Warsi - defiant2
Conservative Party

What are 'Muslim values', Lady Warsi?

 

The problem is her article’s timing, and that when David Cameron stretched out his hand in friendship and promoted and indulged her time and again, there was impatience, irritability and dogmatic vexation from the other side (to paraphrase and expand a sentence in Baroness Warsi’s latest attack on the Prime Minister and the Government he leads). And this choice of photograph really doesn’t help, either; conveying, as it does, brazen defiance, if not threat and menace born of contempt and exasperation.

And she has chosen to deliver her invective via the Guardian/Observer, which is neither a hand of friendship nor a positive gesture of political kinship. As the Church of England knows well, if you want to bash the Tories, you will find the Guardian a more than willing accomplice: the medium is the anti-Tory tirade. And so we get: ‘Muslims will speak up for British values only when they know they will be heard‘, enhanced with ‘Lady Warsi launches bitter assault on coalition strategy towards Muslims‘. Read them both before proceeding, for the primary source merits some serious reflection, and the complementary editorial some political consideration, if only of the manifest psephological problems the Conservative Party has if it fails to “engage properly” with British Muslim communities.

But here’s a thing. Nowhere in either article are ‘Muslim values’ defined. A bit like the Government’s elusive exposition of ‘British values’, Baroness Warsi’s understanding of the values taught by Mohammed – and propagated via the Qur’an and Hadith – appear to be dainty and celestial: peace, tolerance and respect; liberty and democracy; understanding of difference and the acceptance of diversity.

It isn’t clear how these values differ from those of any other enlightened liberal democracy, but let us run with them for a while.

Baroness Warsi advocates the wider inclusion of and engagement with Muslim community leaders (though it isn’t always clear how they become so). This, she insists, will develop influential relationship and foster favourable dialogue, so that when Eric Pickles writes his next epistle to the mosques it won’t be greeted with brick-bats, put-downs or slaps in the face. She writes:

An incredibly good blueprint already exists within government: the prime minister has an annual meeting led by the Jewish leadership council where a whole range of issues affecting the British Jewish community are discussed. I’ve had the privilege of being part of these meetings with the prime minister. I’ve argued for a long time that the prime minister should hold a similar meeting with other major faith communities. Sadly this has not been forthcoming.

The Baroness is absolutely right on this, and David Cameron is wrong. If he engages with the Jewish Leadership Council, there is no rational reason for him not to offer the same courtesy to a similar Muslim organisation. The ethno-religious make-up of the United Kingdom has manifestly become more diverse, fractured and fragmented over recent decades, and that pluralism is, for better or worse, irreversible. Government cannot coerce ethnic minorities into a straitjacket of liberal relativism any more than it can eradicate Christian moral orthodoxy. We can dialogue over theological meanings and argue over principled interpretations, but ultimately the conscience must be free to believe and the believer must be free to speak and act. Either we talk about this, or face the prospect of disquiet, dissent and civil unrest.

For Christians, the New Testament provides a framework of normative ethics and what we might call ‘Christian values’. Of course, we are bound in the 21st century to see the need for the enlightened formulation of imaginative analogies in order that our (post-)modern lives might better understand the historical setting and theological meaning – the Sitz im Leben – of the text. Our words and experiences are not those of the Ancient Near East, and so we must struggle with empirical dissimilarity, linguistic obscurity and a myriad of hermeneutic problems. But we have done so and still do so in order to arrive at certain culturally-conditioned timeless truths. The same works for Jews and the Tanakh, so that when David Cameron invites Christian or Jewish leaders to Number 10 to discuss ‘community issues’, there is an unwritten and unspoken congenial coherence in the encounter: we all respect the rule of law, participate in symbolic expressions of national unity, and endorse those cultural values which affirm national identity and the common good.

So, here’s the challenge.

Firstly, to set out proposals for the construction of normative ‘Muslim values’, which may or may not coalesce with those which the Government has defined as ‘British values’ (not least because, as we are seeing, there is an increasing tension between those and certain ‘Christian values’). And, secondly, to draw up a list of Muslim community leaders (however they have emerged) who subscribe to those values without equivocation, and have a proven record of the pursuit of peace, tolerance and respect; liberty and democracy; understanding of difference and the acceptance of diversity.

Presumably, we must begin by excluding those Muslim leaders (however they have emerged) who oppose freedom of speech and expression; revile our traditions of political and religious satire; oppose foreign intervention in the defence of liberty and justice; consider that the testimony of women is not equal to that of men in a court of law; believe that girls should sit behind boys in the classroom, and that a daughter’s marriage is best ‘assisted’, if not quite arranged. Or do we include Muslim leaders (however they have emerged) who demur from any or all of these ethical guidelines?

In which case, why doesn’t David Cameron engage with the Muslim Council of Britain, which is the body “established to promote consultation, cooperation and coordination on Muslim affairs in the United Kingdom”? And why doesn’t Baroness Warsi insist on membership of its Executive Committee? Or, better still, put herself forward for the position of Secretary General? Surely it is better to try and effect change incrementally from within than to depart and excoriate from without?

Only by engaging in some serious textual exegesis may we understand what ‘Muslim values’ are, and only by considering who may constitute this new Muslim Leadership Council might we see how it would differ from the extant MCB. This requires an integrative act of the imagination, but it is surely a worthwhile pursuit.

  • Anton

    She is just piqued at being sacked, but it was worth it.

  • DanJ0

    When I hear “engagement with” it becomes “pander to” in my mind as far as so-called Muslim community leaders are concerned. The fact that the government must make a special effort there suggests a group of people apart from the rest of us.

    • Martin

      DanJ0

      They pander to believers in Evolution & homosexuals.

      • DanJ0

        After only 5 comments too! Well done!

      • DanJ0

        The Independent is running this at the moment:

        I’m sure that’s you at 3:33! Lol

        • Martin

          DanJ0

          No it’s not. But is not Dawkins a bit of a hypocrite in complaining of what others write to him when we see what he writes.

          • DanJ0

            … what Christians write to him personally. Also, he’s not complaining. They’re taking the piss out of the writers. The laughing in the background started me off too.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Sad thing is the laughter will fade when he stands before God. As he mocks so he will receive, eternally.

          • DanJ0

            You may be in a similar situation as you stand in front of Allah, you know. Who knows what happens when we die, if anything? Certainly not you.

          • Martin

            DanJ0

            Since the Qur’an gets Christian belief quite wrong I don’t think that is likely. If Allah couldn’t get that right I doubt he exists.

    • Linus

      Governments talk to Christian and Jewish representatives. No reason they can’t also talk to Muslims.

      Of course it’s up to those Muslims to make sure they’re representative of as many of the various currents within Islam as possible.

      They’ll always be disavowed by some radicals, just as some orthodox Jews want nothing to do with mainstream Jewish representation. But winning a consensus of support is a job that nobody can do for them. They have to do it for themselves and find broad unity before they can claim to represent Islam.

      If Mme Warsi’s effort signals the start of that process, surely that’s a good thing.

      • DanJ0

        Our Muslim citizens have their MPs at national government level and their councillors at local level. That’s their representatives. If the Government needs to discuss Islam then of course there ought to be religious representatives from the main branches. However, that’s a bit different to community leaders who represent citizens rather than beliefs. The Government shouldn’t be negotiating with those as though Muslims are a group apart within British society.

