Saturday, May 17, 2014

Newham Tories pledge allegiance to the will of Allah


The imams and Islamic scholars of the London Borough of Newham recently made the following declaration:
Important Message for the Muslims of Newham

Respected Brothers and Sisters of Newham,
Assalamualaykum

We have a moral responsibility to help build and unite the community we live in. This includes our responsibility to make sure we elect suitable, competent and God fearing candidates who we should be able to hold accountable for any council decision or policy that will directly affect us.
A vote is an Amanah (trust) which must be used wisely and not abused for individual benefits.
Any individual that opposes the building of Masjids or Islamic schools or even goes as far as to attempting to demolish a Masjid is not serving the interest of society.
Allah (SWT) says
وَمَنْ أَظْلَمُ مِمَّن مَّنَعَ مَسَاجِدَ اللّهِ أَن يُذْكَرَ فِيهَا اسْمُهُ وَسَعَى فِي خَرَابِهَا” “
“who can be a bigger oppressor then the one who prevents Allah’s name from being mentioned in the houses of Allah and makes effort to destroy it” (Albaqarah)
We therefore strongly urge the entire Muslim Community of Newham to wake up and stand united against such unjust politicians in the upcoming elections.
We consider it essential for all the Muslims to endorse any party that helps the Muslim cause by embracing a significant number of Muslim candidates and standing up against Robin Wales.

Allah knows best
Yes, this appeal really ends with "Allah knows best". Sir Robin Wales is the Labour Mayor of Newham, and appears to have held office for rather a long time - 20 years, in fact. Apparently, he hasn't served the community very well at all:


24.3 per cent of all Newham households have no one who speaks English as a main language. Sir Robin has taken steps to encourage people to use English, including stopping all foreign language newspapers from local libraries. According to the Telegraph:
Translation services have been cut and the council has banned all funding for community groups or events aimed exclusively at a single ethnic or religious group, as part of a policy designed to promote integration and “Britishness”.

Sir Robin Wales, the major of Newham, said: “There is a challenge about isolation and we are very concerned about women being isolated in homes and sometimes older people [because of the language barrier].

“We are concerned about it and we are giving support.

“People have chosen to come to this country, they want to be part of it and we try to encourage it.”
Well, this doesn't please Allah one bit, and, as we know, he knows best. And so Newham's Muslims are now seeking to oust Sir Robin, not least for having the temerity to reject plans for their 'mega mosque'.

According to 2011 Census data, just 16.7% of Newham's population is White British, while 43.5% is Asian (13.8% Indian, 9.8% Pakistani, 12.21 Bangladeshi, 1.3% Chinese, 6.5% Other Asian), 19.6% Black (12.3% African, 4.9% Caribbean, 2.4% Other Black), 1.1% Arab and 2.3% of other ethnic heritage. Newham has the highest fertility rate in the country at 2.87 children born per woman, compared to the national average of 1.95. Newham and Tower Hamlets are the boroughs with the highest rates of population growth. Newham also has the largest average household size in England & Wales at 3.01 persons.

Is it racist to point this out? 

Attracting just 16% of the BME vote in 2010, the Conservative Party traditionally doesn't do very well among ethnic minorities. According to Paul Goodman, the party just doesn't offer them much at all, and, according to Lord Ashcroft, the party faces electoral oblivion - "defeat by demography" - unless there is some attempt to "woo" them .

So, in Newham, the Conservative Party is wooing Muslims.

And how..


Point 4 is of particular interest to those who are still pursuing the 'mega mosque' rejected by Sir Robin, and also to those who oppose betting shops, off-licences and Subway stores that presume to sell ham baguettes or bacon rolls. And if you don't speak English - since that nasty Labour Mayor has stopped speaking to them in their own language - those nice Conservatives have made this leaflet available in Urdu, Gujurati and Bengali, complete with appealing mosque-ish watermark:




According to Breitbart, the leaflets are genuine.

Is Newham not a constituent part of this Christian country?

His Grace can't see the Conservative Party in any constituency ever publishing an election leaflet pledging specifically "To listen to the Christian community", and the Conservatives are fast losing the support of that demographic, too.

