Librul Islamic Britain
Maria
apologies if it has been posted before, but I thought it was quite
interesting and pertinent to the current race discussions which are
increasingly referring to Islamic Britons.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,486782,00.html
This liberal deception
Prejudice is a dirty word. Unless liberals are talking about Islam
Cristina Odone
Sunday May 6, 2001
The Observer
How satisfying to stand on the moral high-ground and watch those
terrible Tories turn the air blue with their racist insults: John
Townend with his slur about a mongrel race; Sir Richard Body calling
his book England for the English; and Willy Hague exposed by Lord
Taylor - one of his very own - as a weakling unable to replace the lid
on the Pandora's box of Conservative bigotry.
Up in north London, chattering-class liberals rub their hands with
glee: oh what a sorry spectacle those Conservatives make, how superior
we all are. The word 'mongrel' - or 'nigger', or 'darkie' - would
never pass our lips, no-one would ever be turned away from our home or
business because of their colour.
But liberal tolerance is only skin deep: when it comes to the belief
system that most blacks and Asians in this country subscribe to, the
bien pensants prove as prejudiced as John Townend, Lord Tebbit and Ian
Paisley rolled into one. Anti-Islam is the acceptable face of racism;
to give a Muslim a hard time about her faith is kosher, in a way that
so much as to notice her different hue is not. Listen to the bastions
of liberal Britain: Polly Toynbee, 'I am an Islamophobe'; Linda Grant,
'I am pretty Islamophobic myself'; and Andrew Marr, who in this very
paper wrote of a 'thick impenetrable bubble' that separated a serious
Muslim from 'planet Marr'.
Racist sentiments all. For religion is, according to Bhikhu Parekh,
who chaired the Commission on the Future of Multi-ethnic Britain, a
fundamental component of ethnicity; an attack on its beliefs and
practices constitutes racism, he writes in Integrating Minorities
(published by the ICA). In other words, spitting at someone because
she's wearing a head-scarf is the same as spitting at someone because
she looks Asian.
To attack other religions that ethnic minorities belong to - Hinduism
and the Afro-Caribbean churches - would prove equally racist. But
where Islam earns vicious words from the liberals, Hinduism with its
gawdy elephant gods and the Afro-Caribbean churches with their
happy-clappy guitar strumming, get away with a smirk of condescension.
This scapegoating of Muslims prompted the 1997 Runnymede report to
recommend that Britain broaden its anti-racist agenda to include a
campaign against Islamophobia. That report called for a ban on
religious discrimination - but in the well-protected avenues where the
liberal consensus flourishes, the call fell on deaf ears. These
liberals defend their anti-Muslim rants by pointing out that they are
equally happy to discriminate against all religions. As if their
anti-Christianity offers comfort to Muslims.
No Muslim (or Christian, Hindu, or Jew) accepts this: religious
discrimination, even when not rooted in racism, betrays medieval
intolerance of the sort that fuelled the Inquisition and the trials of
witches. It is fanned by a near-universal ignorance of the world of
religion - any religion; and this ignorance forms the well-spring of
fear.
The notion of a spiritual authority that commands unswerving
allegiance sends shivers down the secular spine. No atheist can
understand that an attack on the god you love is as devastating as an
attack on the name you bear or the pigmentation you have - indeed,
more so: your faith informs what you think, do, wear and say, far more
than being black or being called Patel does.
Westerners mask their prejudice behind liberal posturing: in Muslim
countries, they claim, women are not equal to men. Think of the
Taliban women or of female circumcision practised in sub-Saharan
Africa. Yet neither female illiteracy nor female circumcision has any
place in the Koran; these are tribal practices, not religious. In this
country, as Bhikhu Parekh reveals, Muslim girls' A-level participation
rate is higher than that of white boys; and in the States,
African-American women are increasingly embracing Islam, claiming they
are accorded greater respect.
Another stone cast against the Muslim world is that theirs is an
oppressive regime, characterised by the cruel sharia law that cuts off
a thief's hand and stones an adulteress to death. Yet this portrait of
brutality ignores the role that Islam has played as a movement that
challenges privilege, and works for social justice. Those who toppled
the Shah in Iran, and work among the Palestinians and Indonesians, may
be militant Muslims to the outside world, but among Arabs they are the
voice of the poor.