  • Dreadnaught

    why doesn’t David Cameron engage with the Muslim Council of Britain,

    Because they are an unelected gang of self serving hypocrites bent on further entrenching separatist policies while preaching inclusion.
    Western Democracy operates on the principle of the individual having the vote to cast without fear of discrimination or manipulation. This does not always manifest itself as the practice among nationwide concentrations of muslims where fraud and vote rigging pass under the radar of media scrutiny.
    The MCB is unworthy of any form of special hearing being the unaccountable ‘representative’ of British citizen muslims.

    Immigrants from all over the world come here presumably to live amongst us because they see values in our society which they find preferable to those in theior countries of origin.
    Making a special case for muslims is where we have been going wrong for years but they still cling to the corrupt rural/tribal practices and prejudices they should have left behind but have not.

    Cameron is right to have nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain that passes itself of as the MCB.

    • “Because they are an unelected gang of self serving hypocrites bent on further
      entrenching separatist policies while preaching inclusion”

      And that differs from Baroness Warsi’s proposed Muslim Leadership Council how, precisely?

      • Dreadnaught

        There is no difference, both Warsi and MCB are unelected self serving 5th columnists.

  • carl jacobs

    If you want to know the content of “Muslim values” then observe those countries dominated by Islam. Don’t pay attention to the self-serving statements of a Western Muslim politician. On whose behalf does she speak? Whom does she represent? Do the hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world care spit about what she says?

    She seeks to present Islam as she would like it to be. But her preference has no relationship to what Islam is. The Leopard does not change its spots, and no amount of marketing or wishful thinking can make it otherwise.

    • CliveM

      It seems clear she represents no one but herself. As an unelected Baroness, she doesn’t even have a constituency.

    • john in cheshire

      She represents islam as she thinks we will accept it, not as it is; she’s a muslim for God’s sake she isn’t going to speak the truth to non-muslims.

  • Mark

    How does anyone define a “Muslim leader”? Who does anyone look to? It cannot be the MCB. It certainly cannot be MPAC. It cannot be anyone from iERA. IAB? MAB? Does the “leadership” have to be made up purely of “faith leaders” – of course not. What if the “leadership” was a mix of the likes of Sara Khan, together with faith leaders? Would that work? It may well depend on how “devout” or “conservative/orthodox” those faith leaders are. Are the “conservative/orthodox” likely to give any ground to secular/liberal leaders? What would be the agreed views within the “leadership” on apostasy or anything else?
    Leaving aside members of Quilliam for the moment, who has a proven track record of supporting democracy, while also rejecting certain doctrines?

    • DanJ0

      I suppose a Muslim leader is either a politician, or one of the high-ranking ulema. There’s no central authority as such to make someone a faith leader. It’s a curious situation in such a large religion.

      • Inspector General

        Read ‘Tales of Arabian nights’ as a boy. Remember the desert peasantry, for want of a better description for them, weren’t too impressed with their leadership, temporal or spiritual. There was much cruelty in the Middle East even back then it seems.

    • Inspector General

      Examples of Islamic leaders exist. or at least did until we got rid of them, or are trying to. The King of the Saudis for example. Saddam another.

    • Warsi appears to define “a muslim leader” as somebody who was catapulted into the Lords and the government without the inconvenience of being elected.

  • CEMB_forum

    The first thing of normative, communal values would surely be reciprocity. The idea that the balance of our society depends on reciprocity. That you are free to practise and prosletyse your religion, but that if you teach, or are silent on how apostasy codes exist, and are tacitly accepted, the persecution of Exmuslims for leaving and criticising Islam, that this is problematic and cannot be allowed to stand.

    • cacheton

      There is an inherent contradiction.

      Either it has got to be ‘you are free to practise and talk about your religion as long as any form of violence or curtailment of freedom or discrimination is not a part of it’, or ‘you are not free to practise and talk about your religion’.

      Either are going to pose problems.

      We need to be clear on what ‘freedom of religion’ really means.

    • Inspector General

      You crowd need to raise your profile, and there’s no time like now, on the back of Charlie. Get Cameron involved. He’ll have you both photographed being kissed by him on the top of your head outside number 10.

    • Dreadnaught

      That you are free to practise and prosletyse your religion,

      Not when you do it on behalf of a religion that is a ‘religion’ that allows its extremists to wage war on half the world and within itself you don’t.

      You guys are to be admired for the stand you have taken.

  • Inspector General

    What’s all this you’ve given us today, Cranmer. Construction of normative Muslin values, whatever normative means, no less. My dear fellow, Islam has had 1400 years to get their values together. They are not going to change.

    Now, if you mean UK Islamic values, that’s an entirely different matter. To isolate the problem within these isles would be a noble cause, don’t you think. It would allow the live strain to ‘go off’. Of course, to get there, you are going to have to stop the immigration of Islamic ‘holy’ men as they all seem to be Jihad positive. And that’s an incurable disease. But watch out, you are going to be accused of racism, which you will be guilty of, naturally. You can’t make an omelette without breaking an egg or two.

    Damn good luck with it anyway, if that’s the way you want to go…

    Pip ! Pip !

  • CliveM

    “Baroness Warsi’s understanding of the values taught by Mohammed – and propagated via the Qur’an and Hadith – appear to be dainty and celestial: peace, tolerance and respect; liberty and democracy; understanding of difference and the acceptance of diversity.”

    Let’s be clear, this is more a wish list by the Baroness, rather then a proper analysis. These are the values she would wish British society to equate with Islam. These are ‘values’ that re-assure and don’t frighten.

    Whether they are Islamic values is open to debate however. On the face of it, their is precious little evidence in support.

    • Dominic Stockford

      It is not open to debate as to whether they are Islamic values – simply read the Koran and find that they are not. End of debate.

      • CliveM

        Well clearly I believe that as well. However I was trying to be understated in my comment!

      • Anton

        Yes Dominic. Our government might try to identify peace-loving Muslims (ie, nominal ones) and separate them from the jihadists, but the trouble is that any individual can move form one camp to he other upon rereading the quran.

  • john in cheshire

    A lesson that has yet to be learned; as with the laws excluding Catholics from positions of influence; in today’s world, don’t allow muslims to be put in positions of power and influence. It’s just normal self protection. If they are muslim don’t vote for them, if they are muslim, don’t employ them. It may take a few hundred years for them to be trusted; that’s life if you want to survive and you want your children to live in a nation that values peace and harmony.

    • dannybhoy

      I agree and it goes back to the issue of tribal loyalty.

    • Linus

      If a Muslim can prove to the satisfaction of an employment tribunal that you didn’t employ him because of his religion, he’ll have a very strong case against you for discrimination.

      As evidence his lawyers might ask a court to force your Internet provider to provide details of posts made to blogs like this one. Pseudonyms will be no protection.

      Of course you will then probably run to the Daily Mail with your heart-rending story of anti-Christian persecution, which might earn you enough to pay your fine. But it won’t expunge your criminal record.

      • Inspector General

        We’re not in France, you know !

        • Linus

          Even the UK has human rights legislation.

