Monday, March 11, 2013

UCL adopts sharia law for public debate, separating women from men



University College London is one of our great seats of learning and foremost among UK centres of research. Founded in 1826, UCL was the first university in England to be established on an entirely secular basis: students were admitted irrespective of their religion, and gender equality was a foundational statute.

So it is all the more surprising that a public debate was held on 9th March at which the audience was segregated by gender (ie women in the cheap seats at the back). It was hosted by the Islamic Education and Research Academy (iERA), and the topic was: ‘Islam or Atheism: Which Makes More Sense?’. It pitched atheist Professor Lawrence Krauss against Hamza Andreas Tzortzis (described variously as ‘a lecturer on Islam’ or an ‘Islamist extremist’). He agitates for a global caliphate and isn’t particularly disposed to Jews, gays, adulterous women or democracy. He has publicly denounced liberty:
“We as Muslims reject the idea of freedom of speech, and even the idea of freedom. We see under the Khilafa (caliphate), when people used to engage in a positive way, this idea of freedom was redundant, it was unnecessary, because the society understood under the education system of the Khilafa state, and under the political framework of Islam, that people must engage with each other in a positive and productive way to produce results, as the Qur’an says, to get to know one another.”
Many other iERA spokesmen take the view that the US conspired in the 1993 al-Qaeda attack on the World Trade Center; that ‘every Muslim should be a terrorist’; that homosexuals should be hanged and women who commit adultery should be stoned.

So, it is rather surprising that Hamza Andreas Tzortzis was invited to speak at UCL at all, let alone that they indulged his medieval mosque attitudes in separating the women from the men.

Apparently, Professor Krauss had objected to any such sharia segregation prior to the meeting. When he arrived and witnessed UCL security guards forcing people to change seats, he walked out, as seen in the video above. One of the attendees Dana Sondergaard wrote on her Facebook page:
Tonight I attended a debate a UCL on Islam and Atheism. After having been told the event would NOT be gender segregated, we arrived and were told that women were to sit in the back of the auditorium, while men and couples could file into the front. After watching 3 people be kicked out of the auditorium for not following this seating plan, Dr. Krauss bravely defended his beliefs of gender equality and informed event staff that he would not participate unless they removed the segregated seating. Needless to say, the staff got their shit together pretty quickly and the event (thankfully) continued. Props to Dr. Krauss for standing up for his beliefs, especially in such a biased environment!
This is not Saudi Arabia, though one begins to understand the concerns of those who talk of ‘Londonistan’. It is utterly shameful that UCL security staff helped to enforce this segregation, which must be contrary to the University’s own diversity and equality policies. To justify their actions, the security guards invoked the ‘terrorism’ clause: the three were ejected from their seats because they were deemed to constitute a ‘threat’.

The only threat they posed was to the sensitivities of Hamza Andreas Tzortzis.

Why do ‘human rights’ fly out of the window where Islam is concerned? Why does liberal democracy take a back seat in the toleration of sharia law? Why do universities and public institutions bend over backwards to avoid the charge of 'Islamophobia'?

The seating arrangements were made known well before this debate took place, so why was it left to just three men to sit with the women in protest? Where were the hordes of equality-loving LGBTers? Where were the ardent and principled feminists? Why were they not demanding seats at the front, with the men?

Any mention of this by the BBC? None at all. What outcry would have greeted a debate at which the audience was segregated black and white or gay and straight. But male and female is okay, because it is the will of Mohammed (pbuh).

PS
His Grace is reminded that UCL has form on this - see here and here.

77 Comments:

Blogger Roy said...

It is utterly shameful that UCL security staff helped to enforce this segregation, which must be contrary to the University’s own diversity and equality policies.

Your Grace has forgotten that some people are more "diverse" and "equal" than others.

11 March 2013 10:22  
Blogger Mike Bradbury said...

Utterly disgraceful !

11 March 2013 10:24  
Blogger Mike Bradbury said...

Utterly disgraceful !

11 March 2013 10:25  
Blogger FrankFisher said...

This is not going to end well is it?

11 March 2013 10:37  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Why do human rights fly out the window when it comes to appeasing Islam?
Fear of Terrorism. Suicide bombers,mayhem death and destruction!

11 March 2013 10:53  
Blogger Flossie said...

Oh well, it won't be a problem soon, as we are going to be allowed to choose which gender we would like to be, and sue anybody who tries to tell us different.

(This is already happening in Massachussets schools!).

Think of the opportunities, girls! I'm trying to take my mind off that rugby scrum.