As for Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses , which triggered a frenzy of
righteousness and a flood of petitions among liberals from Hampstead
to Hull: is a society that allows blasphemy against a god worshipped
by a minority really so much better than one that censors a writer
read by the intelligentsia? The liberal establishment sits on its
laurels: their best friend is black, their next-door neighbour Indian,
and their children don't even know what a golliwog was. Why bother to
challenge those teeny prejudices one still has about Muslims?
• Cristina Odone is deputy editor of the New Statesman
JHS
Maria wrote:
> Found this while I was raking about on the Guardian web site;
> apologies if it has been posted before, but I thought it was quite
> interesting and pertinent to the current race discussions which are
> increasingly referring to Islamic Britons.
But what point are 'you' making.
Maria
wrote:
None....other than to agree somewhat with the author of the article.
I just thought it was interesting.
JHS
Maria wrote:
If muslims dislike christianity why do they come to a christian country.
Maria
wrote:
>If muslims dislike christianity
I don't know that 'dislike' is the right word when it comes to belief;
if your belief is your belief, then anyone who doesn't believe it is
wrong! Maybe it's more a case of 'my belief is better than your
belief'.
>why do they come to a christian country.
Freedom of religion?
Is this a Christian country?
forty-two
>On Mon, 28 May 2001 09:36:23 +0100, JHS <john.s...@ntlworld.com>
>wrote:
>>But what point are 'you' making.
>
>None....other than to agree somewhat with the author of the article.
>I just thought it was interesting.
>
as might the estimated 1500 victims annually of legalised
rape as forced 'marriages' in hypocritical TB britain
>
http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/220798/detFOR01.htm
http://www.dawn.com/2000/07/01/int10.htm
http://women3rdworld.about.com/newsissues/women3rdworld/cs/honorkillings/index.htm
and so on almost ad inf
Maria
wrote:
>On Mon, 28 May 2001 08:44:17 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 May 2001 09:36:23 +0100, JHS <john.s...@ntlworld.com>
>>wrote:
>>>But what point are 'you' making.
>>
>>None....other than to agree somewhat with the author of the article.
>>I just thought it was interesting.
>>
>as might the estimated 1500 victims annually of legalised
> rape as forced 'marriages' in hypocritical TB britain
Forced marriage was commonplace among Britons not so long ago; they'll
grow out of it.
Stan Spade
"JHS" <john.s...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3B1212D1...@ntlworld.com...
>
> If muslims dislike christianity why do they come to a christian country.
reply
the question should be why does the christian/zionist establishment allow
economic migrants from the villages of the muslim world / hillbillies into
europe after spending the best part of the past millennium fighting them
during the crusades and european colonialism? it took 800 years removing the
moors from spain...
forty-two
>On Mon, 28 May 2001 09:25:33 GMT, pho...@loonquawl.net (forty-two)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 28 May 2001 08:44:17 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 28 May 2001 09:36:23 +0100, JHS <john.s...@ntlworld.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>But what point are 'you' making.
>>>
>>>None....other than to agree somewhat with the author of the article.
>>>I just thought it was interesting.
>>>
>>as might the estimated 1500 victims annually of legalised
>> rape as forced 'marriages' in hypocritical TB britain
>>
>http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/220798/detFOR01.htm
>http://www.dawn.com/2000/07/01/int10.htm
>http://women3rdworld.about.com/newsissues/women3rdworld/cs/honorkillings/index.htm
>and so on almost ad inf
>
>Forced marriage was commonplace among Britons not so long ago; they'll
>grow out of it.
>
fair comment, but current large-scale misuse of communal
resources that hinders cultural assimilation that would
result in a 'growing out of' barbaric oppression of females
(you will of course be familiar with the concept of an
educated female population, as mothers/teachers,
being one of the most valuable assets a society can
acquire) should be treated as a subvertion of the
state and a crime against society society
>
hand
Maria
wrote:
Yes, agreed with all of that. However, barbarism aside, women are
accorded little respect in Britain on anything more than a personal
level and are not valued as parents (which might explain why they
increasingly make poor parents).
Before anyone shouts, not I don't think that the family court approach
to women has anything much to do with respect.
Morganna
to be taken into consideration for the purpose of living!!! AND that is exactly why there
will be such incandescent violence as we've seen in Oldham over the last two days.
