:54  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

If Monday’s Panorama is to be believed, there are textbooks in Muslim schools around the country that incite religious hatred of non-Muslims. Why no action by the police in those cases?

In the Land of the Free, a man who burned pages of the Qur’an near Ground Zero was sacked from his job, to the delight of the state governor.

With the authorities on both sides of the Atlantic in Muslim-friendly mode, Islam’s triumph is assured.

25 November 2010 at 20:56  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Cranmer observes:
"But there is an emerging state coercion here...... that is not only an offence against democracy: it is an offence against the conscience and a negation of the religious liberties for which (inter alia) His Grace laid down his life.

Very good comment Cranmer and you have set out the primary principles, namely
1. Coercion by the State over a private matter of conscience. It is unacceptable.

2. Liberty of the individual to express an opinion, whether by a symbolic act of destruction in this case, or by any other means, notwithstanding "offence" that may be caused.

3. The right under our Common Law (an extremely important principle) that all acts or words are allowed as long as they are not prohibited, that is, does not infringe (English/British) Statue Law, or is the cause of actual harm to another person.

4."His Grace laid down his life" for religious liberty. Indeed our historic Cranmer did do so, and with countless other Martyrs who died in the flames at the stake for the sake of conscience and religious liberty, and not least too was the same principle held as precious by many thousands who laid down their lives in 2 world wars to preserve freedom and democracy.
These, these, are what our contemptible politicians count as trivial, unimportant, and to be subject to their new totalitarianism. Again. Unacceptable.

There is one other point. Whilst opinions will differ about the wisdom or otherwise of any 'book burning' - it is a matter of small consequence when compared to the far greater issue of the freedom of the individual about which you, Cranmer rightly and passionately object to. I and countless other Brits share that conviction.
If the copy of the Koran in question belonged to her, then it is not the business of the State, self appointed clerics, Mullahs, atheists, or anybody else to interfere. She exercised her right of private judgment with her own property
As you infer, that is the very essence of democratic freedom and expression.
An actual burning of the EU flag (rag) took place in the UK earlier this week by some activists, which too was certainly a symbolic act of defiance against the usurped "authority" of the EU. The act may have "offended" someone. So? What is the difference in principle between the one act and the other?
I suspect that many angry young Irish protestors on the streets of Dublin may well burn one or more EU flags on Saturday as they gather on the streets this week-end to vent their fury against their own brand of treacherous Irish politicians. Will the Garda arrest them for an 'offensive' act? I very much doubt it.

25 November 2010 at 20:57  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Cranmer observes:
"But there is an emerging state coercion here...... that is not only an offence against democracy: it is an offence against the conscience and a negation of the religious liberties for which (inter alia) His Grace laid down his life.

Very good comment Cranmer and you have set out the primary principles, namely
1. Coercion by the State over a private matter of conscience. It is unacceptable.

2. Liberty of the individual to express an opinion, whether by a symbolic act of destruction in this case, or by any other means, notwithstanding "offence" that may be caused.

3. The right under our Common Law (an extremely important principle) that all acts or words are allowed as long as they are not prohibited, that is, does not infringe (English/British) Statue Law, or is the cause of actual harm to another person.

4."His Grace laid down his life" for religious liberty. Indeed our historic Cranmer did do so, and with countless other Martyrs who died in the flames at the stake for the sake of conscience and religious liberty, and not least too was the same principle held as precious by many thousands who laid down their lives in 2 world wars to preserve freedom and democracy.
These, these, are what our contemptible politicians count as trivial, unimportant, and to be subject to their new totalitarianism. Again. Unacceptable.

There is one other point. Whilst opinions will differ about the wisdom or otherwise of any 'book burning' - it is a matter of small consequence when compared to the far greater issue of the freedom of the individual about which you, Cranmer rightly and passionately object to. I and countless other Brits share that conviction.

Lastly, there is the small matter of property rights If the copy of the Koran in question belonged to the young girl, then it is not the business of the State, or of self appointed clerics, Mullahs, atheists, or anybody else to interfere. It is a matter of private judgment.
She was free to do what she would with her own property. That, as you infer Cranmer, is the very essence of democratic freedom and expression.
An actual burning of the EU flag (rag) took place in the UK earlier this week by some activists, which too was certainly a symbolic act of defiance against the usurped "authority" of the EU. The act may have "offended" someone. So? What is the difference in principle between the one act and the other?

25 November 2010 at 20:58  
Anonymous graham said...

Very good comment Cranmer and you have set out the primary principles, namely
1. Coercion by the State over a private matter of conscience. It is unacceptable.
2. Liberty of the individual to express an opinion, whether by a symbolic act of destruction in this case, or by any other means, notwithstanding "offence" that may be caused.
3. The right under our Common Law (an extremely important principle) that all acts or words are allowed as long as they are not prohibited, that is, does not infringe (English/British) Statue Law, or is the cause of actual harm to another person.
4."His Grace laid down his life" for religious liberty. Indeed our historic Cranmer did do so, and with countless other Martyrs who died in the flames at the stake for the sake of conscience and religious liberty.
These, these, are what our contemptible politicians count as trivial, unimportant, and to be subject to their new totalitarianism. Again. Unacceptable.

There is one other point. What about her property rights (if indeed the book belonged to her)?

25 November 2010 at 21:01  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Sorry for the triple comment - the automata rejected, hiccuped, then gulped thrice!

25 November 2010 at 21:02  
Anonymous Petronius said...

In a way, we should not be at all surprised to see the forces of the State favouring other religions while subtly denigrating Christianity. Christ told us to expect no less from the world in our individual lives, after all. So it's all to be expected. "T'was ever thus", as a poet might say.

But how should the Christian respond to this depressing state of public affairs, in our dealings with the state? By vociferously protesting and demanding our "rights"? My opinion is "no", not quite in that way. If we see that our lives belong to the Lord, that we have been bought and paid for by Christ's death and resurrection, and that we are His, and no longer the world's (or even our own) property, then our response should be to quietly offer ourselves and our lives to the Lord, and let Him use us for whatever purpose He desires in this world.
(Nice words, I know! The reality is far more difficult, and I fail as much as anyone in living my life in such a way, to my dismay).

100 years ago in Britain, the Church held a huge sway over people's behaviour and customs. But sometimes I think, was this just a case of paying lip-service to God, while our hearts were far from Him? Perhaps now that the Church's "social influence" has largely gone, the more natural order (the "world" against the "church") has reasserted itself? Maybe that's not such a bad thing, on reflection? When the State was ostensibly Christian on the surface, perhaps the Gospel actually suffered as a result? (If you see what I'm getting at). Church revival has usually been at its strongest in countries where the State is vehemently and openly anti-Christian (ie, communist states). It sorts the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

25 November 2010 at 21:03  
Blogger Dick the Prick said...

Your Grace

Hope you & yours are well.