But, as Lord Ashcroft observes, they face electoral oblivion without an appeal to ethnic minorities. Though quite why they have to make a base appeal to Muslims in this blatantly sectarian fashion - instead of appealing to those qualities, values and virtues which unite all Conservatives - is unknown.

No, the time is fast approaching when Christians shall need an organised, potent and persuasive means of making our politicians listen.

Especially the shunned and beleaguered 16.7% in Newham.

63 Comments:

Blogger john in cheshire said...

I'd say the conservative party faces oblivion because it is appealing to ethnic minorities. And allowing ghettoes to be created in our country only compounds their misdeeds.

17 May 2014 at 09:15  
Blogger David Hussell said...

If the Conservative Party wishes to appeal to minorities, as after all they are part of the electorate, the point is that they must do this by using "values" that we can all share, British values, that can be held in common; otherwise if they promote divisiveness they become agents for splitting, for favouritism, and that way lies disintegration, division and conflict. So shame on them for this, which illustrates that the party has lost a sense of what truly, being conservative involves. This need to foster and build a shared community of values, seems intuitive to me, but maybe only because, being a committed Christian, I may have an intuitive sense of the Christian concept of the "Common Good"?

So yes indeed, Your Grace, if the Conservatives, so called, explicitly state that they will respect the religious beliefs of Muslims - possibly at the expense of other beliefs? - then the former conservative, Conservative Party is hastening the day that other religiously organised political groupings such as a Christian Party emerges.

Ukip of course is the only party (except the tiny but generally worthwhile Christian Party) that explicitly states that it is happy to act as the flag bearer for the Judaeo-Christian tradition and heritage. It supports the established Church as the symbol and essence of that heritage.

I can confirm that the so called Conservative Party has succeeded in making me end, for good, my life-long support of that party over a host of issues, but headed by the deliberate deceptions regarding the EU and the unconstitutional (as not part of any manifesto or pre-elction campaign) imposition of the redefinition of marriage. "Dave", that clever, deep thinker, has turned me into a Ukip activist, for which I am duly (tongue in cheek) grateful !

17 May 2014 at 09:41  
Blogger Nick said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 May 2014 at 10:41  
Blogger Nick said...

In their desperation for votes, the Tories have prostituted themselves to all kinds of minority causes. Now they are prostituting themselves to Allah.

This is further evidence of the way all three mainstream parties gravitate towards the same political trend and end up being indistinguishable from each other. Another reason for supporting UKIP; they at least have some sense of who they are.

Roll on May 22nd!

17 May 2014 at 10:42  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Great posts all. I think some churchgoers will be amazed at the 2 hours free parking. Why should Muslims get this on Friday, which is a working day in this country and a time when there is great demand on parking when in many parts of the country this is no longer available to Christians on a day which was very annoyingly taken away from being a quiet peaceful day from us, but when there is still far less demand for parking?

Are the Conservatives seriously trying to hack off their traditional supporters? As if they are they are doing a mighty fine job. Did they think their support base was so brain dead and sentimental that it would go on supporting their trendy metropolitan views far removed from being earthed and rooted in the British soil and the people for ever?

Like David I was a Conservative supporter for decades, but don't recognise their policies these days as being those I supported then.

17 May 2014 at 10:45  
Blogger Jim McLean said...

The Conservatives will lose a whole lot more than they gain by this sort of behaviour. I, as a potential Tory voter, will see that the conservatives are blatantly prostituting themselves for votes at any cost - even when that causes division between the values of their mainstream support and the values of the minority they are wooing.

That then gives the impression that the conservatives have no values of their own and they simply don't care who votes for them or how they get their votes.

Disgusting.

17 May 2014 at 10:56  
Blogger Johnnyrvf said...

A labour mayor being challenger by the multi cultural vision imposed on the U.K. to rub the Tory noses in it. So now the Tories abandon their roots to get votes from the minorities they don't really want. Oh the irony! It's a few years away yet, but the U.K. will embrace the 3rd wolrd status it's pathetic rulling elites desire. I hope the architects of this mission revel in what they have caused. Britain alaone! as every other western nationality is waking up to the permanent toxicity of multiculturalism.

