Saturday, July 09, 2011

Unpleasant goings on at the launch of 'Sharia in the West'


There were some unpleasant goings on at Hammicks in Fleet Street last week. Andrew Brown turned up for the launch of a new book Sharia in the West, published by OUP, to which Bishop Michael Nazir Ali has been a major contributor. Andrew Brown's account on Comment Is Free makes a very interesting read.

One of His Grace's communicants was present, and he writes:
It looked to me very much as if Brown had been sent to rough up Michael Nazir Ali. Raizat Butt was also there, but didn't speak and looked pretty gloomy - Brown on her turf? Brown turned up late and stood glowering by the shop door all through a brilliant and respectful exchange between John Milbank (another contributor) and Michael Nazir Ali. He did rather spoil the party.
Andrew Brown as an example of that odd affinity between regressive Islam and the 'progressive' left, but it is interesting to note Brown's naïve assumption that human rights legislation in the UK protects people. It certainly does not appear to protect Christians in the courts, and has even encouraged a level of judicial 'creativity' which could easily see the law being stretched to accommodate manifest inequalities (eg between man and woman; believer and non-believer) which, as Michael Nazir Ali has consistently warned, are fundamental to Sharia.

Still, Sharia Law in Britain is 'unavoidable', right?

117 Comments:

Blogger Maturecheese said...

Sharia law IS avoidable in Britain, it just takes the elected representatives to represent. Remember, we are consistently told that Muslims are a small minority and so surely Christians outnumber them massively.

9 July 2011 at 11:15  
Anonymous MrJ said...

"...Brown's naïve assumption that human rights legislation in the UK protects people. It certainly does not appear to protect Christians in the courts."

As reported by Andrew Brown (1 July 2011) Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali was mentioning the inconvenient truth that Sharia as public law is quite other than arbitration according to English law (or of Beth Din under English law). Failure by preachers or publicists to acknowledge the significance of this would be mischievous ignorance, wilful or inadvertent. The report (Andrew Brown's) ends by disclaiming an apology for sharia in Pakistan: "That is, as currently practised, often horrible."

But the disclaimer does not suffice when joined with the "naïve assumption" about human rights legislation in the UK.

9 July 2011 at 11:35  
Anonymous tony b said...

Doesn't protect Christians from what? It protects their human rights, and protects everyone else's. And that is all that can reasonably be asked of it. What you actually want is for it to protect Christianity's privileges at the expense of others. That is not what it is for.

9 July 2011 at 11:46  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Regarding the odd affinity between Islam and the Left, Christopher Caldwell makes a good point in Chapter 7 of Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: ‘That the course of Western history will be imitated, or at least submitted to, by everyone else is an article of faith for a lot of Western liberals. It can be a pathetic spectacle to watch them waiting around for Islam to ‘modernize’—or to become less all-consuming in the lives of its practitioners—in the way that Christianity did from the sixteenth century on.’

The faith of multiculturalism, with its creed that all cultures are of equal worth, requires liberals to accept Islam as the equal of their own, Christian-inspired culture. The knots in which they tie themselves while struggling to uphold the faith are wondrous to behold.

9 July 2011 at 11:56  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

@maturecheese 11.15

Well, my friend, that's precisely the problem. Whilst muslims may currently be outnumbered, with the difference in birthrate, it will only be a short matter of time before they are in the majority. Then we may expect it only to be a matter of time before Sharia law is introduced, followed by an Islamic state.

Don't think that it won't happen. Barring war or pestilence, it WILL happen. Hopefully not in my lifetime, but it's an unpleasant legacy to give to my childen, knowing that they'll be forced out of their homeland in due course

@tony b
The human rights legislation certainly doesn't protect muslims. Why else do we have forced marriages, with young teenage muslim girls being carted off to Pakistan, or simply disappearing without trace? And honour killings, for that matter.

9 July 2011 at 12:31  
Anonymous tony b said...

Grumpy, when has any law actually preventedbad stuff happening?

9 July 2011 at 13:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Grumpy: "The human rights legislation certainly doesn't protect muslims. Why else do we have forced marriages, with young teenage muslim girls being carted off to Pakistan, or simply disappearing without trace? And honour killings, for that matter."

Huh?

We have specific criminal laws against kidnap and murder. Forced marriage itself, as opposed to arranged marriage, is a difficult area to legislate on but there's this potential protection, albeit a civil remedy, within Family Law if needed.

9 July 2011 at 13:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 July 2011 at 13:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Grumpy: "Don't think that it won't happen. Barring war or pestilence, it WILL happen."

Barring normal social changes, too.

9 July 2011 at 13:20  
Anonymous Mr Barker said...

My dog ain't got no nose.

Your dog ain't got no nose? How does he smell?

Terrible.

9 July 2011 at 13:36  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (13:20)—Barring normal social changes, too.

Another liberal waiting around for Islam to detoxify itself to make it fit for Western consumption. When Islam is contemptuous of any culture or society but its own, is it likely that it will modify its fundamental beliefs to accommodate the inferior West? As Muslims see it, those beliefs are now guiding them to a demographic conquest of Europe. Accept reality and give up any hope of Islam Westernizing itself.

9 July 2011 at 13:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "Accept reality and give up any hope of Islam Westernizing itself."

I was thinking about birth rates actually but most of the Muslims I know are already Westernised. Whether the religion itself can go through a reformation is anyone's guess. That said, it wouldn't surprise me if Christianity didn't go backwards if we liberals dropped our vigilance. I know some Christians who would welcome a theocracy again.

9 July 2011 at 13:47  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (13:47)—Quite apart from the philosophical question of whether a Westernized Muslim is a Muslim at all, it would be unsafe to plan this country’s future on the basis of the Muslims you know. A wider picture was given by the Office for National Statistics survey which found that 80 per cent of Muslims ‘actively practised their religion, the highest proportion of those with a religion.’

9 July 2011 at 14:04  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

We are a Common Law Country, were Custom is the Law of the Land.

Sharia may prevail amongst Muslims as a part of their Cultural Customs, but we could only come to accept it by the renouncing our own Customs.

The Commercialising of lifestyle is a bigger threat to our Cultures demise.

The best solution to our current predicament, would therefore be strict adearance to the Laws of Manu and Caste.

Accept only your own Ancestral Customs as the Law of the Land, whilst recognising the rich diversity that is modern Britain.

The Government has choosen multiculturalism, just learn to be as pedantic as others in asserting your Heritage.

9 July 2011 at 14:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "Quite apart from the philosophical question of whether a Westernized Muslim is a Muslim at all, it would be unsafe to plan this country’s future on the basis of the Muslims you know."

I don't actually care what you think is safe or unsafe. Someone is going to have to get used to a multicultural UK. That person is you. Good luck with that.

9 July 2011 at 14:48  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Britain is in decline and going backwards at a rate of knots there is no doubt about that so something as backward as sharia law one day will be inevitable as the stronger Islamic Muslim population increases. We have become so weak, ineffectual and broken that any ideology with a bit of passion and fervour will take root.

Where have the leaders with sense and backbone gone? It's all very well making friends with our muslim neighbours, but what if they don't want to be friends with us? The truth is in most of their hearts they want to live their own lives in our country and covert us all to their ways and through the human rights laws which have been transformed and altered out of all context they can.

At ground level if you have a muslim neighbour which most people by now will have, try inviting them round for tea, cake and a chat. Try getting them to go along to a function at a Christian Church, mission impossible I found. The only thing the muslim family opposite were interested in communicating with me about was getting their hot little hands on the empty house next door to me for a song for some more of their extended family. They have lived in this country for sixteen years and can hardly speak English.

We need to put Christians and Christianity first above all else in this country. What is stopping us legislating against arranged marriages, forced marriages, polygamy, marrying cousins, and all that is alien to this country's culture? Just what is stopping us stemming the flow of immigrants from anywhere. If France and Germany can stick two fingers up to EU rules and regs that are incompatible with their way of life then so can we, its just our government are too afraid of upsetting those who are more vocal and forceful. It seems they are hell bend on destroying what we have in the name of multiculturalism and it does not work. When will they get this through their thick heads.