11 March 2013 11:28  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Could not agree more. What a loss of civilisation! It points out how Christian values have underpinned our moderate sensible culture, even for those several generations removed from the Church. Much - not all- of Islamic teaching expects that men and women cannot sit together as a "real Man" should be uncontrollably lusting after the women in such a situation. We hold that this is childish and shows a lack of the spiritual fruit of "self-control". We stress the inner self control, rather than societal authoritarian segregation. Further we posit that men and women can healthily inter-react as brothers and sisters, and that this should be the norm for all but one relationship. And for the most part that is the norm.

We lose these civilised norms at our peril.

11 March 2013 11:31  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Jeremy Bentham must be spinning in his box at this outrageous betrayal of his legacy.

11 March 2013 11:37  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

"...we are going to be allowed to choose which gender we would like to be, and sue anybody who tries to tell us different.....Think of the opportunities, girls! I'm trying to take my mind off that rugby scrum." (Flossie)

Pfffft's and chuckles. Top contender for the Quote of the Day.

11 March 2013 11:44  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Flossie...I am shocked!You must remove all thoughts of footballers
from your mind. Those scrums are the precursor to a lot of unhealthy activity amongst males.
Contact sports where the derriere meets the nose should be banned!

11 March 2013 11:50  
Blogger David B said...

I think we are all united on this issue, judging from the comments so far.

I like Laurence Krauss - I've seen a number of his talks on You Tube.

David

11 March 2013 11:53  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Incredible, unbelievable, schizophrenic behaviour, from a leading University. One half of its corporate "brain" applies what passes for "liberal" ideas, which are in fact the doctrines of an intolerant, ever changing secularism; the other half is reserved for suspending all that to respect "diversity" in one of its forms. Where is the coherence, morally, intellectually, legally or anywhere else, I ask ? A few twisted, ivory tower academics may fall for this, because of their habit of always applying relativism. Fortunately the average Brit. , Joe Public, whatever his/her background will not be duped.
This is far from stable, and as FrankFisher (above) says , "This is not going to end well, is it?" Frank you have the answer. I rest my case.

11 March 2013 12:08  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Why do universities and public institutions bend over backwards to avoid the charge of ‘Islamophobia’?

The guardians of political correctness have a variety of mud at their disposal, the throwing of which can end careers and destroy reputations. Islamophobia is one such variety. It implies that the sinner is judgmental and very possibly guilty of racism, currently the West’s greatest sin.

11 March 2013 12:27  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

South Kensington Madrassa (formerly known as Imperial College) has become similarly Sharia-compliant

11 March 2013 12:39  
Blogger Jon said...

This does seem like odd behaviour for a liberal institution to behave in. And you're quite right, it seems odd that more people there didn't make a fuss in the room.

But let's not pretend that Your Grace and many of the flock here don't also advocate segregation. After all, opposition to equal marriage is just a different sort of segregation, and one that only has its basis in your interpretation of your holy book, just as Islam's segregation is based upon one interpretation of theirs.

11 March 2013 12:43  
Blogger William said...

Jon

"After all, opposition to equal marriage is just a different sort of segregation, and one that only has its basis in your interpretation of your holy book"

You mean apart from also being based on biology, tradition, the preservation of family/society and common sense.

11 March 2013 13:34  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Why should anyone be suprised?
Islam is a religion.
Christianity also says that the "Head of a woman is a man" and this was and is used (esp in the RC church) to make second-class citizens (if they are lucky) of women .....

I am, however disgusted that UCL & those present did so little to tell the Dark-Ages follower of camelherders' myths where to stuff it!

11 March 2013 14:11  
Blogger Anglican said...

Can we please stop using the word 'gender' when 'sex' is meant. 'Gender' is a grammatical term. To use it of men and women is to allow the term to mean whatever the speaker or writer wants it to mean. According to modern political correctness 'gender' can mutate into anything you want it to mean.

11 March 2013 14:29  
Blogger Corrigan said...

In one sentence, G. Tingey has told us everything he knows about Christianity, possibly, because one sentence-worth is all he actually does know.

On to serious people, however. Oh, no, my mistake, on to Professor Lawrence Krauss. I suppose, if you don't want Islam to look too bad, you'd field a devil's advocate who has a track record of being unable to make Christianity look too bad. Since Richard Dawkins was unavailable, step forward Lawrence.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ie/2013/02/forgetting-nothing-learning-nothing.html

11 March 2013 14:43  
Blogger John Thomas said...

Islamism and "liberalism" are natural bedfellows; accept that, and everything makes sense. They are both determined to destroy Western (Judeo-Christian-) civilisation; they may have a spat or two when that project is realised, complete, but until then, "my enemy's enemy is my friend".