--
http://www.jewelion.com/postcards/default.htm
http://walk-wales.org.uk/dogsalive.htm
Stan Spade <stas...@orange.net> wrote in message
news:3b12220a$0$12248$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
'Droid
Why do Christians go to non-Christian countries? Economics usually.
'Droid
forty-two
on that point, and as evidence to support a decision to vote
for a plague on both houses of conservatism, cloth capped
and pin striped - see :
http://www.geocities.com/manytomany/misc/blairitemisogyny.html
>
hand
Maria
<morg...@venator.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>Excellent!!The Guardian article is correct in essence but not in practical terms required
>to be taken into consideration for the purpose of living!!!
Such as...?
>AND that is exactly why there
>will be such incandescent violence as we've seen in Oldham over the last two days.
How so? What exactly is it the Asians want to do that is incompatible
with living in Britain?
Lord Limbic
"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message news:3b120b79...@news.ntlworld.com...
> Found this while I was raking about on the Guardian web site;
> apologies if it has been posted before, but I thought it was quite
> interesting and pertinent to the current race discussions which are
> increasingly referring to Islamic Britons.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,486782,00.html
An extraordinary article, thanks for posting it.
> This liberal deception
>
> Prejudice is a dirty word. Unless liberals are talking about Islam
>
> Cristina Odone
> Sunday May 6, 2001
> The Observer
>
> How satisfying to stand on the moral high-ground and watch those
> terrible Tories turn the air blue with their racist insults: John
> Townend with his slur about a mongrel race; Sir Richard Body calling
> his book England for the English; and Willy Hague exposed by Lord
> Taylor - one of his very own - as a weakling unable to replace the lid
> on the Pandora's box of Conservative bigotry.
Bollox.
> Up in north London, chattering-class liberals rub their hands with
> glee: oh what a sorry spectacle those Conservatives make, how superior
> we all are. The word 'mongrel' - or 'nigger', or 'darkie' - would
> never pass our lips, no-one would ever be turned away from our home or
> business because of their colour.
> But liberal tolerance is only skin deep: when it comes to the belief
> system that most blacks and Asians in this country subscribe to, the
> bien pensants prove as prejudiced as John Townend, Lord Tebbit and Ian
> Paisley rolled into one.
This is clearly rubbish. For a start the vast majority of blacks are Christians. Those that are Muslims include Nigerians,
Somalis etc, but also members of the extreme racist Nation of Islam - the Black NF - who's exploits are well known and who's
leader is (unfairly) banned form entering the country.
>Anti-Islam is the acceptable face of racism;
> to give a Muslim a hard time about her faith is kosher, in a way that
> so much as to notice her different hue is not. Listen to the bastions
> of liberal Britain: Polly Toynbee, 'I am an Islamophobe'; Linda Grant,
> 'I am pretty Islamophobic myself'; and Andrew Marr, who in this very
> paper wrote of a 'thick impenetrable bubble' that separated a serious
> Muslim from 'planet Marr'.
Christians have been moaning about this sort of 'oppression' for years. Blasphemous icons presented as art, open mockery in the
press, etc etc.
> Racist sentiments all.
So now another related but entirely separate -phobia/ism is herded into the meaningless coral labelled 'racism'
>For religion is, according to Bhikhu Parekh,
> who chaired the Commission on the Future of Multi-ethnic Britain, a
> fundamental component of ethnicity;
How can serious newspaper can quote a member of the most notorious confederacy of dunces to emerge in this young century? This is
the Commission on the Future of Multi-ethnic Britain that announced that 'British' is racist amongst other ludicrous suggestions
which included calls for US style ethnic monitoring and quotas.
> an attack on its beliefs and
> practices constitutes racism, he writes in Integrating Minorities
> (published by the ICA). In other words, spitting at someone because
> she's wearing a head-scarf is the same as spitting at someone because
> she looks Asian.
Clearly this is not the case. The very wording of this passage betrays him: Spitting at someone because of X means you are
spitting at someone because of X, not Y.
> To attack other religions that ethnic minorities belong to - Hinduism
> and the Afro-Caribbean churches - would prove equally racist. But
> where Islam earns vicious words from the liberals, Hinduism with its
> gawdy elephant gods
>and the Afro-Caribbean churches with their
> happy-clappy guitar strumming, get away with a smirk of condescension.
Is this an in joke? Write a column about religious intolerance and disrespect and putative connections with racism then proceed to
openly mock minority religions. Extraordinary.