My answer is to make compulsory for all immigrants who have entered the country to spend a year attending a Christian Church and all its functions so that they can become as enriched as we have become with their culture! That might swell the numbers a bit too at the end.

9 July 2011 at 15:35  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo - we do not have to get used to a 'multicultural' Britain.

The 'Empire' was 'used to' us Brits, but that no longer applies, does it? We departed wholesale, excepting those predominately 'white' colonies.

If WE can leave India/Africa et al, I'm damned sure a few million muslims/others, can leave Britain too.

Those that WE wish to remain may be offered 'Honoured Citizen' status, and treated accordingly.

I'd be more than willing to delay our economic recovery for a few years longer, whilst funding their departure with a reasonable generosity.

So-called 'British Citizens' notwithstanding, all it takes is a change in the law - once we depart the EU, that is!

Who can say, in this ever changing, ever surprising world of ours, just what lies around the corner eh?

An instance: with the predicted demise of the 'tabloid' press, how long before the 'broadsheets' start reflecting the views of the majority of us indigenous Brits?

Imagine what would happen if OUR politicians actually began to represent the opinions of those self-same indigenous Brits ...ok, ok, that last bit might be a tad too fanciful to contemplate; but hey, who knows?

9 July 2011 at 15:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin, I appreciate your honesty. However, 'we' are not an homogenous 'we'. I'm as British as I expect you think you are and I don't want a country full of people like you and no-one else. I have an idea: why don't you depart and leave the rest of us to our country with its culture of freedom and tolerance ... and more recently its diversity.

9 July 2011 at 16:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie1797: "We need to put Christians and Christianity first above all else in this country."

God no. But it's nice to see confirmed in writing what some of us intuitively know anyway: that at least some Christians want special privileges over the rest of us. Well, hard luck. You're the actual enemy here if you seek to lord it over the rest of us. In particular because there's a history of it and we need to watch out for attempts to repeat it.

9 July 2011 at 16:17  
Anonymous non mouse said...

What an unpleasant place this blog could become - what with the insurgents believing that they can take over from within if they tell Communicants to leave, and all.

Doubtless they think they're improving us, even though they understand nothing about us. Really they're typical of Marxist Deconstructionists - who behave like naughty children. They take your irreplaceable possession; smash it to smithereens; then bring you the pieces and expect you to be happy about it, or mend it - if you like.

Well, Oswin - I think you should stay at Home (if you can still be bothered); with people like you around, there's still a chance we might recover something of value ... before the trumpets sound.

9 July 2011 at 16:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Would you take the miserable, joy-sucking crone with you, Oswin, if you decide to go? Thanks.

9 July 2011 at 16:41  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo @ 16:09 :

God forbid, I don't want a country full of people like me either!

However, we indigenous Brits ARE as homogeneous as we think we are, modern genetic study proves it so. Our tribes are OUR tribes, with all their differences, together with all our individual differences. We neither need, nor want, much beyond our own; excepting the occasional 'specific'.

Let us not forget, that we are not merely discussing the desires of our own indigenous population, but resisting the avowed intentions of an alien one!

non mouse, thank you. I shall be staying, but not just with some vague hope that things will become well again; history proves that conflict is coming. I'd much rather we addressed problems beforehand, and with a certain humanity and generosity, but if not, the age-old story WILL prevail, regardless.

Further if my ''intolerance'' as you put it, had had its way, there would be little to discuss on this topic, everyone would be content, quite happy to receive visitors from afar, and wishing them a safe return home afterwards.

DanJo again: apropos ''joy sucking crones'' - is that a 'Gay' thing perhaps; or are you just being a very, very naughty boy?

9 July 2011 at 17:23  
Anonymous Oswin said...

My apologies: my fifth, penultimate paragraph, refers to DanJo, and not to non mouse. :o)

9 July 2011 at 17:28  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

Oswin, you are right and Danjo, as usual, is wrong.

9 July 2011 at 17:48  
Anonymous Andrew Brown said...

A couple of small points. I wasn't sent by anyone. I came myself because I think the story is an important one, just as I went to the launch of Caroline Cox's bill on Sharia/arbitration -- which I wrote in support of afterwards (as anyone who follows my blog will know).

If Riazat looked grumpy it was presumably because she was feeling, as a Muslim, that she was being talked about as if it were impossible to be fully Muslim and fully British. I know lots of people, on both sides, do believe that. But the final logic of that position is that Bradford ends up like Belfast, and I don't think it's a controversially left-wing position to hope that doesn't happen.

Nor do I think that "human rights law" will protect victims of sharia. Ordinary criminal law will do that -- but only if the victims believe in it. They are not going to do so if it appears to be an instrument wielded by people hostile to their presence in this country.

Andrew Brown

9 July 2011 at 17:50  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (14:49)—Someone is going to have to get used to a multicultural UK. That person is you.

Bless. According to Iqbal Wahhab, though, it isn’t just me. It’s everybody except you:

❛Britain will remain a target for home-grown suicide bombers for years to come because Muslims have not fully integrated into society, a senior Government adviser has warned. Iqbal Wahhab, a prominent Muslim businessman, claimed that divisions between Islamic communities and the wider population will remain for another 100 years.❜

When multiculturalism has run its course and Britain has become Muslim, what chance for gay rights then? Indeed, what chance for gays? BTW, please be polite to Oswin. You’re supposed to be tolerant, remember.

9 July 2011 at 17:59  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Andrew Brown (17:50)—as if it were impossible to be fully Muslim and fully British.

Being fully Muslim entails accepting all Muslim teaching: ‘Can you believe in one part of the Scriptures and deny another? Those of you that act thus shall be rewarded with disgrace in this world and with a grievous punishment on the Day of Resurrection. Allah is watching over all your actions.’ (Qur’an 2:85)

As Islam teaches that non-Muslims are inferior, that women (including Muslim women) are inferior, and that apostasy, atheism and homosexuality are punishable by death, being fully Muslim and fully British is impossible.

9 July 2011 at 18:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "However, we indigenous Brits ARE as homogeneous as we think we are, modern genetic study proves it so. Our tribes are OUR tribes, with all their differences, together with all our individual differences."

In the UK, we're a lot more than our collective DNA. That's essentially scientific racism what you're saying. I realise you are just expressing an opinion but you most certainly don't own my 'Britishness' however you choose to define it and I have a say too in how our country progresses.

It's ironic in a way, I get stick from the ludicrous D Singh for being a 'fascist' yet we have Marie our Daily Mail reading BNP member breezing in to comment, we have our Johnny from the EDL (I presume from his past links) using my comments as a launch pad, and you are advocating paying people who you consider Not Actually British Afterall to leave, which as I'm sure you realise would amount to a pogrom akin to the Jewish ones we've had in the past if it ever actually got started. And the crone chips in yet again wanting me gone to somehow purify the comments section.

Meanwhile, His Grace posts an article and a video link above making comparisons between Islamism and Nazism, that being a Very Bad Thing of course. I'm not sure one could make this stuff up without laughing, albeit somewhat grimly.

9 July 2011 at 18:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "When multiculturalism has run its course and Britain has become Muslim, what chance for gay rights then? Indeed, what chance for gays? BTW, please be polite to Oswin. You’re supposed to be tolerant, remember."

You think that's what tolerant in the liberal sense means? Ye gods.

9 July 2011 at 18:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

john in cheshire: "Oswin, you are right and Danjo, as usual, is wrong."

Thanks, John, for your fine contribution. John, both you and Oswin are wrong. There, we're even. Hey, we should start up a debating society like in that place in Oxford! ;)

9 July 2011 at 19:00  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (18:58)—Silly me. I forgot that ‘tolerant in the liberal sense’ means being tolerant towards everyone except your own folk.

9 July 2011 at 19:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

No, it means tolerant of difference including that of my own folk. Whoever you think they are.