17 May 2014 at 11:56  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Three years ago, Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy made speeches declaring multiculturalism dead. Cameron’s speech was headlined by the Telegraph, ‘Muslims must embrace our British values, David Cameron says’. Except when it is advantageous to ply them with special treats, of course.

‘There are practical things that we can do as well. That includes making sure that immigrants speak the language of their new home,’ enthused the slayer of multiculturalism and promoter of Britishness. Credit to Sir Robin for trying to do just that.

17 May 2014 at 12:11  
Blogger John Matthews said...

Appealing to the 16% of white would be a waste of time using christian values as I would imagine most are atheists

17 May 2014 at 12:27  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Perhaps there is a simple explanation, Your Grace. Newham Conservatives asked themselves the Lyndon Johnson question: Which is worse, to have the Moslems inside the tent pissing out, or outside the tent pissing in?

17 May 2014 at 12:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The libertarians among us can hardly complain about private groups organising themselves to further their own interests or pursue their own objectives. It's a sort of Big Society thing in action, I expect. I suppose the local Conservatives feel they need to try to appeal to and represent the local population. Democracy in action too, I expect.

17 May 2014 at 13:33  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Uncle Brian (12:37)—Give Islam an inch, it takes a mile and you wake up to find it pissing with intent within tent.

17 May 2014 at 13:47  
Blogger Manfarang said...

I notice the National Liberal Party (led by former BNP members)is also appealing to ethnic minority groups in the Euro-election.
Ukip is very anxious to appeal to those with Empire loyalties.

17 May 2014 at 14:06  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

So, is this really about those ten points - which by the way an American would describe as "Motherhood and Apple pie." Or is this about the nagging fear that white Britain isn't strong enough to keep what it possesses? Christianize those ten points and people wouldn't even notice. But cover it with the specter of Islam...well then.

If white Europeans were assuming the responsibilities of civilization ...getting married, staying married, having children, raising them ... instead of participating in the sexual chaos they currently indulge, they would not be so afraid of Muslim fertility rates.

carl

17 May 2014 at 14:43  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Carl
Many young "white" Europeans don't have a job or are underemployed.They can't start thinking about marriage with such insecurity

17 May 2014 at 15:00  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Manfarang

Which of course explains why the richest continent in the world has had a fertility rate below replacement for the last four decades.

carl

17 May 2014 at 15:27  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs (14:43)—A vignette from this crowded corner of the richest continent: ‘Fearing the cost of childcare, extra food, schooling and housing, millions of couples cannot fathom having children before their 40s. Hundreds of thousands of people in their 20s and 30s have accepted that they will have to rule out a family altogether.’

17 May 2014 at 17:48  
Blogger Sister Julian said...

Has our 'Christian' Prime Minister ever read that Jesus Christ says: "He who is not for me is against me". If our political parties prostitute themselves before Allah then the judgement will be upon them. But if they force the rest of us to follow them, then surely they will face the double judgement meted out to those who lead the flock astray.
Who can we elect to lead us in the right direction? Who has the courage to face down Islam? Not our religious or political leaders as far as I can see.
And by the way, I was in my local (northern) town centre this morning and noticed a sign in Subway stating that all meat is Halal.

17 May 2014 at 18:31  
Blogger Roy said...

In principle I have nothing against candidates of any party trying to win votes from Moslems providing they do not comprise Christian values, or, if the candidates are not themselves Christians, British values in the process.

I wonder what those Moslems photographed in the demonstrations at Newham think of the case of Meriam Yehya Ibrahim who, as mentioned in Your Grace's previous post, has been sentenced to death for apostasy?

Perhaps some local journalist could ask Moslem spokesmen in Newham for their views. It would be a good opportunity for those Moslems to demonstrate their commitment to religious freedom and British values.

