Saturday, July 20, 2013

Midland mosque-bombing met with Government indifference


Apparently, the Wolverhampton Central Mosque was bombed on 28th June.

The police have only just noticed.

In fact, three Midland mosques have been bombed over the past month - in Wolverhampton, Walsall and Tipton - in a targeted campaign to kill or maim Muslims at prayer. Here's a helpful graphic (h/t the Mail):


Military bomb disposal teams have been mobilised and counter-terrorism officers are operating throughout the area.

The thing is, there's been no denunciation of this by the Prime Minister.

COBRA has not been convened, as it was immediately after the appalling murder of Drummer Lee Rigby.

Is the bombing of mosques not classified as terrorism?

Or is it only terrorism when Muslims do the attacking?

231 Comments:

Blogger seanrobsville said...

Globally, the main bombers of mosques are other Muslims, not kuffars. Maybe these were the wrong type of mosque preaching the wrong type of Islam.

20 July 2013 09:40  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Interesting questions.

Is HM Government on holiday ?

20 July 2013 09:42  
Blogger Albert said...

There would be comment if these bombs were aimed at churches and what if these bombs were aimed at gay clubs? Everyone would be queueing up to express their outrage.

I just wonder if there is a reason for the silence. Is it for fear of stirring things up more - rather as the Jews of Rome asked Pius XII not to say anything further about the holocaust? If not, then I think this silence is an outrage.

20 July 2013 09:51  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The thing is, there's been no comment on this by the HomeSecretary...

Really?

'Speaking in the House of Commons, Ms May said: "Last Friday we witnessed an attempted act of terror designed to divide our community.

"The motivations behind the explosion outside a mosque in Tipton as people gathered for Friday afternoon prayers are not yet known.

"But the intention was clear and the potential for injury and loss of life is obvious.

"This country will not be divided by terrorism'

20 July 2013 09:56  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Bless you, Dreadnaught.

Corrected.

20 July 2013 10:05  
Blogger The Explorer said...

I agree with Dreadnaught. There has been a spate of attacks since the death of Drummer Rigby, including in London, but my understanding is that six men have been arrested: most recently, two Ukranians.

20 July 2013 10:07  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

As I argue in my own blog, there are indications that the bombings have been carried out by Muslims. Those arrested were living in an area where 80% of the population comes from Pakistan or Bangladesh and came from Ukraine which has a substantial Muslim population. Could this be the start of a Muslim sectarian war, as in Syria?

20 July 2013 10:21  
Blogger Albert said...

That's a useful correction, Dreadnaught. But I think Dr Cranmer's point remains substantially unchanged. Considering that there have been three such attacks, the Government is very quiet. The comment from the Home Secretary refers only to one attack, and nothing from the PM (I take it). But that does not alter the fact that it is possible that there is good reason for keeping quiet.

20 July 2013 10:36  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

If this is an internal squabble within the Muslim community, then maybe the kuffar police have no business meddling in Muslim affairs, any more than they have interfering with the God given right to groom kuffar children.

20 July 2013 10:41  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Or do the Police and Government know something we don't?

20 July 2013 10:47  
Blogger David B said...

Perhaps there is a case for the Government, while there has been comment, keeping it fairly low profile, on a number of grounds.

One being to keep any publicity low key in the interests of minimising the potential for copy-cat attacks.

Another being to avoid undue pressure on the security forces, and to give them scope to conduct their enquiries without too much ministerial or press pressure.

I did see the news about Ukranians being arrested before reading this post, though, via the NSS new feed.

So it is not being kept from the attention of the press.

It does seem possible to me that the press, and particularly the Mail/Express/Telegraph wing of the press, does not find this the sort of topic that would appeal to their readership, though, and, if so, it would be another reason for what might well be considered under-reporting.

David

20 July 2013 10:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Could well be the ‘Baghdad School of Thought’ has arrived in the area...

Britons visiting the Birmingham area are warned to be extra vigilant and be prepared to cut short their stay, should tensions between the different ethnic groups worsen...

20 July 2013 11:10  
Blogger The Explorer said...

English Pensioner:

Had a look at your blog: attacks caused by sectarianism rather than reprisal.

Interesting point: it would help to know more about the ethnic origins/religions of those arrested.

God forbid that I should seek to defend the BBC, but given that the mosque attacks - and now the prison assault on Adebolajo - came in the wake of Rigby, it would not be unreasonable to see them as resulting from reaction to the murder.

20 July 2013 11:17  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

My own opinion is similar to that of David B.

David C is probably keeping his head down after this:

'As the Prime Minister has said, what happened at Woolwich was a betrayal of Islam.'

A betrayal of Islam?? What about a betrayal of this country and its people by yet more Muslim arrogance and their perpetually mis-understood tenets of the Religion of Peace?

Why are the streets of London, Birmingham and Bradford not filled with parades of indignant moderate Muslims? - silly question.

The government know how previously mishandled immigration policies and the lemming-like rush to foist on us the unfettered mantra of multiculturalism. Such undemocratic change has affected great swathes of traditionally white, working class areas and towns which are now virtually Islamic colonies.

They also know that this country and much of Western Europe is sitting on a powder-keg and at the same time in hock to the mighty middle eastern petro-dollar.

The truth is - they do not have clue what to do.

20 July 2013 11:38  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Further to English Pensioner’s suggestion of Muslim involvement, a line in this news story about a proposed mosque in Sunderland shows the tension that can exist between different Muslim communities: ‘Some Pakistani Muslims told Sky Tyne and Wear they needed the new mosque because they did not feel welcome in nearby Bangladeshi mosques.’

20 July 2013 11:47  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

LONDON: The attack on Kanzul Iman Central Jamia Mosque in Tipton last Friday was a despicable crime, intended to cause fatalities and horrific injuries. It is being investigated by West Midlands Police as a terrorist incident, and they have my full support.

Several weeks earlier there was another attack on Aisha Mosque in Walsall. Fortunately, no one has been hurt in either of these incidents and there has been no serious damage to property.

But the outcome could easily have been very different. Violence like this has no place in our society. Individuals and groups that seek to intimidate and threaten communities in this country will not go unpunished.

West Midlands Police have assured me that they are doing everything in their power to bring those responsible to justice. And I have asked that I am kept up-to-date with the latest developments in the case.

What happened in the West Midlands is a reminder that terrorism affects all communities in the UK. We do not yet know the motivation behind these attacks. But the people who carried out these bombings are no more representative of Britain than those who carried out the attack at Woolwich are representative of the Islamic faith. As the Prime Minister has said, what happened at Woolwich was a betrayal of Islam.

We are fortunate that events such as these are few and far between. But I can understand the inevitable fear and concern that must exist in communities.

Following Tipton and Walsall, I am determined to redouble efforts to ensure that no community in this country should live in fear because of its faith. That is why the police and local partners are taking action to help British Muslim communities feel safe, particularly during Ramadan.

Building on past work with communities, the police have developed national guidance on providing security measures at mosques and other key premises. I am pleased this guidance is available to all police forces across the UK, and theyare being encouraged to work with local communities, and advise them on security measures where necessary.

In the West Midlands specialist advisers are giving dedicated security advice to mosques, Islamic schools and community centres so they can develop plans to better protect themselves against terrorist attacks. And in many places there have been increased police patrols and community engagement.

The freedom to worship has long been a part of our British tradition. It is a right that includes every faith community in this country and it is one that I am determined to uphold.

Just as we saw people coming together to denounce what happened at Woolwich, so too we must come together and stand firm against these attacks, and those that seek to stir up hatred. We must not allow extremists and terrorists to spread hate and cause division.

The response of Muslim communities in Tipton, Walsall and across the UK has demonstrated dignity and resilience – and this has been reflected in mosque and community leaders declaring that communities should remain united and calm.

They are an example to us all and I commend and join their refusal to be cowed in the face of these attacks.I am aware of the planned demonstration by the EDL in Birmingham on Saturday. Let me be clear, groups such as the EDL are rejected by the vast majority of the British people – they spread hate and seek to demonise British Muslims...

(The writer is British Home Secretary)


http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-2-190906-Violence-against-Muslims-has-no-place-in-our-society

Obviously, this is an attempt by government to mitigate muslim mob reaction in Pakistan if not the rest of the 'Muslim World' once the Imams get wind of things and start stirring things up 'Cartoon' style.

20 July 2013 11:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good grief Dreadnaught !

A speech worthy of Enoch himself. And yet it was not so long ago you were castigating this man for pointing out racial differences in the immigrant peoples that inhabit England were making life {AHEM} ‘uncomfortable’ for many. Indeed, you so called him a cretin even as of late.

Excellent to see that your tipping point, as for so many, has come. The ugly truth certainly sharpens the mind, does it not, even a doped one...


20 July 2013 11:59  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector:

Dreadnaught did not MAKE the speech: he was quoting it as evidence of government response.

20 July 2013 12:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

11:38, old chap.

20 July 2013 12:06  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector:

Hang on: which of Dreadnaught's two speeches are you referring to?

20 July 2013 12:07  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector:

Your answer came as I was posting my question. Your statement now makes perfect sense.

20 July 2013 12:09  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I'm a little confused by the comments to the effect that the bombing might have been carried out by a Muslim: it's certainly true, it might have been (though typing in Northern Ireland, I'd never assume that Muslims/Islamists have a monopoly on terrorism).

But what's the inference? That this justifies the lack of governmental response? As others have pointed out, if it was suspected that a Muslim might have bombed a church or a synagogue or a gay bar there would be a very different, and different level of response. Surely the possibility of a Muslim blowing up his "fellow" believers is as scandalous as if they blew anyone else up?

Or is there a little overcompensation for the fear that these might not be the work of Muslims captured by a foreign ideology - that actually these are the work of Westerners, likely nominally-Christian (in the Anders Breivik sense more probably)? That would scupper the line that the only threat we have to fear is from "outside".

Let's hope the bombers are caught swiftly, that they are treated with no favour, and that when they are sentenced they never again walk the streets as free men.

20 July 2013 12:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David B: "One being to keep any publicity low key in the interests of minimising the potential for copy-cat attacks."

I think that too.

I've been following the coverage for weeks as it's relatively local but even the coverage has been muted.

20 July 2013 12:39  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Nobody would consider bombing a CofE church in the UK since it would be of no effect. Firstly there would in most cases be very few there. Secondly there is nothing in the churches make up or theology that would cause offence to anyone, not even atheists since the workers from within have so watered down the Gospel that it is of no consequence, except for a few Evangelical Churches.
PS. I have not seen any comment that the SSM Bill recieved Royal Assent this week?

20 July 2013 12:53  
Blogger Nick said...

AnonymousBelfast

I share your sentiments on the capture of these bombers. I am personally sick of the Islamisation of Britain but I know that street violence is not the way to deal with it.

We are dealing with the consequence of successive governments failing to have a sensible immigration policy. By "sensible" I mean a simple control on numbers with complete disregard for the howling from "equality" and "anti-discrimination" lobbies.

We should be trying to limit the damage already done to British society by implementing stricter immigration controls and sending a clear message to the Muslims that there will be no sharia law in Britain, so if they don't like that, they have the right to go somewhere else. Multiculturalism has failed and has likttle chance of success in the current tense social climate. We should try to salvage what is still British about Britain.

The problem is we need bold resolute politicians to do this properly, and sadly, there's no sign of those yet.

20 July 2013 12:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Nick,

sending a clear message to the Muslims that there will be no sharia law in Britain

Is that not what happened after the Archbishop of Canterbury said the opposite?

20 July 2013 12:57  
Blogger Nick said...

Mr Integrity

The SSM Bill was discussed on a different thread..

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=25291932&postID=215363721270103918&isPopup=true

20 July 2013 13:05  
Blogger bluedog said...

Nick @ 12.54 said, ' I am personally sick of the Islamisation of Britain but I know that street violence is not the way to deal with it.'

A contradiction in terms, with respect. Street violence will be the only way to eradicate the problem of Islam. Nothing else has worked, anywhere, ever. The only area of uncertainty is the identity of the perpetrators of violence: the armed forces of an enlightened British state or British citizens acting on their own initiative in despair of their leaders coming to their senses and doing something effective.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but there's no other way out of this mess.