11 March 2013 15:15  
Blogger non mouse said...

Anglican @14.29: Who made that law, then? Is it another post-mod euro thing?

Haven't time to struggle with the new OED, but a glance at Chambers confirms that your s** thing tends to refer more to the act that's supposed to be about reproduction. However, being redolent of the motive forces behind the act, the concept's very useful to deconstructionists. That's why they love Freud.

However, both Chambers and Cassell's confirm that English "GENDER" derives from the Latin: genero, generare = to beget, produce, bring to life.

It's also related to genus, generis n. = kind (i.e. lit. birth, descent; and race, stock, family, house; or even- offspring, descendant.)

Grammatical gender? That mainly referred to the 'kind' of declension a noun/pronoun/adjective belonged to. If you return for a moment to compare Modern and Old English, you might recall that present-day meaning depends on syntax rather than suffixes. Thoroughly Modern English uses much less grammatical gender.

Curiouser and curiouser, though. I mean, how it's euros who still use grammatical gender that are forcing us to give up gender roles in nature.

Not that one condones the mozzie extreme, of course. It's just that Islamists (ever good chess-players) have cottoned right onto the 'fragmentation' game; they know how to gain strategic advantage by setting local people against each other.

They can't resist staking their claim to the capital city, though; they have such contempt for us, don't they?

11 March 2013 16:37  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

People are sacked for expressing a view that homosexual marriage is a step too far, B&B owners are prosecuted for not accommodating homosexual behaviour but are we likely in this case to see a prosecution. No. Why? Because as a nation we have become cowed to the bully boys. Unfortunately we never respond to justice but to violence no matter how much we say that we don't. I listened with surprise today to a programme on BBC exposing the brutality of the Chinese invasion of Tibet. The Tibetans have suffered much worse than the Palestinians so how come they have received much less exposure to their plight. Could it be the BBC is biased.

11 March 2013 16:59  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Shacklefree,

Good point !

As a small boy, I was appalled at the Han Chinese invasion of Tibet, brought about using a bogus, incredibly weak legal fig leaf. Their treatment of the Tibetan people, culture and especially religion, was and continues to be, deeply shocking. Colonization is far too weak a word for it, as it's more about political and cultural suppression. But we have hardly heard a whisper of protest from the liberal, freedom loving media establishment.

11 March 2013 17:14  
Blogger Johnzh said...

Caveat Emptor - Lawrence Krauss may defend the equal rights of women, but he doesn't defend the rights of Christian believers to teach their children that God created the world and not that it just happened by 'accidents'. http://www.examiner.com/article/physicist-lawrence-krauss-teaching-creationism-is-child-abuse

11 March 2013 17:54  
Blogger Jon said...

William said "You mean apart from also being based on biology, tradition, the preservation of family/society and common sense."

I think your friends at UCL with the beards would say the same thing. Segregation is based upon biology (hey - we have different genitals and I think that makes me better than you), tradition (my father was a misogynist, therefore I can be too) etc.

Thanks for making my point for me.

11 March 2013 18:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Fellows !

Allow the Inspector General to come to Johnny Islam’s defence. So he segregates according to gender. What of it ? That’s the way he conducts himself. Nothing out of the ordinary here. Usual meeting of the future elite minds of Islam (albeit in young student stage) and a hate speaker to guide them in their life’s journey. Happens all over the Islamic world. How can we deny our fellow citizens their right to congregate as they wish. Besides, if we did, University College London may well be blown up…

The Inspector has often been accused of being a racist on this august site. He will not have that said about him. Not at all. As for what he really is, then more accurately, he appreciates the different races for what they are. He enjoys pinning down traits. He loves to discover strengths, and oh yes, weaknesses too, of God’s wonderful and diverse human creation. He particularly enjoys advising anyone who will listen to his opinion that mixing of the races by way of mass immigration is not a good idea. You see, these fellows do things differently from us. They have their own ways and customs, don’t you know. Some of it not our cup of tea at all, as we have seen in this instance. There is a certain amount of embarrassment on both sides when discussing differing conducts, don’t you find.

Anyway, chin up, types, and remember this. The less we restrict our muslim cousins in the UK, the less chance British nationals will be kidnapped and beheaded abroad. And for God’s sake, don’t mention freedom. It only upsets them…

pip pip !