17 May 2014 at 19:11  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

One can only assume that the Conservatives think Newham's Muslims are utter morons, unable to recognise the Tories as the party responsible for liberating marriage from its heterosexual constraints, something that I am informed is very much against the will of Allan.

But the promise of a railing around very busy mosques - well, that should buy 'em off...

As if I needed one more bloody reason to never, ever vote for that party of toff f**k-wits again.

Oh, it makes me tremble...

17 May 2014 at 21:03  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Call me Dave has plunged the Tories into oblivion, this latest appalling stunt is not going to turn their fortunes around. In the long run it's going to cause more problems, even bigger cultural divisions and hatred, in the short term it won't win them the election because it has just highlighted yet again how two faced, hypocritical, and untrustworthy the Conservative party really are.

One minute Dave is saying “Muslims must embrace our British values” and the next he's distributing these appeasing leaflets to Muslims giving in to their whims. And what happened to “We are a Christian country” Dave? Forgotten that one already have you.
What the country needs is LEADERSHIP and the three main parties are unable to give us this. So take a low profile the lot of you and let UKIP have a chance.


17 May 2014 at 21:17  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Chaps, one does believe the thing to be a spoof. We have a few talented smart arses in the Conservative associations around here who knock up this kind of jolly all the time on their PCs.

If it really isn’t a spoof, then the Conservatives are being really acidic. “Vote us in and we’ll run the borough as Conservatives would. If you believe we’d stick to our manifesto then you’re bigger fools than we took you for.”

17 May 2014 at 21:27  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 May 2014 at 21:27  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Remember George Galloway's electoral victory in Bradford. Any system that can put that creep into power is wrong.

One income taxpayer one vote, you know it makes sense.

17 May 2014 at 22:19  
Blogger Owl said...

It is sad to see the total degeneracy of the political party once known as Conservative.

A Bilderberger's dream come true.

I cannot see any alternative to a civil war within the UK, unfortunatly.

Thanks Dave.

17 May 2014 at 22:23  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (13:33)—The libertarians among us can hardly complain about private groups organising themselves to further their own interests or pursue their own objectives

Even when their interests and objectives are profoundly anti-libertarian? Isn’t that taking libertarianism a bit too far for comfort? (The comfort of future generations, that is.)

@ IGiO (21:27)—At His Grace’s Breitbart link, the party agent confirms the leaflets are genuine.

17 May 2014 at 22:47  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

"Even when their interests and objectives are profoundly anti-libertarian? Isn’t that taking libertarianism a bit too far for comfort? (The comfort of future generations, that is.)"

The fatal flaw in liberalism. When the developing and constructed 'common good' and sense of a 'shared community' has opposing values and world views. And where these are so fundamentally opposed to one another that the competition between them cannot be successfully negotiated.

17 May 2014 at 23:07  
Blogger bluedog said...

RSA @ 22.19 says, 'One income taxpayer one vote, you know it makes sense.'

Indeed, no representation without taxation.

This is possibly the only way to re-gerrymander the electoral system so that the ever-increasing cohort of mendicants does not perpetually demand more in benefits than they pay in tax (nil, except for VAT).

The danger with this proposal is the same as the danger with its opposite, being the current and arguably unsustainable model of universal suffrage. Once a trend away from universal suffrage becomes an accepted principle, the pendulum will swing towards oligarchy, at best.

17 May 2014 at 23:20  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Thank you for confirming Johnny R.

DanJ0, you’re playing a dangerous game, extending libertarianism to races who would kill you for your religious belief, or lack of it. Democracy doesn’t work in Egypt, and libertarianism cannot exist with Islam. And yes, it really is a race thing.


17 May 2014 at 23:22  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Bluedog my friend, we already have an oligarchy.

I'm deadly serious about one income tax payer one vote or at least some significant reduction in the ability of takers to compel makers to give ever more. Currently we as a society are living beyond our means by amassing debt which the next 4 generations will suffer under. This is not just stupid, its wicked.

Of course I am under no illusions that anything short of actual catastrophe will cause us to change our foolish ways. Who was it said that democracy could only last until the electorate worked out that they could vote themselves an unearned pay rise?