          • Inspector General

            Bone up on the British Race Relations Acts. Nothing about religion there. You see, it wasn’t needed. They were created for the mass influx of West Indians, and they’re nominally Christian….

          • Linus

            Bone up on human rights and anti-discrimination legislation.

            In the UK you have the right to hold your own religious beliefs or other philosophical beliefs similar to a religion. You also have the right to have no religion or belief.

            Under the Equality Act 2010, it is unlawful for someone to discriminate against you because of your religion or belief (or because you have no religion or belief): in any aspect of employment; when providing goods, facilities and services; when providing education; in using or disposing of premises; or when exercising public functions.

          • Inspector General

            Yes, but don’t be surprised when that thing gets repealed. It’s being abused you see, by those who hide behind it. Also, the country is shifting to the right, don’t you know, so it’s just a matter of time…

            Anyway, the point is, carry on blogging as usual. They can’t touch us…

          • Inspector, one is free to express one’s opinion – just. However, under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, as amended in 2003, inciting hateful behaviour towards a victim (making them feel unsafe) based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group, a religious group, a homosexual or transsexual group, or being disabled, is a criminal offence.

            There is also the laws of civil libel, of course. Lupus seems easily offended and a tad hysterical. He has swreamed and stomped his foot in the past and threatened Jack with action for libelling him.

          • Inspector General

            Blimey, they’ll make it illegal to fart in a lift next…

            Has he really, threatened to call in the beak ?

            You’re a damn disappointment Lanus !!

          • If by so farting you intend to cause, or do cause, fear and alarm in a minority group, then it most probably is an offence.

          • Inspector General

            Distress actually, if you must know {Ahem}

          • So, you are in a crowed lift and you need to fart. The music is really loud, so you time several farts with the beat. As you leave the lift, people are really giving you the evil eye. Then you remember … you’ve been listening to your iPod.

          • Linus

            An action for libel wouldn’t prosper as we all post under pseudonyms here. But an action for inciting hateful behaviour might … depending on where Sad Jack lives.

            His posting times indicate he probably doesn’t live in the UK. Somewhere in the Americas, I’m guessing. Whether the country that’s unfortunate enough to be his home has any kind of equality legislation is therefore doubtful. If it’s Canada then it probably does. If it’s the US or Brazil or somewhere in the Caribbean, probably not.

            If I had time to spare I might follow it through just for a laugh. The first step would be to bring an action against Cranmer in order to find out Sad Jack’s IP address and location. But really, that would be using a very big hammer to crack a very small nut. And being as the nut is more amusing than annoying, a bit pointless really.

            Besides, the more he writes, the more amusing he becomes. Impotent ranting can be extremely entertaining.

          • Are you a relative of Chief Inspector Jacques Clouseau, Lupus?

            “If I had time to spare I might follow it through just for a laugh.”

            Wasting Police time is a criminal offence.

          • Linus

            Depending on the jurisdiction, the police take hate speech cases quite seriously.

            However, as I notice you’re using British idiom to describe the police, chances are you’re probably located in one of the former British colonies in the Caribbean. That would certainly help to explain your rabid homophobia. It would also protect you from any kind of action for hate speech. You can malign gay people all you like in those backward places. You can probably even physically attack us without the police so much a lifting a finger to intervene.

            Still, some form of civil case might be possible, which could tie you up in a great deal of expense and inconvenience. But to do that, I’d have to know where you are and what possibilities local legislation offered, and as I’ve already indicated, that would be taking things a little too far considering how insignificant you are. Still, I’m seeing my lawyer tomorrow on other business, so it won’t do any harm to enquire…

          • *gasp*

            Happy Jack will spend the night in fear and trepidation, Lupus.

          • Linus

            No, you won’t, because you’re holed up in whatever nasty little backwards country you live in, where you know you’re beyond the reach of civilized laws and customs.

            Ah well, no skin off my nose. Wherever he does live, Sad Jack knows he’s on the hop. He skulks in the shadows and lobs rocks at a world over which he has no power and influence. His views are not society’s views and while he is of course free to express them, he can’t impose them on anyone, which is what fuels all the rage and bitterness. If his only outlet is to vomit his spite and hatred all over me and anyone like me, we can take it. It makes no difference to the freedom we have to live our lives as we choose.

          • Lupus, Happy Jack resides in South West Scotland. A civilised and law abiding nation.

          • Linus

            Well, curiouser and curiouser…

            Not a good sleeper, eh? People with your psychological profile often are not. All those issues churning round in your head … nightmares of damnation … visions of hell … frustrated desire … must make it hard to drift off.

            Poor old Sad Jack. Clearly longing for the peace of the grave to close over him, but fearing that it may mean even greater torment than he experiences now. Will his imaginary Christ forgive him? Will he go to heaven or hell?

            Your fears are groundless, of course. Once Sad Jack is no more, everything he ever was will just fade away into nothing. He’ll exist only as an unpleasant memory in the minds of those who were unfortunate enough to know him. And even they’ll fade away eventually. Oblivion awaits you, Sad Jack. I would have thought it might seem quite attractive to someone as troubled as you.

          • Lupus, Happy Jack is just trying to save you time and effort by supplying his country of residence. Thought it might be useful in your discussions with your lawyer about a possible defamation of character action.

          • avi barzel

            Me, I would cease communication with this detritus after threatening you and HG.

          • Yes, Happy Jack agrees. One notes he attempted to entice the Inspector into a position where he could be shown to be inciting law breaking for ‘hateful’ reasons. As you say, he is a piece of work.

          • avi barzel

            He’s trying to ensnare the Inspector? Silly. Anyway, he might have followed the Inspector here on one of his R&R flights back from a strafing and dive-bombing flight on other sites. We should spring for a rear-view mirror for him….

          • Happy Jack was urged by Cressida de Nova to show Lupus Detritus compassion.

            Jack tried …………. Jack seems to have failed ………… Jack will still give him pro bono advice …………

          • avi barzel

            Ladies tend to be more sentimental, often about the wrong types. Didn’t think she would have ppatience for whiners, although she might be doing penance for something or other.

          • CliveM

            Avi is a very wise man.

            I’ve always rated Canadians.

          • avi barzel

            Let me save you the trouble. Jack is in Mauritius and is the last survivor of his kind.

            What a repulsive imitation of a man you are, Linus, to threaten our host and Jack with investigations and lawsuits. Tells me everything I need to know about your character. If it was up to me I would turf you out of this forum for the pitiful dried up piece of shite you are. You are not worth anyone’s time here.

          • Avi, the British Courts take a very dim view of wasteful vexatious litigation. And with this comment, Lupus Detritus has demonstrated malice aforethought:

            “Still, some form of civil case might be possible, which could tie you up in a great deal of expense and inconvenience … and as I’ve already indicated, that would be taking things a little too far considering how insignificant you are. Still, I’m seeing my lawyer tomorrow on other business, so it won’t do any harm to enquire… “

            He seeks to silence Happy Jack and is a cowardly specimen, even for a half-Frenchie (on his father’s side).

          • Linus

            You contradict yourself. I must be worth the time it took to write that last lyrical gem of a comment. Otherwise why would you write it?

            Good thing your opinion counts for nothing in the grand scheme of things. “If it was (sic) up to me” is the impotent nonentity’s constant cri de cœur. Why don’t you make it “up to you”, set up your own blog and ban me from that? That would give you the sense of mastery you seek, but so clearly cannot find anywhere.