11 March 2013 18:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Jon. Is there a name for a small percentage of individuals who cede from society, then call out. “You lot, come over here. Look at this. Where we are standing, people of the same sex can go through some form of marriage ceremony. And that’s not all. We can demand to adopt children, just like normal couples.”

Yet, if society stood up to them, and said “Don’t be so bloody stupid. Come back here this instance.”, they would meekly return saying “Well, it was just an idea”.

The Inspector offers Segregationalists or chancers. Take you pick…



11 March 2013 18:08  
Blogger Jon said...

Shacklefree and David Hussell - I think you'll find that quite a few people in the media used to go on about Tibet, and quite a lot still do. Even some of the Hollywood hippies you'd get upset about.

Trouble is, no one wants to take on the Chinese. Israel, with its democracy is more open to rational debate than the Chinese communist party. I'd argue that's a good thing.

11 March 2013 18:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, good day to you Mr Rottenborough. It’s been quite a time, what !


11 March 2013 18:09  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

What a shameful indictment of one of Britain’s centres of learning.

Such "medieval mosque attitudes" have no place in religion today. Chrsitianity and Judaism have adapted, within the constraints of their own faith systems, to greater liberty of opinion and more equality between the sexes.

Why do "‘human rights’ fly out of the window where Islam is concerned?"; a rhetorical question which most know the answer to. Unlike other religions, Islam extremists refuse to accommodate the professed beliefs to liberal democratic systems. Fine, if that's what Muslims genuinely choose in their own nations. Its not the way we conduct ourselves in Britain.

The 'Islamic Education and Research Academy', and their spokesmen, may reject the idea of freedom of speech and the very idea of freedom. Christians and Jews have accepted both in an increasingly secular world. Let this group promote their ideas, through free speech, and attempt to achieve their aims of worldwide totalitarianism through the ballot box by persuasion and force of argument!

11 March 2013 18:14  
Blogger Jon said...

Yes, you're right Inspector. What I want is to be told I'm unusual by a middle aged, permanently single man who has a pliable relationship with logic, a bee in his bonnet about other people's sex life and a 1950's view on race relations.

Fortunately for me, society as a whole has spoken, and I'll shortly be allowed to get married if I so choose. Maybe you should move on too? Maybe you'll chill out on your racial issues as well?

11 March 2013 18:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Does anyone remember this

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/debate-on-islam-and-evolution-has-to-be-called-off-after-revolt-by-student-societies-8418022.html

last December?

11 March 2013 18:19  
Blogger William said...

Jon

"I think your friends at UCL with the beards would say the same thing."

I also agree with Mussolini that it's a good idea to have the trains run on time. So I guess that makes me a fascist as well.

"Thanks for making my point for me."

Glad I could help.

11 March 2013 18:22  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ OoIG (18:09)—Thank you. I was excommunicated by Blogger’s word verification procedure, which naughtily rejected all my efforts to make contact with His Grace/Holiness. All now seems to be well, touch wood.

11 March 2013 18:28  
Blogger wallygreeninker said...

UCL advanced the cause of liberal freedoms by being the first university in Britain to admit Jews, non-conformist and atheists. The alma mater of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (the underpants bomber) would probably perform a similar service for intellectual freedom if it excluded Muslims. I suppose they might have some sort of legal defence on the grounds that their collective behaviour had brought the entire institution into disrepute.

11 March 2013 18:29  
Blogger len said...

'Islam or Atheism which makes more sense?.'

The short answer is' neither'.

Islam and Atheism share at least one thing in common... Muslims and Atheists are in bondage to error.Christ came to set the prisoners free and only the Truth can do that.'The Truth' is of course a person.Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.(John 14:6)

Islam is a religion which was created in fear and grows through fear from those within and those outside of Islam.

11 March 2013 19:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say, what a sterling riposte by our lavender boy at 18:14

Now see here young Jon. As a homosexual you are somewhat handicapped in YOUR thought processes and it would be best if we took your comments with that in mind. For example, if it was left to the militant wheelchair brigade, we’d all be labouring up ramps instead of using sensible steps, what !

Anyway, it you want to ‘marry’ your husband, jet off to Canada where Avi will do the dubious honours for and your more masculine half, but don’t expect the unnatural union to be recognised in the UK {SNORT}

Cheery pip, old fruit !


11 March 2013 19:15  
Blogger Roy said...

Jon said...

William said "You mean apart from also being based on biology, tradition, the preservation of family/society and common sense."

I think your friends at UCL with the beards would say the same thing. Segregation is based upon biology (hey - we have different genitals and I think that makes me better than you), tradition (my father was a misogynist, therefore I can be too) etc.