> This scapegoating of Muslims prompted the 1997 Runnymede report to
> recommend that Britain broaden its anti-racist agenda to include a
> campaign against Islamophobia.
This is the same Runnymede that considers British to be racist. That aside, if one had to include religions in some sort of agenda
why not include ALL religions? Why not Christians and Hindu's along with Jews and Muslims?
Secondly, does this mean that discussions or criticism of Jews or Muslims will be off limits? Is it Islamophobic to denounce the
Taliban blowing up Statues or making Hindus wear badges? Will the "anti-racist agenda" prevent me from denouncing Jews in Israel
and their actions wrt the Palestinians? Will defending Salman Rushdie be an Islamophobic act (and therefore 'racist' according to
catch-all definition of racist?)
>That report called for a ban on
> religious discrimination - but in the well-protected avenues where the
> liberal consensus flourishes, the call fell on deaf ears. These
> liberals defend their anti-Muslim rants by pointing out that they are
> equally happy to discriminate against all religions. As if their
> anti-Christianity offers comfort to Muslims.
Phew, this columnist starts to include some fairness and balance!
> No Muslim (or Christian, Hindu, or Jew) accepts this: religious
> discrimination, even when not rooted in racism,
>betrays medieval
> intolerance of the sort that fuelled the Inquisition and the trials of
> witches. It is fanned by a near-universal ignorance of the world of
> religion - any religion; and this ignorance forms the well-spring of
> fear.
This entire passage is near hysterical nonsense. "Medieval intolerance"!? "Near-universal ignorance of the world of religion".
It is as meaningless as it is hysterical.
> The notion of a spiritual authority that commands unswerving
> allegiance sends shivers down the secular spine. No atheist can
> understand that an attack on the god you love is as devastating as an
> attack on the name you bear or the pigmentation you have - indeed,
> more so: your faith informs what you think, do, wear and say, far more
> than being black or being called Patel does.
Boo hoo. Multiculturalism sneaking in here. Universal equality despite the fact that there is universal inequality. Irrationality
and superstition which is the foundation of most religious belief, is profoundly dangerous. It is used to justify wars, attack
science, maintain barbaric oppression of women, prop up openly discriminatory social practices etc etc. To attack someone's belief
that a good wife commits sutee, or it is right and correct to carry out an honour killing of a female relative or destroy the
priceless artefacts of another religion because they are deemed unholy or murder an abortionist - is this religious
discrimination? Does this hurt the Hindu, Muslim, Christian when I attack these practices? Would such attacks "as devastating as
an attack on the name you bear or the pigmentation you have"?
Tough.
> Westerners mask their prejudice behind liberal posturing: in Muslim
> countries, they claim, women are not equal to men. Think of the
> Taliban women or of female circumcision practised in sub-Saharan
> Africa.
No, think of the Tenets of Sharia, think of women not allowed to drive or leave the house without the permission of a male
relative, think forced marriages, think honour killings....
To imagine that Islam today is true to the Koran (and it's apparently humane treatment of women) is as naive as believing that
Catholic Church is true to the teaching of Jesus.
>Yet neither female illiteracy nor female circumcision has any
> place in the Koran; these are tribal practices, not religious.
They might be. But these barbarian practices are not part of the Judeo-Christian/European tradition. Western Judeo-Christian
civilisation is the spiritual home of tolerance and the emancipation of women. It has granted more liberties to women than any
civilisation in the history of humanity. Almost everywhere in the developing world women and minorities are treated with
comparatively staggering brutality and unfairness. We owe it to ourselves to recognise that we Westerners are vastly superior to
the rest of the world in terms of emancipation, equality, liberty, the treatment of women etc
>In this
> country, as Bhikhu Parekh reveals, Muslim girls' A-level participation
> rate is higher than that of white boys; and in the States,
> African-American women are increasingly embracing Islam, claiming they
> are accorded greater respect.
Greater respect that baby-father ghetto dwellers! Not hard. Is it the same hunger for respect and decent treatment that is sending
increasing numbers of African-American women into marriages with white men?.
> Another stone cast against the Muslim world is that theirs is an
> oppressive regime, characterised by the cruel sharia law that cuts off
> a thief's hand and stones an adulteress to death. Yet this portrait of
> brutality ignores the role that Islam has played as a movement that
> challenges privilege, and works for social justice. Those who toppled
> the Shah in Iran, and work among the Palestinians and Indonesians, may
> be militant Muslims to the outside world, but among Arabs they are the
> voice of the poor.
