Friday, May 16, 2014

Pregnant Christian to hang for apostasy - a test for Baroness Warsi


It is all over the mainstream media - Telegraph, BBC, Independent, Express - and many others. Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, 27, who was born to a Muslim father but brought up a Christian by her mother, married a Christian man from South Sudan. Mrs Ibrahim is eight months pregnant. But a court in Khartoum has found her guilty not only of apostasy - despite never having been a practising Muslim - but also of adultery, since her marriage to a Christian is void, and so her pregnancy is irrefutable proof of her sexual sin.

For the unforgivable crime of apostasy, she has been sentenced to hang. For the heinous sin of adultery, she has been sentenced to a flogging of 100 lashes.

It is not clear to His Grace how she has been found guilty of adultery, on account of there being no alleged infidelity to a third party. But we must assume that the judge is morally and theologically illiterate and, to him, fornication and adultery are synonymous.

Mrs Ibrahim has denied the charges. She is reported to have told the judge: “I am a Christian and I never committed apostasy.”

Naturally, this sentence has been condemned by the international community. In a joint statement, the embassies of Britain, the United States, Canada and the Netherlands expressed “deep concern” over her case. “We call upon the government of Sudan to respect the right to freedom of religion, including one’s right to change one’s faith or beliefs,” they said.

Deep concern?

That's nice.

Baroness Warsi is the Minister for Faith and Communities. She said earlier this year: "I have made the issue of religious freedom a personal priority. The threat to religious freedom, I believe, has become a global crisis. As a result, the UK government has elevated it to a key priority in our human rights work, and, more broadly, we have shown that we understand the huge importance of religion at home and abroad."

The problem she has is that while, for her, terrorism is nothing to do with Islam or or any strain within Islam, and terrorists are not Muslims, or followers of any path of her prophet, this sentence is wholly consistent with certain quranic injunctions. Yes, the liberals or moderates will point to the verse which says: "There shall be no compulsion in religion." But others will point to the very words of Mohammed: "It is not permissible to spill the blood of a Muslim except in three (instances): A life for a life; a married person who commits adultery; and one who forsakes his religion and separates from the community."

In short, Baroness Warsi must understand that there can be no religious freedom where such application of the Quran is foundational to their legal code. Where there are dhimis, there can be no equality; where there is jihad, there can be no peace or justice. Certainly, we in the West can quibble over the relative authority of the Hadith or Sunna, and apply our scholarly methods of theological criticism to the Qur'an to justify theories of abrogation, but this "global crisis" of the diminution of religious freedom needs more than agitated jurists, theologians, philosophers, ethicists and historians drinking coffee on an ad hoc Foreign Office committee: it needs unequivocal condemnation followed by meaningful political action.

And there is no point insisting that combative words and retributive actions are likely to make the situation worse for Christians across Islamic lands. The oppression is already appalling: those who suffer cannot fathom Baroness Warsi's utopian assertion of "moderate Islam" when its true spirit persecutes, tortures, slaughters and condemns.

Spiritual liberation cannot come from a committee: it must be foundational to all our political, legal and economic notions of justice. Islamic political culture is simply not conducive to the protection of human rights. Doubtless it is 'islamophobic' to say this, but the assertion is supported not only by the plight of Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, but by many other examples of the poor record on human rights in many Muslim countries, particularly those with Islamic political orientations.

The position of religious minorities - in particular the dhimi Christians and Jews - is one of chronic discrimination and non-equality. Gender inequality permeates Islam - we permit it even here in the UK, where gender segregation is pouring out of the mosques and into our university campuses. Some brave Muslim women are embracing feminism in order to defend their rights, but there is no political will to support their quest. Bizarrely, we tolerate their subjection in the name of religious equality.

You don't have to go to Sudan, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan: many moderate and enlightened British Muslims affirm the death penalty for apostasy and the flogging or stoning women for adultery. This is considered just: it is the the will of Allah. And it is a very small step from that belief to the burning down of the odd church and beheading the occasional kafir.

84 Comments:

Blogger Uncle Brian said...

It was Meriam Ibrahim’s own brother who filed the complaint against her which has now resulted in the death sentence, according to CNN:

The case, her lawyer said, started after Ibrahim's brother filed a complaint against her, alleging that she had gone missing for several years and that her family was shocked to find she had married a Christian man.

So much for family values.

16 May 2014 at 11:34  
Blogger IanCad said...

Yep! For sure!

If and when the good Baroness addresses this outrage, she will most stenuously assert that this has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with true Islamists.

Prayers for the brave lady who is living her faith.

16 May 2014 at 11:36  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I wait for the predominantly liberal west to finally open their eyes and see the shape of reality. There is, globally, no brave new world towards secularism and peaceful tolerance, except in the imagination of the western liberals, who have a distinctly selective sense of justice.
By attempting to impose moral relativism in the west they are undermining their own civilisation and failing to promote civilised values everywhere. The west is failing itself and everyone else.
God help this brave woman.