9 July 2011 at 19:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJO,

When you refer to the British", do you mean:

1) People who hold or are entitled to hold UK passports;

2) Members of the indigenous population;

3) People born here;

4) Long term residents; or

5) Something else?



Martin

9 July 2011 at 19:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin, there is no suitable definition of Britishness for all occasions. However, I fail to see how someone could be deported, or encouraged to leave by whatever means are suggested, if they are born here with the automatic right to hold a British passport.

I am a white, middle-class, university educated, atheistic, very well-travelled Brit with a cerebral job who has lived in various parts of England. I expect my sense of Britishness is very different to (say) Prince William's or (say) to a Luton car worker's. My sense of Britishness has almost nothing to do with that of (say) my grandfather in the 1950s.

Why should (say) a third generation 'immigrant', university-educated, self-supporting, tax-paying, Hindu-religious Brit with some cultural hertitage from East Africa and the Gujarat region of India have any less right to be here than me? That's what some of the more extreme right-wingers here have to answer.

9 July 2011 at 20:13  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danjo

"It's ironic in a way, I get stick from the ludicrous D Singh for being a 'fascist' yet we have Marie our Daily Mail reading BNP member breezing in to comment, we have our Johnny from the EDL (I presume from his past links) using my comments as a launch pad, and you are advocating paying people who you consider Not Actually British Afterall to leave, which as I'm sure you realise would amount to a pogrom akin to the Jewish ones we've had in the past if it ever actually got started. And the crone chips in yet again wanting me gone to somehow purify the comments section."


I feel sorry for you being homosexual and a non-believer too. I've just been reading the Quran & some of the Hadiths again, by Jove they are a violent lot. If you don't believe in Allah and the Prophet Muhammad, you've had it when we become a muslim state then!


A Daily Mail reader – yes, a BNP member – NO (they are an embarrassing bunch of squabbling school boys)

9 July 2011 at 20:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I lived and worked in Leicester for 19 years and met and worked with lots of people who broadly match the description in your third para. None of them demanded that the natives should change to fit in with them, and all of the Hindus (and nearly all of the Sikhs) I met were about as religious as the average indigene.

I've always found educated Hindu and Sikh women to be much sexier than native women, though the men tend to be dreary, shallow materialists.

And I would accept that the people of Indian origin who fled Uganda, Kenya and Malawi had a clear legal right to come here.

But they're not the problem, are they?

We (and the rest of NW Europe) have large and rapidly expanding Muslim populations who, at best, represent an enormous economic burden and, at worst, threaten aspects of our civilisation.

It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to suggest:

1) That we should end further Muslim immigration; and

2) The non-Muslim population have absolutely no moral obligation to support the Muslims financially; and

3) We should make it perfectly clear that it's up to them to change to fit in with us, rather than the other way round.

For example, if we decide to ban Halal slaughter, they have to accept that or leave.

Martin

9 July 2011 at 20:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "I feel sorry for you being homosexual and a non-believer too."

Don't be. If I'm entirely content with being those things, as I am, then there's no need or point for you to feel sorry. Indeed, you'd be better putting your energy into sorting out your own issues I'd say since you don't sound very happy with the way things are.

9 July 2011 at 21:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "For example, if we decide to ban Halal slaughter, they have to accept that or leave."

Or try through the democratic process to reverse that decision. Of course, we'd have to ban kosher slaughter too if we did that which wouldn't go down too well elsewhere.

Have you actually seen halal slaughter in real life? It's not as bad as most people think. I watched it done on a goat in the Atlas mountains and it was fine. Of course, slaughter of a single free-range goat is going to be different to industrial slaughter.

I'm not that much of a fan of normal slaughter techniques actually, or indeed industrial farming techniques such as those used in battery or broiler farms. We ought to start on those first if it's the slaughter rather than who is wanting it that matters.

9 July 2011 at 21:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I feel sorry for Danjo in that when the Islamic Republic of Britain is declared he and his fellow gays will be the FIRST to suffer. Followed by Christians, Jews and anyone else who are non-Muslim. It is funny that in Europe the gay community is voting for the likes of Geert Wilders (and before him Pim Fortyne), but here in Britain we have the arch-appeasers (as we did in the 1930s). But as Churchill once said "we the British have exhausted all other possibilities they do the right thing".

But yes, we should pity Danjo. Especially when his muslim friends turn on him and hand him over for trial for being gay. Yes, I really do pity that man. Poor sod.

9 July 2011 at 21:29  
Anonymous Dean Stockwell said...

With Danjo's world view, he would doubtless welcome a community of Aztecs into the UK and declare that he has seen it happen in Mexico and that "it is not as bad as it seems". Is this guy for real?? When will he wake up and smell the coffee?

9 July 2011 at 21:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lol.

It must really grate on you that people like me don't care about your racist projections and predictions. :)

9 July 2011 at 21:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

So, Dean, have you seen halal slaughter taking place? What happens? I woke up and smelt the mint tea that day.

9 July 2011 at 21:36  
Anonymous Gavin Wessler said...

Actually, I wish I COULD be like Danjo, because then at least I could delude myself and ignore the slaughter and pain that is to come, but knowing that living the hedonist lifestyle had at least given me a few years of pleasure. Hopefully I'll be dead before this comes to pass, but I think Danjo is young, so will in his liberal madness actually see the dark days ahead. It is the great irony that he will be among the first to suffer (although, perhaps he is a good liar, so would actually convert to islam and therefore say himself? Who knows.).

9 July 2011 at 21:36  
Anonymous Dean Stockwell said...

'racist projections and predictions'

Like most liberal/lefties, Danjo sees this debate through the lense of race. This is where his analysis goes wrong. It is not about race, but about religion. Islam is a religion, not a race and it is the religion of islam that would seek to bring civilisation back a few hundred years .I am not a religious believer and this is why I oppose Islam, a religion which is like a vrius and which attempts to plant its seed of hate through force. That is the problem.

In any case if Danjo were a genuine liberal or have any compassion he would not be so vile on this blog. But he is,as Lennin said a "useful idiot". Nuff said really.

9 July 2011 at 21:40  
Anonymous Dean Stockwell said...

Danjo evades the question. If the Aztecs were still a major religion on this planet, would this liberal allow them to conduct their religion in the UK? He is so accepting of other faiths, would he allow the Aztecs to rip out people's hearts on a daily basis? Knowing Danjo the answer would be 'yes'. And then he would say all the Aztecs he knew were OK because they were " westernised". Yet those same Aztecs would go back and do the same barbaric ritual, regardless of their relationship with Danjo. This is where his moral relativism comes unstuck. But hell, what do I care? About 10 years left to live and the dead. Danjo can deal with the Islamic state and drown in the blood of his own left-liberalist-facist view.

9 July 2011 at 21:45  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (21:36)—What happens?

After footage of humane slaughter, this happens.

9 July 2011 at 21:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, I never really understand Jane Grey going to the block rather than feign a belief in Catholicism so I may just pretend a conversion in extremis.

I have business card in my wallet with the shahadah printed on it just in case. Of course, how will anyone in authority know I'm batting for the opposite team, so to speak? I may just get away with it and you racist so-called Christians will be first against the wall.

By the way Gavin, are you a scion of the world famous cinema hotdog company? I'd gush about your meaty, mustard and ketchup covered commestibles if so but perhaps this is not the place.

9 July 2011 at 21:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJO,

"We" deciding to ban Halal slaughter would clearly be the result of a democratic process, or I wouldn't have said "we", I'd have said "our rulers".

And I agree that the closure by the EU of many local abattoirs for spurious "health" reasons was a disaster for the wellbeing of our livestock and our rural communities.

But the point remains: if we make a decision, it applies to everyone, even if it is a bad decision, and minorities have to accept that.

Martin

9 July 2011 at 21:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dean: "Danjo can deal with the Islamic state and drown in the blood of his own left-liberalist-facist view."

My emphasis. Lol.

Johnny, are all these people actually you?