That changes nothing about the harsh facts of sharia and the brutal practices which we are fully entitled to disapprove of (and
dislike) without being labeled racists or Islamophobes
> As for Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses , which triggered a frenzy of
> righteousness and a flood of petitions among liberals from Hampstead
> to Hull: is a society that allows blasphemy against a god worshipped
> by a minority really so much better than one that censors a writer
> read by the intelligentsia?
The crux! The crime is blasphemy against a 'minority'. The daily announcements of black women Christs or Virgin Mary painted in
dung or nuns in bikini's are A-OK despite the fact that it probably offends Christians as much as Islamophobia offends Muslims.
>The liberal establishment sits on its
> laurels: their best friend is black, their next-door neighbour Indian,
> and their children don't even know what a golliwog was. Why bother to
> challenge those teeny prejudices one still has about Muslims?
What about those prejudices they have against their own people? the disgust they display for "tabloid readers" [see Paulsgrove
coverage]? The utter contempt of Christians and Christian political aspirations? The anti-white racism and slander? and all the
other officially ignored REALLY unmentionable but very active prejudices the liberal establishment (which when Hague called it as
much denied it exists]?
>
> . Cristina Odone is deputy editor of the New Statesman
This woman is an active propagandist for the liberal establishment. Shamelessly and uncritically polemicising with staggering
feminist tripe such as "Inequality street - Women are still being paid less for doing the same job as men, according to a new
survey. Why is Britain the most sexist country in Europe".
A collection of her works can be found here
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/PI/search.jhtml?magR=all+magazines&key=Cristina+Odone+
Further reading
An African Asks Some Disturbing Questions of Islam
http://debate.org.uk/topics/trtracts/t12.htm#1
An excellent pro-Islamic introduction to Islam
http://www.mideasti.org/library/islam/introislam.htm
The Nation of Islam's "The Final Call"
http://www.finalcall.com/
...and a final thought:
"In having practiced sexism, racism and imperialism, the West has merely followed the common practice of mankind," wrote Bernard
Lewis, the Princeton professor and Mideast scholar. "What is unique and distinct from all others is in having recognized; named,
and tried, not entirely without success, to remedy these historic diseases."
Regards
Lord Limbic
The Technical Manager
Colonisation.
One of the most important duties of a muslim is to spread the faith and
gain as many converts as possible. That is one of the reasons why Islam is
such a big religion despite it being so new compared with most other
religions.
All muslims believe that one day it will be the only surviving religion and
the whole world will become 100% muslim !
Cliff Morrison
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>
> All muslims believe that one day it will be the only surviving religion and
> the whole world will become 100% muslim !
Fuck that.
Steve Glynn
> apologies if it has been posted before, but I thought it was quite
> interesting and pertinent to the current race discussions which are
> increasingly referring to Islamic Britons.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,486782,00.html
>
> This liberal deception
>
> Prejudice is a dirty word. Unless liberals are talking about Islam
>
Thanks for posting a very interesting article.
I once worked with a girl who was proud to describe herself as an "Islamic
fundamentalist", in that she believed in the literal truth of every word of
the Koran. The family were Pakistani, but she'd been born and brought up
in Saudi, where dad worked as a Muslim cleric until being posted to the
Regent's Park mosque. Working with her was quite an eye-opener. She was
certainly a very bright and articulate young woman, and all I can say is God
help the man who tried to "oppress" her. Certainly, as far as she was
concerned, Islam is a religion of equality between the sexes, and various
local forms of oppression of women in Saudi, Iran, or wherever, were
profoundly un-Islamic.
She could never understand why people got so wound-up about her headscarf
and long coat. She took the attitude -- not, to my mind, an unreasonable
one -- that this was what she felt most comfortable in when out in public,
and, since she wasn't asking anyone else to adopt her dress code, she'd wear
what she wanted. Similarly, she wouldn't eat pork or drink alcohol, but
anyone else was welcome to eat and drink what they wanted, so long as they
didn't try to make her so do. If they were Muslims she might argue with
them about it, but if they weren't, then it was up to them.