16 May 2014 at 12:01  
Blogger JohnofEnfield said...

Time for Western Leaders to go to war....with an appropriate #hashtag.

Brave, real brave.

/sarc off

16 May 2014 at 12:05  
Blogger skeetstar said...

Well I have written to the good baronness, and to our esteemed Prime Minister asking them to condemn the treatment of this poor woman, and to do everything in their power to stop her being subjected to this barbaroud savagery. I am sure that I will get the ususal mouth music in reply.

I wonder when/if our leaders will wake up and realise that we are being presented every day with authentic Islam in Pakistan, Nigeria, Syria, The Sudan, Mali, China etc etc, the denial based on moderates vs islamists just won't wash any more.

16 May 2014 at 12:12  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

to him, fornication and adultery are synonymous

It seems Islam does not differentiate between the two, Your Grace. The index to Reliance of the Traveller has the entry: ‘Adultery. See Fornication’.

The penalty for fornication reads:

    o12.2 If the offender is someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then he or she is stoned to death, someone with the capacity to remain chaste meaning anyone who has had sexual intercourse with their spouse in a valid marriage, and is free, of age, and sane. A person is not considered to have the capacity to remain chaste if he or she has only had intercourse in a marriage that is invalid, or is prepubescent at the time of marital intercourse, or is someone insane at the time of marital intercourse who subsequently regains their sanity prior to committing adultery.
    If the offender is not someone with the capacity to remain chaste, then the penalty consists of being scourged one hundred stripes and banished to a distance of at least 81km/50mi for one year.

16 May 2014 at 12:14  
Blogger MFH said...

A snap shot of the future of Britian as arch york said some years ago wake up christian England!!!

16 May 2014 at 12:18  
Blogger Len said...

If one found a terrorist who had written a manual as to how to perform terrorist acts then one would feel duty bound to report this to the authorities?.
"The Messenger of Allah said; ‘This religion will continue as long as a group fights for it until the hour of judgment appears’ and we are that group, with Allah’s permission we will kill and slaughter and never cease ‘so that sedition [temptation] might end and the only religion will be that of Allah’ (Q: 8.39). We will continue like this until this religion is victorious.”


The truth about these acts of barbarism are being revealed almost daily how much longer can those in positions of authority 'turn a blind eye'.

16 May 2014 at 13:31  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

If these barbarous acts have nothing to do with Islam surely they are insult to Islam so why aren't Muslims demonstrating in the accustomed fashion, or is that reserved for alleged blasphemy by other faiths?

16 May 2014 at 13:49  
Blogger William Lewis said...

YG

"And there is no point insisting that combative words and retributive actions are likely to make the situation worse for Christians across Islamic lands. The oppression is already appalling: those who suffer cannot fathom Baroness Warsi's utopian assertion of "moderate Islam" when its true spirit persecutes, tortures, slaughters and condemns."

Indeed. We are at the point where appeasement and/or ignoring the source of these atrocities is to effectively condone them and, down the line, to bring them on ourselves. This true spirit of Islam makes it impossible for the secular to be religiously neutral, for religious equality now equates to Islamification.

16 May 2014 at 13:53  
Blogger John Thomas said...

"poor record on human rights in many Muslim countries" - But only "poor" in our terms, no theirs, by our rules ... and they (true Muslims) definitely don't play by our rules ... never will, such a thing would in itself be apostasy, infidelity.
"adultery ... fornication" - again, our distinction, our ideas/theology.

16 May 2014 at 14:08  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Anjem Chouhdry is a true Muslim - I truly despise him, but he is the only one who sticks to the script. He attacks pseudo-muslims like Warsi and the rest of the West in equal measure.

16 May 2014 at 14:42  
Blogger Irene's Daughter said...

Apparently Allah is 'most gracious and most merciful.' It's a pity that his followers aren't!

16 May 2014 at 15:50  
Blogger Nath said...

Irene's Daughter,

by the Koran's own words Allah is the great deciever.

Says it all doesn't it?

16 May 2014 at 17:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Muslims insist that Allah is the creator god of our reality and defines the rules of conduct whether we like them or not. On what basis can we really gainsay them, other than just subjectively rejecting it?

16 May 2014 at 17:11  
Blogger Len said...

Some say that Allah and the God of the bible are the same but they quite obviously are not the same ..

I fact they seem to be complete opposites.

Jesus Christ said "I am the way the truth and the Life"

Qur'an (3:54) - "And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers." The Arabic word used here for scheme (or plot) is makara, which literally means 'deceit'. If Allah is supremely deceitful toward unbelievers, then there is little basis for denying that Muslims are allowed to do the same.