Yeah, know what you're saying but i'm incredibly guilty of desecrating the bible as is my best chum as a 15 year old kid. I'm not sure we can take this isolated incident of utter police stupidity and contrast it with Muslim sensibilities.


As a non practising Muslim any discussion regarding their religion is a bit of a waste of time so fair do's this girl needs bollocking by her teachers. I genuinely do think it's important not to burn any other religion's book just out of principle but i'll happily write notes in the margins in bibles, grafitti them, tear bits out and keep 'em, burn it, stuff it under a wonky table etc. It's my book and comes in very useful. Hmm..writing of such has just made me realise might not have one in the house. Fail.

Yup, lass deserves a bollokin' although it is getting chilly.

How long before 'eine reich, eine volk, an fuhrer' comes up tonight on Question Time? Interwebby sweepstake - 8 minutes.

Cheers

DtP

25 November 2010 at 21:53  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

Dhimwits rule!

25 November 2010 at 22:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We live in an inverted democracy where politicians resign because they upset journalists (0.01% of the population), homosexuality is mandatory, (or so it seems), (1% of the population, islam is to be respected (3% of the population) and christianity is to be ignored (70% of the population).

Maybe everyone should kneel to me, a minority of one?

25 November 2010 at 22:08  
Anonymous Gerard Tibercross said...

Your Grace

As you so properly remarked, this heavy handed action against a child "is an offence against the conscience and a negation of the religious liberties for which (inter alia) His Grace laid down his life."

What hacks me is that it is the wrong offence. Burning a Quran does not incite racial/religious hatred. It is an expression of opinion, protected by - Your Grace, hold your breath here - the Human Rights Act 1998 which protects freedom of speech. It may well amount to conduct liable to cause a breach of the peace, and I should be delighted to be involved in a case which decided whether or not such an offence can be committed over the net, and if so, the extent to which such an expression of opinion is protected by HRA 1998.

Gerard Tibercross

25 November 2010 at 22:09  
Anonymous Sam Vega said...

"And so in public libraries it must sit on the top shelf."

What would the liberal state do if a Muslim of restricted growth complained about not being able to reach a Qur'an on the top library shelf? Which principle would win?

25 November 2010 at 22:41  
Anonymous judith said...

Orthodox Jews also have rules about their holy books, which may not be destroyed - one wonders what would have happened had the girl been caught burning a Sefer Torah?

25 November 2010 at 22:43  
Anonymous TheDarkside said...

109 verses Len? You read the Koran? How about the Bible?

25 November 2010 at 23:15  
Anonymous TheDarkside said...

Raping And Killing

"Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished." (Isaiah 13:15-16)

Read the Koran, it's full of them.

25 November 2010 at 23:21  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Gerard Tibercross (22:09)—It may be that the freedom of expression protected by the Human Rights Act is negated by the EU’s Framework decision on combating racism and xenophobia.

One of the definitions of ‘racism and xenophobia’ given in the document is ‘public incitement to violence or hatred directed against a group of persons or a member of such a group defined on the basis of race, colour, descent, religion or belief, or national or ethnic origin’ [my emphasis].

25 November 2010 at 23:23  
Blogger srizals said...

Len, 109 verses? Are you willing to back it up?

25 November 2010 at 23:29  
Blogger srizals said...

Johnny, A feeling of anxiety would lead to hatred, hatred would lead to social unrest, social unrest would lead to anarchy, anarchy would lead to more freedom to kill and maim, I could go on forever.

25 November 2010 at 23:31  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (23:31)—If Muslims in Europe have anxieties about free speech, they should move to another continent. Why should we give up our freedom to say what we like just to accommodate Muslims?

25 November 2010 at 23:51  
Blogger Phil Taylor said...

Your Grace, yes in respect of the issue you raise about freedom of speech. Here you speak in favour of it, yet in the other discussion you were in favour of curtailing it. You can't have it both ways.
That said, I am in agreement with you on this particular issue you have raised. Just figured I'd call you to account based on prior comments you made.

26 November 2010 at 00:07  
Blogger pounce_uk said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 November 2010 at 00:32  
Blogger pounce_uk said...

There's more to this story than meets the eye. The news media reports that it was an English translation of the koran that the girl burnt and that afterwards the organisation that handed out said korans visited the school concerned.(At a British school?) So the question I would liked asked is just who is this org that is handing out korans in British schools and why are they being allowed to do so?

26 November 2010 at 00:36  
Blogger pounce_uk said...

The organisation the bBC use in which to get a so called Islamic perspective is the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK) its website is one of the most anti-semantic orgs going. Have a butchers at its website. So on that note how many times have the bBC brought on the odious EDL or the British nazis party in which to defend the Bible?
Same right wing thugs just different sides of the same coin.

26 November 2010 at 00:40  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

len said...
How totally illogical to accuse someone of 'inciting religious hatred' by burning the Koran when the Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with non believers.
Does no one see the irony or the injustice?

25 November 2010 20:18

Dear Len,yes it is illogical, but as we both know, when did logic have anything to do with mindless violence for any reason whatsoever?

Please don't be fooled, ordinary people are not intrinsically violent, they are intrinsically loving and caring on both an individual and collective level.

Please be reminded PEOPLE ARE GOOD. We are designed in our creators image as well as bestowed with his nature.


We are very much like our creator, easy to anger when we perceive injustice, or pointless suffering. We are all human beings, and therefore innately relate to the suffering of others.(Unfortunately this trait also makes us only too easy to manipulate into pointlessly destructive violence.)

This is the human condition, and has long since been the case.

We have a big problem. This problem is most paradoxically known as CIVILIZATION.

A classical as well as a modern civilization is defined by its pyramid structure of command and above all CONTROL.

A pyramid has a point at the very top, on which only one may appear, as well as actually sit.

Are you beginning to get the point?

Ok, maybe this will help somewhat.

In order to build and then retain this pyramid, the people at or close to the top must divert the people from there envious sight.

Therefore they largely become anonymous, if they have any sense, get their bishops to tell us that GOD is at the top, and that they are only his obedient servants. More fool us for believing this well tried and tested deception. But there again being a fool is the a perfectly common, as well as desirable thing to be.

Hence established RELIGION, and why it has been directly or more usually otherwise responsible for every war (cold or otherwise) currently known to mankind.

The inescapable conclusion is therefore this;

We are peaceful, only the various pyramid systems we ALL live under encourages us to fight, suffer and often die for absolutely no LOGICAL reason whatsoever.

You can equally be a slave aimlessly strolling through a sun lit grassy meadow or a free man barely existing in the darkest of cold prison cells.

The truth is, ONLY the truth can set you free, which is why the vast majority were unwittingly born in a bar-less prison cell, and have no inclination towards leaving it.