20 July 2013 13:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Bluedog

How will street violence "eradicate the problem of Islam?" What is the end-state you hope to achieve by means of the mob or the Molotov Cocktail or the hidden bomb? And how would this be different from what is happening to Christians in (say) Egypt?

carl

20 July 2013 13:44  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

How many official lies need to be forced on the people before a country qualifies as a failed state? Theresa May, quoted by Dreadnaught, parrots the latest official lie that Woolwich was a betrayal of Islam. A hadith reveals otherwise:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 25. Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle was asked, ‘What is the best deed?’ He replied, ‘To believe in Allah and His Apostle.’ The questioner then asked, ‘What is the next [in goodness]?’ He replied, ‘To participate in jihad in Allah’s Cause.’

Christians are expected to love God and love their neighbours. With Islam, it’s ‘Believe in Allah and kill the infidel.’

20 July 2013 13:46  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Bluedog:

You want to live in a country where men rule with fist and, inevitably, gun? They will bring no justice, only misery and intimidation. Don't be under any illusions: they will turn on their own, hunting out traitors and murdering those who stand against them.

The victims of such violence will be the very communities which the violent purport to protect.

20 July 2013 13:59  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0 @ 12:39

I hadn't followed details as closely as you had, but I was aware of a variety of incidents following the death of Rigby, took them to be reprisal, and assumed that the muted coverage was to avoid inflaming things further.

The idea that it might be Muslim-on Muslim violence had not occurred to me before this thread. It could all be a mixture: reprisal for Rigby, inter-
Muslim tension, or both; the one operating under covr of the other.

I suppose things will become clear in due course.

20 July 2013 13:59  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Jonny Rottenborough makes a salient point:

"Christians are expected to love God and love their neighbours. With Islam[ists], it’s ‘Believe in Allah and kill the infidel.’"

Tell me then, who is greater, the God of Love, or this Allah of Jihad? In whose method should we trust?

20 July 2013 14:01  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Or is it only terrorism when Muslims do the attacking?

I think Cranmer's finally getting the concept of consistancy. Give it a few years, and we'll have him taking communion in St Peter's. Legitimately, this time.

20 July 2013 14:13  
Blogger bluedog said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 July 2013 14:16  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Nick,
I must have missed that one, been in Cornwall.
But still, why would anyone bomb a CofE church? No point in it because you might as well bomb a sand dune. Blast completely diffused by soft dry fragmented material.

20 July 2013 14:18  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl @ 13.44. But how do you deal with a demographic that is both absolutely hostile and intent on conquest? Islam the religion and Islamic populations present an existential threat to Western societies. It is necessary to make an assessment and develop a plan to deal with the threat.Fifteenth century Spain dealt successfully with Islam by the final Reconquista of the Emirate of Grenada. Fifteenth century Constantinople failed to resist and the Bosphorus bobbed with the heads of Christians as a result.

At some point this will be the choice for Britain. Otherwise the British will be like the Copts in Egypt, AIB.

Indeed on current projections the Muslims will be a majority in 2066. Allah is merciful and most of us will be dead by then. But in that event, what is your proscription, AIB?

Hand-wringing is not an option.

20 July 2013 14:21  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Belfast:

A genuinely difficult question,and in responding to it I suspect I'm venturing in above my head (having already made one silly mistake earlier in the thread).

However, Gibbon made the comment that the only reason we are reading the Bible rather than the Koran in our Oxbridge colleges is Charles Martel's success at the Battle of Tours. What would have happened to Viennese music if the Turkish heavy guns had not become mired in mud when The Hungarians decided to intervene, and the city had gone the way of Constantinople?

Constantinople used to be Christian. The areas that are now Lebanon, Syria and parts of Egypt and Turkey were Christian before they were Muslim. The Allah of Jihad gave a pretty good account of himself.

Spain freed itself from Muslim control by warfar, not by peace.

I suppose I'm venturing into Just War territory: does love of one's God and one's neighbour sometimes involve defending them physically?

On the other hand, in Christian terms the Muslim is also one's neighbour. All very difficult: in British terms, it needs an Aquinas, rather than the likes of me, to sort it out.

20 July 2013 14:38  
Blogger Addis Ethiopia said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 July 2013 14:39  
Blogger Addis Ethiopia said...

On a 'Christian' blog people empathize with Muslims, but demonize a murdered Christian black. Unbelievable! Cranmer should better have said a thing or two about one of the most disgraceful acts in British history: the Queens' approval of Gay marriage. Why silent on this particular treason?

20 July 2013 14:41  
Blogger Ian G said...

No-one was killed in these 'attacks' which mysteriously coincide with an EDL rally where 1000 police intend to 'protect the public' from dangerous EDL... what precisely?

http://melaniephillips.com/sleepwalking-into-islamisation

And I quote: After a vicar in East London, Canon Michael Ainsworth, was beaten up by three Muslims in his own churchyard in March, it was revealed that there had been many attacks on churches in the area by such youths, who on one occasion shouted: 'This should not be a church, this should be a mosque.'

That was in 2008.

20 July 2013 14:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Bluedog.

You have described a problem and not a result. I asked you what end-state you desired to achieve with mob violence. Do you intend to kill them? Do you intend to drive them out? You see, it's easy to say these things until you face the details of what you are saying. Are you hard enough to do what is necessary to rid Britain of the Eternal Muslim? Do you have the capacity to do what is necessary and still remain civilized?

carl

20 July 2013 14:56  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Bluedog:

The question, as in so many things, falls down to what you believe.

If Christ is your Lord, then these are His words:

"“But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.
[...]
“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for He is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
" Luke 6:27-29, 35-36

If He is not, or His words seem not to be good to you, then you follow another way.

My words to you before were written from the experience in Northern Ireland, where men thought, as you have thought, that only violence could drive out the Catholic within, where only bombs and mortars could send the British packing. I write of nothing except that which has resulted: a blight, not only on the enemy, but on the very people in whose name the violence was wrought.

20 July 2013 15:04  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Belfast:

One could say that the Vikings responded to the message of peace by becoming Christian. But one could also say that only the militancy and protection of the likes of Alfred enabled enough monasteries to survive for the message to be transmitted.

In nauy case, some Vikings responded by becoming God's warriors: hence the Varingian Guard at Constantinople.

20 July 2013 15:11  
Blogger The Explorer said...

For nauy read any

20 July 2013 15:12  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Explorer:

You raise a good point - but do you see a conquering army at our doorstep?

A nation has a responsibility to defend and protect its citizens (in fact, I'd argue that it's the highest responsibility, since all others are possible only where peace and security are maintained). That responsibility is justly exercised by rulers in the punishment of those of who would turn to violence, whether they justify such violence in the name of Allah, of Irish Republicanism, or in the name of the British people.

For the Christian faced with such evil, it seems to me that if we believe Jesus taught justly and well, we must face that evil with love. Bluedog mentioned handwringing - but I see nothing of that in Christ's words. There is no exhortation to turn away from evil, to meekly back down, to compromise with it, or to ignore it in the hope that it will go away. Rather Jesus, it seems to me, says: look evil in the eye, and repay its every transgression against you with love.

I trust in His words because I believe in the power of God's love, wildly and fiercely displayed for the salvation of man. Wildly and fiercely displayed for me.

20 July 2013 15:20  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Belfast:

I do not see an invading army; although, if Bluedog is right, there might well be one by 2066.

I would not presume to lecture anyone who has been through the Northern-Ireland experience: I was trying in my own mind to get the balance between love and self-defence. (Christ's chastisement of the money changers suggests violence is justified in some circumstances with some people.)

The decision of what to do, in any case, is not in our hands. We are not a Christian country making political decisions according to Christian principles; we are a secular country in which the decisions are made by secularists.

For myself, I try to love my God (while I am still allowed to, and whose revelation I will not compromise) and my neighbour (of whatever persuasion). That is all I can realistically do.

20 July 2013 15:56  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

We are not a Christian country making political decisions according to Christian principles; we are a secular country in which the decisions are made by secularists.

Excellent news (but sadly true)! So our future is determined by secularists. I wonder how long it will take before people realise that secularism has been messing our world up.

20 July 2013 16:04  
Blogger Albert said...

Addis,

On a 'Christian' blog people empathize with Muslims, but demonize a murdered Christian black.

I must have missed that.

Cranmer should better have said a thing or two about one of the most disgraceful acts in British history: the Queens' approval of Gay marriage. Why silent on this particular treason?

In his defence, Cranmer's views on gay "marriage" are well-known and have been rehearsed here rather a lot.

20 July 2013 16:06  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I ask some questions.

What has happened to the Christian ideal of protecting the weak, if necessary, by force of arms ?

Can we profitably, learn again from the ancient ideas of Chivalry ?

Do not Christian men, and women too if they care to fight, have a duty to protect their young, old and weak? But firstly one tries discussion and negotiation, but backed by force ?

Does not evil sometimes have to be confronted by force? Hitler ? Bosnia ? Others can add to this.

I feel that , Love needs to be strong and protective as well as gentle. In extremis, It is not loving or self sacrificial to stand by as ones children, old people and even faith and culture are destroyed.

Some may possess such spiritual force that they can successfully face down guns with crucifixes, but I do not, and would want to have both. The Lord helps those who put their trust in Him and help themselves, I feel. Bluedog is a realist.

20 July 2013 16:06  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

You can lecture away to your heart's content Explorer, I've never experienced violence directly myself, though my wife and her family have. My experience is drawn largely from the continuing aftermath: of watching the so-called defenders of communities turn to organised rioting and drug trafficking because they can't give up the heady and violent power to which they have become accustomed. It's looking around and seeing that, of one's peers, the overwhelming majority have some form of mental health problems, looking at one's neighbourhood and seeing generational legacies of poverty, abuse and neglect.

When I hear people hoping for popular uprisings, that's what I have in my mind's eye.

I don't dispute the need for authorities to use proper force - I wholly support the proper punishment of terrorists (of all persuasions), and I share concerns with many here regarding the way that our authorities too often seem to be "hand-wringing" in the face of evil. I'm basically an old-fashioned believer in the Rule of Law when it comes to how authorities should act, and a believer in radical love when it comes to how Christians should act (I distinguish the two since a state cannot radically love as the individual can, and so derogates both its responsibilities and the maning of love and forgiveness when it attempts to do so).

20 July 2013 16:11  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Belfast:

Good distinction between the State and the individual: the sort Carl Jacobs would make.

Christians, I suppose, can enjoy a measure of detachment since our ultimate hope is not focused on this world (although we humans are its guardians: or supposed to be).

We do not expect the existing order of things to last indefinitely, the Second Coming is an event we yearn for, and to die is to be with Christ.

The secularist, for whom this world is all, must find other consolations in the present state of things.

20 July 2013 16:46  
Blogger David B said...

I do wish people would stop misusing the word 'secularist' in such an egregious fashion.

A person may be a secularist and a believer in any religion, or none.

Secularism has been, is, and will remain being a far better defender of freedom of religion than any theocracy, past, present or future.

To use the term as some regular posters on this board do shows them to be misinformed at best, deliberately dishonest at worst.

David

20 July 2013 16:55  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David Hussell

Bluedog is a fanticist. He is imagining some ideal outcome from mob violence that cannot be realized. We he would get is much different than his expectations. Anarchy is the worst organizing principle of all. It is the law of fang and tooth and claw. And don't kid yourself. Anarchy is the necessary precondition for mob violence because the state must be too weak to stop it.

You can't control a mob. It is not an army. It is a seething mass of murder and pillage hidden beneath the anonymity of the crowd. Let it free and it will consume you.

carl

20 July 2013 17:02  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Bluedog

Barababas was the revolutionary.

Except they killed Jesus.

Barababas could be killed anytime and also his movement along with him.

They correctly identified that Jesus was the bigger threat.

My point is that millitant I'll kill you in your beds type moslems are not the threat.

A watered down Gospel, "modernised" Christian teaching. Now that does make me worried for my children's future.

Phil

20 July 2013 17:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Except, David B, your view of religious freedom would hermetically seal it off from the public square lest it exert influence. You are supporting a vision of religious freedom that allows you to control it. The purpose being to make a man's religion as significant as his favorite football team. That's not the same thing as maintaining separate kingdoms of church and state.

carl

20 July 2013 17:10  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

@ Bluedog
on current projections the Muslims will be a majority in 2066

It could happen much, much sooner than that.

Sooner or later one of our more unstable EU partners is going to implement the Burmese solution to its Muslim problem. The displaced Muslims, being EU citizens, will then move on to other EU countries, rather than back to their impoverished ancestral homelands. This in turn could start a domino effect of destabilisation and expulsion from the recipient nations. The inevitable outcome is that all of Europe's unwanted Muslims will eventually end up in the most Islamophilic countries, one of which is likely to be the UK.