          • CliveM

            Avi

            Remind me never , ever to cross you!!

          • avi barzel

            Who? Moi? But I’m a pussycat; ask anyone around here!

          • Linus

            So you’re recommending that people should disregard the law because it will be repealed anyway, sometime, so just do what you like in the meantime?

            Very responsible and law-abiding of you. If it’s OK for you to break this law, why isn’t it OK for everyone to disregard the laws they don’t like?

            This is the sort of reaction I’d expect from a neo-fascist. Total freedom for you to disobey laws you don’t like, but when you get into power (as if…) then of course everyone will have to obey your laws, won’t they?

            What’s next eh? Getting your leader declared Reichskanzler for life?

          • Inspector General

            Christians obey God’s law, and put up with man’s law. Didn’t anyone ever tell you that ?

          • Linus

            But you’re inciting people to ignore the law, not to “put up” with it. There’s a big difference.

            Funny how someone who constantly argues a “law and order” position doesn’t feel that law and order apply to him.

          • Inspector General

            Where’s the incitement?

          • Exactly, Inspector. You simply commented: “Anyway, the point is, carry on blogging as usual. They can’t touch us… “. You remain free to express your opinions.

            Lupus, as Jack advised, is prone to childish fits of hysteria and is easily alarmed.

          • Anton

            Trouble is that the law is no longer clear. It used to be. I believe this blurring is not an accident.

          • CliveM

            At worst it would be a civil action. It wouldn’t lead to a criminal record. Unless of course you refused to pay any compensation awarded by the court!!

          • Linus

            Not according to the CPS website. Religious discrimination is a criminal offence that can attract a range of penalties including fines and custodial sentences. It would most certainly appear on your criminal record.

          • CliveM

            Linus

            You mentioned an Employment Tribunal. That is a civil court. Racial discrimination is a criminal offence , but you would have to go to the Police and the criminal courts.

            You would then be moving from a conviction based on balance of probabilities to one based on beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction would be that much harder to achieve.

          • Action initiated under the Equality Act 2010 is a civil proceeding – not a criminal one. There would be no criminal record to expunge.

            Stirring up hatred and/or inciting others to hatred, is a criminal offence under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

          • CliveM

            Agreed Happy Jack.

          • Linus

            Yes, but Employment Tribunals can recommend criminal prosecutions as a result of their findings, can they not? They certainly can here in France.

            It’s harder to obtain a conviction in criminal proceedings. But not impossible. And online activities can certainly be taken into account. Statements like “you should never hire a Muslim” would certainly affect the outcome of any criminal trial for religious discrimination.

            You might think you can say what you like on the Internet under the cover of a pseudonym. But a fake name won’t protect you once they get hold of your Internet activity log from your service provider.

          • CliveM

            Well unlike some I don’t use a pseudonym.

            But you are right, social media activity is covered by all the same laws.

            With regards Employment Tribunals they have no statutory right to recommend a criminal investigation, although all private individuals are allowed to report criminal activity to the police.

          • Dreadnaught

            You’re wrong. The UK signed up to the European Convention of Human Rights in 1951 which it had been largely influential in drafting.

          • Inspector General

            Bugger…

        • bluedog

          Indeed, Inspector. Off topic, but the victory of Syriza in the Greek elections is a massive triumph of British inspired euroscepticism in the battle against the EU tyranny. If other nations revolt too, it becomes possible for the UK to emerge as the leader of Europe in the march towards the sunlit uplands of peace, prosperity and self-determination within an European free trade zone.

          • Inspector General

            There’s a lesson to us all in Greece, Bluedog. How the ’empire’ can screw up a country’s economy. Hopefully, free of the Euro, the country can maintain order, for otherwise empire police will be despatched, and we know where they’ll come from…

          • bluedog

            You mean they will be wearing coal-scuttle helmets?

          • Inspector General

            Give that dog a bone !!

          • Old Blowers

            As Al Murray says ‘They’ve been too quiet for too long’
            Gute Nacht, schlafe gut.

  • Meantime, we as a nation flew flags at half mast across Downing Street, the Houses of Parliament and Buckingham Palace to mark King Abdullah’s death. All in recognition of support for Saudi Arabia being a cradle of Islamist extremism Islamic values.

    • CliveM

      Yes it heartening however to see each and every on of the Baronesses Islamic values reflected in the values of the House of Saud.

      Uncanny.

  • As a Christian friend of mine from southern India says, it is accepted in his part of the world that you can reach an agreement with anyone of all the various religions in India except the Muslims.
    If they change their mind, the just declare it’s “What Allah Wills” and renege on any agreement. Then they moan about being excluded from mainstream society.

  • chiefofsinners

    Today is a day of rejoicing, for today David has a new Muslim friend, Amjad Bashir. No doubt he will be a pillar of integrity. How’s that for an ‘integrative act of the imagination’?

    • He was even thrown out of the Respect Party by George Galloway on the basis that he had no political beliefs and was only interested in himself.

      • Dominic Stockford

        And I have to say he got into UKIP when our entry requirements were somewhat laxer than they now are. He would never have got through what the PPC’s have had to go through in the last 4 or 5 months.

  • dannybhoy

    We know what Muslim values are, They’re written in the Koran, and of course the Shari’a.
    Anyone who pretends that true Islamic values are similar to British values is deceived.

    • Dominic Stockford

      And some of what is written in the Koran is horrifying.

      • sarky

        And so is some of what is written in the bible.

        • Dominic Stockford

          Quotes, and translation, please.

          • sarky

            Psalm 137 “happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us/he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks”

            1samuel 15:3 “this is what the Lord almighty says. .. Now go and strike amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them but kill both man and women, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey”

            That’s just for starters.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Good try, but no banana.

            Both of those are historical references.
            1. This is what God will do, not man.
            2. I cannot do this to Amalek, I am not the man told to, nor does Amalek exist anymore, he is well gone.

            The Koran gives blanket commands to all Muslims across all time to kill, enslave or persecute all those who do not hold the Islamic faith; and the same blanket command to kill anyone who leaves the Islamic faith.

          • sarky

            You must kill those who worship another god.  Exodus 22:20

            Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own.  Deuteronomy 13:6-10

            Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you.  Deuteronomy 13:12-16

            Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own.  Deuteronomy 17:2-7

            Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

            Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

            Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Mark 6:11

            Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him.  Jude 5

          • Doctor Crackles

            Sarky,

            Are you saying that transgressions should not be punished, because all the punishment mandated above are entirely lawful? Psalm 137 is different (not part of the law), as I am sure you can understand, but is consistent with lex talionis.

            Our problem when understanding Islam is that we call illegitimate what they call legitimate. We do not like what they do, yet they act within there own legal code. The only way is to establish Torah against Shariah and let God lead us through His law to His Son. Grace has no meaning without law and the law states that the sinner must be punished.

          • sarky

            The problem is its not my law and I’m getting pretty sick of getting caught up in the my god is better than your god b######s that seem to be at the forefront of everything at the moment.

          • Doctor Crackles

            I don’t think you can be on the outside p*ssing in on this one. You can’t criticise the output of Hebraic law without understanding its structure or the one who gave it to us and what his greater purposes for the law are.