We are all but highly expendable pawns is a very nasty game of planet sized chess, in which only the very select few get to control the more important pieces. You will note that even the Queen may sometimes get swapped, but the true King ( which in our so called modern reality is rarely the one actually wearing any kind of crown ) is never taken.

26 November 2010 at 00:45  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Nice line Atlas , a little truth and imagination well pasted together .

So is there no invisible realm within which the pyramid or pyramids sits ?.Perhaps the geometry is a sort of shadow made by light shining from god .

Still dont believe there is no battle between good and evil and everything is kinda relative/imaginary ?

However to the post , no one has mentioned the burning of the satanic versus, no arrests at that time , now we have a parliamentary group to tackle islamaphobia , and Simon hughes is on it , yes the same Simon Hughes who said he looked forward to a muslim pm , so as to be more representative (to whom I do not know as he hasnt considerd my views on terming victim support) .

SO will this commitie be looking at legislation , will the feel good indicator show the required result , when the correct questions are put to the correct audience ?

The real Cranmer was put to death for heresey against a church based argument , which no one today would now accept as being sufficently offensive, indeed it changed legal thinking .

I do hope the new commitie does not allow two legal systems we would then surely be at the door of Rights or should I say rites.

Will it now be offensive to say "jesus christ is the true lord and saviour of mankind" or will we be led to believe by an athiest that things have erm moved on . No hint of bias of ignorance ...... I cant wait for for what may befall parliament when any vote takes place .

26 November 2010 at 02:18  
Anonymous Oswin said...

I am only surprised that there is still a non-muslim residing in Sandwell!

I'm sure the authorities would have removed her long since, had they known.....perhaps she hid in an attic?

26 November 2010 at 02:41  
Blogger srizals said...

Johnny,
about accommodating Muslims in the Christian Europe.

It's in the good manners of the human beings. We interact with love and respect towards one another. One must not defile what is sacred and things revered by others, especially the foundation core of anyone else that is unique and different from him, especially when that uniqueness doesn't threaten or endanger anyone else nor exposed that particular person own self to danger. Do good to others as what you expect them would do to you. For instance, I have a Christian neighbour living near me, would it be fitting if I express my freedom of speech by spitting on the cross for example, knowing that I would have hurt his feeling? Discussing is better than insult, don't you think so? It is the way of the human being. We discussed and sorted out our differences, accepting and compromising and get on with our lives. We don't have to be victorious and dominating all the time. Look at the dominant lion, look at his circle of life.

Sometimes I think the West is more accommodating to animals than his fellow human beings. How lucky the animals are.

26 November 2010 at 03:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The muslims hold what is foul and repulsive and evil to be sacred. They think the same of us. A civilised compromise would be not living together.

26 November 2010 at 04:28  
OpenID Paul Dean said...

I don't think they're really worried about incitement to hatred, but rather incitement to riot. The police want an easy life and they don't want to deal with some violent fanatic muslims, so the girl gets swept up. In some muslim countries, just being a Christian without wearing a badge is enough to incite violence. It seems it is not needless to say, that pandering to the violent extremists is not the way to solve this problem. The solution is to clamp down on the violent extremists.

26 November 2010 at 06:33  
Anonymous Trencherbone said...

It is rumoured that the EDL may be organising some form of manifestation of public interest outside the court when this child is being subjected to the inquisition.

26 November 2010 at 07:50  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, it is right and fitting that the Qur'an should sit on the top shelf - at WH Smug. It'll have to be rebranded of course - How about Arson About or Stone Me!? They can have a pic of the smouldering building remains/stoning of the month as a centrefold.

Or of course the dhimmis can arrest a 15 year old girl for keeping herself warm while all that fluffy white global warming falls around her.

26 November 2010 at 08:16  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

I wonder whether elected Police Chiefs would assist in bringing some sensible perspectives to all this?

Also there is something of the "Portsmouth Defence" about this.

On being arrested for robbery it used to be claimed ( allegedly in that naval town) that the assault and taking of "compensation" followed a homosexual importuning by the victim. The underlying reasoning was that "any self respecting person would do it after such offence".

Ditto - "Any self respecting Muslim would assault someone for such offence"

In the "good old days" sometimes the jury fell for this - today it's the police.

26 November 2010 at 08:44  
Anonymous Charles Martell said...

Of course there is an argument that all potentially offensive material ought to be kept on the top shelf to prevent it corrupting the unwary!

26 November 2010 at 08:56  
Anonymous EyesWideShut said...

Eyes wide shut.

The Muslims believed the bible as one of the holy book given to man. They only say some part of them were corrupted. With the help of secretive Jews as interpreter and so many versions at hand, can you blame them?

The atheists on the other hand, think that you're just plainly stupid. But they are not letting Islam of the hook. Afraid that it would not be in their favours..

Check it out,
http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/

26 November 2010 at 09:38  
Anonymous greg tingey said...

Burning books has unpleasant associations from the late 1930's.
That said, there are plenty of other copies of both the Bronze-Age goatherders' myths, called the "bible", and the Dark-Ages camelherders' myths, called the "recital".
And they are both lying, blackmailing, brutal codswallop.
I note someone found one of the appropriate equally-brutal bits from the "bible".

Actually it's a statement of ridicule and contempt, not hatred.

26 November 2010 at 09:40  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Fire is the primeval force that forged our world and has sustained it ever since. But it is both a creative and a destructive force. The act of burning is not simply a method of destroying it is a means reducing something that what once mighty to something that is small and insignificant and that is why it is so powerful. There are other ways that a holy book or national flag or an effigy or indeed a person can be destroyed like burying or drowning but none of them has the symbolic significance of burning as HG is well aware.

Burning a book is an attempt to destroy an idea and not the object itself, but of course ideas cannot be destroyed by that or any other means so however many korans, bibles or flags are burnt those ideas remain.

In a free society we have a right to challenge any idea so whilst burning a book or a flag may be provocative it cannot ever be regarded as a crime. Like any other idea religion must never be given a status that protects it from challenge or ridicule.

Muslims have to learn this important fact if they wish to live in this country. It is my opinion that many never will, so if they cannot be forced to, they must be forced out to countries where their totalitarian faith holds sway.

26 November 2010 at 09:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I hope she did not have to waste her pocket money buying the moslem manual of rape and pillage in the first place.

26 November 2010 at 09:43  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

Graham Davis, I always knew you're the Nazi type of guy. And you proved it charmingly.

The White Caucasians had done it before to the Jews, the question still remains, would they do it onto the Muslims?

26 November 2010 at 09:49  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

Mr./Mrs./Miss Anon,

You could learn about them here,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/woman-18-convicted-of-gangrape-on-towpath-687683.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jun/05/gender.ukcrime

26 November 2010 at 09:54  
Anonymous JayBee said...

Regardless of any defence concerning the right to express an opinion by a symbolic act of destruction of ones own property, the accused will be found guilty anyway. Not so much for distressing the excitable followers of Islam's god but because she has sinned against the god of gods, Political Correctness herself.