The same politicians who think we can borrow ourselves out of debt and that ' rights' trump arithmetic also believe that mass immigration is 'vibrant and enriching' and that Islam is peace.

Doomed we are.

18 May 2014 at 04:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo:"The fatal flaw in liberalism."

Note the switch from the libertarianism in the comment to liberalism in general there. Classic Dodo stuff.

18 May 2014 at 07:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "Even when their interests and objectives are profoundly anti-libertarian? Isn’t that taking libertarianism a bit too far for comfort? (The comfort of future generations, that is.)"

Perhaps one of the libertarians might like to answer that? I think the Inspector claims to be one. Possibly the blog owner too. It's an interesting dilemma. As a libertarian-leaning liberal I have an answer of sorts but I'm interested in what the full-on libertarians have to say.

18 May 2014 at 07:59  
Blogger Len said...

"allah knows best.

Sharia law for everyone.

Watch out you 'liberals.' Its coming ......

18 May 2014 at 09:33  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr RSA @ 0433, the essence problem is how to restrict the franchise without the ensuing voters being murdered in their beds.

Restricting the franchise per-se would not be a problem as most members of the electorate would put their material comforts ahead of freedom, which is why we are still in the EU. Inevitably, once the franchise is restricted on a taxpayer voting basis, the taxpayer voters are going to demand an end to anything but the most rudimentary welfare system. The NHS would not survive, it would be work for the dole and the churches would return to their once dominant role in education as the state would be forced to withdraw.

On the positive side there is a clear incentive to pay tax (at what threshold level of tax paid would eligibility be gained?). Those who went on to vote would be sure to exercise their hard-earned right with solemn responsibility.

Another way to restrict the franchise is to raise the voting age back to 21. Quite how Cameron agreed to an age of 16 for the Scottish Independence vote is beyond comprehension. Thoughts of compulsory voting should be resisted at all costs; it is important that voters should self-select.

This communicant suggests a government issue of free cannabis to all Muslim voters at breakfast on election day.

18 May 2014 at 10:25  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

Who is being "used" by this leaflet? What are the religious affiliations of the Conservative candidates? Are the Cons using the Muslims or is it the other way round? Has the local party been infiltrated? Is this a case of vote Conservative get Islamism? Either way the effect is likely to be minimal since Newham is already a Socialist one party state, unless the ruling party is being similarly undermined.

18 May 2014 at 10:40  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...


DanJ0, it’s only by following Cranmer that this man has come to realise the dismal truth. To wit, man is a flawed animal, worse than previously considered. Indeed, large swathes of it are, presently, beyond hope. With that in mind, is it surprising the the muslim still relies on the kaffir’s politics. Why hasn’t Newham’s un-British types not gone over to Respect to win the borough outright ? Is it possible they can only unite themselves when in opposition ?


18 May 2014 at 11:50  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (07:59)—Sorry, I’d had you down as a full-blown libertarian. I’ll move you over to ‘liberal with tinges of libertarianism’.

18 May 2014 at 11:53  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

RSA

One income taxpayer one vote, you know it makes sense.

Yes it does. It makes proper sense - I'd vote for it! Something rather appealing in raising the status of 'The Workers' over the 'Shirkers'.

18 May 2014 at 12:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "@ DanJ0 (07:59)—Sorry, I’d had you down as a full-blown libertarian. I’ll move you over to ‘liberal with tinges of libertarianism’."

The core differences are about negative and positive liberty, and about the ideal role of the State.

18 May 2014 at 18:21  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

"The core differences are about negative and positive liberty, and about the ideal role of the State"

Once in a while the mask slips and we get a glimpse of the brave new world that many want to impose on us under the guise of liberalism or rationalism

Marx sprang to my mind when reading it, but they sound so much like each other it is difficult to tell.

The thing is Dan Jo I totally agree with you. What each of us really mean by the above I bet is poles apart.

Phil

18 May 2014 at 20:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Once in a while the mask slips and we get a glimpse of the brave new world that many want to impose on us under the guise of liberalism or rationalism"

The mask slips? What on earth are you on about now?