            It all points to grace, which Christianity has and Islam doesn’t.

          • sarky

            And there it is. I can read the bible along with all its hypocrisies, but I couldn’t possibly understand it coming from a position of unbelief. However, you are able to read the Koran and make all sorts of judgements whilst on the outside p*ssing in.

          • Doctor Crackles

            Yes, but I can see that from the Islamic perspective Muslims are correct in the practice of their law. However, I believe that Biblical law is superior, whereas, you pooh-pooh both.

          • sarky

            Which goes back to my original reply to you. All this upheaval in the world is basically down to spiritual dick swinging.

          • Anton

            The difference, Sarky, is that Muslims are commanded tin their scriptures to spread their legal code by force in all lands wherever it is not accepted freely. The legal code in the Old Testament is for ancient Israel only, and even there it was originally accepted by acclamation by the people. And Christians are not to enforce the practice of Christianity on anybody, in the New Testament. Where that has been done in church history it is directly against the way of Christ, in contrast to the way of Islam’s prophet. Of course in a modern democracy both Christians and secular people like yourself are going to lobby for different and often incompatible laws, but that is a separate issue.

            Yes, same God in Old and New Testaments. Where do you consider that he has acted morally wrongly, please?

          • dannybhoy

            (stage whisper)
            Does anyone know of a tolerant and doctrinal Islamic website where our Sarky could ask all these questions? A change of spiritual scene might do him good…

          • Dominic Stockford

            No, I can’t. I’m not sure there is one…

          • dannybhoy

            🙂

          • sarky

            The genocide of the flood would be a start.

          • avi barzel

            People make genocide; God manages His Creation and all of His actions, no matter how they appear to us, are by definition…or tautologically if you prefer…good.

            You forget that the mechanisms of evolution and the torturous process of natural selection are ruthless and cruel, affecting numbers of lives beyond imagination. Yet here you are, standing on the crushed bones of trillions, pontificating about “genocide.”

          • sarky

            Avi, I agree with you about evolution. However, I cant understand how you do not have a problem with the entire human race (including ones who worshiped god, noah cant have been the only one) being destroyed with what can only be described as a jealous rage. Then having the world repopulated through what can only be described as acts of incest.
            sorry, but really struggling to see the good and the morality.

          • avi barzel

            You are not the only one struggling with such, Sarky. And I didn’t say I don’t have a problem wirh this and other issues and historically, such have generated many questions. And still do. I can only present my understanding of how Jewish tradition, through the Oral Torah set down in the Talmud and interpreted through various discussions of teachings by our sages and rabbis to the present have attempted to understand such issues. There is variety of opinions, not all of them satisfactory, but the majority seem to cluster around the following ideas: The Torah has a universal message as well as as specific one to the Jewish people. Yet it is written in a time and culture-specific language. Physical descriptions of God, as well as His motives and emotions are illustrative analogies and projections which we are not allowed to take literally. The bottom line in the story of Noah is that God saw human kind as catastrophically faulty and saw a need to drastically reduce it. Still, the theological mind grapples with such things, whereas funnily enough, the atheist one would describe such-repeated culling of humanity and all other life forms as un-directed acts of nature and have few ethical problems with it, with bad things that happen “naturally”..floods, diseases, the Ice Age…being shelved under the category of, essentially, “shit happens.” In the end, both the theological and the secular minds struggle with the challenges of existence and try to cope with them philosophically and psychologically.

            As for the incest bit; nature itself is incestuous, as we have gone through myriads of shockingly incestuous population “bottle necks” as early as “Lucy” and most lijely well before. Just look at our genetic proximity to simians and the great morphological differences between us. The “wild card” …which you ascribe to the concept of “chance”…in natural selection is mutation, something which may start as a singular event and establish itself through a limited genetic pool. Binocular vision, upright posture, opposing thumbs, brain size and neural distribution…all these are only partially transitional.

          • sarky

            Thanks Avi, best reply to this ive had.

          • avi barzel

            You’re welcome, Sarky.

          • Doctor Crackles

            Yes, I believe Torah is superior to Shariah, but Torah was a stepping stone to something better, Melchizedek over Aaron as it were. Muslims seem to have rejected Grace for a pound-shop Torah.

          • avi barzel

            Sparky, most of the events you object to are descriptive, not prescriptive. Those that are prescriptive apply only to the specific situations and the people described. In forming a nation under a Covenant, God ensured its survival not only for the time period in question, but for the future. From a secular perspective, if you prefer, all pastoral and early agricultursl tribal societies occasionally engaged in total warfare where they obliterated their enemies, sometimes entirely, more often by keeping only very young children and women. This endured the survival and continuation of their group in harsh environments with limited resources. We, you included, are all descendants of humans who conquered and destroyed those weaker than themselves. Only with stability and state level civilizations…when roaming predatory groups were weakened or destroyed… do we see the emergence of universal justice, which you will also find in the laws and teachings of the Bible.

            Furthermore, none of those commandments are “transferable;” we don’t hunt for Amalek or Canaanites, or witches, nor apply harsh penalties to religious or sexual crimes because these were time and place-specific measures. Neither do we equate present peoples or religions to those named in the Torah and apply biblical sanctions to them.

          • dannybhoy

            Well put, thou Son of Israel.

          • avi barzel

            Though art a flatterer. Still, a mark-up for Thou.

          • dannybhoy

            Verily, ’tis true.
            Thou dost offer thine friends here a perspective overflowing with Jewish insights, filtered through thine own smudged bifocals…

          • avi barzel

            No, no. No bifocals. Eyes are ready, ego not so much. Extended arm still reaches optimal focal point. Do not go gently into the bifocal hype but rage, rage against the tiny type….

          • Dominic Stockford

            1. Not a command to Christians: Time specific law for the Israelites during their sojourn during the Desert. Directed about those who claim to be within God’s people – not against general populace of Non-Israelites.

            2 & 3 & 4 & 5. Not a command to Christians: Time specific law for the Israelite people in the Old Testament. Directed about those who claim to be within God’s people – not against general populace of Non-Israelites.

            6 – it doesn’t say that, it says “that same prophet shall die” (ESV) – which is not a command to anyone to kill him.

            7 – that isn’t accurate, nor is it Mark 6:11, it is Matthew 10:15 – and it is the Lord’s warning saying: “Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town.”

            8 – Jude verse 5 is a historical comment, not a command.

            Historic commands in specific situations are not commands to all Christians everywhere to kill others. And as for the other verses you have brought up, simply put, just because you don’t like the coming judgement which God promises that HE will bring about doesn’t mean that the Bible contains commands to Christians to kill other people. It is a pity you can find nothing that does that, as I had bought a whole bunch of bananas, but will now have to eat them myself.

          • sarky

            Mathew 15: 1-9, isnt jesus basically saying that the law of the old testament should be followed? (Including killing)

          • dannybhoy

            Goodness Sakes Sarky.
            Jesus said,

            38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,[a] let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

            Love Your Enemies

            43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers,[b] what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
            Matthew 5

            He also said,

            “34 But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
            Matthew 22

          • sarky

            Sorry, but can’t see how you can reconcile the god of the old with the god of the new.