26 November 2010 at 09:56  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

TheObserver said

Graham Davis, I always knew you're the Nazi type of guy. And you proved it charmingly.

Not so I am a liberal with conservative leanings who sees democracy as the only form of government that if fair and accountable, doesn’t sound like a Nazi to me.

If however you mean that I am someone willing to stand up and defend the values that I share with many of my fellow countrymen then I plead guilty. Perhaps like most of our politicians you prefer to bury your head in the sand and see no threat from Islam; well my friend appeasement was not acceptable in the thirties and it isn’t now.

26 November 2010 at 10:04  
Blogger Phil Taylor said...

TheObserver has invoked Godwin's Law. There is no point in commenting further.

26 November 2010 at 10:05  
Blogger srizals said...

The Muslims don't hate the bible, that's why you've never heard such a thing being done to the bible by Muslims.

26 November 2010 at 10:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm off to burn the Book of Common Prayer, Your Grace.

26 November 2010 at 10:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The Muslims don't hate the bible, that's why you've never heard such a thing being done to the bible by Muslims."

The Saudis destroy all bibles taken into their country as a matter of course. This includes bibles taken in for the persons own use. So I'm afraid that is not a true statement.

26 November 2010 at 10:13  
Anonymous Tony B said...

"which denies freedom of expression by negating the right to offend against the supposed sensibilities of minorities"

Here you would seem to be in accord with Richard Dawkins, surprisingly.

26 November 2010 at 10:18  
Anonymous Tony B said...

"Because ultimately they don't have enough conviction to lay down their lives for anything "

You people do have some silly ideas about atheists. Welcome to a world of delusion where atheists have no convictions, and will believe anything, just because they believe in one God less than you.

I really think you need to think harder.

26 November 2010 at 10:20  
Anonymous Tony B said...

"We live in an inverted democracy where politicians resign because they upset journalists (0.01% of the population), homosexuality is mandatory, (or so it seems), (1% of the population, islam is to be respected (3% of the population) and christianity is to be ignored (70% of the population)."

Who exactly is doing the "ignoring"? 70% of the population would be very hard for politicians to ignore, if they were all genuine Christians. The point is, of course, that they aren't all genuine Christians. A significant proportion of those self-identifying as Christians do, of course, ignore Christianity most of the time. So in a sense, you are right.

26 November 2010 at 10:28  
Blogger srizals said...

Anonymous Anonymous 26 November 2010 10:13 said...
"The Saudis destroy all bibles taken into their country as a matter of course."

They also destroy misprints Korans, not based on hate nor resentment nor to express hate and resentment to the Koran. We also destroy Korans for such a reason, without intimidating the Muslims. The Bible clearly has undergone such error not yet to be determined. Unless the Christians can proved otherwise.

26 November 2010 at 10:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

The chief question is: how did this all come about?

A country’s constitution codifies the relations between an individual and the State and between individuals. Our country’s constitution was based upon Judaeo-Christian values.

New Labour called the ‘Constitution’s bluff’ as defined by Tony Blair and Alistair darling.

The Human Rights Act 1998 (hierarchy of rights), the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (religiously aggravated offences) and the European Communities Act 1972 are key pieces of legislation that permit the judiciary to establish the values of an alternative constitution.

Every Act of Parliament must not breach the provisions of the Human Rights Act. We cannot repeal the Human Rights Act as it is a condition of membership of the European Union.

We are now living in a different country.

It is a country where the distinction between the private and public realms has been terminated by the State through legislation. That is one of the hall-marks of a totalitarian State

We live in a sort of democracy. We get a say on who runs the country once every five years. The other four years and 364 days we are redundant. In those four years and 364 days our political elite (another country) do as they please.

But what does history tell us as to what happens, eventually, when a people are consistently disenfranchised?

Is there ‘an emerging state coercion here which is moving perilously close to the need for an “I am Spartacus” moment’?

That has not happened for 300 years – that is if you discount the American War of Independence (the Second English Civil War).

26 November 2010 at 10:55  
Blogger srizals said...

Why Muslims won't burn the bible for fun to intimidate the Christians. Not applicable to crazy fanatics and stupid whether in person or organisations.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/09/09/why-muslims-dare-not-burn-the-bible-in-return/

26 November 2010 at 11:07  
Blogger srizals said...

Which spelling is correct D Singh, Judeo-Christian or Judaeo-Christian?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4803.htm

26 November 2010 at 11:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Muslims do not burn the Bible for fun or to intimidate christians".
No they blow up tube trains and buses instead. Or was that done by the faeries?

26 November 2010 at 16:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@srizals

Muslims don't burn Bibles,eh?

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/285123/christians_in_gaza_fear_for_their_lives.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/malawi_muslims_burning_bibles_LhnsMD8kpAxBky54ZV4eQJ#ixzz12DcmBJM1

What more lies have you got for us.

26 November 2010 at 16:12  
Anonymous berenike said...

Comparing the Bible and the Koran is a bit chalk&cheese. Islam may be a religion of the book, but Christianity is not. (And, though the thought has struck me only this minute, Judaism is not a religion of the book in the way Islam is, as far as I can see.)

The Koran was written more or less at one go, whereas the Bible contains many very different kinds of writing from many different periods. The quote from Isaiah given by an earlier commenter is not a command, but a prediction (of what will happen to the Babylonians at the hands of the Medes, it seems, but this is just from a quick glance at the text). There are earlier passages where people get in trouble for not having destroyed an entire population; but they were to do so at express, precise, divine command. You'll be surprised how many of these commands there weren't later on. Even if you think the OT is not true, you have to admit that the sacred writings of the Jews don't contain much in the way of express "Kill them all" commands later on, and that the history of Judaism, both during and after their inhabitation of the Promised Land, doesn't tend in that direction. It has some influence, it appears (others will know more about this than I do), in the resolution of the Israelis. There are two important differences between any kind of Israeli militancy and ruthlessness (in terms of religious, or religiously-inspired, ideology and practice). One is that the Jewish version is geographically bound by the Holy Land, and the other is that Judaism has never been a proselytising (in the purely technical sense) religion. If the Muslim Arabs (possibly the Christian ones, don't know) went away, the Israelis would not be attacking anywhere else. Religious Jews in Europe were unpopular (not that they thought highly of the natives of their host countries), but they didn't go around trying to take the place over.

St Paul says "In many and various ways God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son". The primary sense of "Word of God" for the Christian is not the Book, but the Person. The OT is not a handbook of instructions (though it has directions also), but a historical document, describing the history of God's relations with His people. The NT explains what God was preparing all that time. The status of the written text is different in Christianity and Islam, and the nature and content is very different. So throwing around "We will smash their children off rocks" quotes (that's from the Waters of Babylon psalm) rather misses the point.