9 July 2011 at 21:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "But the point remains: if we make a decision, it applies to everyone, even if it is a bad decision, and minorities have to accept that."

Indeed. Could you tell that to the Christians, especially those fools at the Christian Institute, who keep on complaining about the court judgements going against them? Thanks in advance.

9 July 2011 at 21:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's too easy, this. :)

9 July 2011 at 21:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJO,

But the Court judgements aren't the result of any democratic process, they're the result of a handful of Judges taking an infantile delight in interpreting poor, vague legislation in whatever way best damages our civilisation.

So you agree that we have the right to ban Halal slaughter and that Muslims then have an absolute obligation to obey the law?

Martib

9 July 2011 at 22:14  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Danjo,

How come you are an atheist, yet spend your time defending one religion, if you have, after a lot of thought rejected the very idea of a "god" in the first?

Second, a true disciple,every born again believer, of Christ is not a racist because the very core of Christianity is to believe that Jesus Christ came to this earth and died (& rose again) for the sins of every single human being, not just for the white English, but for all races, all people and all religions (John 3:16).

The Christian is called to preach this gospel, this great good news of love to all the world, indeed it is called the great commission :"go ye then and make disciples of ALL NATIONS" .

Indeed Jesus said, when clearing the Temple of the money changers "my Temple shall be a house of prayer for all of ye nations".

I have known not just white Christians, but African Christians, American Christians, European Christians, Jewish Christians,Chinese Christians and yes Indian and Pakistani Christians.

Look at how many languages the scripture has been translated into and you will have your answer as to whether or not the Christian message is for the white man or for the salvation of all humanity.

9 July 2011 at 22:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "But the Court judgements aren't the result of any democratic process"

No judgements are, the judiciary and the legislature are separate in the UK.

"So you agree that we have the right to ban Halal slaughter and that Muslims then have an absolute obligation to obey the law?"

Both they and Jews have an obligation to obey the law in this area. I'm not sure what an absolute obligation is in this context.

Just to be clear here, I'm an atheist and I also want a secular state. I'm no fan or friend of Islam, just of justice.

9 July 2011 at 22:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Paul: "How come you are an atheist, yet spend your time defending one religion, if you have, after a lot of thought rejected the very idea of a "god" in the first?"

Paul, I want Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism and other religions to be below a secular state but nevertheless covered by article 9 of the HRA.

We have a Christian history and you can see here often enough that some Christians play on that to try to claim special privileges. Christianity is still entwined in our system.

We also have a history of internecine religious war here. Christianity is the main threat. Islam will also be covered when Christianity is moved into the private sphere where it belongs.

9 July 2011 at 22:31  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (22:31)—Christianity is the main threat.

● Exodus 20:13 ‘Thou shalt not kill.’
● Qur’an 2:191 ‘Kill them [the unbelievers] wherever you find them.’

It’s getting a little difficult to take you seriously.

9 July 2011 at 22:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJO,

I understand the theoretical separation of legislature, executive and judiciary. My point was that the judges are interpreting law which has no democratic basis because the people have never been consulted about it, nor has there been any open debate.

A tiny minority of the population make laws which are interpreted by an even tinier proportion.

Martin

9 July 2011 at 23:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

DanJO,

"Christianity is the main threat"

I'm an atheist, and your comment is insane: Christianity enabled the creation of by far the greatest civilisation the world has ever seen: the achievements of Englishmen alone dwarf the achievements of all other civilisations combined.

You're a sick puppy.

Martin

9 July 2011 at 23:13  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr DanJO is the best argument yet devised for same-sex marriage. Keep him and his like together so they don't get a chance to breed and have progeny just as daft.

9 July 2011 at 23:36  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danjo said
“Paul, I want Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Judaism and other religions to be below a secular state but nevertheless covered by article 9 of the HRA.”

Danjo your persistent and uncompromising pursuit of a ruling pure secular state is no better than the Islamists' pursuit of an Islamic one. Leave well alone and adhere to our Christian values that have yielded us wonderful advances in civilisation and personal development. Society has compromised enough for the minorities now, they will have to abide by our laws not try to change them to suit their own agenda.

What is to say that a fully secular state wont be a tyranny? What's to say that it wont be as wonderful or as straight forward as you think it might?

9 July 2011 at 23:58  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

There's a dark side to this site in my humble opinion.

Fundamental Islamism is hateful, dangerous and most certainly wants to eliminate the Jewish people. This hatred between semitic people goes back millenia and was given 'divine' (in my view demonic) expression in the Koran through a 'prophet' who was clearly deranged and hell bent on world rule.

It is my conviction that, given a chance, Islam will wither in the West and Muslims in Britain will reject much of it. Meanwhile the laws in this country are in place to contain the virus of fundamentalism. The qualification is that the growing hostility being shown towards all Muslims will harden Islam.

Similarly discussion about Isreal should not be divided along a simple pro or anti Isreali line and, worse, if one criticises Isreali policies being given the label of "Jew hater" . We know where this kind of division leads from this countries history.

And that's the problem with the direction the debate here is taking.

" ... she went to an anti-globalisation rally which quickly turned into a tirade against Israel and America and then a tirade against Jews and she came back in tears and she said: “Dad, they hate us.” That sent a shiver down my spine, I just thought we were beyond that."

Being critical of Isreal as a State is not the same as hating Jewish people. Similarly supporting the establishment of an independent Palestine is not the same as embracing Islamism.

10 July 2011 at 00:03  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Dodo the dud said

“It is my conviction that, given a chance, Islam will wither in the West and Muslims in Britain will reject much of it. “

I don't think so
http://www.youtube.com/user/marie1797?feature=mhee

“Meanwhile the laws in this country are in place to contain the virus of fundamentalism. The qualification is that the growing hostility being shown towards all Muslims will harden Islam.”

They have brought their fundamentalism here and expect us peace loving, law abiding citizens to swallow it and now we are getting fed up with it they turn round and accuse us of being hostile and unfair. Nothing but the total acceptance and rolling over will suffice in their eyes.

10 July 2011 at 00:33  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Marie1793

You are entitled to your opinion of course although it is scarcely based on evidence.

Such hugh generalisations! You really must stop watching youtube videos of nutters and begin listening to more intelligent commentators on Islam and Muslims!

Your suggested 'solutions' above are a disgrace. The very idea of enforced attendance for 12 months at a Christion Sunday Service! It wasn't that long ago that Christians were at each other's throats, literally, and 'heretics' and 'sinners' suffered extreme fates.

10 July 2011 at 02:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 July 2011 at 06:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "You're a sick puppy."

For holding and expressing an opinion about a secular state in the UK? Wow. It's hardly an extreme and shocking opinion. Lol.

10 July 2011 at 06:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "Mr DanJO is the best argument yet devised for same-sex marriage. Keep him and his like together so they don't get a chance to breed and have progeny just as daft."

Bluedog, I may be daft but one has to question whether you are way more daft yourself if you write stuff like that.

Whether I entered a 'gay marriage' or not, I could still have progeny if I choose, by various unconventional means.

Moreover, if 'gay marriage' were not available I would not suddenly be shagging women. I don't have a choice about my sexual orientation. I have, and have always had, zero sexual attraction to women.

In short, you make a silly point. But let's face it, that's not unexpected is it? It's quite funny, I ridicule the extreme right-wing and you all come out like cockroaches.

10 July 2011 at 06:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "It’s getting a little difficult to take you seriously."

It's always been difficult to take you seriously.

It's the cross I have to bear here, so to speak, to have my points and comments taken and distorted to suit the agendas of others.

10 July 2011 at 06:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Leave well alone and adhere to our Christian values that have yielded us wonderful advances in civilisation and personal development."

No.

"Society has compromised enough for the minorities now, they will have to abide by our laws not try to change them to suit their own agenda. "

Marie, you are one the minorities now and you will have to abide by our laws too. The difference between you and me is that I will not insist that you do not try to change them. I'm a liberal, you see.

"What is to say that a fully secular state wont be a tyranny? What's to say that it wont be as wonderful or as straight forward as you think it might?"