"Marx sprang to my mind when reading it, but they sound so much like each other it is difficult to tell."

Marx? MARX? What on earth ... oh never mind, I don't think I want to know.

"The thing is Dan Jo I totally agree with you. What each of us really mean by the above I bet is poles apart."

I'll stick to the bog-standard political philosophy version and leave you to, well, whatever it is you imagine today.

18 May 2014 at 21:19  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

I hope it is all my imagination also.

History seems to suggest otherwise.

You could say that the "The core differences (between us) are about negative and positive liberty, and about the ideal role of the State"

Increasingly freedom in Britain is just a word. The reality is that you are perfectly free to say what you want as long as you agree with current trends and what we are told is right. (The same as in most totalitarian regimes --- you are free to agree with us)

We increasingly just have one political voice in Britain. They all fight over the same ground with almost the same views.

The real issues we are told are settled.

So we cannot go there, we cannot debate, as the state increasingly says we must be silenced.

Because to open the debate would mean that a new direction for Britain really is possible and that is the one view is not acceptable.

Why not?

Because the great unspoken fear is that the new path might show that God's plan for us was the right one all along.

I have always said. Lets have an experiment. Take a run down city with a port. No Tax or EU or recent British laws but the Laws properly enforced and based on the Bible.

Hard work rewarded, families supported.

Give it 10 - 20 years. You would have to build a wall around it to keep people from the rest of Britain moving there. (Or the rest of Britain will have followed suit)

That is why it will not happen.

Would we still have issues with Muslims when the people are free?

Somehow I doubt it.

Phil

19 May 2014 at 00:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Increasingly freedom in Britain is just a word. The reality is that you are perfectly free to say what you want as long as you agree with current trends and what we are told is right. (The same as in most totalitarian regimes --- you are free to agree with us)"

How about freedom to believe in Islam, freedom to manifest one's belief, and freedom to speak about it in the street and elsewhere, Phil? I'm not seeing you defending all that here to be honest. Or do your totalitarian allusions only apply to the non-religious?

19 May 2014 at 06:12  
Blogger Len said...

A' liberal 'in fact then is someone with no absolutes in anything?. Apart from 'being liberal'.
Is that why we are in such a mess?.
No absolutes in anything just a life standing on shifting sand moving with every tide of opinion ?

Man does not evolve upward but rather downwards by degrees by increments until his position becomes hopeless and a much stronger force takes over and dominates this rudderless ship.
That is how every dictator has come to power.


19 May 2014 at 10:44  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

"How about freedom to believe in Islam, freedom to manifest one's belief, and freedom to speak about it in the street and elsewhere"

Absolutely, is that clear enough for you?

Phil

19 May 2014 at 18:54  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Danjo

"How about freedom to believe in Islam"

Fine, believe what you want. Convert tomorrow.

"freedom to manifest one's belief

Manifest their belief? What does this mean? Sharia law? Genital mutilation of young girls? Forced marriages? Subjugation of women? Killing of homosexuals and adulterers?

Not so sure about that when it clearly contradicts the established values of British society - based on Christian values.

"and freedom to speak about it in the street and elsewhere

Again, not if it advocates violence and distain for British society and promotes armed rebellion against the West.

"I'm not seeing you defending all that here to be honest."

Well no. Who would? They're hardly the same as a Christian attack on sexual anarchy and have different methods of achieving their ends.

"Or do your totalitarian allusions only apply to the non-religious?"

There you go. End with an insult.

The Christian basis of our society is entitled to be defended without being (mis)labelled totalitarian, or homophobic, or sexist, or whatever insult you want to throw its way.

Let Muslims have there religious freedom but silence the anti-Christian, anti-Western rhetoric. Do not give them the freedom to use this as a cover to destabilise and spread division and violence. Why empower them?

Liberal dilemma, eh? How to judge between competing and contradictory claims.