26 November 2010 at 17:02  
Anonymous Gerard Tibercross said...

Every Act of Parliament must not breach the provisions of the Human Rights Act. We cannot repeal the Human Rights Act as it is a condition of membership of the European Union.

JohnnyRottenborough

With respect, you miss my point. Burning a Quran does not incite racial/religious hatred. It’s stupid sure. It’s likely to make stupid people angry, sure, but it does not incite hatred agaimnst Muslims. Claiming that Muslims murder Christian babies as part of their religious observance (this you may recall was the infamous “blood libel” against the Jews in the Middle Ages) incites religious hatred. Arresting a 15 year old girl for an offence she has clearly not committed incites derision and contempt.

Mr D Singh

Please get a grip of the facts. You say, “Every Act of Parliament must not breach the provisions of the Human Rights Act.” That is complete rubbish. Every Act must be interpreted by the courts as if it did not breach HRA, if possible. If an Act breaches HRA the court must in its judgment make reference to that.

You say, “We cannot repeal the Human Rights Act as it is a condition of membership of the European Union.” That is complete nonsense. It is not necessary to be a signatory to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to be a member of the European Union. We may yet see the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg overtrumping the Court of the European Union (ECHR has a much more prestigious, capable, and authoritative judicial membership than CEU).

Gerard Tibercross

26 November 2010 at 17:25  
Blogger srizals said...

Muslims blowing up things.

You got it all wrong Mr. Anons 16:12s.
First, they are terrorists, not Muslims, if they were "Muslims", each able body Muslims would be killing the Non-Muslims all over the world without hesitations, don't you think so?

Burning Bible in the heat of Hamas vs Fatah civil war. (State of anarchy.)

Are you comparing a dire state of war and oppression with a normal daily life? Don't you know that people don't behave normally in wars? Are they still doing it Anon?

And I quote your resource,

"[Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas condemned the attack as barbaric and despicable and blamed Hamas militiamen.

'The torching of the church is one of the fruits of the bloody coup that Hamas staged in the Gaza Strip,' he said."

Burning Bible in Malawi.

Can't you read or do I need to spell it for you?

"He said the burning of bibles was carried out by a few Muslim fanatics, and the association has ordered them to stop." (What association? -a Muslim Association of Malawi.) taken from your own source.

Again, you need to differentiate between the fanatics and the normal average guys. Old Grumpy would not have approved your sweeping general statement, trust me. For example, have you heard any past history of Christian militia bombings in London? You would only remember the references as the IRA bombings. Don't you think it is quite odd for anyone not mentioning the religion of the IRA?

And why haven't you heard any more bombings by these Christians? That's because the British had ceased aggression and oppression towards them and given back what's so rightly theirs.

Why did the terrorist attack and you're living in fear of Islam and Muslims? That's because your troops are invading two Muslim nations, destroying their countries, killing them and their wives, daughters, sons and babies, and plus, shattering their dreams and the normal lives you so cherished. Strangely the bombings of the buses you've mentioned only occurred after the illegal invasions. Not before. Plus you endured one or two ugly instances, the Muslims are still dying, in mass.

Why did the terrorists attack you on the first place? That's because your country had attack and destroy two Muslim nations first, for no apparent reason. If you dare to attack and use terror on someone's else countries, can you childishly expect that no one would copy your act of terror? Haven't you heard what W.A.S.P. said before? Who dares win? Or the cycle of violence? Since your country started it, it is your country that should end it and set an exemplary act of goodness for mankind. After all, the word God is derived from the word good, if I'm not mistaken.

And how to get normality back into your lives? Ask your country to cease the act of aggression and compensate the victims, if possible since the good old colonial days until the present. But if your country is not that healthy in term of money wise, we are having a dire time for the endless war started by US and UK against one Osama and a few Al Qaedas, a decent apology would suffice.

Anymore questions children?

26 November 2010 at 17:29  
Blogger srizals said...

Muslims blowing up things.

You got it all wrong Mr. Anons 16:12s.
First, they are terrorists, not Muslims, if they were "Muslims", each able body Muslims would be killing the Non-Muslims all over the world without hesitations, don't you think so?

Burning Bible in the heat of Hamas vs Fatah civil war. (State of anarchy.)

Are you comparing a dire state of war and oppression with a normal daily life? Don't you know that people don't behave normally in wars? Are they still doing it Anon?

And I quote your resource,

"[Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas condemned the attack as barbaric and despicable and blamed Hamas militiamen.

'The torching of the church is one of the fruits of the bloody coup that Hamas staged in the Gaza Strip,' he said."

Burning Bible in Malawi.

Can't you read or do I need to spell it for you?

"He said the burning of bibles was carried out by a few Muslim fanatics, and the association has ordered them to stop." (What association? -a Muslim Association of Malawi.) taken from your own source.

Again, you need to differentiate between the fanatics and the normal average guys. Old Grumpy would not have approved your sweeping general statement, trust me. For example, have you heard any past history of Christian militia bombings in London? You would only remember the references as the IRA bombings. Don't you think it is quite odd for anyone not mentioning the religion of the IRA?

26 November 2010 at 17:30  
Blogger srizals said...

And why haven't you heard any more bombings by these Christians? That's because the British had ceased aggression and oppression towards them and given back what's so rightly theirs.

Why did the terrorist attack and you're living in fear of Islam and Muslims? That's because your troops are invading two Muslim nations, destroying their countries, killing them and their wives, daughters, sons and babies, and plus, shattering their dreams and the normal lives you so cherished. Strangely the bombings of the buses you've mentioned only occurred after the illegal invasions. Not before. Plus you endured one or two ugly instances, the Muslims are still dying, in mass.

Why did the terrorists attack you on the first place? That's because your country had attack and destroy two Muslim nations first, for no apparent reason. If you dare to attack and use terror on someone's else countries, can you childishly expect that no one would copy your act of terror? Haven't you heard what W.A.S.P. said before? Who dares win? Or the cycle of violence? Since your country started it, it is your country that should end it and set an exemplary act of goodness for mankind. After all, the word God is derived from the word good, if I'm not mistaken.

And how to get normality back into your lives? Ask your country to cease the act of aggression and compensate the victims, if possible since the good old colonial days until the present. But if your country is not that healthy in term of money wise, we are having a dire time for the endless war started by US and UK against one Osama and a few Al Qaedas, a decent apology would suffice.

Anymore questions children?

26 November 2010 at 17:30  
Anonymous berenike said...

The IRA are marxists, srizals.

26 November 2010 at 17:40  
Blogger srizals said...

The Wind That Shakes The Barley?

Maybe there are some ideas or elements of Marxism, but none of the Irish nowadays are, they couldn't have changed so drastically. I have to disagree with you on this one. No offense, you are a good man berenike. Good night.