We're a liberal democratic country with lots of stuff in place to encourage that to continue so I don't expect a tyranny any time soon.

Shifting the bishops out of the house of lords, disestablishing the church, tidying up some legacy laws ... really, it's not going to bring down parliament and put a dictator in place is it?

I know the idea of change is hard for some types of people to cope with but we're slowly changing all the time. We're nothing like the same culture now as in 1950 and neither is the same culture as it was in 1900.

10 July 2011 at 06:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "And I would accept that the people of Indian origin who fled Uganda, Kenya and Malawi had a clear legal right to come here. But they're not the problem, are they?"

So, just to be clear here, Hindus with a non-British heritage in their family's past are okay in your view but Muslims are not and this is based on their different religious beliefs? What is your remedy for that?

This is looking very much like a version of thought crime to me. What a brave new world that would be. I'd wonder about the potential for 'imam holes' in houses given that we still have the evidence of 'priest holes' when Christians were in power here and murdering each other for their beliefs.

10 July 2011 at 07:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 July 2011 at 07:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Danjo wants to re-create the Soviet Union here in the UK! And he calls himself a liberal!

10 July 2011 at 08:45  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Your Grace,

OK, so Danjo is writing on a theme familar with the regulars, that of the secular state. But I'm a bit worried-

*Dodo is already in at 2 posts on this thread, but hasn't accused you of being anti-catholic (yet).

*Where is Len with his daily predictions of the end of the world and Revelation 17?

*Where is Graham Davies telling everyone they are all nuts if they believe in God.

Something is wrong when the regulars arn't writing to usual form.

10 July 2011 at 08:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Danjo wants to re-create the Soviet Union here in the UK! And he calls himself a liberal!"

When in doubt, resort to garbage. Anonymously. :)

10 July 2011 at 09:12  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

We certainly do have a choice as to our sexual orientation.

10 July 2011 at 09:31  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Who needs Graham Davies when we've got Danjo?

10 July 2011 at 09:42  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr DanJO @ 06.50 said, 'Marie, you are one the minorities now and you will have to abide by our laws too.'

Silly boy.

Marie writes like a parent, a 'breeder' in gay parlance. Hopefully Marie is not a minority because if she is, Britain has no future.

If you understand anything about sustaining a population, human or animal, you will know that the critical factor is the number of fertile females. An equally critical factor is the number of females available to be fertilised, which is a slight but important difference.

Under the Judeo-Christian societal model we have adopted, it has been decided that one man shall marry one woman to start a family. Islam uses a different model whereby one sire covers a number of dams, to use an animal metaphor. It follows that a Judeo-Christian population where a large number of males are either genetically gay or culturally gay is going to have a very high spinster population. This throws the burden of re-production on to a small number of fertile females. If family sizes are small too, the population is going to contract. The white British population with its sub-replacement fertility rate of 1.6% provides a good example of this phenonemon.

By contrast, Islamic populations are not threatened by gayness in the same way because of their different societal model. Like a number of profoundly religious populations, such as Orthodoc Jews, Islamic populations are highly fertile at the same time as being culturally biased against homosexuality.

It is my view that the instinctive homophobia of a large number of people is a function of this fear of the infertility of the gay population.

It is therefore extremely important that White British homosexuals should not suddenly take upon themselves to breed and propagate their gay genes. Sorry, Mr DanJO, but we need you to die childless in the interests of the British people (always assuming that you are British).

10 July 2011 at 10:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't it better and more justified to suggest that all nonwhites, regardless of their origins or religions or nonreligion have no legal right to settle in UK as citizens, though they may be given a little opportunity to settle as noncitizen?

WLIL

10 July 2011 at 10:04  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (06:42)—It’s always been difficult to take you seriously.

That’s the difference between us. I assumed you had worthwhile points to make until you proved me wrong (‘Christianity is the main threat’), whereas you assumed from the start that I had no worthwhile points to make. Rather than labelling people as ‘old crone’, racist, or Islamophobe and dismissing their opinions out of hand as worthless, try conducting an argument on the basis of facts. It’s more difficult than throwing insults around but, ultimately, far more rewarding.

10 July 2011 at 10:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 July 2011 at 11:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "That’s the difference between us. I assumed you had worthwhile points to make until you proved me wrong (‘Christianity is the main threat’), whereas you assumed from the start that I had no worthwhile points to make."

You may well have worthwhile points to make but I still don't take you seriously and never have. It's the EDL thing, you see.

The Christianity is a threat thing? You misrepresented it to launch your anti-Islam point. Fine. But don't make it my issue afterwards.

I consider Christianity as a political force the main threat in the UK today to our way of life because it is insidious and it already has a foothold and some power. Islam is a minority thing and can be dealt with in a different way I think. It was not about the potential for religious nutters killing for their religion.

Your quotes? Your biblical one is about murder, not killing, since there are plenty of Christians who support judicial killing, including His Grace, and killing in self-defence or in neo-crusades. I also refer you to the allegedly YHWH-sanctioned murder of all the men, women and children in Jericho if you want unpleasant and disgusting religious text to read.

Yes, that snippet about killing unbelievers is disturbing too. However, I can tell you that my Muslim friends and colleagues are not just waiting for the day to pick up machetes and chop all our heads off.

While we're at it, perhaps I can refer you also to Abraham and the almost-murder of Isaac in the Old Testament. Perhaps Abraham was righteous in his time but there's no way I would kill my son in a ritual offering even if a voice told me to. Who would worship a 'god' who asked for that? Luckily, the 'god' through his 'angels' presented an alternative animal to sacrifice at the last minute because the god savours the smell of burnt flesh. But wait! Doesn't that sound rather like the halal type slaughter techniques discussed elsewhere? Blimey.

"It’s more difficult than throwing insults around but, ultimately, far more rewarding."

Johnny, if all I did were thrown insults around here then I would simply leave. I make reasoned arguments regularly when the opportunity arises. As for insults, I have been subjected to them unnecessarily since I came here as have others. I just give as good as I get. This is no nicey-nicey religious hangout, plagued by nasty atheists and gay people, here.

10 July 2011 at 11:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Englishman: "We certainly do have a choice as to our sexual orientation."

You can get erections over men if you like? Blimey. Thanks for sharing.

Well, the reverse isn't true for me and never has been since my earliest sexual memories (aged 9-10).

10 July 2011 at 11:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "Rather than labelling people as ‘old crone’, racist, or Islamophobe and dismissing their opinions out of hand as worthless, try conducting an argument on the basis of facts."

The crone has never engaged in debate with me as far as I can remember and only ever writes snide comments about me in the third person. Indeed, she posted a biblical quote not that long ago in order to persuade her fellow 'Christians' to ignore me and other non-Christians. You may like to compare that for the attitudes and themes to the fairly similar Qur'an quote which has been posted here suggesting Muslims should avoid unbelievers. By observation, she's rather this place was free of debate in favour of 'Christian' contributers bemoaning in her joyless way the state of the world and egging each other on. Hideous woman. *shudder*

10 July 2011 at 11:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog: "Silly boy. Marie writes like a parent, a 'breeder' in gay parlance. Hopefully Marie is not a minority because if she is, Britain has no future."

Johnny? Spot the style. Since day one, matey.

But anyway, I'm sorry to report that Marie is apparently, erm, unlucky in love. But even if she were not all the rest of your comments are complete garbage. Is it even worth responding to the various weird assertions in it? I don't think so, they're better left for sensible others to chuckle quietly over.

10 July 2011 at 11:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And the writing like a parent thing is how contributers to the Daily Mail conduct themselves almost to a woman (and occasionally, man). If you haven't been over there then you're in for a treat. The helpful up and down rating arrows give clues to the best reads, in an inverse sort of way. :)

10 July 2011 at 11:54  
Anonymous Mad Mullar Delight said...

This is good. I really look forward to Danjo going into detail about the Christian threat.