          • dannybhoy

            Mark 6

            Jesus Sends Out the Twelve Apostles
            7 And he called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 8 He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts— 9 but to wear sandals and not put on two tunics.[a] 10 And he said to them, “Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you depart from there. 11 And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them.” 12 So they went out and proclaimed that people should repent. 13 And they cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick and healed them.

          • dannybhoy

            “Good try, but no banana.”
            Lol!

          • Anton

            Sarky, Christians read the Old Testament to learn more about the character of the God whom we serve. In those days God was in the business of running a nation, which in a fallen world cannot always be done without blood, sometimes inside that nation, sometimes at its borders. Today, though, God is in the business of running a volunteer grouping drawn from all peoples while living amongst them,and known as the church. Read the New Testament for yourself to verify that there is no sanction for coercion, including physical aggression, in furtherance of the Christian faith.

          • sarky

            Still commanded his followers to carry out all sorts of atrocities though didn’t he? Or are we to believe that god “who is the same today etc etc” is actually not the same?

          • dannybhoy

            The people of Israel lived under Covenant Law. God was making a people from those who had spent over 400 years in Egypt as slaves. What their religious beliefs were during this time we don’t exactly know, but it certainly wasn’t Christian or secular human.
            So God set about establishing them as the people through which He would reveal Himself to the world by giving them a law based on blessings and punishments. The carrot and stick approach. He brought them into a land flowing with milk and honey wherein hostile and warlike tribes lived who worshipped gods that demanded amongst other things child sacrifice.

            No society however civilised, can survive unless they are willing to fight when threatened from without or sometimes from within. That’s the Just War concept. We did it in ww2.

            I don’t have a problem with the Old Testament. It’s a history of the Jewish people and their relationship with God. Yes it’s bloodthirsty in places, but there’s also lots of instances where mercy was shown to individuals and peoples.
            Of course you want to find fault and justify your own position. That’s understandable. That all of this is recorded for us to read (no serious editing to make it read better), means nothing is being hidden.
            That the Jews themselves are somewhat different in their attitudes and behaviour from their ealiest forebears, and that millions of Christians down through the ages don’t go about swinging holy cudgels is proof of the validity of the other position.

          • sarky

            All that means is that humans have become (marginally) more civilised. god hasnt changed.

          • dannybhoy

            ” god hasnt changed.”
            Quite right. God remains as He reveals Himself through the Children of Israel and His Son Jesus Christ.

            All the stuff you come out with we Christians have heard many times before, and we remain convinced of the goodness and mercy of God and the reality of salvation.

            I’m curious. Of course everyone is free to comment wherever they choose, but personally, if I believed as you do, I would question why I remained commenting on a Christian site…
            Are you simply bored, or do you see it as some sort of atheistic public service?
            Or perhaps you waiting for someone to come up with a ‘clincher’ and you will suddenly find faith?

          • sarky

            Like most atheists I have an interest in religion. Reading the comments here gives me an idea of what makes you tick.
            I know what I say has been said many times before, but there is a reason for that. The loving god that you so readily proclaim seems to be the polar opposite of the god of the bible and as you said yourself “god hasnt changed”
            How can you justify the hypocrisy?

          • dannybhoy

            “The loving god that you so readily proclaim seems to be the polar
            opposite of the god of the bible and as you said yourself “god hasnt
            changed”
            How can you justify the hypocrisy?”

            I think I already explained my view of how God acted in the OT here..

            “The people of Israel lived under Covenant Law. God was making a people from those who had spent over 400 years in Egypt as slaves. What their religious beliefs were during this time we don’t exactly know, but it
            certainly wasn’t Christian or secular human.nSo God set about establishing them as the people through which He would reveal Himself to the world, by giving them a law based on blessings and punishments.

            The carrot and stick approach.

            He brought them into a land flowing with milk and honey wherein hostile and warlike tribes lived who worshipped gods that demanded amongst other things child sacrifice.”

            I also said,
            ” Yes it’s bloodthirsty in places, but there’s also lots of instances where mercy was shown to individuals and peoples.
            So as far as I am concerned (who was once a sinner like you) and now a sinner saved and in the process of being transformed by grace) when I read the psalms I see God revealing Himself as a holy and righteous God. A benevolent disciplinarian of you will.
            But God shows other aspects of His nature at other moments in Israel’s history. It’s all about context Sarky.
            It would be the same if someone was to ask your wife if she is happily married.
            She might be going through a difficult time.
            Money worries.
            Ageing.
            Communication with a lousy husband
            Suspicions that something is going on with you and Doris down the road..
            You get the picture. It’s about what’s going on at the time.

          • sarky

            But that’s exactly the point. The bible was in context with the times. That was over 2000 years ago. Christianity fails today because it is not in context with the times. How can a bunch of goatherders and fishermen have any relevence in the age of the Internet? If those people saw us now they would think we were gods!

            p.s. How did you know about Doris?

          • dannybhoy

            Sarky,
            I say that God is unchanging in His nature.
            The Old Testament covers the history of Creation, of man and God’s dealings with the first couple Adam and Eve.
            It then moves on to God’s dealings with Noah, Lot, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Then Moses and the founding of the Covenant people the Jews.
            If you have read the Old Testament in the way devout Jews regard it, you see history, law, prophecy, individual stories, poetry and wisdom.
            So God deals with individuals and groups in the context of their time. He doesn’t change, the Old Testament makes that clear, but He interacts with people in their cultural context.
            When you get to our Lord Jesus who is the Son of God i.e. also God in the form of a man, the revelation is complete. There is no more. It’s just that through our Lord we know far more about God and what He desires of us.

            As an aside, I have a theory that when God wraps this world up and creates a new heaven and a new earth, that as well as learning more about God we will be able to travel all through the universe finding new planets and make new discoveries. Maybe even God will show us a film of the whole history of creation and our world and explain things that we couldn’t understand this side of eternity.
            I don’t think we’ll be sitting around playing harps…

          • Old Blowers

            Dear Sarky

            Old Blowers sees you are a frequent attendee of the shipoffools websleight. Watch you don’t drown in the melee aboard your sinking craft.

            The writer of Psalm 137 is simply lamenting in writing, the torture that his people had endured by the Babylonians. The Babylonians throughout both secular and religious history were known to be the most ruthless and reprobate hoard that ever existed.
            Where the writer is simply fantasizing that they would be repaid in kind, the Babylonians were in fact sacrificing their children and burning them alive. This was common practice by many of the nations surrounding Israel at this time.

            Ironically it seems that modern secularist see no harm done by killing innocent babies in the womb and the mashing and mincing (dashing??) of these babes againt the sharp cruel instruments used to carry out the act of murder but the horror at hanging/killing a serial murderer is just too much immorality for such sensitive souls such as yourselves to bear?

            The writer is detailing his outrage and he is screaming out his heartfelt plea and supplication to his creator God. If you can’t reveal your most personal and heart wrenching problems to your Creator, who can you share them with? (It is an example to us of the suffering and the despair that others suffer and their cry for justice) It’s not like God is bashing any infants here. The Babylonians, are bashing, raping, pillaging, and murdering in the most grotesque of ways. This is a passionate hymn to God that these evil people would be wiped from the face of the earth forever. And in so doing, their baby sacrifices to Moloch would also end.