26 November 2010 at 18:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

so what ya gonna do about it cranmer, will you be writing to politicians whom you boast read your blog and protesting to them, or just write a token article here hoping some other mug will dare to challenge this issue.

26 November 2010 at 18:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps that's why Clarke wants to clear our prisons, to make space for these 'serious' crimes?

26 November 2010 at 19:32  
Anonymous Greg Tingey said...

Rebel Saint & Phil Taylor...
Because atheists have better things to do with their time.
We know all the so-called "Holy books" are blackmailing rubbish and say so.
Game over.
Ridicule is so much better as a device aginst myths .....
Like:
"You are gullible enough to believe in a big invisible sky fairy, really?"

26 November 2010 at 19:32  
Anonymous len said...

Why cannot Atheists come up with something original instead of parroting the same old lines?
'sigh'

26 November 2010 at 20:28  
Blogger srizals said...

Because they have stop thinking and accepted the fact, they are nothing, going to end up being nothing, and having nothing to hope for, except for the present, to justify their existence.

Having no future to hope for is really mind-numbing Len. One would easily perceived sex is without the opposite to make something happen, for example the continuity of the human race and believing the living babies are dead things since they are not moving, shouting, running and defending their rights to do whatever pleases them when they were aborted.

Everything else is something but their very existence is based on nothing and Richard Dawkins, Sade and Nietzsche to name a few. And we all know the stories of the two last intellects, consequences for the first one, is still pending and hopefully won't be like the likes of the two.

They really should have watch The Neverending Story.

26 November 2010 at 23:50  
Anonymous Sandy Jamieson said...

Tonigt's breaking news is that Hugh
Dallas the Head of Referees at the Scottish Football Association has been forced to resign because he forwarded an email of a mildly amusing cartoon over the recent visit to these islands of the Bishop of Rome.

So its not only England where mild criticism of non-British Religions is pounced upon

27 November 2010 at 00:33  
Anonymous berenike said...

The Irish and the IRA are not coterminous.

27 November 2010 at 05:45  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

And further, contrast the way this man was treated with the way the poppy burners were treated (molly-coddled) by the police:

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/Anti-Allah-outburst-earns-EDL-supporter-163-200-fine/article-2945233-detail/article.html

27 November 2010 at 09:38  
Blogger pounce_uk said...

Srizals I see you subscribe to this notion that only Muslims can be victims. So as an ex-Muslim who is more than happy to answer your posts, allow me to debunk your premise.
1) First, they are terrorists, not Muslims, if they were "Muslims", each able body Muslims would be killing the Non-Muslims all over the world without hesitations, don't you think so?
Pray tell how Muslims who commit crimes against humanity are relabelled as ‘Not muslims’ don’t you think that, that is a very convenient get out of jail card in which to instantly bolster the ‘Islam is a religion of peace angle’ Yet the very same people who use that excuse have no problem labelling anything the west does as an Christianity inspired crusade. Is that fair?
2) Strangely the bombings of the buses you've mentioned only occurred after the illegal invasions. Not before. Good point, so what caused the invasion of those two Islamic countries? The last I looked 9/11/The bombing of the Cole/The bombing in Saudi Arabia/the bombings of the US embassies in Africa were the response to? The problem about Islamic terrorism is they understand that no amount of terrorist atrocities in their own countries will ever get them what they want..Power. So as seen since the 1970s they attack western nations allied to their home countries in order to get them to pressure their leaders to leave.
3) Since your country started it, I suggest you read a book on two this all started when Mohammed came out of his cave and Islam expanded. Africa, Middle-East ,Asia and Europe were all invaded by Islamic hoards. World War 1 was due to the collapse of the Ottoman empire, WW2 and the Cold War are simply extensions of the great war. Islamic Nationalism was given great impetus by the Nazis and Japanese simply to open a new front against the Allies. After their fall, their place was taken up by the Soviets. In each case they have been fed the idea that the West is an evil place and that they got rich on the backs of Islamic countries. Sorry the reason why they rich is because after WW2 they were bankrupt and worked for the common good. This was based on merit ,good leadership and religion taking a back seat. In every third world country Nepotism, bad leadership and religion run the roost which means that the much larger families which exist in those poor countries have less to share. In otherwords the excuses handed out to third world citizens by the mullahs about why they are poor is a lie.
4) And how to get normality back into your lives? Ask your country to cease the act of aggression and compensate the victims, if possible since the good old colonial days until the present. Tell me would I have to pay towards that stipend seeing as my parents came from India

27 November 2010 at 12:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@berenike

“Comparing the Bible and the Koran is a bit chalk&cheese. Islam may be a religion of the book, but Christianity is not.”

But Protestantism is a religion of the book, Sola Scriptura is the founding doctrine.

27 November 2010 at 13:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"They also destroy misprints Korans, not based on hate nor resentment nor to express hate and resentment to the Koran. We also destroy Korans for such a reason, without intimidating the Muslims. The Bible clearly has undergone such error not yet to be determined. Unless the Christians can proved otherwise."

NO , I think it is for Muslims to present some evidence that it is in error.

For background you may wish to consider the original Greek texts of the gospels are the same now as in Mohamed time. I'm sure you are aware that the koran states that the Gospels are the word of God and that the word of God can not be corrupted. So why don't you explain why the koran is wrong, because it has to be if the gospels are corrupt. Of course if the gospels aren't corrupt the koran is still wrong. But then it is a book with many factual errors.

You may also want to consider the evidence of the rewriting of the koran about 100 plus years after the death of Mohamed. despite the way that muslims make an idol of the koran there are no old korans, when one comes to light it is destroyed because it doesn't match the current version.

Verses carved in stone by the early Arab muslims that are no longer in te ekoran.

No mosque built facing mecca for at least 100 years after Mohamed died.

27 November 2010 at 16:16  
Anonymous berenike said...

@anon

I never sed nuffink.

:D

27 November 2010 at 16:28  
Anonymous len said...

Here`s an interesting question for muslims.
Who has the most accurate record of the life of Jesus Christ, the New Testament Bible or the Koran?
And why should I believe someone who lived 600 yrs after the event had the more accurate record?

Muslims allege that the Bible has been 'changed'.

My question is was the Bible 'changed' before or after Mohammed?

27 November 2010 at 16:34  
Blogger srizals said...

1. The crusade was initiated by a pope, not some Muslims without any legitimate position of powerful institutions. The first crusade and so on, saw heavy casualties to Muslims, Jews and Christians alike. All of them were slew for Christianity under the Catholic Pope.
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Religion/crusades.htm

Bush said god told him to attack Iraq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOTkVhfMWcw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCeFXeuE4U&feature=related

So how? How do you define invaders pounce_uk?