10 July 2011 at 12:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Have we seen you here before 'Mad Mullar Delight'? ;)

10 July 2011 at 12:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This thread is getting a bit too personal and we are loosing sight of the issues here.

10 July 2011 at 12:22  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr DanJO @ 11.50 said, 'your comments are complete garbage'

Translation: so far outside Mr DanJO's frame of reference that they are beyond his comprehension.

10 July 2011 at 13:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog: "Translation: so far outside Mr DanJO's frame of reference that they are beyond his comprehension."

Gay genes etc? For god's sake, you just wrote a load of shite, there's no point dressing it up as something else.

10 July 2011 at 13:26  
Anonymous Jim Hawkes said...

Does Danjo have a blog? I would like to read more! Also why don't some of the people with very strong views here actually write about them and have their own blogs? It seems like a lot of people are drawn from the extreme right wing, because this is a popular blog, and pose as Christians, but who are more like 'cultural' christians who think being a christian is about being white, middle class and holding to the daily mail standard/world view.

10 July 2011 at 14:23  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danjo said

I invite readers to google "Marie1797 BNP" and look at her Daily Mail witterings to see the actual truth in this area. I'm not a fan of that sort of thing at all but Marie here googled my moniker and even registered with Gaydar as far as I can tell to find out intimate details about me, to no avail, so I returned the favour at the time.”

I am registered on many mailing lists including the BNP, but I am not an actual member of the BNP. I might vote for them as a lot of their policies are sensible, pity the party is in a shambles. I was registered on Gaydar too out of curiosity to see what goes on there and long before I encountered you on His Grace's blog. Feeling threatened, paranoid or both? No need to be.

In defence of the “joyless crone” as you call her, I think you might be a little jealous of her intellectual capabilities eh! I hope she continues to post after your tirade.
Bluedog is right there seems to be a dearth of heterosexual men, so please don't propagate your homosexual genes.

As for your worries about Christianity being a threat you couldn't be more wrong, it has been modified and tamed whereas the quran and the hadiths fire up hatred, cruelty and barbarity.

10 July 2011 at 15:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jim Hawkes, I think you're spot on.

10 July 2011 at 16:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie1797, I deleted that comment not long after I posted it early this morning as I thought I shouldn't really be encouraging people to google your moniker elsewhere.

I don't have a Gaydar profile in any name after I borrowed a mate of mine's account a long time ago to see what went on there too. It's a meat market, as bad as any provincial nightclub on a Saturday night. Ewww.

As for non mouse, I hope she continues to post her thoughts about other topics too. I am not like her, I think we all have at least partial truths to share. She will not chase me away from here by being unpleasant in the third person form. If you think I am too mean to her please bear in mind I only ever respond to her posts about me and not often then either.

10 July 2011 at 16:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie1797: "Bluedog is right there seems to be a dearth of heterosexual men, so please don't propagate your homosexual genes."

Does anyone find it interesting that I, a gay man, am not waving this alleged 'fact' around yet we have 'Christian' people now claiming it as fact but wanting the genes suppressed even though it does no inherent harm to the individual?

This is the core theme of eugenics of course, something I've been weirdly accused of recently. I ought to expect American Catholic anti-abortion propaganda merchants, de-turbaned, Nazi-theme-loving creationists, and the like to descend now in outrage at the idea but I won't hold my breath. ;)

10 July 2011 at 16:47  
Blogger DP111 said...

Let us consider the hypothetical situation that ALL Muslims at present living in the West, accepted the call, under the threat of expulsion, to clean up their communities of extremism . They even went further and made changes in their teachings of the Koran and the jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site, the government, the MSM, and elsewhere. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever-increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes(Taqqiya is advocated for Muslims when under stress), and return to the traditions of the unchanging and unchangeable Koran i.e., the canonical texts of Islam that cannot be changed, but only protected when under duress. That future generation of Muslims in the UK or the West, will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam.

10 July 2011 at 18:51  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DP111 : thank you for your wise words and for returning the argument to where it belongs.

It is as you say, and as the muslims say too, and loudly, throughout their so-called 'holy book' and elsewhere besides. All we have to do is take THEM at their OWN word.

For the life of me, I fail to understand why some people have such a problem in accepting this very simple circumstance?

10 July 2011 at 19:37  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr DanJO @ 13.26 said, 'Gay genes etc? For god's sake, you just wrote a load of shite, there's no point dressing it up as something else.'

Actually no, talk to any large-scale livestock breeder and the methodology I have outlined will be completely familiar to them. If you live an urban lifestyle these ideas will shock, and they have. In my empirical experience gayness is genetic and has a propensity to occurr in some families more than others. Quite why this should be is something for the scientist to discover. Those who claim homosexuality can be cured are completely wrong, it cannot be as it is natural. However, whatever the cause, homosexuality reduces the efficiency of a breeding population. Face the facts.

10 July 2011 at 21:49  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

I must register my amusement at the worry, expressed by some, that the statistically miniscule Gay population in the West could be, even remotely, held responsible for low birth rates or the "efficiency of (the) breeding population," whatever that means.

In our Western society, "the breeding population" has drastically reduced the birthrate due to new economic conditions or life-choices, take your pick, and if it were genuinely concerned, would institute societal changes or engage in individual decisions to have more children.

Get cracking, kids, as Borat would say, "sexy time!"

10 July 2011 at 22:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Face the facts."

You haven't provided facts about gay genes, they're personal assertions. You're also speculating wildly about the effects of gay people having progeny even if some of us wanted to. You haven't actually got an argument, it's a distorted opinion following your prejudices.

The reason we have TFRs below 2 (1.95 I think) for white British women is almost certainly to do with culture and economics in the UK.

Offspring are expensive, houses are small, both partners in a couple often work to make ends meet, woman and men are much more equal in life chances now, women have children later in life, relationship breakdown, costs of childcare, and so on.

All that said, the trends are suggesting a convergence between various ethnic groups here over time. That is, birth rates in the two groups that cause most concern for people here are generally dropping as far as I know. Which is what I hint at when Muslim population projections come up.

If anything is shocking it is that you say stuff that amounts to a desire for eugenics and no-one else here seems to care a hoot when it is right wing 'Christians' saying it. It certainly shows the general level of integrity here.

10 July 2011 at 22:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Personally, I think there are a number of vectors leading to homosexuality. I doubt very much indeed there is *a* gay gene. Possibly, there are some genes which co-express and perhaps that only happens in certain circumstances.

I am not camp yet some gay people are and that doesn't seem to be down to learned characteristics. Perhaps we are different types of gay in those two sets.

Personally, I have a suspicion my gayness came from the womb irrespectively of my genes. That is, I think my brain development was influenced in a certain way at a key time. Perhaps it is hormonally influenced or something. Whatever it is, I have no conscious choice over my orientation and it appears fixed to date. So, it's either lifetime celebacy or immorality for me as far as most Christians are concerned.

10 July 2011 at 22:53  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Danjo

There are 'camp' heterosexuals too. Where does 'bi-sexuality' figure in all this? As I understand it there is a homosexual gene and, interestingly, it is transmitted via men. It follows that homosexuality would end if homosexual men stopped having sex with women, assuming modern artificial methods of conception end too.

As you rightly say it's your free choice how you lead your life and up to you to decide whether to express your sexuality or not.

Arte you looking for approval here or just a row?

10 July 2011 at 23:37  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

"Like a number of profoundly religious populations, such as Orthodoc Jews, Islamic populations are highly fertile at the same time as being culturally biased against homosexuality." (bluedog)

A qualification from a member of the Orthodox persuasion for fear of being lumped with either Muslim or conservative Christian approaches in their dealings with homosexuality. Again, I speak only for myself, so my words should be taken with a grain of salt.

There is a wide spectrum of positions regarding homosexuality in Orthodoxy ranging from strong condemnation to qualified acceptance and various degrees of toleration. The opposition to homosexualiy focuses on the behaviour, especially when open and public, and on it being an impediment to raising a family. It is based on scriptural realities, being entirely religious in origin and any social biases result from that. Jewish law is equally severe with public violations of dietary laws and Sabbath observance and there are minority positions that the prohibition of homosexuality, like those of dietary or Sabbath violations, extends only to Jews.