20 May 2014 at 02:58  
Blogger Len said...

Danjo,If one wants to really push the freedom thing then declaring ones sexuality in a mosque would be an epic move would it not?.
Tatchell did it in a church I believe which was a bit of a cop out.
(This would also be good training for when the Christians have gone and Islam takes over)

20 May 2014 at 08:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Fine, believe what you want. Convert tomorrow."

Here we go again.

"Manifest their belief? What does this mean? Sharia law? Genital mutilation of young girls? Forced marriages? Subjugation of women? Killing of homosexuals and adulterers?"

You appear to be going a bit UKIP there, Dodo. Go on, treat yourself and have another go without the hyperbole this time.

"Not so sure about that when it clearly contradicts the established values of British society - based on Christian values."

If only it wasn't hyperbole then it might be worth something, But, well, you're just doing your Dodo thing.

"Again, not if it advocates violence and distain for British society and promotes armed rebellion against the West."

You're disappearing over the horizon, squawking away.

"Well no. Who would? They're hardly the same as a Christian attack on sexual anarchy and have different methods of achieving their ends."

*waves at the dot on the horizon*

"Let Muslims have there religious freedom but silence the anti-Christian, anti-Western rhetoric. Do not give them the freedom to use this as a cover to destabilise and spread division and violence. Why empower them?"

I can just about hear a distant squawk, I think. I'll just stand here by the actual argument in case you return from your wild goose chase.

20 May 2014 at 18:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "A' liberal 'in fact then is someone with no absolutes in anything?. Apart from 'being liberal'. Is that why we are in such a mess?. No absolutes in anything just a life standing on shifting sand moving with every tide of opinion ?"

Unlike Muslims, Len. They have absolutes. It kind of follows from the usual theism thing of a creator god. But of course you don't like those absolutes, you prefer your own version.

20 May 2014 at 19:03  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Danjo, you must address the arguments and not this mythical creature 'Dodo'. He's long gone.

Jack does not believe you are so stupid as not to see the difference approaches to people by Muslims and Christians. The reasons are based on Scripture. Can you really see no difference in the life of Christ to that of Muhammad? Or in the nature of their teachings about God?

Now, care to address the points Happy Jack made in his post?

21 May 2014 at 00:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Jack does not believe you are so stupid as not to see the difference approaches to people by Muslims and Christians. The reasons are based on Scripture. Can you really see no difference in the life of Christ to that of Muhammad? Or in the nature of their teachings about God?"

You're doing your Dodo straw man thing yet again. What you have written has almost nothing to do with what I have said here, which is about rights to certain freedoms as part of our traditional British way of life. Qualified rights of course, as I have said many, many times over the years, which is codified in our law too. With the usual limitations to do with harm and the like, as I have said many, many times over the years, including on the other thread, and which is understood in any talk about freedoms in the UK. So take your Dodo-esque hyperbole and find someone else to pester, you silly old man.

21 May 2014 at 05:25  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Danjo, Happy Jack knows all that about rights to certain(qualified) freedoms etc. and 'freedom from' and 'freedom to do'.

He would draw your attention to the fact that the "traditional British way of life" is grounded on Christianity. He outlined the distinct cultural and theological differences between Christianity and Islam. You were arguing there is no way to chose between them.

What basis is there to your philosophy and where is the evidence it promotes the common good? Its not making a terribly good job of it at the moment for the 'traditional' nuclear and extended family, is it? Or doesn't the misery matter as long a people are *free*?

Out of interest, is 'Dodoesque' a noun or adjective? Jack never was too good at grammar.

22 May 2014 at 21:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 May 2014 at 21:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 May 2014 at 22:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You were arguing there is no way to chose between them"

More clumsy, Dodo-esque sleight of hand, I see. On a different thread too.

22 May 2014 at 22:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Perhaps I should just provide some quotes from the other thread to show your manipulations and lack of integrity, Dodo:

"As the end of the day, we collectively judge the competing religious and their attempts to change how the rest of us live according to other criteria, where Islam is profoundly unattractive to our liberal ways, and modern Christianity is mostly fine except at the edges, or in the hands of the fundamentalists."

and

"My earlier comment still stands of course: that we have competing religious views based on claims of a creator god and a single way of living according to divine will. How are we to judge which, if any, is the truth when both views are unsubstantiated and both sides are adamant their views are the truth?"