16 May 2014 at 17:18  
Blogger Len said...

Danjo, put that' straw man' away before you embarrass yourself.

16 May 2014 at 17:19  
Blogger Frater minor said...

Len @ 17:18

As always, CS Lewis has an explanation:

Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, ‘Lord, is it then true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one ?’ The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, ‘It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites – I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore, if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath’s sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child?’ I said, ‘Lord, thou knowest how much I understand.’ But I said also (for the truth constrained me), ‘Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days.’ ‘Beloved,’ said the Glorious One, ‘unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.’

Lewis, C. S. The Last Battle (The Chronicles of Narnia, Book 7)



Frater minor

16 May 2014 at 17:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Danjo, put that' straw man' away before you embarrass yourself."

You embarrass yourself daily so be concerned about yourself first, huh?

I'm more than happy to stick with my comment as it's entirely valid even if it discomforts you.

16 May 2014 at 17:29  
Blogger William Lewis said...

DanJ0

"On what basis can we really gainsay them, other than just subjectively rejecting it?"

That seems like a tough question for a secular liberal to answer. Subjectively rejecting it may be your only option. Have you tried appealing to your judeo-christian roots?

16 May 2014 at 17:42  
Blogger William Lewis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

16 May 2014 at 17:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "Have you tried appealing to your judeo-christian roots?"

What good would that do? You're merely in a competition between subjective beliefs in different deities. Perhaps the best you can do is question whether their actions are consistent with their theology. Or deploy the big battalions to force one set of beliefs over another, as secular liberals could choose to do.

"That seems like a tough question for a secular liberal to answer. Subjectively rejecting it may be your only option."

It's not so tough a question for me as I'm an a-theist. When people make unsubstantiated claims about gods, associated rules of conduct, and divine order, I shrug and look to alternative ways of living.

16 May 2014 at 17:55  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Just a thought, but would it be possible for the good folk who follow Cranmer to all chip in and buy her. It may well be that is how it’s done in these primitive Islamic cultures. Leave no avenue unexplored, what ! If feasible, we could then ship her over and set her free in London, to be joined by her husband.

Memsahib Warsi, do get onto this case with the utmost of urgency will you, the woman’s due soon. Report directly to the Archbishop, who will no doubt keep us all informed…

Well, off you go then post haste. Pack your bags and book a flight. Step lively now !

16 May 2014 at 18:03  
Blogger Shadrach said...

If there were such a thing as a 'Moderate Islam' great chunks of the Koran would have to be irrevocably removed.

Reading the inspectors comment above I thought he was looking for a wife!

If the child is allowed to be born, would it be Christian, as per the claimed religion of the parents or would it be a Muslim?

16 May 2014 at 18:24  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

the diminution of religious freedom needs unequivocal condemnation followed by meaningful political action

Presented with the privilege of upholding Western freedoms, our politicians took the meaningful political action of restricting them to appease Islam and other minorities. Beleaguered Christians in Muslim countries please take note: you’re on your own.

16 May 2014 at 18:29  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

‘And set her free in London...’

Inspector, you are a naughty man, fortunately extremely funny as well.

I wrote to the government a few months ago, about the persecution of Christians in Pakistan (and therefore every country where Muslims have the whip hand over Christians).

Below is part of the reply. Note the force of authority of the last paragraph and rejoice.

‘The Government remains committed to pressing the government of Pakistan to protect the rights of all citizens, regardless of religion or belief and to seeking an end to the death penalty in all circumstances.

‘We regularly raise the issue of the blasphemy laws, and their misuse against both Muslims and religious minorities at the highest levels in Pakistan and the Prime Minister raised our concerns regarding these laws and the need for reforms during the recent visit of Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. We encourage interfaith dialogue and support those in Pakistan who are working for reform of the blasphemy laws.

‘It is our longstanding policy to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and Foreign Office ministers have regularly raised this issue with their counterparts in Pakistan. The UK Government has urged the government of Pakistan to end capital punishment and at a minimum, to publicly commit to renewing the previously imposed moratorium on the death penalty.

‘Baroness Warsi, Senior Minister of State at the FCO, pressed the Pakistan government at the highest levels on this matter during the recent visit of Nawaz Sharif.’

16 May 2014 at 19:02  
Blogger IanCad said...

You have a point Inspector.

Buy them off!

It's not without precedent.

For years the Barbary Pirates were the plague of the Western World. They were most responsive when offered loot for their captives.

Finally the British, in actions under Blake and Lord Exmouth, blew the blighters up. No more problems!

Perhaps the Americans may have lent a hand. Stephen Decatur, or someone. Made a big deal of it. Their marines still sing about it.