Nowhere along the spectrum is hatred and communal rejection of the Gay individual condoned. I have never seen a known nut discreet Gay person rejected from a synagogue or even treated with rudeness simply for being Gay. Thus any concerns about a possible "pullution" of gene pools and resulting eugenic notions are foreign and entirely abhorent. In fact, where some Jewish Gay groups criticise Orthodoxy is in its too-energetic attempts to gather the Gay person into the normative community, with the insistence that homosexuality can be "cured" or at least resisted or dutifully suffered, and that regardless of their preferences and attractions, Gay people are still bound by the first commandment and are essentially expected to suck it up, marry the opposite gender, close their eyes and think of England and make many children and build good families.

11 July 2011 at 00:27  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Erratum: "...a known nut discreet Gay person" should read, "...a known,but discreet Gay person."

To paraphrase old Sigmund, "sometimes a typo is just a typo."

Regarding the possibility that homosexuality can be passed on genetically through the male: It wouldn't matter, it would be a sin to prevent or discourage Gay people from wanting to fulfil the first commandment in the proper, legitimate way, through a stable marriage and an appropriate communal life. If this results in some Gay descendants, so be it; we do not understand all of G-d's plans and intents.

11 July 2011 at 00:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "There are 'camp' heterosexuals too. Where does 'bi-sexuality' figure in all this? As I understand it there is a homosexual gene and, interestingly, it is transmitted via men. It follows that homosexuality would end if homosexual men stopped having sex with women, assuming modern artificial methods of conception end too."

A single gay gene as you understand it? Well, that would be something. You know, there would be lots of gay people who would be pleased if that were actually the case, mostly because it would shut the religious up who say we choose to be gay because their particular religious morality is undermined if it were not so. It would become 'natural' which has a cachet with the religious despite the poor philosophical position to which that leads. I think Marie has opinions in that direction so they're not very far away.

Camp straight people? Well, there may be though I've never met someone who is camp and straight and indistinguishable from the camp and gay lot. Don't you find it odd that campness at least seems to indicate being gay? It's disproportionate at least. Bisexuality? I use the same reasoning as I do for gay people like me. You know, I used to think being bisexual would be great, having a choice of both sexes and all. But anecdotally, it seems to make people unhappy as they don't seem to feel fulfilled whichever direction they settle in.

"Arte you looking for approval here or just a row?"

I don't need approval. A row? Yes, in as much as I'm happy to rip up poor arguments and point out hypocrisy when I see it.

11 July 2011 at 07:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "Gay people are still bound by the first commandment and are essentially expected to suck it up, marry the opposite gender, close their eyes and think of England and make many children and build good families."

It'd have to be the 'turkey baster' for me and closing one's eyes is probably a bad idea in that case. It'd make for a terrible marriage for the woman too, if she were unaware until too late as is likely to be the case, which is a horrible outcome of social pressure like that.

Seriously, I have no prospect of being in the physical position to fulfil my 'obligations' there. I expect many straight men would be in a similar dilemma if the situation (noting that for plenty of gay men the related act is not wanted or performed either despite the imaginations of straight people) were reversed.

11 July 2011 at 07:38  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

If there were no choice,why would our schools be advertising homosexuality as a lifestyle choice,and try to elicit perversion where none primarily exists?homosexuality is a distortion that weak humans hide behind and expect heterosexual society to sanction because you portray yourselves as victims,indulging the spoiled child within you leads to nothing but disaster for all society.As for erections i became indifferent to any banal and pointless sex with either gender long ago,and have grown beyond it,because there is an infinite cosmic reality quite outside your grubby sordid little bubble that we should all be exploring,at least those not fixated on thier cocks.

11 July 2011 at 08:26  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Avi Barzel @ 00.23 and thereafter, thank you for your Jewish wisdom. The Orthodox Jewish approach clearly demands a strong group identity to succeed, something we more fractious types no longer seem to manage.

Mr DanJO has at least found the manners to avoid addressing your community's approach as 'shite' or 'extreme right-wing'. Afraid of being branded an anti-semite? I wonder.

In any event, the problem of western infertility has not gone away overnight and here is a link to the UN Population Division's colourful spread-sheet on the topic: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/worldfertility2009/fertility_wallchart09_table.xls

Communicants will note that the UK recorded 2.5 births per woman in 1970 vis-a-vis 1.9 today. The EU champions are Germany, down from 2.0 to 1.3. East Asian countries such as China, down from 5.8 to 1.4 children per woman, may not be the threat that we envisage.

The central proposition stands, when the birth-rate is below replacement, no nation can easily afford a large non-breeding cohort declaring themselves homosexual, or anything else. The highly fertile Orthodox Jews can teach the British some lessons.

11 July 2011 at 09:56  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

As a normal and more widely acceptable alternative to your eugenics-style policy, we could simply change the socio-economic environment to which I referred previously. Actually, a smaller population has its advantages anyway even if it would be painful through the transition.

As for TFR figures over time and the ethnic differences between rates in the UK, I suggest people look into them properly. Bluedog here has been, ahem, somewhat selective and note also the lack of comment about convergence trends.

As for Avi and anti-semitism: Avi, if your community is pressuring gay men to marry women and have children then that approach is shite and immoral. I'm bewildered by anti-semitism and I can honestly say it has no bearing whatsoever on my commebts. It doesn't even cross my mind though I have no doubt it happens at times.e to your eugenics-style policy, we could simply change the socio-economic environment to which I referred previously. Actually, a smaller population has its advantages anyway even if it would be painful through the transition.

As for TFR figures over time and the ethnic differences between rates in the UK, I suggest people look into them properly. Bluedog here has been, ahem, somewhat selective and note also the lack of comment about convergence trends.

As for Avi and anti-semitism: Avi, if your community is pressuring gay men to marry women and have children then that approach is shite and immoral. I'm bewildered by anti-semitism and I can honestly say it has no bearing whatsoever on my commebts. It doesn't even cross my mind though I have no doubt it happens at times.

11 July 2011 at 13:07  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Englishman, sort the faulty premises out in your argumenr and all may become clear and sensible. Hope this helps.

11 July 2011 at 13:15  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

DanJ0,

I hear you. Procedural specifics and physics aside, though, the turkey baster idea is probably out due to other prohibitions, and I'm guessing chugging a twelve-pack of beer, a very dark room and a strong doze of the old willing suspension of disbelief might work better, but I speak as a layman and my musings should not be taken as medical or therapeutic advice.

In seriousness, I have no idea how this "reparative" approach works, or if it works at all. The social pressures you refer to are certainly real, and any information about homosexuality in te Orthodox communities appears to be solely anecdotal. One occasionally hears of "happy endings," of people building family lives, but because of the undeniable stigma around the subject, the prohibition of spreading tales and rumours about individuals and the principle of tznius, modesty, information won't be coming out any time soon. All the Gay Jews I know are firmly outside the Orthodox community, where they can find genuine or at least manifested acceptance in the liberal sectors of the other denominations without having to either hide or be subjected to the therapeutic ministrations of enthusiastic do-gooders. The bottom line, though, is that while homosexuality as a behaviour is deemed to be a serious transgression to be avoided, it is not considered to be a physical defect which would allow anyone to deem the individual as a lesser human who to be excluded from the community of Israel, and its benefits and obligations. It's a complicated world we live in, and I must admit that given all the other issues on my plate, I'm grateful that the Almighty has spared me from having to personally tackle this one.

11 July 2011 at 13:21  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

Bluedog,

Thank you for your kind words and fairness; this mine field of a topic gets everyone's hackles up one way or another, and lowering the thermostat seems to be more productive.

DanJ0 might better indicate what his estimation of the Orthodox take on things is, my guess being that it's one of amusement, rather than shock. I trust and hope that concern over being branded an antisemite for disagreeing with me will never be an issue.