20 July 2013 17:51  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David B:

'Secular' is one of those words, like 'liberal', that has changed its meaning over time.

In medieval times, for instance, there was the secular wing and the spiritual wing: it was perfectly possible to be a believer engaged in secular activity.

Nowadays, 'secular' has come to be associated with Utopianism: a belief-system that pins its hopes to this world and this life only. Naturalism, rather than Supernaturalism. That is the sense in which I use it.

I agree there is confusion: is there any difference, for instance, between a humanist and a secular humanist? (Given that 'humanism' doesn't mean, anyway, what it did in the Renaissance.) Are Cultural Marxists and Social Marxists the same thing: advocates of PC?

Who owns the meaning of words these days? Search me. Blame it all on Saussure, and the Postmodernists.

20 July 2013 18:08  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ AnonymousInBelfast (14:01)—who is greater, the God of Love, or this Allah of Jihad?

In England, Allah is currently greater. Politicians, Churches and media are compliant to his will, smoothing the path for Islam by legislation and propaganda, and his followers are populating the towns and cities with new generations of Muslims.

Defeat Allah by voting for parties who will, at the very least, regain control of our borders and, preferably, begin the process of repatriating Muslims. A vote for Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat is a vote for Allah.

20 July 2013 18:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Johnny Rottenborough

begin the process of repatriating Muslims

How are you going to move 3,000,000 people out of the UK when they won't want to leave and they won't have anywhere to go?

And then there is that little problem of citizenship. Or is citizenship tied to ethnicity and religion these days?

carl

20 July 2013 18:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. Or is citizenship tied to ethnicity and religion these days

Desperate times, desperate measures old man. After all, if poofs can marry, anything can happen...

20 July 2013 18:50  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Interesting point from Seanrobsville.

Even more reasons to exit the EU, regain control of our own borders and to encourage British Muslims to reform and for as many of them as possible, to see that the prosperity that presumably attracted them here in the first place, is dependent upon us remaining a tolerant democracy with genuine pluralism. That is the minimum necessary for Christian Britain to survive.

In the meanwhile we have to fight, politically and legally, for Christians to have the freedom to live lives, observing its norms, so as NOT to be crushed under the juggernaut of intolerant secularism, with its angled interpretations of EU inspired Human Rights. And no I'm not being drawn into definitions of that term. We need to exit that Court , and create our own version of "human rights", if we need any at all.

20 July 2013 18:51  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Johnny Rottenborough:

Then it would seem you know one god better than the other.

20 July 2013 18:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

Desperate times, desperate measures

So your answer is "Yes, citizenship is connected to ethnicity and religion." What you going to with all these ex-citizens once you strip them of their birthright? I can provide suggestions if you like. There are historical precedents.

carl

20 July 2013 19:07  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs (18:43)—Either we do the impossible and the unthinkable or England becomes Muslim. If legal niceties like citizenship and human rights stand in the way, bin them. England is the home of the English and that gives us the right to take whatever steps are necessary to defend ourselves.

20 July 2013 19:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Calm done Carl, no one is mentioning gas chambers...

One thoroughly believes that if you fail to live up to citizenship, then it be denied you, and your family. Most simply, removal of your passport. Then, we can talk to you and find out which country YOU see fit to deserve your loyalty and send you there. After all, it didn’t work out, did it ? Travelling to the UK or being born to parents / grandparents who did, only to find you despise the natives.

All done humanely, you know. We might even throw in a couple of thousand sterling to see you on your way. We’d save much more than that on the benefits we would no longer be paying you...


20 July 2013 19:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The juxtaposition of JRs last comment with OIGs last comment is too ironic for words.

OIG

How much would you have to pay someone to move to Pakistan? The fact that you want them to leave doesn't mean they will want to go. It doesn't mean you have the will to make them leave. It doesn't mean you have the ability to move them. And it's so much smoke anyways. Pakistan won't receive them and you haven't the ability to coerce Pakistan.

So, yes OIG, if you travel down this road, people will soon start thinking unthinkable thoughts about gas chambers.

carl

20 July 2013 19:35  
Blogger Nick said...

Mr Integrity

"But still, why would anyone bomb a CofE church?" I take your point absolutely, though I think it is sad that the CofE has made itself so insignificant

Though still an "Anglican" of sorts, I have not attended church regularly for several years. My personal reason was the over-emphasis on ritual and tradition over the teachings of the Gospel. It is my hope that as the CofE gets driven to the brink of extinction it will find the will to live again, and wake up to the fact that the Bible actually has enormous relevance to modern life. Sin is not "progressive". Everything we see going wrong with modern society has happened in one form or another before, and examples can be found in the Scriptures albeit in a different social context.

So I while I would never want to see a church attacked in this country, I would like to think they will regain their influence as people get tired of the nihilism and vacuous- ness of the anti-theist teachings.

20 July 2013 19:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David H: "In the meanwhile we have to fight, politically and legally, for Christians to have the freedom to live lives, observing its norms, so as NOT to be crushed under the juggernaut of intolerant secularism, with its angled interpretations of EU inspired Human Rights."

I'll stand up for your right to manifest your religion in your own lives. I'd be pleased if you'd stand up for my right to manifest a lack of religion in mine too.

20 July 2013 19:40  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Carl

"So your answer is "Yes, citizenship is connected to ethnicity and religion." What you going to with all these ex-citizens once you strip them of their birthright? I can provide suggestions if you like. There are historical precedents."

I don't think that anyone instigate a simplistic "solution" of the sort that has bee tried before.

However, helping them build a "British sharia Muslim utopia" in some otherwise trouble spot, might be a solution. Particularly if life is unpleasant in parts of the UK

They could have Hull for instance.

Phil

20 July 2013 19:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Now Carl, you are being somewhat unfair and a little bit silly, aren’t you.

We are talking here of people who wish to change the UK by terror into something resembling ‘the old country’ they or their antecedents left behind, and we can’t be having that now, can we ?

To obtain the omelette of peace, it is required to break the odd egg. Anyway, all this is for the future, when it kicks off. Be madness not to have these plans in place, eh, former atomic turnkey ?


20 July 2013 19:46  
Blogger David Hussell said...

DanJ10,

Of course, agreed, that is how it should be. True freedom of choice is respecting other peoples freedom to choose as they see right. It's the heavy hand of State telling us what we can say and how we should live, that I dislike.

20 July 2013 19:46  
Blogger Anthony Grigor said...

Read today's Le Monde front page about les musulmans rioting over a lady musulman being arrested for wearing a niquab.

20 July 2013 19:54  
Blogger Nick said...

"..To obtain the omelette of peace, it is required to break the odd egg.."

Wonderful phrase inspector

I also think the threat from countries like Iran, now or in the future, is a very good reason for keeping Trident and other nuclear weapons. Indeed, if Phil has his way, we even have neutralise Hull.

20 July 2013 19:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David Hussell

Well, no. DanJ0 means that religious presuppositions should not influence law. He is saying that the law should not require him to obey laws that originate in a theistic worldview. That would prevent him from manifesting his lack of religion in his own life.

Law exists to tell us how to live. That is its purpose. DanJ0 wants law based upon some hypothetical position of objectivity between religions. That position is materialist in its metaphysical understanding. It amounts to an establishment of secularism. And that is exactly what DanJ0 wants.

carl

20 July 2013 20:00  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

The debate is getting desperate and no solution seems to be in sight. Yes we have been betrayed by the political class but we must remain true to the teaching of Jesus - remember he refused to allow his disciples to defend him. All this polarization and destabilization of the environment and finance, the legalizing of debauchery and slaughter of the innocents are surely signs of satan's kingdom. It was prophesied by Daniel and by Jesus and named as the Time of the End. That's where we are now I think. The plus side is that Jesus will return and we will have peace. However before that will be the Time of Great Tribulation and we will have to be patient and faithful to the teaching.

20 July 2013 20:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I suspect neither David H nor me wants law based on (say) Sharia. However, I can live alongside Muslims (and I do) who want a mutually acceptable way of life.

20 July 2013 20:04  
Blogger Albert said...

David B & Explorer,

It's worth recalling that the Catholic Church still has a "secular" wing - it refers to diocesan priests (who live in the world) as opposed to "religious" priests (i.e. monks etc.) who live in monasteries.

However, I don't think it is religious people who are mis-using the word. Unbelievers of a political stripe tend to say the word "secular" just means there is no privilege of any religion, when what they actually do is come up with laws and nd criteria for public discussion and policy which actually exclude religious discourse and therefore religious people. It tends to make religion a purely private thing - but religion in itself is never a purely private thing.

Thus many unbelievers use the word "secular" to make it seem as if they are inclusive, when they are really profoundly anti-democratic. It is evident that that meaning of the word is totally opposed to religious freedom.

How do you define the word "secular" David B? Perhaps we could make some progress with a little clarity here.

20 July 2013 20:06  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Phil

You see, the problem is that people use vague phrases to describe what hey mean. They say 'desperate measures' and 'thinking how unthinkable' and 'breaking the odd egg.' They resist specificity because they know what specificity would require and they aren't sure they have the courage to follow through. The aren't yet sure how the 'radical' solution would be received. So they use euphemism. I try to force them to explain so they will admit the implications of their statements. Perhaps they will see and flinch.

People wonder how the Holocaust happened. They shouldn't. Ordinary people were acclimatized to it by exactly these means.

carl

20 July 2013 20:17  
Blogger David B said...

I use 'Secular' in the same way as the National Secular Society does.

"The National Secular Society campaigns for the separation of religion and state and promotes secularism as the best means to create a society in which people of all religions or none can live together fairly and cohesively. The NSS sees secularism - the position that the state should be separate from religion - as an essential element in promoting equality between all citizens."

"What is Secularism?

Secularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions. The first is the strict separation of the state from religious institutions. The second is that people of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law.
Separation of religion from state

The separation of religion and state is the foundation of secularism. It ensures that religious groups don't interfere in affairs of state, and makes sure the state doesn't interfere in religious affairs."

David

20 July 2013 20:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The alternative to Sharia is not necessarily Law founded on the assumption that man is an autonomous being without metaphysical accountability. There is no neutrality in assuming that the naked dead universe is the ultimate reality.

carl

20 July 2013 20:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

On what basis should I stand against Sharia? I don't have an alternative theistic worldview with which to jostle with Muslims for primacy. I just want the freedom to live as I see fit within reasonable boundaries.

20 July 2013 20:35  
Blogger Peter D said...

JR said ...
"If legal niceties like citizenship and human rights stand in the way, bin them. England is the home of the English and that gives us the right to take whatever steps are necessary to defend ourselves."

Best pack your bags then, Inspector. How much for you to be 'persuaded' to return to Erin's Isle?

Irony of ironies, it was just this type of sentiment that resulted in the ECHR - to prevent a re-emergence of Nazism and the spread of Communism.

Inspector said ...
"We are talking here of people who wish to change the UK by terror into something resembling ‘the old country’ they or their antecedents left behind, and we can’t be having that now, can we ?2

Are we? Isn't it a small minority of fanatical Islamists using terror, not a whole people? We talking about a religious faith system that will grow in strength and influence. A significant factor being the decline of Christianity.

Nick said ...
"Though still an "Anglican" of sorts, I have not attended church regularly for several years. My personal reason was the over-emphasis on ritual and tradition over the teachings of the Gospel."

Yeah, really good reason.

20 July 2013 20:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The idea of living under some sort of Sharia-inspired culture is as hideous to me as the idea of living under some sort of extreme American Creationist culture.

20 July 2013 20:38  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

It is plainly stupid to speak of ejecting muslims for simply being muslims or expect them to leave when they have been born here. It took us years and years to get rid of just two and costing us millions. It is also irrational to think that the case for limiting Islamic expansion can be achieved without unanimous support from every Western/westernised country.

Islamists such as the Muslim Brotherhood, make no secret that they see the world today divided between Dar al Islam and Dar al Haram - The World of Islam and of course 'peace' and the world of War 'us'. Their agenda is for one Sharia compliant Islamic world.

Fortunately, there are far more disgruntled non-muslim ordinary Europeans than politicians are prepared to even think about. The EU if it ever democratises, would command more authority than our overcrowded little island on its own ever can. The Poles the Hungarians and even the French, are doing more than us to make Europe less attractive for Islamic expansion.

http://www.onislam.net/english/news/europe/463571-slaughter-ban-angers-polish-muslims-jews.html

http://www.islamophobiatoday.com/2012/01/04/hungary%E2%80%99s-constitution-pro-life-but-no-recognition-for-islam-%E2%80%98smaller-catholic-orders%E2%80%99/

The majority of our local politicians just stick fingers in their ears and feign temporary blindness.