16 May 2014 at 19:40  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Good show chaps, all those who agree we should attempt to buy the poor thing. After all, according to wretched Islam, she’s now no good to man nor beast. One is in no doubt that Johnny Sudan’s eyes follow the money when you get it out, just like the rest of them. They all do, these hot arid place types. Money talks, what ! Probably glad to get rid of her too. Bastards the lot of them, deserve to have their first born die in some biblical retribution. Now, THERE’S something to pray for....

Tally ho !


16 May 2014 at 20:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The Telegraph is reporting that she was given 3 days to recant, and that she can give birth before being hanged. Why on earth didn't she fake-recant and then scarper to claim asylum somewhere? At least for the sake of her children? Surely her god would ignore the mere words if it exists, rather than require martyrdom?

16 May 2014 at 20:46  
Blogger William Lewis said...

DanJ0

"What good would that do? You're merely in a competition between subjective beliefs in different deities."

No. It's an argument based on who we are. We have certain beliefs (theistic and secular), attitudes, institutions, laws and freedoms many of which have sprung from our Christian roots, many of which are incompatible with Islamic beliefs and Sharia edicts. Though I suspect this might be an argument too far for an a-theist.

"Perhaps the best you can do is question whether their actions are consistent with their theology."

What good would that do? They will merely assert that it certainly is consistent with their theology because "Look. It's written in our book"

which leaves

"Or deploy the big battalions to force one set of beliefs over another, as secular liberals could choose to do."

So your answer to "On what basis can we really gainsay them, other than just subjectively rejecting it?" is an objective show of force? Your basis to really gainsay them is "might is right". Why am I not surprised that this is, when push comes to shove, all that liberal secularism really has to offer?

"When people make unsubstantiated claims about gods, associated rules of conduct, and divine order, I shrug and look to alternative ways of living."

So when they say "do you want to convert, be beheaded or hanged from a crane" and you say "actually I'm a gay a-theist and have alternative ways of living", will they say (a) "Oh, sorry to bother you" or (b) "We'll have to hang you from a crane then chop your head off" ?

16 May 2014 at 20:56  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

DanJ0. You are a weak man. One always knew this, but tonight you shine as a weak man...

16 May 2014 at 21:40  
Blogger Roy said...

many moderate and enlightened British Muslims affirm the death penalty for apostasy and the flogging or stoning women for adultery.

If these "British" Muslims are naturalised then they should be stripped of their British citizenship. If they have had British citizenship from birth then they should certainly not be allowed to benefit from "positive discrimination" at the expense of people who are undoubtedly British.

16 May 2014 at 22:07  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


The last three posts are linked and I think we need to see it from their point of view.

The Muslim Judge who passed the sentence is undoubtedly now a hero in his community. As are the kidnappers of the girls.

The Muslims do not judge the individual acts as such rather the effect on Christians.

We lose face.

Face does not matter much to us perhaps, but it is everything to them. We need to realise it is a completely different way of making sense of the world. Some commenter’s seem to think that the perpetrators think and behave like naughty westerners.

They don’t think like westerners at all!

To them we are seen as weak and morally corrupt. (Something that many of us might agree with). Our lack of ability to influence them to protect our own is seen as evidence of this. Indeed as the African Church Leaders have told us time and time again, our moral corruption, especially in the Church also robs us in their eyes, of any right as Christians to compassion. Tarred with the same brush does not even begin to explain it, but we might sort of get the idea.

It is no good thinking as we do, that what we do in the West has no bearing on how others are treated, who are identified with us (Whether they like it or not) in other parts of the world. Christians in other Africa are overwhelmingly appalled at the moral decline in the leadership of the church and the acceptance of homosexuality in particular. This acceptance by our leaders is seen as just a “western thing”, even on occasion such a good thing it is morally right to put pressure on poor Christians to accept the debauchery of most of the rich Christians in the West.

Certainly they say it has nothing to do with Christians suffering and being killed.

These Christians dead on the ground or about to be hanged are identified with us and so they suffer because of our actions. Next time you hear a sermon or Church leader talk about moving with the times and accepting homosexuality, because perhaps it “feels right” to them. Show them the pictures of the rotting bodies in Africa.

Then ask them how they feel about being responsible for that.

Show them the pictures of the boy crying over the bodies of his parents and ask them.

Does it still feel right?

Phil


16 May 2014 at 23:07  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Meriam Ibrahim may now get a new trial under “Sudan national law”, which apparently means a secular law code, Vatican Insider is saying. Unlike her first trial under sharia law, there would be no death penalty under "national law," the report says.

17 May 2014 at 01:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William : "So your answer to "On what basis can we really gainsay them, other than just subjectively rejecting it?" is an objective show of force? Your basis to really gainsay them is "might is right". Why am I not surprised that this is, when push comes to shove, all that liberal secularism really has to offer?"

Heh. I'm not sure you understood the purpose of the argument there but thanks for running with it anyway.