2. Terrorists did those attack not the state of Afghanistan nor Iraq. Bush said god told him to do what he did to validate his action. Why did the two nations, every citizens have to suffer for those culprits. Kill the culprits or try to work out with the governments that is said to provide them safe haven. Neither options were considered and tested on. Somalia intervention and Egypt meddling by the US led to those counter attacks by the terrorists, again by a group of misfits. Why involved everyone else in their sins? The WMD was a lie and the Iraqis are not the victims? 9/11 is still controversial. Everything done in a haste.

http://www.representativepress.org/Motivesfor911.html
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/11/19/off-the-net-11-steps-to-create-world-class-terrorists/

3. World war 1 started with the manipulation of events as it always been to justify a war. You said that World War 1 as a result of the collapse of a Muslim empire could also be true, but we would never know now. Exploitation of resources from the colony by the colonial powers cannot be denied by you. The achievement and progress of the Muslim nations before being succumbed of exploitations by the Imperialist powers due to the collapse of the Ottoman power is true.. For example, some of the tin ore and iron ore much supported the industry revolution were from the lands of the Malay. Somalia is in a mess because of colonisation of an imperial power I'm not going to disclose here.

“In the 16th century, England was a poor country. When they began colonising, it was not as missionaries. When the English put to sea, it aimed to seek immediate profits.”
http://www.skwirk.com.au/p-c_s-17_u-504_t-1362_c-5243/great-britain/qld/great- britain/colonisation-resources-power-and-exploration/colonisation-history

4. Since you're an ex-colony subject of the British empire, you don't have to pay a penny. But you can ask the British to compensate you if you feel that you're eligible.

If it's not rude to ask, are you really an ex Muslim? Tell me something that only an ex would know about Islam.

27 November 2010 at 17:58  
Blogger srizals said...

Anon and Len, please promise me that you will not stop responding to me after I've answered your questions. And please promised me that both of you will answer mine. Please read up some materials on Islam (from Islamic sources and not the enemies of Islam before writing about it. For example the 100 years of not facing Mecca is so wrong that I don't know whether I should correct you or not and that applies to your 106 verses of war Len.

Do I have your word?

I'm going for a holiday tomorrow. Please excuse future delays. Got to sleep early.

27 November 2010 at 18:09  
Blogger srizals said...

were slain not slew. Bad grammar. Anon, could you give a name to yourself. It's going to be hard for me to identify which anon is the real you.

27 November 2010 at 18:16  
Anonymous Oswin said...

srizals ..... you frequently remind me of a dubious picture post-card I once saw, of a golden haired, cherubic-looking catamite, who cowering at his 'masters' feet, cries : ''beat me, master, beat me!''

I really don't which is worse, your idiotic opinions, or your unhealthy attempts to gain attention at all costs???

27 November 2010 at 18:40  
Blogger srizals said...

Oswin, it's rude to cut in on adult's conversation. Where's your manners. Go play with your little head elsewhere, I'll deal with you later. Here's a cookie.

27 November 2010 at 23:55  
Blogger srizals said...

Unlike others, I have a wife, 4 kids, and thousands of students needing my attention. Why would I need any here? This is the matrix Oswin. This isn't real.

I got attention overload in the real world, my wife started to feel curious if you know what I mean.

28 November 2010 at 00:18  
Anonymous Oswin said...

srizals, if you are the tutor, God help your poor bloody students!

28 November 2010 at 02:47  
Blogger srizals said...

Oswin you're being silly. But then, who are you Oswin in the real world. You don't have to tell me covertly, tell me overtly to make it more interesting. What are you Oswin, tell me what are you?

28 November 2010 at 08:50  
Blogger pounce_uk said...

Srizals writes:
“The crusade was initiated by a pope, not some Muslims without any legitimate position of powerful institutions. The first crusade and so on, saw heavy casualties to Muslims, Jews and Christians alike. All of them were slew for Christianity under the Catholic Pope.... So how? How do you define invaders pounce_uk?”
Thank you for your reply Srizals. I see that you still subscribe to this vision that Islam can only be a victim when it comes to Christianity and that any response by the Islamic world is thus justified. But Please allow me once again to debunk the above flawed representation of how Islam is a victim.
Now in order to do so I require you to answer a few questions;
1) Who was born first Jesus or Mohammed?
2) Which faith came first Islam or Christianity?
3) Which faith occupied the holy land (The Levant) Before Mohammed invented Islam?
Now with the questions answered honestly we see that Christianity was not only the dominant faith in the region but the area is still to this day its holiest place on earth. (remember all this transpired before Islam was born) So when the Seljuq Turks invaded the region in 1095, the reply from Christian Europe was to send its followers to help repulse the invaders. In this case Islamic turks. If you can accept a basic history lesson from little old me, you will see that actually Muslims and not Christians were responsible for the crusades. But you know what really grips me, is how a real invasion of Islamic lands (which almost wiped out islam) is never mentioned by the anti-christian crowd. You see when an Islamic king in Persia decided to send Gengis Khan the heads of his ambassadors, the resulting bun fight resulted in GK sending his hoards west wiping out anything that lay between his feet. Only his death saved Islam from being wiped out. So please spare me how bad the crusades were when compared to the Mongol invasion they were nothing but a pin prick in comparison.

28 November 2010 at 13:03  
Blogger pounce_uk said...

Srizals writes:
”If it's not rude to ask, are you really an ex Muslim? Tell me something that only an ex would know about Islam.”
It never fails to amaze me, how Muslims refuse to accept anything which questions their so called religion of peace status. Be it “Terrorist carrying out crimes in the name of Allah” who are instantly rebadged as ‘Not Muslims’ by the crowd. Whitewashing female oppression as a human right or even questioning former cult members on their honesty. It all boils down to the same inability to admit that a sizable number of Muslims do not subscribe to the propaganda banded about by the sycophants and acolytes of Islam.
But in answer to your question:
I know that I was beaten by the local mullah for not learning the chapters of the Koran I was supposed to learn by rote.
I know that I was beaten by my father for not going to the mosque on a daily basis after school.
I know that I was kicked out of the mosque for defending my sister when she was beaten
I know that my sister and I were taken into care after we were found to have lots of bruises on our bodies.
I know that the local Islamic community ostracised us both as bad children for bringing shame into community. (Yup still can’t get my head around that one)
I know that the last time I visited my other sister Her family spent all day trying to get me to go to the mosque (Why I’m Cof E) When that failed, they left my brother-in-law behind and his first words were “I am going upstairs to pray do you want to watch?” Why?, what part of “I am not a muslim” can’t you buggers respect.
I know that since that visit my sister isn’t allowed for me to visit her anymore. Get that her Husband’s family don’t wish for me to see my own sister as I am not a muslim.
So Srizal, please be so kind as tell us all just what have i done wrong in which to see myself cut off from my own kin. Do you think I am a bad muslim? Or could I actually be a victim? Or are you going to white-wash the old episode by playing the “they are not Muslims” card.”