22 May 2014 at 22:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: ",Happy Jack knows all that about rights to certain(qualified) freedoms etc. and 'freedom from' and 'freedom to do'."

Do you believe in a right to freedom of speech and religion in the UK, Dodo? Actually, do you believe in a right to freedom in general? That is, do you believe that freedom has value in itself?

22 May 2014 at 22:26  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Danjo

This thing called "Freedom".

Happy Jack is, as you know a Catholic, so looks at things differently to an atheist.

God created us as rational and able to control our own actions. The purpose being to seek his Creator and freely attain perfection by knowing and loving Him. We are rational are masters over our own acts.

Freedom to act or not to act, to do this or that shapes our lives.

Here's what the Catechism says:

1732
"As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterises properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733
"The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."

1740
"The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, "the subject of this freedom," is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods."

Moreover, the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions that are needed for a just exercise of freedom are too often disregarded or violated.

Such situations of blindness and injustice injure the moral life and involve the strong as well as the weak in the temptation to sin against charity. By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighbourly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth."

23 May 2014 at 10:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

So, no comment at all about your blatant misrepresentation of what I said, I see. One might be inclined to think you're too incompetent to understand what was actually said but you blatantly hijacked what I said on this thread to continue your theme on the thread below. Did you do that to try to put some distance between the truth in black and white, and your own issues? Or perhaps it was because you had some difficult questions to address below and wanted to walk away from them?

Now on to your very carefully constructed response to the questions about freedom, which doesn't really answer anything much. I note that you did so through the medium of your 'ventriloquist's dummy' too. That'll be the ID that isn't in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, I recall you saying at one point when you were denying you were Dodo.

I expect you're doing that because you don't want to admit openly that you'd use the State to restrict the freedom of others to try to force people [1] to live within the religious strictures of the Roman Catholic Church. Afterall, the schtick around here at times is that a-theists and liberals are inclined to authoritarianism but in reality it's often the religious who tend towards that.

Finally, I have to laugh at the "traditional British way of life" thing earlier given my recent points. There's quite an irony there on your relying on tradition and culture to prop up your desire for a partisan religiously-oriented State to control the rest of us to suit yourself. That illustrates what I have been arguing very nicely as it goes.

[1] I wonder whether you'd in fact argue that people should be forced to be free. You might recognise that phrase if you have actually read a particular book. Perhaps you ought to Google it now if haven't. ;)

23 May 2014 at 18:02  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Danjo, Happy Jack has no idea what you are withering on about in your opening remarks.

Jack has stated his position - you work the implications out.

He repeats this:

"The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, "the subject of this freedom," is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods."

And this:

"Moreover, the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions that are needed for a just exercise of freedom are too often disregarded or violated."

Situations and circumstances will mean interpreting and applying these truths in particular situations. That's the job of secular government.

The reason atheists who are libertarian liberals are inclined towards totalitarianism is because "freedom" actually means what the predominant force or group in society wants. It is not grounded in any solid vision of man's destiny.

Jack will make this his last comment here before you descend further into personal abuse.

Oh, and for the record, Happy Jack is pleased to confirm he is now in full communion with the Church after a period of reflection.

23 May 2014 at 18:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Jack will make this his last comment here before you descend further into personal abuse."

Well of course that's why you want you disappear again. Nothing to do with being put on the spot at all. But no doubt you'll seek me out on another thread shortly, and want to talk to me about your issues with homosexuality or your poor understanding of liberalism again. And again. And again.

23 May 2014 at 18:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Jack has stated his position - you work the implications out."

It's probably just as well it's 2014 and not the early 1500s. This is why people need to be vigilant about religious people and political power. Not everyone is like the Vicar of Dibley.

23 May 2014 at 18:57  
Blogger Len said...

I suppose the bottom line here is the only person who has total freedom to do as He likes is God himself.
We are all' slaves' to either God or to sin...
Chose your master....

28 May 2014 at 09:09  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older