The Islamists are already ahead of the game in expunging all other religions from their lands - one day this country will find its backbone but I fear, not until we are near or actually in a state of civil war with the new islamo-fascist-left.

20 July 2013 20:42  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

"The National Secular Society campaigns for the separation of religion and state and promotes secularism as the best means to create a society in which people of all religions or none can live together fairly and cohesively. The NSS sees secularism - the position that the state should be separate from religion - as an essential element in promoting equality between all citizens."

Interestingly, I thought your explanation of secularism is much better than this from the NSS. This definition uses the word "secularism" before it has defined it (which is a bit dim).

The devil is in the detail (or lack of it): The NSS sees secularism - the position that the state should be separate from religion

Now what does that mean? If it means "We don't want Archbishop Markarios running the country." Or "We don't want there to be a religious test act for running the country." Or even "We don't think any religion should be established by law, neither should there be clergymen in the legislature ex officio" then, I think that's a fair position. But doesn't it really mean "We do not want religious beliefs to have a say or affect our law-making"? Which is the same as saying "Only positions of unbelief may contribute to the formation of our laws." Which is the same as saying "Religious people have no right to take part in the formation of laws, and shall be excluded except insofar as they restrict their contributions to those which (we judge) can pass as non-religious."

Because I think that is what the NSS stands for, and I think it is what secularism has come to mean. Which is the same as saying "Secularism is profoundly opposed to democracy and political equality." If I'm wrong, show me where, please!

Certainly, that's how I use it when I use it in a negative sense.

20 July 2013 20:44  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace raises important questions, and your Communicants offer enlightening points of view.

Britain is not a place you know or understand, Mr. Jacobs; so -- you see nothing wrong in basing your argument on the assumption of Mozzie/Eastern birthright in Britain.

Wilfully (note spelling) or otherwise, you remain blind to the alignment of your sympathies with culturally malign invaders of this island. Your stance is understandable if one recognises (note spelling) the parallel between your American precedent and the present British situation. Like your 'founding' patriarchs, this lot are busy stripping indigenes of their birthright: pushing Britons out of their own lands. What you fail to understand is that, once the Eastern campaign is complete, Western culture in Britain will be erased from sight.

Meanwhile, if Britain continues under authority of the marxist-euro-mozzie alliance, the next seculum/generation of Britons will be confined to much smaller areas than the present seculum occupies --- and, make no mistake, the island's populace is already seriously segregated. The next seculum of Britons will need less territory anyway, because (by hook and crook) it will have been religiously cleansed: of Christians.

As to marxist invasion techniques, one again recalls Bezmenev's outline of KGB methodology.* After, or in conjunction with, Demoralization - the invadee is expected to rebel; the script includes Civil War. However, the incitement isn't working very well in the case of the British; we actually don't believe in civil war if we can possibly help it. I'd even claim that attitude is culturally ingrained (because of events from Roman times onwards).

Anyway - in order to "Normalize" Britons under the euSSR, the 'Useful Idiot' ptb need an excuse for .... oh my goodness!!!! Military bomb disposal teams have been mobilised and counter-terrorism officers are operating throughout the area.

So who's activating the present civil violence? Mozzies or, for some obscure reason, 'Eastern Europeans'? And why? Exactly who is terrorising whom?

If we are ever to achieve a referendum for withdrawal from the euSSR, I think we should find out.

_______
*See You Tube, as Mr. Singh indicated long ago.

20 July 2013 20:44  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

The Islamists are already ahead of the game in expunging all other religions from their lands

And who's at fault for letting it happen? Religious people complain about this all the time - but no one listens because "We're secular and we don't want religious issues to affect public policy."

20 July 2013 20:45  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

And I do not want reasonable boundaries set according to the understanding that religious conviction must be checked at the door to the public square. Law imposes a limit on the extent to which you may live as you see fit. The argument is about the basis by which those limits may be determined. A religious understanding is just as valid as a non-religious understanding. I will not for example accept that abortion laws should be determined by a materialist anthropology. But that is what Neutral secularism would require of me.

carl

20 July 2013 20:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Thank your god you're American and don't have much of a say in what we do over here.

20 July 2013 20:49  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert/David B:

What does 'disinterested' mean? Ask the over forties, and they'll probably say "impartial." Ask those under forty, and they'll say "bored". Who's right: who owns the meaning?

David's definition is A meaning. Who says it's the ONLY meaning? An old edition of the Oxford dictionary I referred to (dating from before the NSS) gave one of several meanings as "concerned with the affairs of this world; not sacred".

With Plato, words referred to actual concepts. Saussure changed all that and made things arbitrary. With Derrida, the situation became desperate: no transcendental signified: just one signifier sliding into another.

We're now post-Derrida, just as we're becoming post-Postmodern. Where that leaves what Postmodernism did to meaing, I'm still not clear.

20 July 2013 20:49  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Albert said
"We're secular and we don't want religious issues to affect public policy."

To whom is this quote attributed?

20 July 2013 20:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Of course, Sharia advocates presumably think that they have a religious duty to make sure women dress modestly whether or not non-Muslim women accept their theistic worldview. We secularism advocates can help there, I think.

20 July 2013 20:53  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DanJo said

On what basis should I stand against Sharia?

The right to exist according to your sexual orientation for one.

20 July 2013 20:53  
Blogger David Hussell said...

It is worrying, that if the relatively few of us on here, with a large majority having a broadly Judaeo-Christian world view, and the minority with a not extreme, non-Christian perspective, cannot come to any sort of vaguely agreed solution as to the way forward, what hope is there that our beleaguered country, with a wide mixture of beliefs and peoples, undoubtedly far more diverse than we are as a group, going to reach a rough sort of, grudging even, balance from which to create new law ?

Is the future that we are looking at, for our offspring at least, that fractious ? And if so will a VERY bossy Government be required to keep the lid on the dissent , like the former Yugoslavia or say Syria ? And how will a society that ordered be creative, or inventive, or even productive ? It doesn't make for pleasant dreams does it ? Tell me I'm wrong . It has happened before !

20 July 2013 20:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dreadnaught, it was a rhetorical question mostly to point out that being unburdened with a theistic outlook puts one in a good position to observe and point at those with competing and mutually-exclusive theistic certainties jostling with each other. In the real world, we have to carry on together anyway.

20 July 2013 21:01  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

To whom is this quote attributed?

Sorry, it wasn't meant as a quote - just a summary of what I take (David B's) secularism to entail.

20 July 2013 21:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

In a materialist universe, there are no rights independent of the state. DanJ0 cannot assert any right whatsoever because he has precluded the basis for it a priori. For there to be prior rights there has to be some authority above man.

carl

20 July 2013 21:05  
Blogger Albert said...

David H,

It is worrying, that if the relatively few of us on here, with a large majority having a broadly Judaeo-Christian world view, and the minority with a not extreme, non-Christian perspective, cannot come to any sort of vaguely agreed solution as to the way forward

But isn't that because secularism has defined itself as being utterly irreconcilable with religion in the public sphere? I can cope with a public sphere in which people of all beliefs and non contribute. But it seems the secularist requires the public sphere to be determined by his materialist superstition. Thus he excludes almost everyone from the debate.

Sadly, because of the double meaning of "secularism" it has got this far before we have seen what is really going on.

20 July 2013 21:06  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

For the sake of argument, then, here's the view of a citizen of the UK (i.e. me):

"I do not want reasonable boundaries set according to the understanding that religious conviction must be checked at the door to the public square. Law imposes a limit on the extent to which you may live as you see fit. The argument is about the basis by which those limits may be determined. A religious understanding is just as valid as a non-religious understanding. I will not for example accept that abortion laws should be determined by a materialist anthropology. But that is what Neutral secularism would require of me."

My preference is for accountable democracy as much as possible, under the Rule of Law. That means putting things to the test of public opinion as much as possible - traditionally by having a clear understanding of an electoral mandate for controversial or significant legislation, but as all political parties cannot seem to be trusted on that score, it increasingly means direct democracy on such issues.

Because there are issues on which the unbeliever is blind, and where believers can provide some much needed clarity to unpick the assumptions they've rendered invisible to themselves.

20 July 2013 21:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Rights are a social construct as far as I am concerned, arising out of a shared recognition of stuff. I don't think that puts me at much of a disadvantage to a Muslim who thinks we're beings created by Allah and from whose will we deviate or otherwise.

20 July 2013 21:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Belfast,

there are issues on which the unbeliever is blind

That's a very good point. There are some things which are important to huge swathes of the population, that the unbeliever just does not even have a category for. It's like saying "Only blind people can judge want makes for good visual art."

20 July 2013 21:19  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

But that's just it DanJo no one wants to single out another individual human being as being responsible for world wide events - that's what politicians are for, but they are too engaged with short-terminism and their own greed to step up to the mark and defend Western cultural values.

Albert Secularism is not anti-religion; quite the contrary. I cant for the life of me understand why, no matter how many times it is explained thus, you persist in ignoring the literal meaning of the word in order to extricate Christianity from its own shortcomings. Is it I wonder that Secularist and Scapegoat both conveniently begin with the same letter. You have your religion and no one is trying to deny you of that. We both however have to live according the laws created by our own democratic process no matter how much we may still find them unwelcome: that's how secular democracy works until the laws are repealed or revised.

20 July 2013 21:22  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert:

By my definition of 'secular' it would be possible to speak of a 'secular (ie non-theistic) world view'. That would include a desire to keep religious considerations out of law making, but would also include my view of culture, of history, of the purpose of life, of the meaning of death.

It's sort of all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs territory.

20 July 2013 21:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As far as I am concerned Sharia is not a basis for defining the laws in the UK because it is founded on the hypothesis that the world was created by Allah and his will ought to be followed. Most of us don't believe that Allah exists in whatever form a god might be said to exist. However, Muslims and I may agree on some shared ethics which we both back by the power of law. We need to negotiate on the basis of shared things to get there. Hence, religion is not actually excluded from taking part in molding our State and its influence on society.

20 July 2013 21:27  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Carl
DanJ0 cannot assert any right whatsoeve

He can, and is authorised to do so under protection granted by the law of the state. By contrast of course to the situation under theocratically imposed laws say as in Iran, which would demand his death. Just don't gimme that ol'time religion - ever.

20 July 2013 21:31  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

@DanJ0

"Muslims and I may agree on some shared ethics which we both back by the power of law."

Islam has shown throughout its 1400 year history that it is incapable of peaceful co-existence on equal terms with any other religion, or even with itself.

It we don't destroy Islam ideologically, as we did to communism, using every peaceful means at our disposal, then Islam will destroy us physically in a very non-peaceful manner.

Non-Muslims who fail to acknowledge this blatantly obvious fact are an integral part of the problem, just as the 1930s appeasers were an integral part of the Nazi problem.

20 July 2013 21:31  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 July 2013 21:31  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

Secularism is not anti-religion; quite the contrary. I cant for the life of me understand why, no matter how many times it is explained thus, you persist in ignoring the literal meaning of the word

Well firstly, I'm a following of Wittgenstein - I take the meaning of the word to come from its use. I see that endlessly, religious considerations are excluded from public discourse, and therefore from law. Danjo is helpfully honest here.

Secondly, in common with my first point, it's because that's what the word means. A few internet definitions:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/secularism lists various dictionary definitions:

1. Religious skepticism or indifference.
2. The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.

1. (Philosophy) Philosophy a doctrine that rejects religion, esp in ethics
2. the attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs
3. the state of being secular.

. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects religious faith and worship.
2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the influence of religious beliefs.

1. a view that religion and religious considerations should be ignored or excluded from social and political matters.
2. an ethical system asserting that moral judgments should be made without reference to religious doctrine, as reward or punishment in an afterlife.


So, I suppose I am entitled to bat it back to you. Given how secularism works in practice, and given the literal meaning of the word (to quote your good self) "I cant for the life of me understand why, no matter how many times it is explained thus, you persist in ignoring the literal meaning of the word."

You have your religion and no one is trying to deny you of that.

Yes, they are. My religion requires me to act upon it in the public sphere. It is evident from the above that secularism is intent on preventing that. Therefore, your claim is quite false.

20 July 2013 21:32  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

Well firstly, I'm a following of Wittgenstein

Not Wittgenstein! Say it ain't so.

carl

20 July 2013 21:34  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Albert:

"My religion requires me to act upon it in the public sphere."