What an utterly absurd argument. Why on earth should it be necessary to point out to any sane human being that there there are very good reasons why marriage is "based on biology, tradition, the preservation of family/society and common sense."

If it were not based on such things the human race would have become extinct long ago.

Biology is fundamental to reproduction. It is not fundamental to seating arrangements. Got it?

11 March 2013 19:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Johnny R. Not sure if you are aware but His Grace has turned a little more Roman Catholic of late and excommunicated the troublesome bird Dodo.

Mums the word, old man !


11 March 2013 19:20  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ OoIG—I witnessed the thunderbolt that did for Dodo. Extinct for a second time.

11 March 2013 19:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

What was not barbequed at the time was divided, bagged and thrown in the freezer. Do take some home, for the pets...

11 March 2013 19:26  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Just over three years ago, the Daily Telegraph ran an article about ‘Islamic radical influence at UCL’ and, more recently, the Daily Mail reported on Muslim medical students at UCL boycotting lectures on evolution.

The author of the Independent article linked by DanJ0 (18:19), Jerome Taylor, investigated voting fraud in east London and received a bloody nose for his trouble.

11 March 2013 19:47  
Blogger Corrigan said...

The Tibetans have suffered much worse than the Palestinians so how come they have received much less exposure to their plight. Could it be the BBC is biased.

We already knew the BBC was biased; try flying a Saltire out your window. The reason the Tibetans don't get so much coverage is because the Chinese don't cause the same emetic reaction in Europe as the Israelis, possibly because they don't claim to be a democracy, and since they don't claim to be part of the west, we don't have to deal with guilt by association.

11 March 2013 20:14  
Blogger Matt A said...

Non-extremist Muslims are, in my experience, delightful people, who are willing to engage in rational discussion. I have never yet met one who would refuse a gift of a Bible, and who would be prepared to read it.
The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers few.

11 March 2013 20:32  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Welcome to the outcome of "Multi-Culturalism." The Law of Unintended Consequences bites hard when it bites, and having all but driven "British Culture" and Heritage out of the public arena, a vacuum has been created - and Islam is rushing in to fill it.

Watch our Political Class change religious allegiance as soon as it becomes necessary to maintain their share of the populist vote.

I'm entirely with Dr Krauss in his stand against the demands of iERA - they should have been expelled from the campus as their demands are a clear breach of the University's diversity and equalities policies, not to mention their founding charter.

11 March 2013 20:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Islam and Atheism share at least one thing in common... Muslims and Atheists are in bondage to error."

Unfortunately Muslims would say much the same, only talking about Christians and atheists instead.

11 March 2013 21:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And most atheists would probably shake their heads at both Muslims and Christians with their funny ways.

11 March 2013 21:26  
Blogger Matt A said...

DanJ0: "funny ways": black pot and kettle spring to mind...

11 March 2013 21:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

We atheists don't have funny ways. :P

11 March 2013 21:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0, it’s true. Atheists are peculiar people who condemn people for death for being, well, in the way. qv Stalin / Moa


11 March 2013 22:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Lies and Piles…

In with the MO

Next prisoner. Come in and sit down.
Any illnesses or diseases ?
I’ve got piles
Any ailments or complaints ?
I’m a martyr to me piles
Have you in the last twelve months visited a doctor or hospital for medical treatment ?
Just for me piles
Are you currently, or have you ever been, a practicing homosexual ?
With MY piles ? Who’d have me !

Have a happy stay in chokey, old chap !

Don’t do anything the Inspector wouldn’t do, what !

11 March 2013 22:57  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

YG asks "Why do ‘human rights’ fly out of the window where Islam is concerned? Why does liberal democracy take a back seat in the toleration of sharia law? Why do universities and public institutions bend over backwards to avoid the charge of 'Islamophobia'?
Well, one reason could be that whenever anybody tries to use reason to criticize this sort of extremism, they are pounced on, vilified and demonized by the left-wing press. If they are professionals they are scared that they will lose their jobs for violating the PC policy of their institution or Union. If they are politicians they will be called Nazis. If they are just obscure nobodies, they still fear that their homes may be vandalized or their children targetted.
Does that answer your question?

12 March 2013 00:47  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

I wonder, really, is there such a person as a genuine, faith-less, atheist? Struggling to be open to one particular religion and questioning them all, I understand. But to dismiss them all? This I do not understand.