At least according to her, the Koran and Islamic tradition are quite clear
on the duties of Muslims living in non-Muslim countries. Apparently, so
long as you're not being asked to do anything contrary to Islam, the general
idea is quietly to practice your faith and try to be a decent and
law-abiding citizen. If someone asks you about Islam, then tell them, but
otherwise don't try to ram it down their throats. At the same time we
had a guy who was a "born-again Christian" working there, and he was
certainly a far greater menace if you found yourself sitting next to him in
the canteen than young Khadija ever was.
Come to think about it, as a not-particularly good Catholic, I sometimes get
irritated when non-Catholics try to tell me what I do or don't believe.
I'd imagine Muslims find it equally irritating. I respect other people's
religious beliefs or lack of them, and I expect them to respect mine. It
certainly seems that, as Christina Odone points out, a lot of people aren't
prepared to extend that courtesy towards Muslims.
Steve
The Technical Manager
It just severe differences in culture. There is nothing wrong with British or Asian culture.
Its just the fact when two or more groups of people with conflicting interests are cooped up
together as in Oldham then tensions form. Separatism is the one and only solution.
Conor Turton
>
> Is this a Christian country?
>
--
_________________________
Conor Turton
conor....@bigfoot.com
ICQ:31909763
_________________________
Conor Turton
says...
> How so? What exactly is it the Asians want to do that is incompatible
> with living in Britain?
>
Start their own Parliament.
Conor Turton
> Forced marriage was commonplace among Britons not so long ago; they'll
> grow out of it.
>
But our culture is still in childhood compared to the Asian/Chinese
The Technical Manager
> In article <3b1213ed...@news.ntlworld.com>, pl...@plonk.com says...
> >
> > Is this a Christian country?
> >
> The official religion of this country is Church of England.
If you don't happen to be Church of England then where does that place you
?
Edwina Frogbucket
"Steve Glynn" <steve...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:59rQ6.7162$lm5.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
<snip>
> At least according to her, the Koran and Islamic tradition are quite clear
> on the duties of Muslims living in non-Muslim countries. Apparently, so
> long as you're not being asked to do anything contrary to Islam, the
general
> idea is quietly to practice your faith and try to be a decent and
> law-abiding citizen.
A muslim once said to me never to get Islam muddled with culture.
--
Edwina Frogbucket
JHS
Edwina Frogbucket wrote:
Yes, the muslim run state does that.
Steve Glynn
"The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3B123D27...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
Are you also of the opinion that "there is nothing wrong with Catholic or
Protestant culture. There is nothing wrong with British or Asian culture.
Its just the fact when two or more groups of people with conflicting
interests are cooped up together as in Ulster then tensions form. Separatism
is the one and only solution."?
I used to live just off Green Lanes in North London, where, as you'll know,
there are large Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities. Everyone managed to
knock along reasonably well, despite their difficulties in so doing back in
Cyprus.
Steve
Steve
The Technical Manager
The Northern Ireland issue isn't a matter or culture or religion but disputed
territory.
>
> I used to live just off Green Lanes in North London, where, as you'll know,
> there are large Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities. Everyone managed to
> knock along reasonably well, despite their difficulties in so doing back in
> Cyprus.
This is a bit of an unusual situation. Perhaps the fact the Britain is `neutral
ground' as far as the issue between Greek and Turkish Cypriots are concerned
makes them less inclined to get militant between each other.
The issue I am getting at is that between non-white immigrants and their
descendants and the native British population.
>
>
> Steve
>
> Steve
Maria
<conor....@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>In article <3b123234...@news.ntlworld.com>, pl...@plonk.com
>says...
>
>> How so? What exactly is it the Asians want to do that is incompatible
>> with living in Britain?
>>
>Start their own Parliament.
>
How do you know that? (I've honestly never heard of it...)
Barton Whoops
>Found this while I was raking about on the Guardian web site;
>apologies if it has been posted before, but I thought it was quite
>interesting and pertinent to the current race discussions which are
>increasingly referring to Islamic Britons.
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,486782,00.html
>
>This liberal deception
>
>Prejudice is a dirty word. Unless liberals are talking about Islam
Islam is just a bunch of ideas - nothing more. It is no more 'valid'
and deserves no more respect than any other superstitious nonsense.
Disagreeing with any or all of these ideas is not racist. Trying to
portray it as such is merely another example of how the leftie idiots
silence any debate or dissent. IMO anyone who isn't 'phobic'/ scared
of some of the extremist Islamic nonsense is a fool with their head in
the sand. Try asking the tourists who were kidnapped today in The
Philippines by Islamic fundamentalists how they feel about Islam.