17 May 2014 at 06:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 May 2014 at 07:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector :". You are a weak man. One always knew this, but tonight you shine as a weak man..."

Because of the fake recant thing? When one is an a-theist, one appreciates one's life. It's almost certainly the only one we have, you see. That's not to say one shouldn't give it away because of an ideal or to save others but the sacrifice really needs to matter. What does not recanting achieve there? It won't impress anyone enough to make a difference. This is not the time of the early church when publicity mattered.

17 May 2014 at 07:08  
Blogger William Lewis said...

DanJ0

The purpose of the argument is not exclusively yours to choose. The purpose of your original question was to deny that Christian beliefs and heritage can be used to combat Islamification without actually coming up with a viable alternative. This is standard stuff for Atheists who like to pretend that they are just a-theists.

17 May 2014 at 08:54  
Blogger wiggiatlarge said...

Dreadnought, it could be that Mr Choudry has "conveniently found Islam" as he was certainly not a follower in early days.
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01742/CHOUD2_1742983a.jpg

17 May 2014 at 10:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 May 2014 at 11:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "The purpose of your original question was to deny that Christian beliefs and heritage can be used to combat Islamification without actually coming up with a viable alternative."

Actually, no. It was to undermine the position that having a religious belief, carrying on as though it has any basis in reality, and expecting others to fall in line because of an assertion that our reality is created just so, has no pull on anyone else.

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.

17 May 2014 at 11:14  
Blogger William Lewis said...

DanJ0

"Actually, no. It was to undermine the position that having a religious belief, carrying on as though it has any basis in reality, and expecting others to fall in line because of an assertion that our reality is created just so, has no pull on anyone else."

So the purpose of your question of how to gainsay Islam without subjectively rejecting it was to attack all religions, including the one on which this country was founded, by trying to establish some kind of secular objective truth. Great, that's just what we need. Meanwhile we discover that the leader of Boko Haram was educated in this country and the secular liberals are washing their hands and saying "It's not our fault. Religion's to blame".

17 May 2014 at 12:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William :"So the purpose of your question of how to gainsay Islam without subjectively rejecting it was to attack all religions, including the one on which this country was founded, by trying to establish some kind of secular objective truth."

Huh? No. You've turned into Dodo or something.

17 May 2014 at 13:21  
Blogger Len said...

Islam is is bad =religion is bad.

Don`t think anyone bought that one Danjo.

As I was saying the' Allah' of Islam and the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob are entirely different indeed totally opposite.
We need only look at the teaching of Jesus Christ and the teaching of Mohammed to see this truth in action and words.

17 May 2014 at 19:44  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

No DanJ0, it’s not just because of the fake recant. You are weak because you have no determination within you. You have no real answers - you just quote a rule book at everyone here, rules we can well do without. You’re actually very annoying to read. You do know that, don’t you ?

17 May 2014 at 20:56  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Phil Roberts

More insanity from the resident Islamic apologist, Phil Roberts.

they [Christians] suffer because of our actions…Show them the pictures of the rotting bodies in Africa…Then ask them how they feel about being responsible for that.
Don’t kid yourself that this is something new or anything remotely to do with homosexuality legislation - it isn't. Its politics; politics and power masquerading as a religion ever since it's cynical conception.

What excuse would you care offer as a reason for the steady depletion from majorities to less than viable minority pockets, of Christians and Jews from every corner of the middle-east by relentless, murderous Islamic domination, ever since the 6th Century until this very day’?

It is exactly the same in Africa; so obvious that only a fool or a stooge would see it any other way.

17 May 2014 at 21:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len :"Islam is is bad =religion is bad. Don`t think anyone bought that one Danjo."

I'm thinking you weren't a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist before you retired.

17 May 2014 at 21:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "You have no real answers - you just quote a rule book at everyone here, rules we can well do without."

You're being ironic, of course.

Erm, I'd better just check to be sure ... you really *are* being ironic aren't you? You must be. It'd be really funny saying that otherwise.

17 May 2014 at 21:46  
Blogger Hannah said...

Phil Roberts,

This story's got nothing to do with gays. It has everything to do with a Christian woman who is pregnant being threatening with 100 lashes & the death penalty.... FOR BEING A CHRISTIAN!

Can U get a sense of perspective here, please,rather than bringing everything back to a singular common denominator?

17 May 2014 at 23:07  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

William :"So the purpose of your question of how to gainsay Islam without subjectively rejecting it was to attack all religions, including the one on which this country was founded, by trying to establish some kind of secular objective truth."

Danjo : Huh? No. You've turned into Dodo or something.

Happy Jack doubts that very much. 'Dodo' would probably have said your atheism is a world view founded on the social construction of a subjective reality too.