12 March 2013 00:47  
Blogger Olive Jones said...

Islamism and "liberalism" are natural bedfellows; accept that, and everything makes sense. They are both determined to destroy Western (Judeo-Christian-) civilisation; they may have a spat or two when that project is realised, ..."

IF that project is ever realized, Islam will annihilate "liberalism." As Osama said, Islam is the "strong horse."

12 March 2013 01:05  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 March 2013 01:35  
Blogger non mouse said...

Dr. Gasper @ 00:47.

Well put -- and right on the money. Thank you.

I suspect HG knows, of course! However it's good for us all to see it said by others!

12 March 2013 01:37  
Blogger Gnostic said...

This beggars belief. Words fail me.

12 March 2013 02:32  
Blogger Ivan said...

...as the Israelis, possibly because they don't claim to be a democracy

Therefore all Israel has to do is to declare itself a theocracy, and everything would be alright. The obsession with Israel is a form of ritual scapegoating, a well-known means of uniting otherwise disparate groups. The crowds that rally against Israel are generally made up of hypocrites who really do not bother about human rights. It is an updated form of gladiatorial entertainment where they gather to vent steam on a few Jews.

12 March 2013 02:38  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Just rec'd this by email:-

"UK’s Bedfordshire Police’s rules regarding terrorists and dangerous criminals

If they’re non-Muslim
• Consider the most opportune time of day to be able to arrest suspects with minimum resistance

• Apply all necessary force to enter the premises and arrest suspects accordingly.

If they’re Muslim:
• Community leaders must be consulted before raids into Muslim houses.

• Officers must not search occupied bedrooms and bathrooms before dawn.

• Use of police dogs will be considered serious desecration of the premises.

• Cameras and camcorders should not be used in case of capturing women in inappropriate dress.

• If people are praying at home officers should stand aside and not disrupt the prayer.

They should be allowed the opportunity to finish.

• Officers should take their shoes off before raiding a Muslim house.

• The reasons for pre-dawn raids on Muslim houses needs to be clear and transparent.

• Officers must not touch holy books or religious artefacts without permission.

• Muslim prisoners should be allowed to take additional clothing to the station."


If true, and I would be surprised if it were not, it just shows the institutional bias and "respect" shown towards Islam and its followers that is just not given to anyone else.

Just look at the care being taken around investigations at the Islamic Lancashire Girls School.

Better get used to it - we are already in a state of Dhimmitude.

12 March 2013 09:17  
Blogger David B said...

@Peter Damian, who said

"I wonder, really, is there such a person as a genuine, faith-less, atheist?"

To some degree it depends on how one defines faith. If one is to insist that, for instance, it is a matter of faith that the pavement will not open up under one when one takes one's next step, then everyone has faith, and hence the word loses all meaning. In terms of not believing in a supernatural entity, then any metaphysical naturalist is devoid of faith, and there are a lot of us.

"Struggling to be open to one particular religion and questioning them all, I understand. But to dismiss them all? This I do not understand."

At a simplistic level you might try thinking of how someone who doesn't believe in fairies, gnomes, goblins, kelpies and leprauchauns, among many others, might dismiss all ideas of little hidden people with supernatural powers.

There is some discussion within atheism of some replacement for religion which does not involve the supernatural, which is meeting a mixed response, and there are religions which are not viewed as silly but which do not demand supernatural belief. Some schools of Buddhism, Universalism and some quakers might fit the bill there, as well as, at a pinch, the Anglicanism of Don Cupitt, David Jenkins and their ilk.

For me, and I think for most of my fellows that I meet on various discussion forums, the supernatural is the crucial factor, and many would argue on both sides that religion requires the supernatural in order to be, shall we say, a proper religion.

If you want to discuss this further, I am available.

As an aside, perhaps I might take this opportunity to let people who have expressed an interest in my health know how things have progressed.

The first three chemo treatments went very smoothly, but the next two led to such severe side effects that my sister had to come down to nurse me for a couple of months, during which time I slowly came back towards health, though things are still not quite right.

After a meeting with my oncologist a couple of weeks ago, he decided to withdraw treatment, on the grounds that I had already had some doses which might well have killed of cells which had escaped the site of my absent semi-colon, and in any case my prognosis was pretty good even without treatment, coupled with the serious problems I was having with side effects.

I since recovered enough to drive my sister back to Scotland, with a break overnight, and am now staying with her for a couple of weeks. I hope to get back to work after a further period of recovery.

David

12 March 2013 09:27  
Blogger John Thomas said...

Shacklefree: Perhaps more people will come to see/admit that the BBC is indeed the Brazenly Biased Corporation, as many say.
Olive Jones: "Islam will annihilate "liberalism."" - yes, but then, "liberalism" will suddenly wake up to reality, and find it's too late ...