I seem to remember a Chesterton quote to the effect that whatever else the Gospel is, it is a scandal. It's this point that, faithfully adhered to, makes it so in practical terms.

20 July 2013 21:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Carl, They say 'desperate measures' and 'thinking [the] unthinkable' and 'breaking the odd egg.'
Of course, we have no real idea of what we will be up against. We need to sound out now, and not leave it until more service men are picked off. And then there is the good old USA’s reaction to the twin towers. not least in denying habeas corpus to those incarcerated in Guantanamo. At least this man admits there is no precedent for what may happen here in time - the overthrow of a Western democracy, assuming the EU doesn’t get there first...

Peter D. Isn't it a small minority of fanatical Islamists using terror
Damn good description of the reality of Islam, and how it has fouled the countries it exists in, including our own. Here, it’s not the million or three, peaceful muslims, but their children reading that poisonous book of theirs...

DanJ0. Still lumping Islam and Christianity together then. You stand alone in that. Everybody else knows what’s going on, even if you don’t.


20 July 2013 21:37  
Blogger Roy said...

There are a lot of disturbing comments here about the possibility of moslems becoming the majority in the UK, the imposition of Sharia law, and possible measures to avoid this fate including stripping moslems of their citizenship, expelling them, war, etc. etc.

Nobody has suggested evangelising and converting moslem and other immigrants.

20 July 2013 21:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

He can, and is authorised to do so under protection granted by the law of the state.

Yes, because under his presuppositions all rights are granted by the state. What he cannot do is condemn the state for suppressing his desire to live a homosexual life by asserting some right that exists prior to the state. There are no prior rights. The state could bless his relationship. The state could impale him on a stick. He has no basis to judge either action based on some concept of 'inalienable rights' that morally bind the state. In a materialist universe, nothing morally binds the state.

carl

20 July 2013 21:40  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DanJo

There is no record ever of Islam the ideology, ever co-operating to cordially live in symbiotic harmony with the host nation. It is the equivalent of the preying mantis of religion.

20 July 2013 21:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Sean: "It we don't destroy Islam ideologically, as we did to communism, using every peaceful means at our disposal, then Islam will destroy us physically in a very non-peaceful manner."

I'm fine with people making arguments against Islam as an ideology whenever they choose to do so as long as its non-threatening. Similarly with Christianity and other ideologies. However, I very strongly value freedom and that includes freedom of speech, expression, religious belief, and so on. I'm not into creating thought crime again for people who believe in Allah, we had enough of that sort of stuff during our religious wars when Christianity was in the ascendant here.

20 July 2013 21:43  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Carl

Yes, because under his presuppositions all rights are granted by the state...

Happily, that's the free world we live in and to which millions of others in nations riven with religious extremism would aspire.

20 July 2013 21:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "DanJ0. Still lumping Islam and Christianity together then. You stand alone in that."

I will continue to do so. No doubt someone will erroneously say that I'm equating them in some sort of comparative behavioural way soon too, rather than my comparing their situation as theistic worldviews which both claim to be true and whose morality is absolute and universal even though they are mutually exclusive.

20 July 2013 21:49  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dan (21:18)—Rights are a social construct as far as I am concerned, arising out of a shared recognition of stuff

It depends on whose stuff the rights are based. Base them on Islam’s stuff and things don’t look too bright for anyone who isn’t male, heterosexual and Muslim.

@ Roy (21:39)—Two preachers tried handing out Bible tracts in a Muslim area of Birmingham five years ago and were advised to leave for their own safety.

20 July 2013 21:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "It depends on whose stuff the rights are based. Base them on Islam’s stuff and things don’t look too bright for anyone who isn’t male, heterosexual and Muslim."

Well, quite. So, what are you going to do about it? Unfortunately, I'm bound by my liberal, democratic values myself.

20 July 2013 21:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Perhaps we should take to the streets like the EDL in Birmingham centre today. That's the English Disco Lovers who staged a demo advocating the power of disco music to transcend ethnic tensions.

20 July 2013 21:59  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Johnny Rottenborough:

The case you note in your reply to Roy is an interesting one. I disagree with the preachers in question on one point though: the apology from the police is meaningless. Their practical advice may well have been very sound - and although I'm not sure they were correct to assert that preaching the Gospel is legally a hate crime (though I may be wrong), let us suppose that they were right on that score for one moment. If God commanded them to preach the Gospel there, those are the costs of doing so. The commission does not change because there are those who hate the Gospel. There have always been such men, and until Jesus returns, will always be such men. Nor does it change because rulers have decreed that it is forbidden to preach. If you are sent to prison for the sake of the Lord, preach to your gaolers.

20 July 2013 22:00  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert:

I used to listen to Ernie Ray's 'Beyond Belief' on Radio 4. He always started by getting participants to define the word under discussion: eg, 'saint'.

Sound principle, I always thought: saved time and confusion. Today's discussion of 'secular' has been a real eye-opener for me.

20 July 2013 22:05  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Roy:

Suppose you did convert a Muslim. Remember, also, the penalty for apostasy.

20 July 2013 22:08  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dan (21:56)—So, what are you going to do about it?

What I always do. Vote for the party of racists and Holocaust deniers. I hear they pull the wings off dead flies, too.

20 July 2013 22:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I was going to mention this earlier, and suggest that the bombs may have been part of the same thing:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23392374

20 July 2013 22:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Roy, can honestly say have never heard of anyone converting from Islam to Christianity in this country. Not saying it hasn’t happened, but it would understandably not be broadcast. For the individuals own safety and to protect their family, though one can imagine it would be them needing protection from their family. Curious situation.

20 July 2013 22:13  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Albert

Well firstly, I'm a following of Wittgenstein...

Why not think independently, instead of restricting yourself to rigidly following dubious philosophers who always disagree with one an other: they do it for a living.

A standard dictionary is all that is required for good reading.

Sec-u-lar

Definition of SECULAR

1
a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal (secular concerns)
b : not overtly or specifically religious (secular music)
c : not ecclesiastical or clerical (secular courts secular landowners)
2
: not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation (a secular priest)


Nothing here about being anti-religion, radical atheist or anything denying anyone the right to follow a religion.

20 July 2013 22:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Surely the word to look up is 'secularism' and take its political philosophy meaning?

20 July 2013 22:17  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

The question turns on this statement in the original definition you posted:

It ensures that religious groups don't interfere in affairs of state

What does it mean? What constitutes 'interference' with affairs of state? What constitutes a 'religious group?'

carl

20 July 2013 22:19  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"Why not think independently, instead of restricting yourself to rigidly following dubious philosophers who always disagree with one an other: they do it for a living."

Ouch.

Etymology is curiously helpful here, given that the Latin root word essentially means "of the age".

Appropriate no?

20 July 2013 22:20  
Blogger non mouse said...

Glad to see you addressing this, Explorer: Who owns the meaning of words these days? Search me. Blame it all on Saussure, and the Postmodernists.

The Postmodern arm of Marxism loves the business (game, they are pleased to call it) of deconstructing language. Disruption of language is, after all, key to destruction of culture. And that same deconstruction pays very well into culturally invasive techniques for muting the voice of the invadee. When/where the invader destroys language, the victims are disempowered. They cannot communicate or consolidate any case against their masters.

The technique also works well with the 'divide and conquer' dynamic. The cultural invader's destruction and subsequent control of language also facilitate re-inscription: another tactic dear to deconstructionists. The invader's version of events - past, present, and future - is guaranteed to prevail.

Thus, they believe, they create "reality."

______________

Of course, these communists do nothing original in recognising the power of words. Rather, they work to negate Judaeo-Christian perception of the Word whence all words spring. It was the peception from which British literacy and learning flourished.

In that light, it's interesting that the present seculum is constrained to accept the power of a new norm: MS Word on its "virtual" (man-made) cloud.

It's also notable that 'french filosofers' should be so instrumental in inspiring all this: if we remember what the Romans did to the frogules and their original language(s).

*******
PS: You doubtless see that I'm working with the Latin roots of these words - saeculum: a generation; successive generations [in this world]. virtusmanliness, manly excellence. I'm using Cassell's and Chambers here.

20 July 2013 22:26  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

Why not think independently, instead of restricting yourself to rigidly following dubious philosophers who always disagree with one an other: they do it for a living.

I follow Wittgenstein on this because I read him (rather a long time ago) and thought he was right. Isn't that obvious? I'm a Catholic, I'm hardly likely to choose an unbelieving Jew as my authority am I?

Nothing here about being anti-religion, radical atheist or anything denying anyone the right to follow a religion.

Yes, but that's a definition of the word "secular". We are talking about "secularism". I gave you four definitions of this word! And given how it is used, my four against your zero surely win out.

Besides, your 1a could well serve the purpose I need. A secularist might want to say that, for example, in the question of abortion, the question should be addressed in a worldly or temporal way. I.e. ignoring the sacred, like sanctity of life.

So you have, thus far, given us literally no reason to think secularism means what you say it means, while providing one more reason to say it means what I say it means.

This seems to be a bit of a pattern with unbelievers. It's a bit like Dawkins' use of "delusion". Words are used to give the impression of one thing, while really smuggling in other kinds of meanings.

20 July 2013 22:34  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

non mouse

Britain is not a place you know or understand, Mr. Jacobs; so -- you see nothing wrong in basing your argument on the assumption of Mozzie/Eastern birthright in Britain.

I base my argument on the fact that the British Gov't chose to give them citizenship by virtue of their place of birth. That is by definition a birthright. Now, in fact, I believe that citizenship should be determined by the citizenship of the parents. In other words, you shouldn't be able to birth an American citizen by sneaking across the border at the right time. But that is a legal argument that has nothing to do with ethnicity, and is in any case neither here nor there. The British gov't granted citizenship to these people. And you would strip it from them on the basis of religion and ethnicity. Evidently a Brit is white and Anglo-Saxon and nominally Anglican (although functionally atheist). because there were cities in England in the Middle Ages. Or something. No, I don't understand that at all.

carl

20 July 2013 22:36  
Blogger Albert said...

Inspector,

can honestly say have never heard of anyone converting from Islam to Christianity in this country

I once met someone from Iran who had done just that. He had to flee from the country. Does that count?

20 July 2013 22:36  
Blogger Albert said...

For clarity, in saying he had to flee from the country, I mean he had to flee from Iran. I just thought it might not have been clear.

20 July 2013 22:41  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Carl

It ensures that religious groups don't interfere in affairs of state...

Where did I say this?

20 July 2013 22:44  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl @ 17.02 says, 'Bluedog is a fanticist.'

Wrong, the scrofulous hound is a fanatic. Actually a fanatic defender of a certain people, traditions, a glorious history and a way of life. Perceiving a deadly threat from an alien population that seeks to impose its own legal codex, replacing the law of the land, and its own religion so that all others submit, the hound has decided that bite is better than bark.

You ask, 'How do you repatriate three million people?' Answer, in the first instance by making their lives unbearable. This means discrimination so that the Ummah are denied the social security benefits on which so many of them depend. How do you deal with their citizenship? An Act of Parliament declaring that all grants of citizenship post-1950 to those without a paternal British grand-parent are null and void pending review. If you are a citizen of the old white dominions you already pass through a test similar to this to get a working visa in the UK or a British passport. The terms of this particular test could be changed to filter out the Ummah.

Of course, nothing can be done until the UK leaves the EU. The UK has surrendered but seems to be increasingly prepared to reclaim its sovereignty from the EU. The second step in the evolution is to reclaim the sovereignty now sought by demographic claimants who seek to replace the Cross with the crescent.

A great deal can be done before the drones and gunships are loosed on the Muslim quarter. But then Obama will probably withhold spare parts to protect his co-religionists.

20 July 2013 22:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

My mistake. I should have checked instead of trusting my memory. That's the kind of mistake you make when you do a quick find of a specific word.

David B posted it at 20 July 2013 20:24. He was quoting an answer to the question "What is Secularism?" from the National Secular Society. That said - the question still stands. For you to say that secularism is benign relative to religion, you have to explain to us what that statement means.

I have no problem with secular as you use it. I just don't think that is how 'secular' society actually works in practice. You only have to hear the screams of 'separation of church and state' in the abortion argument to understand the point. Whole positions are ruled out of bounds on that basis alone.

carl

20 July 2013 22:52  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Albert

This seems to be a bit of a pattern with unbelievers

Here you go, hijacking the language again. Of course I believe, just not in some of what you choose to believe.