Jack thinks Dod would have turned this comment around into this:

"It was to undermine the position that having a atheist belief, carrying on as though it has any basis in reality, and expecting others to fall in line because of an assertion that our reality is created just so, has no pull on anyone else."

Assertions have no pull but discussion and degrees of tolerant accommodation that do not damage the common good might. Christianity not only allows for this but requires it. Theoretically, so does liberalism but it is rudderless. The same cannot be said of Islam and, increasingly, so called secular atheists who use the power of the state and fear to impose compliance with their world view.

That's why Christian martyrdom, not denying God, is the nobler path and Jack believes is unique among the Abrahamic religions to Christianity. Not because of publicity seeking.

17 May 2014 at 23:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo:"Happy Jack doubts that very much. 'Dodo' would probably have said your atheism is a world view founded on the social construction of a subjective reality too."

I dropped your name into it because you regularly either misinterpret or misrepresent an argument you want to attack. I've never really decided whether it's deliberate or just a lack of competence.

"Assertions have no pull but discussion and degrees of tolerant accommodation that do not damage the common good might. Christianity not only allows for this but requires it. Theoretically, so does liberalism but it is rudderless."

It's interesting you say it requires it yet we look back in history when we were a Christian country in the true sense and it was anything but tolerant, even of different sects of the same religion. Of course your comment very much turns on what is the Common Good, and one might even try to justify our bloody religious history on that basis, like Elisabeth I did I think. So what exactly is the Common Good, in form rather than detail. I can imagine already what the detail will be: the template Christian way of living. The answer will pretty much beg the question

18 May 2014 at 07:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "The same cannot be said of Islam and, increasingly, so called secular atheists who use the power of the state and fear to impose compliance with their world view."

Yet I'm a bastion of liberalism, tolerance, diversity, and freedom here, and a large proportion of the Christians here are quite the opposite. Curious, isn't it?

18 May 2014 at 07:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

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? How are we to collectively carry on in Society in a situation like this?

18 May 2014 at 07:46  
Blogger Len said...

Don`t have to be a 'rocket scientist' to to see liberals are exactly what radical Islam needs to gain power.

18 May 2014 at 09:35  
Blogger Len said...

Secular Humanism is a religion for 'clever people 'as Danjo often reminds us. It is rather ironic that those who think themselves wise( in their own eyes at least) are laying the foundations of their own demise.
This is probably why the Word of God said that those who consider themselves' wise' became fools.

The real tragedy is that secular humanists are pulling all the rest of society down with them.

18 May 2014 at 09:43  
Blogger William Lewis said...

DanJ0

"I dropped your name into it because you regularly either misinterpret or misrepresent an argument you want to attack. I've never really decided whether it's deliberate or just a lack of competence."

I see the "argument" has entered the casting aspersions phase, as per.

18 May 2014 at 17:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "Secular Humanism is a religion for 'clever people 'as Danjo often reminds us."

It'd just be nice if you could manage to characterise the argument correctly once in a while.

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

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 May 2014 at 18:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "I see the "argument" has entered the casting aspersions phase, as per."

And you're bouncing around the edges again, as per.

But feel free to actually contribute to the argument for once by setting out what the Common Good actually means.

18 May 2014 at 18:26  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Danjo
"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."

Yes and remarkably all major religions agree on the acceptable and God given order of sexual relationships. Why is that?

"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?"

Are the Christian claims unsubstantiated? What faith promotes love and compassion for all and spiritual equality with one another before Christ? What faith in its teachings does not demand physical revenge for sexual sins? What faith starts from forgiveness based on sorrow?

Then look at the impact of Christianity on human development. Islam and Asian faiths have not led to the degrees of wealth where real freedom from want and fear exists. Other nations have remained stuck in tribal or feudal relationships or live in repressive theocracies.

"How are we to collectively carry on in Society in a situation like this?"

Well, there you go. What's your answer?

First and foremost, Jack says you'll find that the Common Good will always be based on the proper ordering of relationships between people and especially directing human sexual drives and promoting stability of men and women in raising children and through families and community looking after the poor, ill, infirm and old.

18 May 2014 at 19:28  
Blogger William Lewis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 May 2014 at 20:10  
Blogger William Lewis said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 May 2014 at 20:19  
Blogger William Lewis said...

DanJ0

"And you're bouncing around the edges again, as per."

I guess one man's edge issue is another man's main point. I answered your original question and discovered that you really had no answer, of any substance, yourself.

"But feel free to actually contribute to the argument for once by setting out what the Common Good actually means."

As I implied earlier, I don't have to dance to your tune which, I have to say, I find to be rather hollow and extremely repetitive.

And now you have managed to summon the spirit of Dodo - old habits die hard eh DanJ0? So it's time I bid you a pleasant evening - and what a very nice evening it is too.