12 March 2013 09:44  
Blogger David B said...

@John Thomas who said

" "Islam will annihilate "liberalism."" - yes, but then, "liberalism" will suddenly wake up to reality, and find it's too late ... "

I wonder which accomodates Islam more - the churches or liberals.

I write as a liberal who does not want to give special privileges to Islam, or indeed any other religion.

All religions, to my mind, need to accept that no special allowances should be made for them regarding laws on animal care, especially regarding slaughter, on security - if motorcycle helmets need to be removed before entering garages then so do hijabs -, on mutilating infants sex organs, male or female, on child marriage etc.

No free parking in municipal car parks for religious groups that are denied to other groups, no free bus rides for kids going to school if others are denied on religious grounds, no funding of faith schools, Islamic or otherwise...

David

12 March 2013 11:28  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

David B

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my comment which was offered more as a thought than an invitation to discussion. I have debated this endlessly and for every argument I advance I suspect you will have a well rehearsed answer in reply.

Ultimately it comes down to that intangible thing called faith - that certainty in one's heart that we are not alone in this life; a belief in what you call a "supernatural entity", what I experience and know to be a loving, Being.

Have you ever looked behind the myths of fairies, gnomes, goblins, kelpies and leprauchauns? Why be so dismissive? Surely they reflect man's primitive need to give form to the unknowable and to explain the inexplicable - the supernatural - above nature.

As a child, I always knew there was a greater Presence - always. Of course, as one matures this instinct take shape and form and is subject to the culture within which one is raised. As an adult, one uses reason to discern the truth.

I see you are facing a trial. I will pray for your recovery. Tell me, honesty, in moments of deepest despair and pain have you never sought the help of and reached out to an 'Unknown God'?

12 March 2013 12:39  
Blogger David B said...

Peter, my view is that there are good evolutionary reasons for human beings to tend to ascribe purpose to events. For example to ascribe the movement of prey animals towards water holes as being for the purpose of them wanting to drink.

Sometimes this tendency is overdone, and people ascribe purpose in some supernatural agency to events like lightning striking, sickness, milk curdling, volcanoes, eathquakes...

Sometimes people will pray, sacrifice, or wear a green jersey to attempt to influence events like a safe arrival of a new child or a victory for their favoured football team.

I prefer to ascribe purpose to events only when it is reasonable to do so, as I prefer to only believe my actions influence events when reasonable to do so.

No, I have not reached out to an Unknown God. Not in recent decades, anyway.

David

12 March 2013 13:47  
Blogger Peter Damian said...

David, then I hope that in the years still in front of you God waits patiently on you. Man, unlike that "instinctive movement of animals towards water holes", has the capacity to question whether his behaviour has meaning and purpose and whether his desire for 'water' is consistent with this.

12 March 2013 14:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Harry,

http://www.bedfordshire.police.uk/about_us/news/news_2011/110216_-_bedfordshire_police.aspx

12 March 2013 17:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Good Lord David B 11:28

What’s going on ? No this and No that. No funded faith schools even though those of faith are tax payers ?

I say, it’s rather generous of a magnanimous atheist like you to tolerate us religious types. But as we have seen over and over, in atheist utopian societies…

…YOU DON’T !!!

And that is when the persecution starts, when the imprisonment starts, when the killing starts. Look into the mirror now and say “Here is the face of a potentially evil man who would do ill to his fellows because he must in the name of all that is sacred to atheism”





12 March 2013 18:44  
Blogger peggy38 said...

Its strikes me as funny that when it comes to supposedly "separate but equal Sharia compliant seating, that it always involves women being stuck with a terrible view of the backs of the men's heads or else of men's upturned arses. And why couldn't the seating sections be side by side? That might be the obvious choice if subordination wasn't more important than separation.

13 March 2013 03:55  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Being a committed Protestant Christian, who happened to be born an Anglican, I have few doubts that God exists, but it is worth musing on the point that, history demonstrates that if society declares God dead, what follows is that the most powerful organs of the State, headed by a man, become god. Then with no higher court of appeal, the oppression, the corruption, the cruelty and soon the mass murder in the name of order, or politics or some such thing starts up. The atheistic regimes of the recent past followed that path. The demonstrable truth is that Man, although only a little lower than the angels is , without the restraining , moderating influence of God a vicious thing. Human Rights laws will not withstand his godless nature , despite the delusions of the French Revolutionary inspired thinking, now embedded within the godless constitution of the EU. Just look at the incredible callousness in Brussels towards the deep suffering in Greece, where racialism is again stalking the streets.