What's more, you seem determined to also hijack the thread as far away as possible from the original post to suit your own predictable agenda. I'm closing.

20 July 2013 22:59  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I just don't think that is how 'secular' society actually works in practice

Now who's being all Wittgenstinian?

20 July 2013 22:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Bluedog

Answer, in the first instance by making their lives unbearable.

Sure. Makes sense. Here are some suggestions. You can send out armed thugs to beat them on the street. You can make it illegal for Muslims to work. You can set up labor camps and detain them indefinitely. You can make it illegal for a Brit to marry a Muslim. You can make it illegal for a Brit to even have sex with a Muslim. You can define a Brit as someone who is no more than one-eighth Muslim by bloodline. You can use the threat of internment to encourage them to emigrate and then require a tax of 50% of their net worth in order to 'process' their departure. You can burn their mosques and smash their property and then seize their insurance payments. Oh, there are lots of things you can do.

Here, perhaps you will enjoy this song:


Die Strasse frei den braunen Batallionen
Die Strasse frei dem Sturmabteilungsmann
Es schau'n auf's Hackenkreuz voll Hoffung schon Millionen
Der Tag fur Freiheit und fur Brot bricht an

carl

20 July 2013 23:05  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

What's more, you seem determined to also hijack the thread as far away as possible from the original post to suit your own predictable agenda. I'm closing.

It wasn't me who started complaining about the use of the word "secularism" and it was you who kept the debate going in your complaint of @2122.

Here you go, hijacking the language again [my use of the word "unbeliever"]. Of course I believe, just not in some of what you choose to believe.

Well, the dictionary definition that comes up is as follows:

un·be·liev·er (nb-lvr)
n.
One who lacks belief or faith, especially in a particular religion; a nonbeliever.


I would have thought my use of the word is included there.

20 July 2013 23:06  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

Now who's being all Wittgenstinian?

Gak! I couldn't get through one page of his gobbledygook ... uh ... philosophy. But I highly recommend a book called "Wittgenstein's Poker."

carl

20 July 2013 23:09  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Separation walls anyone?

The Romans were once, built three in Britain and now the Jews are keen on them.

The Essenes tried hiding so that they did not have to pay taxes to or worship Caesar

Walls? hiding? Doesn't work.

I say again if the mob rule option works then they would have crucified Barabbas and freed Jesus.

Scared of Islam? Build your walls. keep yourself pure. Make them hate and fear you.

It must work, history tells us so.

Phil

20 July 2013 23:12  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Listen I know it will work for a while

We could throw them out of the old age people's home that we call Britain.

Unless we change our way of living, our country will not be mostly Christian and white.

Whatever we do, we pay the price for making selfishness the new god and not valuing families, children and commitment.

Phil

20 July 2013 23:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Muslim immigration and it’s prolonged effect on political and social net total of society
Islam’s Effect At 2% Total Muslim Demographics
United States — Muslim 0.6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%

Note: The Muslim population in Norway is 2.5-3% of total population. In 2011 Norweigan authorities reported that 100% of all rapes in the entire capital, Oslo, were committed by immigrants of which 90% were committed by Muslim immigrants.

Islam’s Effect At 5% Total Muslim Demographics
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 3.3%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

Islam’s Effect At 10% Total Muslim Demographics
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

Note: Sweden’s estimated Muslim population totaled 4% of the total population. In … studies based on police and court statistics, demonstrated that Muslims were responsible for 50% of the entire nation’s rape crimes and statistics. Based on the dramatic increase of rape cases in Sweden following Muslim immigration, the country has become the world’s foremost rape nation per capita.

Islam’s Effect At 15% Total Muslim Demographics
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15

Islam’s Effect At 20% Total Muslim Demographics
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

Islam’s Effect At 40% Total Muslim Demographics

20 July 2013 23:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, non-stop church destruction, Boko Haram, etc., such as in:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
Nigeria – Muslim 50%

Muslim Effect At Up To 60% Of Population
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%

Note: Slavery was reintroduced into Sudan under increased Muslim political rule. In 1995, Human Rights Watch first reported on slavery in Sudan in the context of the Second Sudanese Civil War. In 1996, two more reports emerged, one by a United Nations representative and another by reporters from the Baltimore Sun.

According to CBS news, slaves have been sold for $50 apiece. According to escaped slave Simon Deng, child slaves can be purchased for $10 in Sudan. Mr Deng received asylum in the U.S. and is working as a peace activist to educate, warn and inform the masses about the effect of Muslim influence and “creeping Sharia” on society.

Islam’s Effect At 80% Total Muslim Demographics
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Mali – Muslim 90%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

Islam’s Effect At 100% Total Muslim Demographics
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.


20 July 2013 23:44  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who wanted to kill us. ... But altogether we can say: We have carried out this most difficult task for the love of our people. And we have taken on no defect within us, in our soul, or in our character.

Do you know who made this statement, bluedog? You should. It's from an exceptionally famous speech.

carl

21 July 2013 00:19  
Blogger Peter D said...

Well said, Carl.

Inspector, your omitting social, economic and political context from your analysis of Islamist creep.

DanJ0, well thankfully this "social construction" of rights resulted in the 'Yogyakarta Principles', the radical homosexual rights legislative agenda, being kicked firmly into touch by the OSCE this week by 24 votes to 3.

The main reason? They represented an attack on religious freedom and freedom of speech.

21 July 2013 00:40  
Blogger Peter D said...

Now, without going all fundamentalist on this, has anyone considered that Islam may just be God's pending judgement on the West?

Doesn't the Bible - Old and New Testament - reveal that the degeneracy of homosexuality is a direct consequence of a nation's impenitent abandonment of God? And, further, that God's wrath and judgement follows such an abandonment? The widespread acceptance of the perversity of homosexuality is a symptom and a consequence of a much deeper spiritual malaise.

So what to do? Well, if judgement is coming, not a lot. We certainly can't adopt unchristian and immoral responses such as those suggested above. You don't escape the evil by committing further evil. One can't see the West returning to God if He has withdrawn His grace and is permitting us to suffer the consequences of our ignoring His will.

I guess all we can do as individuals is lead a Christian life and continue promoting His word and .... await the inevitable .... unless things change through the intervention of the Holy Spirit.

21 July 2013 02:00  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Peter D:

It may be, but given that very few of us are homosexual in either inclination or practice, I'd suggest looking for at least a few more reasons if you see apocalyptic judgment in the potential future threat of radical Islam.

To be honest, is the Western Church much better? I'm not talking even historically here: do we live with clean hearts and faithful conduct? Even in the absence of liberalism, are we salt and light? I'm not sure I am much of the time.

21 July 2013 02:29  
Blogger non mouse said...

No, I don't understand that at all. However, Mr. Jacobs, that is what you infer.

And, like so many Americans, you infer wrongly. Furthermore, You think your way is the best and only way, and that everyone should want to be like whatever you think you are. Goodness, though, how soon, and how hypocritically, you forget the foundations invaders forged in the New World --at the turn of the Middle Ages you so despise! Your lot cut your roots less than 300 years ago, and that's really not so long. Then, after that, and until very recently, subsequent immigrants had to assimilate before they got citizenship.

In Britain, however, indigenous roots go way back before whatever you think the Middle Ages are, and we are by no means principally Anglo-Saxon. So why you expect us to understand posts in that language, I cannot imagine. As I've said many times on this forum, see Bryan Sykes and Blood of the Isles. Our Celtic forebears started moving in around 7,500 years ago --- after the last ice age had melted.

It is also passing strange that you should frequent this blog without having registered the fact that the 'government(s)' which gave us away did so without the mandate of the British people. Quislings and useful idiots that they are, they have also enforced an immigration policy which the enemy 'masters' require. It is designed to flood us out with primitives who are inimical to our culture, and who refuse to assimilate. And you think we should just sit still and let the country sink under the weight of all that smelly refuse.

So you sneer at us from the viewpoint of enemy invaders, and you use the images and terms they and our neu alien masters choose. I'd wish the same upon you, if I didn't know that the same masters have actually invaded your own universities. Nowadays, they force everybody to accept Marxism; and their graduates are changing your immigration policies.

So it may not be long before mozzies take over sections of your cities and won't let you (or your daughters) safely through. As for your descendants having any choice about Christianity, or freedom of thought, speech, etc; Ha ha!!!

Unless............................

21 July 2013 04:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dreadnaught:"Here you go, hijacking the language again. Of course I believe, just not in some of what you choose to believe."

Heh

21 July 2013 06:43  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0 @ 22:17/Dreadnaught:

I would call James Thomson's 'The City of Dreadful Night' a secular poem. It has nothing to do with politics, or State/Church division; it's how the world without God looks to one individual.

David B would presumably say that I cannot use 'secular' in this way. I say I can, because my meaning of the word precedes his historically. His meaning is contained within mine, but not the other way round. That was the basis of the disagreement.


I was also arguing that Postmodernism has created a crisis about meaning, and hence the authority of lanhgauge, but that is a separate issue.

21 July 2013 06:51  
Blogger The Explorer said...

'lanhguage' was not an intentional pun for 'language': simply bad typing. Quite appropriate, though, in terms of the fracture of meaning..

21 July 2013 06:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer, if the context suits then go with it. However, if we're talking in the context of political philosophy then the meaning is usually a different one. When I say I'm an advocate of secularism, I mean that I advocate a secular State rather than a completely secular society. Yet it suits some people periodically to imagine that I'm trying to push religion solely into the private sphere so that it's not allowed in our shared public space. It's easier to be outraged in that case and argue against it, you see. Something similar happens with atheism, where some people insist that atheism means that one is certain no god or gods exist. Again, it's easier to argue against it in that case. They're both straw men as far as I'm concerned, and probably most atheists and advocates of secularism.

21 July 2013 07:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "What I always do. Vote for the party of racists and Holocaust deniers. I hear they pull the wings off dead flies, too."

Pretty much nothing, in other words.

21 July 2013 07:26  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0:

I see what you're saying, and Carl would disagree with you.

Context is fine; the problem here was that only one context was deemed allowable.

I really don't want this to run and run into futility. David B has raised an important point: people use the same word and mean different things.

For myself,when a word has more than one meaning I shall try in future to give a very brief definition in brackets of the sense in which I am using it.

Regards.

21 July 2013 08:04  
Blogger David B said...

DanJO 7.24

Yes, I'm in broad agreement with that post.

For those who say that secularism as I use the word will interfere with religious freedom, then I can agree to an extent, but I think most people (those who aren't complete nutters) would agree that religious freedom has to be limited in some circumstances.

For instance, is there anyone here who wants to allow religious freedom to the extent that religious people are allowed to kill apostates?

Or kill people who self identify (or are identified as by trial by ordeal) as witches?

Or kill people for breaking loads of Levitical laws that demand the death sentence?

Or - perhaps more controversially - have access to psychotropic substances for religious rites? Why not?

Allow slavery or child marriage? FGM?

I think it's clear cut that freedom of religion can't be absolute in any sort of society, certainly not in a theocracy with regards to dissenters.

The question then is - where the boundaries?

A society which favours any religion over another, or religion above no religion does not seem to me a sensible way to get at some sort of reasonable boundaries, while a system that works as the NSS proposes above seems to me far preferable.

If not, why not?

David



21 July 2013 08:28  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David:

Who will guard the guardians: whoever the 'guardians' happen to be? That seems to be the problem.

That's why a system that builds in checks and balances seems to work better than one that doesn't.

If that second paragraph is a red herring, ignore it. Some belief systems seem to have faith in the ongoing integrity of the right guardians. I fear them, because history, it seems to me, is not on their side.

21 July 2013 08:43  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

With attitudes like these,the muslims will be laughing all the way to your beheadings.

21 July 2013 08:51  
Blogger IanCad said...

Has this thread got legs or what?

Thanks, Dreadnaught @ 11:57, for that statement by Theresa May.
Conservatism at its best.
Fair, firm and determined to uphold the the principles of freedom of religion to all subjects of this realm.
Great stuff. Let's stick it to the EDL; or should that be spelt UKIP?

21 July 2013 08:54  
Blogger David B said...

Explorer, it certainly is a problem, and checks and balances are indeed a good idea.

It does seem to me though, that anyone who believes that they have one among many possible, often mutually contradictory, direct lines to the views of some sort of view of the mind of God is not an ideal guardian.

Particularly since the evidence for the existence of any God, as the word is generally understood, is so weak, leave alone the view that one conception of such a God trumps another.