18 May 2014 at 20:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Yes and remarkably all major religions agree on the acceptable and God given order of sexual relationships. Why is that?"

Oh look, sex again. Homosexuality in particular, no doubt

"Are the Christian claims unsubstantiated? What faith promotes love and compassion for all and spiritual equality with one another before Christ? What faith in its teachings does not demand physical revenge for sexual sins? What faith starts from forgiveness based on sorrow?"

*checks for substantiation*

Nope. Naught there.

"Then look at the impact of Christianity on human development. Islam and Asian faiths have not led to the degrees of wealth where real freedom from want and fear exists. Other nations have remained stuck in tribal or feudal relationships or live in repressive theocracies."

It was the Enlightenment that freed us.

"Well, there you go. What's your answer?"

Some answer that was. Sheesh. The answer is, of course, a superstructure which allows us to fulfil our own needs and objectives, like the diverse people we are. That includes people of different faiths, and none, subject to the usual injunctions against harm etc.

"First and foremost, Jack says you'll find that the Common Good will always be based on the proper ordering of relationships between people and especially directing human sexual drives and promoting stability of men and women in raising children and through families and community looking after the poor, ill, infirm and old."

Oh look, sex again. Homosexuality in particular, no doubt.

But what does the Common Good actually means? That was the actual question. Spare me your sex-obsessed religious crap.

18 May 2014 at 20:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "As I implied earlier, I don't have to dance to your tune which, I have to say, I find to be rather hollow and extremely repetitive."

Quelle surprise. Just pointless sniping from the sidelines, as ever. That's all you have ever really done here really.

18 May 2014 at 20:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "And now you have managed to summon the spirit of Dodo - old habits die hard eh DanJ0?"

Dodo has never gone away, you oaf.

But anyway, my original comment still stands. Why ought we to take notice of one particular version of moral absolutism over another? Our Muslim citizens are entitled to point out that Allah created our reality and its will determines how we should act. Why should someone like me listen to people like you, and not people like them, other than by judging each religion using some criteria independent of each?

18 May 2014 at 20:54  
Blogger William Lewis said...

DanJ0

"That's all you have ever really done here really."

Really.

"Why should someone like me listen to people like you, and not people like them, other than by judging each religion using some criteria independent of each?"

Sigh

As I said right at the beginning, I can sort of see why that might be a tough question for someone like you to answer. For most people reading this blog and, indeed in this country I suspect, that would not be such a hard choice to make. In the end you pays your money and you makes your choice. Good luck.

And if you ever do decide to convert to Islam. Let us know how you get on.

"... you oaf"

Bless you.

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

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 May 2014 at 21:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "For most people reading this blog and, indeed in this country I suspect, that would not be such a hard choice to make. In the end you pays your money and you makes your choice. Good luck."

Of course it's not a hard choice for most people in the country. They've rejected both Christianity and Islam.

"And if you ever do decide to convert to Islam. Let us know how you get on."

That comment suggests you still haven't quite cottoned on to what I've actually been saying. Stick to the sniping, matey.

18 May 2014 at 21:40  
Blogger William Lewis said...

"That comment suggests you still haven't quite cottoned on to what I've actually been saying."

Or that you haven't quite grasped my answer.

"Stick to the sniping, matey."

He sniped.

18 May 2014 at 21:44  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Danjo
"But what does the Common Good actually means? That was the actual question. Spare me your sex-obsessed religious crap."

Religious crap?! How very liberal of you.

The Common Good is living in a way that promotes the welfare and wellbeing of people. This means you have to a 'theory' on people and what drives them.

Happy Jack outlined the basics of the foundation for the Common Good as you didn't want the detail. And Jack never mentioned homosexuality.

Here's what he commented:

"First and foremost, Jack says you'll find that the Common Good will always be based on the proper ordering of relationships between people and especially directing human sexual drives and promoting stability of men and women in raising children and through families and community looking after the poor, ill, infirm and old."

This 'superstructure' you refer to is simply ideas expressed through social institutions. At any one time the social structures will promote, sustain and enforce one set of ideas over another. It doesn't mean particular ones are correct or will achieve the Common Good.

Do you always have to be so rude?

18 May 2014 at 22:15  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

DanJ0. The crow is a clever beast. When they see their territory invaded by a predator, they gang together to mob it...

Nature’s way...


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

William: "Or that you haven't quite grasped my answer."

You *have* become Dodo!

19 May 2014 at 06:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Religious crap?! How very liberal of you."

Dodo, you have never really understood what liberal means. This is why you write nonsense like that.

"The Common Good is living in a way that promotes the welfare and wellbeing of people. This means you have to a 'theory' on people and what drives them."

But which people, Dodo?

As you touch on, the concept of Common Good could mean different things depending on one's understanding of human nature.