13 March 2013 08:54  
Blogger David Hussell said...

So as I forgot to say, by means of a concluding sentence, so I'll give it here,

Whether or not we , as individuals, believe that God actually exists, the concept of God, to whom we are all ultimately accountable, after our death, is the only effective way available to us and society, to place a curb, a limit, on what otherwise is the terrible "inhumanity" of Man to man. Take out God and we all become monsters. Whatever political or legal contrivance is erected , clever cunning people, will, in the absence of a belief in a higher being, find a way to create hell on earth.

13 March 2013 09:23  
Blogger Olive Jones said...

@David Hussell,

Take out God and we all become monsters. Whatever political or legal contrivance is erected , clever cunning people, will, in the absence of a belief in a higher being, find a way to create hell on earth.

What about all the horror and inhumanity and hell on earth committed in the name of God and one's religion? I think it's the PERSON, and not their belief or disbelief in a Supreme Being that makes monsters.





13 March 2013 12:19  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Olive,

No, there is no pure "person". We are all clean slates when we are born. Then , as adults, we all operate using the ideas and values that we must gain from somewhere. A good upbringing in a good home, guided by solid Christian values is a good start. After that each individual makes their own choices. Religious values, when applied as the founder, Christ, intended are the "gold standard", which we try (and fail, repeatedly ) to live by. Read The Sermon on the Mount. It is the highest morality we are aware of, and a target none of us will reach.

However religious ideas have been , like everything else that humanity touches, subverted and used for evil purposes, politics and pure power. Wars and bad things can result, I agree. There is good and bad religion. Bad religion leading to wars and persecution of others, including those of different faiths is well, bad. But the perversion of faith for wrong purposes proves the intrinsic need for all of us to be instructed, when young, and thereafter guided by God derived values, which moderate our inherent weaknesses, in all of us, me included.

13 March 2013 13:09  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

I found this disgusting notice on the board at work, telling us there will be a Rally for Real Marriage at Trafalgar Square London on Sunday 24th March at 2pm.
Real Marriage meaning, yes you've guessed it, between a man and a woman yeeeugh.
How dare they? Whoever put it there obviously doesn't realize that it's against our Equality and Perversity policy. You can't just make any announcement without getting the approval of Stonewall.
Of course I tore it down and I hope nobody here dares to mention it to any one at all.

13 March 2013 13:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David Hassell. Whether or not we , as individuals, believe that God actually exists, the concept of God, to whom we are all ultimately accountable, after our death, is the only effective way available to us and society, to place a curb, a limit, on what otherwise is the terrible "inhumanity" of Man to man.

That, Sir, ranks among the most profound statements that will ever appear on a religious / political site.

This man parallels the notion to the concept of mathematical little ‘i’, to wit, the square root of minus one. Of course, little ‘i‘ doesn’t exist as such. It cannot, it is impossible. Negative numbers do not have square roots. Yet used in equation, great results are possible through it. So for those that cannot believe in God almighty, worship little ‘i‘ instead, your non-god, and at the same time appreciate the mathematical logic that holds the universe together.





13 March 2013 17:53  
Blogger Roma Nelson said...

I was at the debate. I was told by one of the women ushers that women would sit at the back. I asked her if the event was segregated and she told me no I could sit wherever I wanted to. I then went and sat with the men as well as some other women. However, in my aisle was a couple who told me that they had to say they were married so they could sit together.

13 March 2013 22:58  
Blogger Olive Jones said...

... the concept of God, to whom we are all ultimately accountable, after our death, is the only effective way available to us and society, to place a curb, a limit, on what otherwise is the terrible "inhumanity" of Man to man.

Allahu akbar.

14 March 2013 03:03  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

UCL pleads ignorance of the segregation enforcement and has acted.

Atheist Professor Krauss stormed out of the debate when he realised seating segregation was being enforced and after three women were ejected.

UCL's press office issued a statement saying iERA would never again be allowed to hold events on the university's campuses.
It said: 'We do not allow enforced segregation on any grounds [but]... it now appears that, despite our clear instructions, attempts were made to enforce segregation at the meeting.
'We are still investigating what actually happened at the meeting but, given IERA’s original intentions for a segregated audience we have concluded that their interests are contrary to UCL’s ethos and that we should not allow any further events involving them to take place on UCL premises.'


Daily Mail


14 March 2013 19:51  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older