            How poignant for us to imagine what the heartfelf plea of the surviving Jews was after suffering the horrors of Auschwitz,Birkenau, Belzec,Treblinka, Sobibor or Dachau and their demandsfor justice towards the Nazi’s from the Creator. Or is it that the plea (or any plea) is directed at Deity that irkes fella.

            E S Blofeld

          • sarky

            Must be a different ‘Sarky’, never been on there! !!

    • James60498 .

      And what are British values, Danny?

      According to OFSTED they are about teaching 10 year old children about what lesbians do in bed.

      If that’s the case, then why would you want Muslims to share British values? If it’s not, then why are those put in charge of protecting children’s education promoting that they are?

      • dannybhoy

        My British values are the ones that resulted from a thousand years of development. Largely Christian values, because Christian values brought about education and hospitals and shaped our common morality and the great offices of State. Christian values because Christianity emphasises the values of the individual made in the image of God, that man has free will and should seek to do good rather than evil, show mercy and compassion.

        But there are other values like “it’s not winning that matters but how you play the game.” – i.e. honesty and obedience to the rules is better than doing whatever it takes to win.
        Then there’s fair play and sticking up for the underdog. Tolerance, a healthy pride in one’s country without sinking into “My country right or wrong!”
        You might say that other countries have the same or similar values, but that doesn’t matter. What matters to me is that this is my country, my heritage and my history and although there are lots of bad things going on, it is my country.

        • James60498 .

          But then those are Danny’s values which you are pushing on to Britain so that you can be proud of being British. They may, at least some, well be old British values too, but as soon as you mentioned Christianity, they are not what the government (either party) or the opposition espouse. They are not the BBCs values, nor are they any more the values of those who look to those organisations for their guidance.
          They are not the values of organisations who forbad Real Marriage groups from holding meetings in their premises. They are not the values of the Oxford University students who were able to prevent an abortion debate from taking place. They are not the values of OFSTED or the Scottish Government who is placing a nominated person responsible for each child whose rights will supersede those of parents. And they are not the values of those who in any way are involved in the legalised murder of 180,000 unborn babies each year.

          • dannybhoy

            “But then those are Danny’s values which you are pushing on to Britain so that you can be proud of being British.”

            Not so. They are the values I was brought up with before this became a multicultural society. They were taught in schools and clubs and churches too. Even in the somewhat rough area I grew up in we all accepted those values.
            And why wouldn’t they be, seeing as our nation had been a homogenous society made up of the ethnic populations of thge British Isles?
            Multiculturalism has changed the focus of our nation, and moved it away from our own long history (warts and all), towards a much more recent history with the emphasis on equality diversity and inclusion.
            Incidentally, ‘being proud of being British’ is not uppermost in my mind. Especially not nowadays.
            But to my mind a Christian can never put ‘being proud to be British’ above being grateful to be a Christian in the Kingdom of God.

          • James60498 .

            Not sure you can blame Muslims for 180,000 abortions a year. Britain was 6 years ahead of the USA in allowing widespread abortion, and that’s long before multiculturalism was even a dream in the heads of the most lunatic left winger.

            Or “gay marriage”. And I bet that there were very few Muslims involved in the bullying of the abortion debate at Oxford.

            You are absolutely right to say that those behind multiculturalism are often those behind most of the other evils too. Of course you are. I haven’t and wouldn’t say the opposite, in fact I would say exactly that.

            And of course many Muslim values are very wrong too.

            But do you seriously want Muslims to start professing their love of British values as they are espoused by those who run the country? Are you suggesting that they would be welcome if they espoused such values, but aren’t otherwise?

            I am trying to post a link to a Cameron view of British values but am struggling. Of course he talks about Christian values but doesn’t legislate them. He wants to force other countries to adopt “gay marriage” etc but will not force them to protect Christians

            These are the British values

          • dannybhoy

            “Not sure you can blame Muslims for 180,000 abortions a year. Britain was
            6 years ahead of the USA in allowing widespread abortion, and that’s
            long before multiculturalism was even a dream in the heads of the most
            lunatic left winger.”
            I’m not blaming Muslims for that! That’s British people who imv are misguided. Wher do you get the idea that I am blaming Muslims for the bad things we British do? That’s what I meant by “warts and all.” There are plenty of bad or criminal or misguided (ethnic) British people here
            I don’t like British snobbery or arrogance, but perhaps, I don’t know, you are mixing up traditional cultural values with Christian values as held by (true) Christians?
            Otherwise I agree with your post..

          • James60498 .

            Of course you are not blaming Muslims for abortion. However perhaps the reason for me saying that will become clearer below.

            Perhaps I did slightly misunderstand your original point, and then I think maybe you misunderstood my fairly innocuous first reply.

            However what you seemed to be saying is that they are, or at least may be, ok if they accept British values. My point was that, if British values are those that we are constantly being told by the Government, BBC etc are in fact British values then I would prefer someone who didn’t share them.

            I suspect that we would agree on a huge amount. When I called them “Danny’s values” that was a compliment to you that you have them.

            Perhaps if you had said “Old Fashioned British values” I wouldn’t have challenged you.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Abortion entered this country as a government mandated process (yuck, what a horrible thought) through the auspices of the Socialist and Liberal influences within government. The exact same ones that brought in the idiocy of multi-culturalism.

          • James60498 .

            Agreed. The same ones that are running the country now and using it’s propaganda machine to ensure that British values are not anything that I could ever wish anyone to sign up to.

            (whatever British values may or may not have been in the past).

          • dannybhoy

            James
            I think I probably didn’t express myself well enough, but fortunately good natured patience won out in the end.

            Let’s be real about Islam. There are Muslims who are willing to integrate as the Jews have done. Yet the vast majority keep themselves separate and have failed to integrate.
            They keep to their religion and cultural practices, and in some areas they either seek to assert their own authority or press for Shari’a law in a western nation they have chosen to live in.
            So the problem for us who are the host culture is that Islam allows for violent conversion and the death of homosexuals or adulteresses. It does not accept equality of any other faith, as is evidenced in the status and treatment afforded Jews and Christians in Muslim nations.

            If Muslims in Britain accept our values and laws and show loyalty to this country, fine. But until that happens they cannot be surprised that we regard some with suspicion; and we cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated into making concessions by those who threaten us.

          • James60498 .

            Danny. I agree with what you are saying to a great extent. I really do.

            But if Muslims are to sign up to “our values and laws” as you suggest then it will be the Government setting the test.

            And the Governments latest comment on British values is to force Durham Christian Free School to close.

          • dannybhoy

            What took you so long?
            I’m an old man.
            I’ve forgotten what we were talking about now! 😉 🙂

          • James60498 .

            I was just waiting for a right upto date link but I can’t get links it work anyway.

            Never mind. I am sure that we are only disagreeing over the use of words and believe that we agree on what matters.

          • dannybhoy

            Me too James.

  • bluedog

    An important post, Your Grace, and somewhat poignant in view of your own past apparent enthusiasm for the work of the noble Baroness.