When I say '...God, as the word is generally understood...' I mean a God who is active in the world, and interested in the thoughts and actions of men and women.

Generally, I think, it would include an entity who hears and sometimes responds to prayer, but I gather that some believers don't aim prayer at interceding with God to change his (or her, or its) mind, and who might deny that the mind of God can change.

Which all seems a bit confused to me, but not, I think, at my end of things.

David

21 July 2013 08:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 July 2013 08:59  
Blogger non mouse said...

I'm sorry - Blogger was being temperamental; it closed while my posting of 04:24 was incomplete.

So PS, the following should read: and we are by no means principally Anglo-Saxon, and German. So why you expect us to understand posts in that language, I cannot imagine..
_________________

I'd also meant to add that Detroit, with its significant Moslem population, is one place for you to watch. I note that, this Thursday, the city filed bankruptcy.

So you have your own problems, if you would just face them. Of course, John Hughes recognised their communist aspect in the '80s with Ferris Bueller's Day Off (FBDO).* There, Ferris united Chicagoans - culturally - with a rendition of the African-American-British "Twist and Shout," sung from a German parade float. He was working to save the Children of Chicago from the communist influence of Morris Childs and his friends in education (like Rooney).

But did you notice the cultural invasion perpetrated by Honda in 2012 - when they appropriated FBDO in their Superbowl ad? There, the float in the US heartland - so close to Detroit - is entirely orientalised. In that version, Broderick takes off in a red Honda, instead of the Ferrari (also red) that the kids in the film had ditched.

In the ad, also, Ferris runs from the pictorial reference to Lennon's "I am a Walrus" --- I guess the question remains as to whether Lennon's first Walrus, like Lewis Carroll's, is a capitalist.

Overall, then, I believe the ad carries quite a bit of cultural insult. No wonder Broderick still dismisses his American audience with the suggestion that they have work to do! "The [American] dream is over,"**


________________
*Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Dir. John Hughes. 1986. Paramount, 2008. DVD.

** or at least endangered. [More Beatles' reference - this time to "God"].

21 July 2013 09:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David B: "The question then is - where the boundaries?"

Well, quite.

We manage to get by with most things given that religions exist within societies but there is stuff at the very edge which cause significant issues, such as start of life, end of life, and medical research.

Rights create concomitant obligations on the State and often on other people, and it's the obligations that have to be dealt with. For instance, some may argue that an embryo has a right to life like the rest of us, and that not only puts an obligation on the State regarding law but also on others to try to protect the life on its behalf. How do we deal with that since we can't just say that if you don't agree with abortion then don't have one? I don't have much of an answer to that.

Given that most anti-abortionists don't seem, in practice, to consider an embryo and an infant as actually having an equal right to life, we can raise an eyebrow and invite them to try to convince the rest of society that embryos are people and not to have the procedure rather than the State banning it given that there are contested concepts there and widespread support for the status quo.

In terms of medical research and procedures, in particular embryonic stem cell research, we can invite people who have issues with them to refuse the medical benefits of those things in advance, and track which medicines and procedures have come about through their use.

These sorts of things also apply to animal rights advocates too. I have some sympathy with their position but at the end of the day the rest of us don't agree that other animals have equivalent rights, perhaps through some god-based reasoning or through arguments about social contracts, and it is up to those advocates to make the case in the absence of power.

21 July 2013 09:02  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

I think it's clear cut that freedom of religion can't be absolute in any sort of society

I don't think anyone is going to argue that. But the reason we will agree is because we think that any behaviour which violates the rights of others is bad. In other words, the list of things you cited are wrong not because they are done by religious people, but because they are wrong.

And its only fair then to point out that non-religious people do wrong things too. Very wrong things. So what is required that all freedom have limits placed upon it - limits which are designed to ensure the proper freedom of others. This will apply to non-religious people too. But the fact that non-religious people sometimes violate those limits does not entitle us to say "Therefore only religious opinions can be heard in the public square."

Now, how decides on those limits, and by what standards? If you say that discourse should not be foreclosed against anyone on account of religious belief or unbelief, then I am right with you. But if you say "I don't want religious opinions shaping laws because I do not see why I should be governed by opinions which I think are false" then you can hardly complain if I reply "I do not want materialistic opinions shaping laws because I do not see why I should be governed by opinions which I think are false."

If you disagree with that - i.e. if you think you can restrict religious views, but not materialistic ones, then show how.

21 July 2013 09:03  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

See
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-23392374

Ukranian man (or men) arrested in connection with ....

Interesting?

21 July 2013 09:04  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

Particularly since the evidence for the existence of any God, as the word is generally understood, is so weak, leave alone the view that one conception of such a God trumps another.

When I say '...God, as the word is generally understood...' I mean a God who is active in the world, and interested in the thoughts and actions of men and women.


But here's the problem. I've spent much of my adult life studying the arguments, and I think the reasons for belief are much stronger than those against. I think this because when rejecting some of the arguments in favour, unbelievers tend to adopt positions of scepticism which are normally viewed as irrational, and because, overwhelmingly objections to the arguments tend to misunderstand the arguments.

Generally, I think, it would include an entity who hears and sometimes responds to prayer, but I gather that some believers don't aim prayer at interceding with God to change his (or her, or its) mind, and who might deny that the mind of God can change.

Which all seems a bit confused to me, but not, I think, at my end of things.


Well, I directed you to the relevant section of Aquinas on that, and I don't think you answered it. So I'm confused by your confusion!

21 July 2013 09:08  
Blogger The Explorer said...

ENGLISHMAN @ 8:51.

Too general a statement to be clear.

If you were meaning/including me, I refer you to my comments on 20th July at 14:38 and 15:11.

21 July 2013 09:32  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David B:

Musings, here. Help me out if poss.

When Liberalism wanted to be free of religious influence/control - liber=free - 'religion' meant Christianity.

When Liberalism wants to be free of religion now, the situation is more complicated: there are different religions that disagree with one another. (More so than Xiaty itself ever did).

If, say, a devotee of Kali wanted to strangle fellow travellers in a hotel, the State would say no. Xiaty would agree with the State on this one (Christian prohibition of murder): this particualr sect cannot be allowed to practise its beliefs.

If the State, though, says that it is a good thing for men to marry one another, and Xiaty disagrees, there's a problem. Life is not involved, but there is a direct challenge to the State's authority and - worse - to its belief system.

Can the State allow it, long-term?

21 July 2013 10:18  
Blogger bluedog said...

Herr Carl @ 23.05 taunts with:

Die Strasse frei den braunen Batallionen
Die Strasse frei dem Sturmabteilungsmann
Es schau'n auf's Hackenkreuz voll Hoffung schon Millionen
Der Tag fur Freiheit und fur Brot bricht an

Don’t really speak German it’s an English language blog after all, but hazarding a guess, ‘Ode to Joy’, the EU national anthem?

And again, warming to his cut and paste theme @ 00.19 Carl continues:
‘We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who wanted to kill us. ... But altogether we can say: We have carried out this most difficult task for the love of our people. And we have taken on no defect within us, in our soul, or in our character.’

Perfect justification from a man who spent his early adult life worshipping those glistening symbols of national virility in their silos, all the while waiting eagerly on word from his commander-in-chief to unleash them, and in doing so, vaporise 300 million sub-human Slavs in Eurasia. Maybe you can remember the words from the well-known speech (well-known by whom?) because they were pasted on your bunk in the bunker by a rocket-scientist liberated from the Third Reich! One of many happy to continue the struggle against the Bolshevik in the service of democracy, rather than that of the Fuhrer. Admirable persistence.

What was the apogee of your moral high ground in the SAC days?

Carl, sanctimonious posturing is risk free when you don’t face the problem at hand. But as yet you have offered nothing other than saintly condescension.

With sincere apologies to WS Churchill, I can cut and paste too:
‘Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Religion of Peace and all the odious apparatus of Sharia rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in Bradford, Rochford, Leicester and Tower Hamlets, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.’

Remember too that the United States, in common with China, retains the death penalty across most jurisdictions. When your criminal justice system is backed with the death penalty it may become a little easier to dissuade jihadis who are programmed to die in the name of their god.

Should the UK re-introduce the death penalty?

Should the US abolish the death penalty?

Few would argue that the US is a first world country, but even fewer can explain its third-world approach to gun ownership. You would need to go into the Hindu Kush to find an equivalent gun culture to that of the US. The US has a right to bear arms, which seems to include light machine guns; on the other hand the UK grudgingly grants permits to carefully screened citizens who may bear non-military weapons for pest-control and sporting purposes.

As the UK seems to be facing a serious Injun problem, would you consent to wholesale implementation of US gun laws?

Or would that suggestion stimulate a further gratuitously provocative quote from the Third Reich, rather than from the US Constitution?

21 July 2013 10:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. Now, without going all fundamentalist on this, has anyone considered that Islam may just be God's pending judgement on the West?

Has anyone considered that far from knowing God’s intentions regarding humanity, the real Agenda is beginning to make clear. That is Armageddon was planned from the start by the Almighty. Islam was planned from the start. After all, if there are those that believe in divine judgement of humanity, that is judging the results of one’s own creation, which is somewhat bizarre in concept, then anything else could be happening.

Perhaps our creator ‘enjoys’ dynamic human struggle. The tank battles of the past, the barbarian hordes sweeping through Europe, the atomic destruction of Japanese cities.

This man decided long ago his relationship with God would be God fearing. Not for him the idea that God loves us as strongly as an old lady loves her cat. This man’s eyes have been opened since he adhered to this site, but to date, he has yet to find anything here to suggest his God fearing stance is over cautious...



21 July 2013 12:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Of course, Armageddon, shortly to be brought to us courtesy of Islam, will provide God with the opportunity for a well overdue clear-out...

From todays Pink News "Study finds that children of gay parents are generally happier than those with straight parents"

Which brings us nicely to the Inspector’s quiz for today. All you have to do is to guess the sexual orientation of the lead researcher, and you will have the chance to win an un-opened gallon container of synthetic anal lubricant. Well, there is a bit missing, but only for the purposes of research, you understand...{AHEM}...

21 July 2013 12:57  
Blogger Peter D said...

Belfast said ...

"It may be, but given that very few of us are homosexual in either inclination or practice, I'd suggest looking for at least a few more reasons if you see apocalyptic judgment in the potential future threat of radical Islam."

Unlike you not to read what was written. Here's what I said:

"Doesn't the Bible - Old and New Testament - reveal that the degeneracy of homosexuality is a direct consequence of a nation's impenitent abandonment of God? And, further, that God's wrath and judgement follows such an abandonment? The widespread acceptance of the perversity of homosexuality is a symptom and a consequence of a much deeper spiritual malaise".

This, I think, makes my point:

"To be honest, is the Western Church much better? I'm not talking even historically here: do we live with clean hearts and faithful conduct? Even in the absence of liberalism, are we salt and light?"

21 July 2013 13:19  
Blogger non mouse said...

Well said, Mr. Bluedog @ 10:45!

21 July 2013 13:41  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Peter D:

Quite so, my apologies for not reading you properly.

21 July 2013 13:48  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

David B:

"
Particularly since the evidence for the existence of any God, as the word is generally understood, is so weak, leave alone the view that one conception of such a God trumps another.

When I say '...God, as the word is generally understood...' I mean a God who is active in the world, and interested in the thoughts and actions of men and women.

Generally, I think, it would include an entity who hears and sometimes responds to prayer, but I gather that some believers don't aim prayer at interceding with God to change his (or her, or its) mind, and who might deny that the mind of God can change.
"

Met Him and spoke with Him this morning, David. He spoke back too. I certainly came out changed. I wonder if that's the component of the "problem of prayer" that you've overlooked: our prayers conform our hearts to God's.

21 July 2013 13:53  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Bluedog

If you don't want fleas, then don't make your bed with infested hounds. And don't blame me for noticing them. You are the one who wrote all this stuff.

Street violence will be the only way to eradicate the problem of Islam.

This is why I included the verse from the Horst Wessel Lied. You will need your own Brownshirts if you want street violence to actually accomplish anything. You don't really think random acts of murder and destruction will have any effect, do you? It has to be organized and systematic. And you will need a lot of Brownshirts. You won't be able to limit this street violence to 'perpetrators' because street violence can't be that carefully controlled. You will end up radicalizing the whole of the Muslim population. Assuming you think there is such a thing as a non-radical Muslim.

But how do you deal with a demographic that is both absolutely hostile and intent on conquest? Islam the religion and Islamic populations present an existential threat to Western societies.