"This 'superstructure' you refer to is simply ideas expressed through social institutions. At any one time the social structures will promote, sustain and enforce one set of ideas over another."

In the current case, one of the core values promoted is freedom. That's the freedom to follow, or pretend to follow, your Roman Catholic beliefs as a lifestyle amongst people who have rather different ways of living. We collectively carry on, allowing people to meet their own goals and pursue their own interests.

An alternative superstructure, of course, could force others to follow a Roman Catholic or Islamic lifestyle on the basis that Roman Catholics or Muslims think they're helping implement the divine will. Paternalism, in its most benign form. Totalitarianism, in its worst form.

"And Jack never mentioned homosexuality."

Dodo, is there anyone here at all who wouldn't know where you were leading to with that? You've spent enough time here over the years lying like a cheap watch, how about a bit of honesty for once huh?

19 May 2014 at 06:28  
Blogger Len said...

What does liberal mean?.
Having looked through the online definitions of' liberal' it seems to mean many things to many people.There is no one definitive definition of' a liberal'.
So in that respect a liberal has no firm foundation of anything morals truth or anything else?.

19 May 2014 at 08:40  
Blogger William Lewis said...

DanJ0

You clearly have not understood my answer so let me repackage it for you. People will make up their own minds about Christianity and Islam using whatever criteria they think valid. You appear to be striving for some kind of overarching framework or decision tree for this, but there is none. Your seemingly total inability to distinguish between Christianity and Islam and their different roles in the makeup of this country, makes you a good placeman here for the problem with secular liberalism, to wit it has absolutely no answer to the problem of the Islamification of this country. You have no answer to your original question. Actually it has no answer to anything really, but that's another matter. Worse than that, secular liberalism is and will be the main conduit for the rise of Islam here.

"You *have* become Dodo!"

Now this looks familiar and so must be the chorus come round again, so it's probably time for me to sit the rest of this one out.

19 May 2014 at 10:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "So in that respect a liberal has no firm foundation of anything morals truth or anything else?."

Ah Len, what's to be done about your never-ending ignorance. Is it kinder to pull you up on it, or to let you randomly swap your favourite tags around?

19 May 2014 at 18:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "You have no answer to your original question."

The amusing thing is that it was actually supposed to be rhetorical. The point is a long-standing one, challenging positions often put forward by The Explorer and the Merkin. Yet I'm left with you, Dodo, and Len trying to savage me like, well, a flock of sheep. Oh the shame.

19 May 2014 at 18:35  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Danjo, Happy Jack's 'Superstructure' consists of well reasoned, millennia old theories about the nature of man, wht causes human suffering and misery, and the demonstrable effectiveness of Christian morality to serve the Common Good.

What is your theory of man founded upon? Hardly empirical knowledge.

And he Christian view about the bedrock of societies, based on scripture, is not about homosexuality. Its about the proper use of sexuality i.e. within a permanent marriage, between a man and woman, for the unitive love, procreation and raising children. Family and community stability depends on his.

In all the time on here, you haven't grasped this and just throw "Islam is bad" and so "all religion is bad" around. And your 'theory' really rests on the changing and shifting tides of social change and the power within a society to impose a particular world view.

William and Len's observations are correct. And no one needs to try to savage you. You serve a very useful purpose here.

19 May 2014 at 21:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo:"In all the time on here, you haven't grasped this and just throw "Islam is bad" and so "all religion is bad" around."

You're doing that to be annoying, just to echo poor old Len. You're not that stupid.

20 May 2014 at 04:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The rest of your comment relies on your usual religious assumptions, highlighted by loaded words like "proper". There's also the Dodo version of the Common Good which doesn't do the job yet. One might also point out that Christianity has hardly produced a halcyon history which people looked back on wistfully for its lack of misery and suffering. You're like a Jehovah Witness at times, you know.

20 May 2014 at 04:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Does freedom play a role at all in your version of the Common Good, Dodo? Does a society flourish more when there is freedom than when there is social constraint? Would you force people to live according to your worldview for their own good as you see it? What about justice? In the wider sense of making sure people get what is due, I mean, rather than the administration of justice in crime and deviance terms. Does the concept of equality feature in your Common Good at all?

20 May 2014 at 05:09  
Blogger Len said...

Oh dear Danjo,

you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
Get out of that hole, man up, admit you are wrong and gain a little respect.
Or just carry on with the mindless insults?.

20 May 2014 at 08:44  
Blogger David Grey said...

Can someone explain to me how his grace can argue with the punishment?

He says himself that Mohammed himself says in the Quran - kill apostates.

If he accepts that Mohammed said it, then on what basis can His Grace disagree with it? Or any of us for that matter.

The authority comes from the holy Quran how can that be questioned, which says it clearly in black and white. How can his grace question that?

20 May 2014 at 13:19  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older