    In your communicant’s view the UK and the West in general faces a stark choice in its dealings with Islam, confrontation or appeasement, or more simply, war and peace. The bias has to be towards war because peace with Islam can only come on Islamic terms, which means the defeat of our current society. So when you say, ‘…and that pluralism is, for better or worse, irreversible’, your communicant profoundly disagrees. We are being forced by Islam towards confrontational separateness. Our allies will be many, and include those such as the secularists who have created the vacuum being filled by Islam. But we must finally understand that the values of Islam are simple; either kill or convert the kuffar. That’s where it begins and ends, and until our leaders admit this to themselves and the electorate our position deteriorates.
    As we mark the 50th anniversary of the death of Winston Churchill, one can only be struck by a profound and disturbing comparison. Churchill was a politician who was ahead of and lead the argument in the fight against fascism. Steeped in ancient values and a remarkable self-belief, Churchill was unswayed by the fascination of the British ruling class for Hitler’s success in restoring the German economy after the Great Depression, and in doing so, deflecting the attendant threat of a Bolshevik uprising. What we lack now is a politician of the same clear-sightedness, courage and conviction of Churchill to confront Islam at home. Islam cannot be appeased, and if we fear ‘

  • Old Blowers

    Good Lord

    What on earth is the poor woman wearing..Is it some mystic muslim masonic garment for those of the ‘Taqiyya Sisterhood Lodge’.

    Old Ernsty is a life long member of The Sons of the Desert..Now they know how to run a lodge at the Laughing Gravy branch. *Giggles*

    Is she furious coz her Chicken Tikka starter ain’t arrived or has she turned Hindu for the day in a show of interfaith dialogue and understanding.

    Beats dressing up as a dalek, eh Warsi lass.

    Old Blowers

    ps

    Cranny old boy…”The same works for Jews and the Tanakh, so that when David Cameron
    invites Christian or Jewish leaders to Number 10 to discuss ‘community
    issues’, there is an unwritten and unspoken congenial coherence in the
    encounter: we all respect the rule of law, participate in symbolic
    expressions of national unity, and endorse those cultural values which
    affirm national identity and the common good.”

    This is because the OT and NT are one book and our ‘Christian Values derive from BOTH books. Our heritage and values are a nonsense without understanding that both Jew and Christian speak alike, which is not surprising considering the many books in the Bible are nearly all authored by Jews..WE WORSHIP A JEWISH KING!!!.

    Now when the Koran is translated into our glorious language, Ernst would state that the Quran reads like it was written by a rambling mental patient with paranoid schizophrenia, topped off nicely with Tourettes and who enjoyed displaying violent sensitivity to any form of criticism. The books of Dr Seuss are more poetic and easier to comprehend!!

    • True, she does look like a petulant priestess about to offer a sacrifice to Baal. Watch out Old Blowers, she may be on the look out for a suitable candidate.

      • Old Blowers

        Think Cameron is the desired sacrifice. Serves the pretentious chinless wonder right giving succour to a duplicitous self serving muslim chancer. Read this ;
        “This approach also explains why the government fails to accurately gauge sentiment within the British Muslim community, a community that since the Charlie Hebdo murders has been in shock and is fearful.

        The shock is at yet more appalling acts committed in the name of Islam.(When Allah and Mohammed demand it, why are they surprised when it happens? Is not this the norm in all countries where muslims are in a minority except in countries that have the constitutional right to bear arms for it’s citizens) The fear is of the potential backlash, which tragically we are already starting to witness both here and in France (BACKLASH. WTH? Where the heck is any backlash…Mosques torched, ransacked and destroyed? Muslim women and children publicly beaten and macheted in the streets of London? Muslims thrown out of homes in Kent and heading by foot to the ummah of Birmingham/Bradford for sanctuary?. Utter tosh.
        Think we Brits have handled this with stoic dignity towards those within our midst that refuse to integrate. Muslims need to understand there is more to being british than speaking in our regional accents. We are not fooled by such superficiality. A wolf in sheeps clothing is ALWAYS a wolf).
        Both are being felt in a community that responded clearly in its condemnation of the Charlie Hebdo murders, and proclaimed “Je suis juif” (This woman knows no shame when propagating obvious falsehoods unchallenged in left wing rag, such as muslims wandering the streets of Blighty in large numbers, with placards bearing “Je suis juif” ). Yet it felt it was still in the dock.(Always the victims, aren’t you, despite the bleed’n obvious, hmm)”

      • Pubcrawler

        I was thinking something from (original and best) Star Trek.

        • Old Blowers

          Ah! They come in peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, shoot to kill;

          They come in peace, shoot to kill; Scotty, beam Blowers up!

          There’s muslims on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow;

          There’s muslims on the starboard bow, starboard bow, Jack

          Analysis, Mr. Ernst.

          It’s called peace Jack but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it;
          it’s called peace Jack but not as we know it, not as we know it, .

          There’s muslims on the starboard bow, starboard bow, starboard bow ;

          There’s muslims on the starboard bow, starboard bow, Jack

          • Hmmm….

            Just brilliant!

      • Old Blowers

        Strewth. Look at the time. Off to bed as work ta morrow. Nighty Y’all.

  • Old Blowers

    pps

    It seems much easier to state what are not muslim values than what are!

  • Old Blowers

    Strange isn’t it. The media is going on about anti-semitism and it’s new hosts in spreading it’s poison yet not one has the guts to state who these new protagonists are. One has a link to the words ‘Hitler was right’ being held by an obviously muslim adherent at a largely muslim rally against Israel/Jews (muslims see no difference between the two) yet do they state this. No!!

    We (Govt UK) supposedly are taking the fight to extremists abroad yet only seem to want to appease these enemies within our beloved blighty and pretend we somehow have shared values and want us to believe this codswallop. WE DON’T.!!

    As Peter Hitchens said today in his column regarding the attacks on Christianity/Christians in our nation at schools and as individual believers ;
    “All I can say is that, while the Home Secretary claims to be defending us against Islamist extremism, another equally dangerous anti-Christian extremism has infiltrated much of the British state, where it rules unchallenged.

    It’s odd that bishops, so vocal on the welfare state and other Leftist topics, do not seem interested in defending their faith against this sort of thing.” (INDEED!)

    • Dominic Stockford

      And Labour plan to appoint a world-wide bringer of peace between faiths – but only the rest of the world, not here…

      • Anton

        Do they? We can guess who it will be, too – Tony Blair, who did so well at bringing peace to the Middle East.

  • len

    Look at my face “religion of peace”…… got it !

    So what`s not to like about Islam anyway?.

  • “What are muslim values?” It is hard to define because islam around the world takes many forms, but still, the evidence from all those nations suggests in broad terms that it is profoundly incompatible either with the Christian religion, upon whose values this country was founded, or with the tenets of the Frankfurt School which has so successfully superimposed itself on our institutions and politicians. Muslim methods of political engagement swing 180 degrees, from alternately complaining about being discriminated against, to threatening the host society. Both of these tactics press all the right buttons with the current political class, which has no understanding of our own history and values. It knows the price of everything but the value of nothing, as the recent sycophantic response to the death of the King of SA amply demonstrates.

    • Dominic Stockford

      You are right – but in such a discussion we need to start with theology – as after all it is theology which faith in God is all about.

      Islam states that anyone who says that God has a Son is to be regarded as a heretic.

      Christianity is a religion which depends on salvation being won by God’s Son.

      How can there ever be any sane attempt at claiming compatibility?