Note the assertion of collective guilt. I will mention (again) in passing that Islam presents an existential threat to the West not because of Islamic strength but because of Western weakness. "The right of rich White Westerners to not have children because children are expensive and time-consuming shall not be infringed." There is no natural law under heaven that says "This racial group gets this land for all time and eternity." If you are afraid of losing your land and becoming subsumed into a more fecund people, there is an obvious solution. One that doesn't involve butchery. Your fear isn't an excuse for murder - especially when your fear originates in a disparity of fertility rates. Having children isn't a crime. Having children isn't an attack.

continued ...

21 July 2013 15:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Actually a fanatic defender of a certain people, traditions, a glorious history and a way of life. Perceiving a deadly threat from an alien population ...

Interesting word choice - "deadly threat." This is why I included the quote from Himmler's Poznan speech. Because he used exactly this logic to describe his govt's reaction to another 'deadly threat' posed by another 'alien population' - actions he justified in the name of and for the sake of the people he loved. And he claimed that those actions had not caused any detriment to either character or soul. Do you agree, or do you think your character is more firm than his? Do you think you could do the things you say need to be done, become hard enough to do them, and still not be affected? You deceive yourself if you answer "Yes."

If legal niceties like citizenship and human rights stand in the way, bin them. England is the home of the English and that gives us the right to take whatever steps are necessary to defend ourselves.

'Human rights' and 'citizenship' are 'legal niceties?' Well, then let's dispose of the rest of English Common law as well. Burn that Magna Carta thing. Forget Blackstone. Oh, wait. You qualified it by saying "England is the home of the English." Evidently, 'English' has a racial definition. A man of Pakistani descent can't be English. Wrong bloodline, doncha know. Therefore you have the "moral right" to take whatever steps are necessary to defend yourself - where "yourself" is defined by blood. What was that exact quote from Himmler? We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who wanted to kill us.

The fact that you think a bunch of people should never have been given citizenship is not even the beginning of a legitimate argument to strip them of their citizenship. Your gov't conferred it on them. If parliament can arbitrarily strip a citizen of his rights because of his race or religion - not because of his behavior but because of his membership in a group - then who in your country actually has any rights? If you think these actions will be reserved for 'non-English' racial groups, you are again sadly deceived. Gov'ts don't lay aside power once they have acquired it.

The pedigree of your argument should shock you. It should make you shudder to think of the road you are walking. You haven't a hope in hell of moving 3,000,000 people out of the UK. At a 1000 people a day it would take eight years. And that is assuming they want to go, and you have some place to send them. If you seek to make their lives 'miserable' through discrimination, you are going to provoke the very thing you fear - something very much like civil war. Then you will start thinking about more radical solutions to your problem. And you will say "You know, that Hitler guy - he wasn't the monster everyone thought he was. I think he was just misunderstood."

carl

21 July 2013 15:28  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Oh, and Bluedog

About my military service.

1. If I had any doubts about it, I never would have mentioned it.

2. If you ever had the ability to check the RFTL you wouldn't have found '300,000,000 slavs' on it. And, yes, I am not defining RFTL to make a point.

3. I really don't much care what you say about it, so long as you conclude with "But thank you for your protection."

carl
whose moral apogee coincided with Tibbets' moral apogee.

21 July 2013 16:02  
Blogger Peter D said...

David B
"I gather that some believers don't aim prayer at interceding with God to change his (or her, or its) mind, and who might deny that the mind of God can change.""

Still haven't quite grasped the concept that God exists outside of time and space, have you?

21 July 2013 16:13  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 July 2013 16:23  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Bluedog

I went to a Baptism Service today in a Garrison Church

Of the large congregation of around I would say that around half of them were "non-English racial groups" and many clearly did not have English as their first language.

None the less they are soon off to Afgan again, for many it will be their second or third tour and they along with the white soldiers will be away from their families for 6 to 9 months.

When and if these soldiers who have fought for us for many years eventually decide to settle down in the UK it seems that it is then OK to make their lives miserable, because they look like they might be, Muslim?

Phil

21 July 2013 16:25  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David Hussell @ 20:55

You made the point about lack of consensus on the Muslim issue. Here's my attempt to bring together the range of opinions: focusing in particular on Roy, Carl, the Inspector and Peter D.

Conversion is probably not an option. If it were, more of it would have happened: here and globally.

I'm inclined to agree with Carl - for the reasons he gives - that expulsion is not a realistic option. Therefore: containment.

Carl's solution is for the indigenous population to breed more. That would stop Islam from achieving critical mass within the population (the Inspector's data). It would also ease the old/young imbalance, and thus reduce the need for immigration by the young.

But to get Britons to breed on the scale required would need a move away from a hedonistic mindset that puts pleasure ahead of responsibility. It may be that self-survival awareness will kick in: otherwise you would probably have to re-Christianise Britain. Realistic?

(To be continued)

21 July 2013 17:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Gentlemen, one believes we all unconsciously know where Islam in this country is leading to, and it is what this man has said before. Islamic communities, where Sharia law is practiced, in as much as de facto purely Islamic communities already exist and Sharia law is part of it, though presently subservient to the law of the land.

This will be the demands of the car bombers and they WILL be met, though in typical English style, not immediately. We must look to the benefits for what’s left of the non muslim population this will bring. Social Liberalism as advocated by DanJ0 will be finished, as it was Social Liberalism that swept this people into the UK to begin with. And thus we commence the long road of moral recovery...


21 July 2013 17:03  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David H (continued):

Attila the Hun was called 'The Scourge of God'. It may be, as Peter D suggests, that Islam will perform the same function in Europe.

On the other hand,the Hun threat dissipated. Later, when Muslim conquest of Europe seemed likely, Tamburlaine appeared fr

om nowhere and scattered the threat.

So it could be that a new form of Tamburlaine (an alternative to oil, say) is just round the corner.

Even if that happens, do we expect our nation to last for ever? 'Revelation' suggests that evil will one day be given its head (the devil unchained) and that there will be some sort of final global battle before the new order of things.

Lots if ifs, but the best I can do.

21 July 2013 17:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Carl's solution is for the indigenous population to breed more."

We need fewer people here, not more, at the end of the day. We haven't got enough houses, the houses we have are not big enough, and the price of them is too high to have lots of kids.

21 July 2013 17:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Over a decade ago now, the Inspector was informed his job was removing to Gloucester. With his rather inspired suggestion that his substantially increased commuting time be included in his working week declined, he vowed to remove with it.

Anyway, lot’s of planning and a decision was made to move to the inner part of Gloucester. He’s an urban boy at heart – the countryside may be lovely round here but who wants to travel 5 miles just for a packet of cigarettes.

With estate agents contacted to inform him of available property, he walked the streets of parts of Gloucester where a white face wasn’t seen then, and isn’t seen now. You see, he was making notes on his map of these streets names to ignore any properties therein.

Needn't have worried. Once a property falls into Islamic hands, that’s it. It never goes back onto the wider market and is disposed of by the community when the time comes. So, you end up with a close Islamic, integrated community.

This is what future agitation will be about. Enhancing these areas Islam wise. And there is absolutely nothing that can be done to stop it once it starts. You see, Johnny Islam is up against a hard place. He realises the western countries are not going to stand idly by as he spreads his way of life by violence as happened in the middle ages in the proto countries that now form the middle east.

Never did go back to those aforementioned streets. One walk down them as they are and will always be lasts a lifetime...

21 July 2013 17:27  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0:

I agree: Britain is already densely populated. It's not only the number of people though, it's the age imbalance: too many over 65 relative to those under 16. So if we aren't to have more young people (of any ethnic variety), we need fewer old people.

We might yet be heading for a 'Brave New World' solution with regard to the old. The likes of of Peter Singer, I think, are considering it already: reduction at both ends of the age spectrum.

21 July 2013 17:28  
Blogger David B said...

Peter D

"Still haven't quite grasped the concept that God exists outside of time and space, have you? "

The last desperate throw of the dice from a believer in a God of the Gaps, now that it is pretty clear that there is no God existing within time and space.

How, do you suppose, could a being existing outside time and space judge things occurring within time and space, BTW?

Or does God live within time and space and outside time and space at the same time, in your view?

Do you think that Superman could travel faster than the speed of light without moving?

David

21 July 2013 17:48  
Blogger Albert said...

David b,

The last desperate throw of the dice from a believer in a God of the Gaps, now that it is pretty clear that there is no God existing within time and space.

Goodness me! I'm sorry but that really is quite a howler! The classical doctrine of God is that he is outside of time and space: it is the opposite of the God of the gaps theory. Such a God (GOTG) is reduced to working within the universe, rather than causing it. That's the point. In any case, the classical doctrine existed long before the GOTG idea occurred, and long before the kind of philosophy that would lead to the latter would come to exist.

Or does God live within time and space and outside time and space at the same time, in your view?

That's absurd.

Do you think that Superman could travel faster than the speed of light without moving?

Again, absurd, and I don't see the point of that suggestion.

How, do you suppose, could a being existing outside time and space judge things occurring within time and space, BTW?

Well I can't see any problems there - what do you mean by "judge"?

21 July 2013 17:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Fairly quiet down here, even with Islam all over the place. We have our own shoe bomb assembler from here, don't you know. Think he did around ten years for that. He’d only been in Belmarsh a few weeks when there was a small explosion there. The little bastard was still at it...

Anyway, he’s out now, and guess where he moved to. You guessed it, within a couple of miles of this fellow.

Saajid Muhammad Badat if anyone is interested. Ugly looking blighter, even for a muslim...


21 July 2013 17:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: "We might yet be heading for a 'Brave New World' solution with regard to the old. The likes of of Peter Singer, I think, are considering it already: reduction at both ends of the age spectrum."

Hardly. What we could do though is import young labour for a few decades without giving citizenship. As for Muslims, I think the TFR will continue to decline there. We just need to make them lose some of their religious identity. Ditching faith schools might be a start.

21 July 2013 18:05  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs (15:28)—The quote beginning ‘If legal niceties’ is mine, not bluedog’s.

@ Dan (18:05)—We just need to make them lose some of their religious identity

Then we’ve got quite a job on our hands. Pew asked whether Muslims identified with country or with their religion. On page 3 of this PDF Pew reports: ‘The level of Muslim identification in Britain, Spain, and Germany is similar to that in Pakistan, Nigeria, and Jordan, and even higher than levels in Egypt, Turkey, and Indonesia.’

21 July 2013 18:30  
Blogger David Hussell said...

The Explorer,
Useful efforts there from you, I'd say. Thank you.

UK population and density. I agree. I've said for decades, with my professional and personal hats on, that we are overcrowded, overpopulated, and our creaking infrastructure can't cope. Most attempts to expand it will be resisted by the middle classes for both selfish and genuine environmental reasons. We have little room for policy manoeuvre. Current debate over airports makes me laugh, as I researched and wrote an undergrad. project on this 44 years ago and the sites, ideas, proposals and essentially issues are totally unchanged. We're full up !

Inspector,
Same as above comment. Many thanks. And yes, the long climb back up that moral hill, probably will occur, and will be painful and slow. At the end we may be a Christian people (remnant) again ?

And Albert has dealt very well with the God doesn't exist, nonsense, thank you. He Bloody Well Does ! Ignore him and very bad things Do Happen.

So hope to do list: exit EU, stem inward flow, rebuild sense of being a nation, protect monarchy, hope for revival, remain strong Christians, even if only a few of us, encourage moderate Islam. What have we forgotten ?

21 July 2013 19:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Greetings David Hussell..

This man actually finds it incredible that anyone denies God’s existence. You have to be a bit of a thicko not to recognise designed order about you when you see it, plus more than scant evidence of fine tuning at work so that our being here was possible in the first place, and that we can go on being here, no matter how man behaves in his stupidity...

21 July 2013 19:56  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Inspector,

Absolutely ! Spot on, in fact. Not to see His hand in the beauty and fine tuned order of all things, requires a huge blindness, bordering on stupidity. Even primitive, pre-Christian savages knew that some sort of divinity or gods existed. But the arrogance of "clever" modern man with his mobile phones and other such petty gizmos, blinds them, in their arrogant cleverness, NOT to see the blindingly obvious.

I shall another drink to you, sir ! God Bless !



21 July 2013 20:42  
Blogger Peter D said...

David B
"Or does God live within time and space and outside time and space at the same time, in your view?"

What a silly, silly question from someone who dismisses God's existence! You really have no idea at all about the Christian understanding of God that you make light of.

21 July 2013 21:08  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older