28 November 2010 at 13:27  
Blogger pounce_uk said...

Srizals wrote:
“Somalia is in a mess because of colonisation of an imperial power I'm not going to disclose here.
The above is another example of how fiction and not facts is allowed to run riot and rewrite history in which to berate the west.
Fact, the vast majority of Somalia’s problems stem from how its leader buoyed by Soviet propaganda (and arms) decided to expand his country in which to achieve a greater Somalia.
So after threatening the neighbours that actually their lands that bordered his actually belonged to Somalia, he invaded what he presumed was the weakest of those neighbours. Ethiopia. The thing is just as he was on the verge of defeating the Ethiopians the Russians changed sides and threw in their lot with Ethiopia and the dreams of greater Somalia became a nightmare. After this defeat, leader for life (President Barre) was disposed by his own people and the country descended into the stone age where it still remains. Any half decent history book will back up the above so please less of the conspiracy theories as the only country which is bleeding Africa dry for its mineral wealth is....China..

28 November 2010 at 14:15  
Anonymous PaganPride said...

At the local book shop I saw an elderly couple take the copies of the Koran off the top shelf and stack them on the floor.

I asked what on earth they were doing and they said they objected to the book of Islam being given a more dominant position than that of the State Religion of this country - it offended them. And as he walked away he turned and said "and I am Spartacus"

So I walked up to the next bookshop and did the same; after I left that shop more than four other people had decided to do the same.

What about you? Put them on the bottom shelf if you feel sqeamish!
I'm not a Christian but I dislike Islam even more.

And our Malay little Muslim - THOUSANDS of students await your ministrations - got to hope you don't teach history because you're rubbish at it.

29 November 2010 at 07:31  
Blogger ZZMike said...

Your Grace may be pleased (or not) to know that he has been mentioned - not in despatches, but on the virtual pages of the National Review. courtesy of a person named Andrew Stuttaford. (Your innumerable readers may also wish to know this.)

Bring Back Blasphemy Laws

The EU Constitution (which Austria ratified in 2007) includes this:

"ARTICLE II-71
Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

The Austrian case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff shows that "everyone" can be interpreted to mean "everyone we say".

Gerard mentions the Human Rights Act 1998. I assume that's some sort of UN thing, which effectively means that it means (as one of your famous writers said) "whatever we say it means".

The aptly-named Mr Darkside invokes the Old Testament to claim that the Bible is equally violent.

Unlike the Koran, the Bible is in two parts: Old and New Testaments. The New Testament is the history and instruction that Christ left us. When asked what was the greatest commandment, He said "Love one another".

I may be wrong, but there is no such equivalent command in the Koran. It seems to be "love your neighbor, just so long as he's a Muslim. The rest are kuffir".

Beside all that, there's the notion of "turnabout is fair play". Muslims happily burn the flags of other nations.

Once again, Mr Singh expressed the woeful truth:

"We are now living in a different country."

It is indeed Formerly Great Britain.

Poor Srizals. He lives in a dream-world, a topsy-turvy world where good is evil and evil good. Don't bother trying to tell us your version of the Crusades.

And we're still waiting for you to go on that vacation.

pounce_uk: "1) First, they are terrorists, not Muslims, if they were "Muslims", each able body Muslims would be killing the Non-Muslims all over the world without hesitations, don't you think so?"

99.5% of all Muslims (these numbers may be off a little) are not terrorists, but 99.5% of all terrorists are Muslim.

I leave pounce_uk with the last word. I salute your eloquence, sir.

29 November 2010 at 08:08  
Blogger ZZMike said...

Your Grace may be pleased (or not) to know that he has been mentioned - not in despatches, but on the virtual pages of the National Review. courtesy of a person named Andrew Stuttaford. (Your innumerable readers may also wish to know this.)

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253971/bringing-back-blasphemy-laws-ctd-andrew-stuttaford

The EU Constitution (which Austria ratified in 2007) includes this:

"ARTICLE II-71
Freedom of expression and information
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

The Austrian case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff shows that "everyone" can be interpreted to mean "everyone we say".

Gerard mentions the Human Rights Act 1998. I assume that's some sort of UN thing, which effectively means that it means (as one of your famous writers said) "whatever we say it means".

The aptly-named Mr Darkside invokes the Old Testament to claim that the Bible is equally violent.

Unlike the Koran, the Bible is in two parts: Old and New Testaments. The New Testament is the history and instruction that Christ left us. When asked what was the greatest commandment, He said "Love one another".

I may be wrong, but there is no such equivalent command in the Koran. It seems to be "love your neighbor, just so long as he's a Muslim. The rest are kuffir".

Beside all that, there's the notion of "turnabout is fair play". Muslims happily burn the flags of other nations. Not to mention making new advances in the arts of decapitation.

And of stoning women.

Once again, Mr Singh expressed the woeful truth:

"We are now living in a different country."

It is Formerly Great Britain.

Poor Srizals. He lives in a dream-world, a topsy-turvy world where good is evil and evil good. Don't bother trying to tell us your version of the Crusades.

And we're still waiting for you to go on that vacation.

pounce_uk: "1) First, they are terrorists, not Muslims, if they were "Muslims", each able body Muslims would be killing the Non-Muslims all over the world without hesitations, don't you think so?"

99.5% of all Muslims (these numbers may be off a little) are not terrorists, but 99.5% of all terrorists are Muslim.

I leave pounce_uk with the last word. I salute your eloquence, sir.

29 November 2010 at 08:36  
Anonymous AttilaTheHun said...

Now I'm missing srizals.

He shouldn't have left his students here unattended. How many allegations without any basis of facts. You should have taught them better. Might as well go with the crowd. You all are f'''' terrorists! Why? Because I said so.

29 November 2010 at 10:55  
Anonymous Sydneysider said...

Intellectual, well informed Muslims must exist and it is a pity that at least one, could not enter this forum to give answers truthfully.
There are so many things I would like explained but Sizzles is not
suited to the task,unfortunately!

30 November 2010 at 04:14  
Anonymous AtillaTheHun said...

You missed him too it seems? The way I see it, who are you to judge him? As good Christian, you should have guided him and endured him, whom you can't even refute nor contain, except with insult. Go figure.

30 November 2010 at 12:07  
Anonymous Oswin said...

srizals :

Wheesht little man! Mind yer neb ye wee sleekit self-advertising foreign scunner; away an' boil yer heed in a pail, ye muckle glaikit gowk!

4 December 2010 at 18:09  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

Oswin finally lost it! He's cursing in his own beautiful mother tongue! Do Christians even allowed to curse?

6 December 2010 at 08:25  
Anonymous Oswin said...

TheObserver:

Well, you must own he's enough to make a Saint spit!

(Us '3rd, division' Christians are exempted from section 2b , sub-section iv, of the 'Curses Handbook'... it's the bit about 'rabid-dogs, noise abatement and assorted infidels' ...) :)

9 December 2010 at 14:40  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older