The fertility situation which you describe is, btw, similar to that of the majority of Jews in the world, being secular and liberal, in Israel and the Diaspora. I still don't believe homosexuality is a serious, or even a measurable impediment to overall fertility rates, though, eiher in Jewish or non-Jewish communities. The numbers don't add up and we simply cannot lay the blame for our fertility rates at the doorsteps of the Gay community. Our focus, I propose, should be on finding ways to reduce the costs of rearing children.

Among Jewish communities the blight, I personally think, is the expense of private education, the uncertain benefits of higher education and the pressures and absurdities of conspicuous consumption. A modern upper-middle middle class Jewish family in North America has to survive the costs of private Jewish dayschools or at least expensive summer camps, spectacular Bar or Bat Mitzvahs, expensive universities and glittering weddings fit for royalty. All this must occur in a background of nice houses in good neighbourhoods, glossy European cars prominently parked on paved circular driveways and a presence on the social scene. With having to take care of such "vital necessities," the number of offspring must obviously be cranked down.

While the Orthodox sector is not immune to the acqusition of trinkets and status, the primary aims are is still to have a large family and to live a religious, community-centred life with charity and generosity as a main requirement. There is pressure to appear modest and many, like me, who can't cut it in the profesional or corporate worlds, choose more humble occupations without loss of status. I'm in no position to advise Christians on how to conduct themselves, but in purely functional, anthropological terms, a greater solidarity...as you mention...and a culture of economic realism and supportive communal life would probably produce higher fertility rates and greater satisfaction with one's lot, key elements in that elusive quality-of-life thing. Here in Canada, one can see this among traditional Italian families and Evangelical Christians.

We all seem to operate under conditions of "culture lag," living as if we are still riding the lomg-gone post-War economic boom, and I suspect things will be changing and that the dismally low figures you refer to will, in a generation or two, adjust upward. Whether the change might come too late is, of course, anoher subject.

11 July 2011 at 13:35  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

DanJ0,

I write on my lap top whilst doing a million things, some of which would get me in trouble with our Ministry of Transportation, so I lost the thread, hence this addition.

Regarding your "shite and immoral" evaluation, I don’t take offense, nor do I feel shocked; philosophical consistency is a virtue of its own. I cannot imagine being in the shoes of a Gay person and those I've known and still know, speak of lives of incredible pressures, searing hatred, exclusion and injustice. Such things can lead to having strong positions on this topic and I'm sincerely glad that the awful attitudes and hatred in the larger society which were prevalent in my youth are on their way out.

Yes, being a Gay individual in an Orthodox community can be shitty, I imagine, but I don't agree that the traditional position is immoral. Homosexuality as a behaviour, especially as a public behaviour, is undeniably forbidden scripturally and cannot be accepted in the traditionalist stream any more than the appearance of savoury cuts of Virginia ham at the Sabbath table. This is not trying to make light of things; the importance of laws of kashruth and those pertaining to sexual conduct are on very similar levels of importance.

At the same time, the mitigating point I was trying to make, is that the Gay individual cannot be excluded from the community and must be treated on equal terms with all the rights and obligations of any Jew. It is forbidden to hate him or her or to deem them as lesser, physically defective humans. I believe that this is a fundamentally moral approach, although one that admittedly doesn't make many happy, either on the pro or the anti sides.

I have never seen or heard of any pressures being exerted on Gay individuals to marry and have children. At least not in my community and rather large congregation. There are people who will not or cannot marry and have families for all manner of reasons, and no one would think or dare to question or bother them. I imagine that Jewish Gay people will gravitate to the larger non-Orthodox community, especially to liberal congregations which are very accepting, or will form their own congregations, while those individuals who still wish to remain in mainstream Orthodoxy can easily fly under the radar if they remain "in the closet." The latter case, however you may feel about it, is feasible because of institutionally enforced values of privacy and prohibitions against uttering judgments and talking about people. In very Orthodox circles men and women don't intermingle outside of their own immediate families and homes, and one wouldn't notice or feel any difference. There are tentative movements towards greater public acknowledgement and acceptance in the modernist, "left wing" camps in Orthodoxy and it is discussed in a number of forums, but I can't predict which way things will go. On the flip side, I hope that the larger Gay community, especially its more militant sectors, can one day agree to disagree and reciprocate with a similar kind of tolerance. As I've mentioned before, it's a complicated world we live in.

As for the antisemitism bit, I believe it was Bluedog's position that you've been treating me with kid gloves out of concern of being accused of antisemitism. Well, you corrected that, but I have no reason to suspect any antisemitism from you and I enjoy these "energetic" exchanges with you and the others.

11 July 2011 at 15:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'll just repost this first as it got mashed up on my phone earlier:

As a normal and more widely acceptable alternative to your eugenics-style policy, we could simply change the socio-economic environment to which I referred previously. Actually, a smaller population has its advantages anyway even if it would be painful through the transition.

As for TFR figures over time and the ethnic differences between rates in the UK, I suggest people look into them properly. Bluedog here has been, ahem, somewhat selective and note also the lack of comment about convergence trends.

As for Avi and anti-semitism: Avi, if your community is pressuring gay men to marry women and have children then that approach is shite and immoral. I'm bewildered by anti-semitism and I can honestly say it has no bearing whatsoever on my comments. It doesn't even cross my mind though I have no doubt it happens at times.

11 July 2011 at 17:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "Regarding your "shite and immoral" evaluation, I don’t take offense, nor do I feel shocked; philosophical consistency is a virtue of its own."

Good. I wasn't intending to be personally offensive, I was just showing that I don't have any problem with criticising Jewish stuff contrary to the suggestion made. Besides, it was a conditional statement.

"As for the antisemitism bit, I believe it was Bluedog's position that you've been treating me with kid gloves out of concern of being accused of antisemitism."

I usually treat people as I find them here.

The anti-semitism thing is a little bizarre to me, either that I might be self-policing for PC reasons or that I might actually hold anti-semitic views. I wouldn't have thought I'd be viewed as reticent here. :)

"This is not trying to make light of things; the importance of laws of kashruth and those pertaining to sexual conduct are on very similar levels of importance."

When I say it is immoral to pressurise unwilling people into marry, I mean that I find it immoral. I do that here periodically to show that the religious of any particular sort don't have the authority to decide what is or isn't immoral for the rest of us unless we agree. I understand of course that homosexual behaviour is immoral under (say) mainstream Christian or Islamic thought.

As for what happens in Orthodox Jewish communities, I confess I know very little of the thoughts and reasons behind stuff although I know some stuff about the religious practices. I have a single friend who is Jewish and he is not at all Orthodox. I hope you stick around and tell us more when appropriate.

11 July 2011 at 17:55  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

DanJ0,

Cool; you have a Jewish friend and I have a Gay friend....and neither of them are Orthodox. We can both now use the line, "some of my best friends are_______"!

No offense, btw, I saw what you were doing and I understand your points, and hopefully my previous post clarified the on-the-ground realities which have more to do with expectations and hopes (especially by parents of Gay kids) than instititutional pressures which I have yet to witness. For sure, in my own congregation, there may be a few a enthusiastic "reformers," I'm guessing, but our rabbi would publicly blast apart anyone who presumed to pressure anyone.

I'll stick around for sure, although I have a busy couple of days ahead of me. Btw, check out my latest update on the young boy, Julius...I'm afraid to let out a little cheer due to an unshakeable (and very unbecoming for a self-proclaimed rationalist) superstitious fear of "jinxing" things, but you'll see what I mean.

11 July 2011 at 18:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm afraid I mangle my English, miss out words, and poorly spell all the time. I ought to use a grammar and spell checker I suppose.

What I meant was that I live in a multicultural area in the UK and work in a company with lots of different nationalities, which I love, but I have almost no contact with Jewish people and in particular Orthodox Jews. I meant to write: "I have just a single Jewish friend ..." :)

11 July 2011 at 19:32  
Anonymous Avi Barzel said...

We'll let this one slide.

11 July 2011 at 20:20  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older