From todays Grauniad;
Fundamentally wrong
A Muslim campaign against a group of pro-Israel Labour MPs is deeply
disturbing.
Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Monday May 28, 2001
A number of Labour MPs in suburban north London have been "targeted by
Muslim voters", or at any rate by a Muslim lobby, though not over any
domestic question, nor for any dereliction of constituency duties.
Mike Gapes, Stephen Twigg, Barry Gardiner and Andrew Dismore stand
accused of "carrying the flag for Israel in parliament, and lobbying
editors to toe the Israeli line".
Whether that last is true I don't know, although their pro-Israeli
sympathies are undisguised, and arguably wrong. But the campaign
against them is deeply disturbing. This somnolent,
all-over-bar-the-shouting election could do with anything to enliven
it, from fisticuffs to rational debate. But the very last thing
British politics need is a single-issue lobby founded on religious
fundamentalism.
Of course immigrants to this country, and their descendants (whom some
of us regard as British rather than "Asian"), are fully entitled to
their own religious faith, their own cultural traditions, and their
own communal pride. Norman Tebbit got it exactly wrong with his
"cricket test". When I went to Lord's last Friday, there were plenty
of other people, many of them born here, who supported the Pakistanis.
Despite Nasser Hussein's disapproval, that's no more reprehensible
than when others of British birth support London Irish out of
sentimental ancestral loyalty. The test that matters is not sporting
affiliation but common citizenship and common political custom,
including what might be called practical secularism.
Admittedly, that's in some measure an invented tradi tion, or a late
arrival. English politics long had religious overtones, which did not
disappear with the end of the Anglican monopoly less than 200 years
ago: the Tories remained the political wing of the Church of England,
and the Liberals became closely identified with Protestant
nonconformity. Even Labour had its own sectarian complications, as
became clear 80 years ago. During the second Labour government,
Trevelyan's education bill was ambushed on the government backbenches
by Catholic MPs doing the bidding of their hierarchy.
Few Labour people today would take much pride in that episode - and no
Christian church would now dare to nobble an education bill, or target
a displeasing MP. The one religion which is now flexing its muscles is
Islam. Faisal Bodi complained in last week's Guardian media pages of a
"latent double standard" which he thinks he discovered. It showed
itself in the "hideous discrimination" he experienced when trying to
put the Muslim case against Israel.
His argument seems a little curious, and his plaint a little
disingenuous. Although he objects to being publicly labelled an
"avowed supporter of Islamic causes", that's exactly what he is, and
what he trades as. Jonathan Freedland is Jewish and Hugo Young is a
Catholic, but they aren't single-issue propagandists, and they are not
sectarian polemicists in the way that Mr Bodi well-nigh prides himself
on being.
He talks darkly of anti-Muslim prejudice in the media, but for some
time there has been, if anything, a double standard operating in
favour of militant Islam. It was seen at its most obnoxious during the
Satanic Verses affair. People on the soi-disant liberal left who
guffawed at Mary Whitehouse's attempts to revive the blasphemy laws on
behalf of Christianity fell silent when Mahometan fanatics threatened
to exterminate a writer for supposedly blaspheming Islam.
That double standard was pervasive, and not just in this country. As
the critic Robert Hughes observed, American academic multiculturalists
thought it the gravest possible offence, on their own campuses, to
call a grown woman a girl; when the ayatollahs cut off the hands of
thieves or put out the eyes of the sacrilegious, that was "their
culture". Here, we were mawkishly told that "Muslims are people, too",
which was true enough, and also true of Torquemada, Goebbels and
Zhdanov. That wasn't the question, which was whether or not we put
writers to death for what they have written.
There are very likely good reasons for opposing those MPs, or pretty
well any sitting MP of any party, come to that. Their commitment to
one side - either side - in a distant conflict is not a good reason.
And trying to create a Muslim electoral claque to punish errant MPs is
not a good idea in any way, quite apart from its obvious and ironical
echoes of another lobby in America which has ruthlessly picked off
congressmen whose support of Israel is less than unswerving or
uncritical. Is that a happy precedent?
And there are also plenty of good reasons for criticising Israel, now
more than ever, on grounds of freedom and truth and the rights of the
oppressed, not to say the great old Jewish traditions of justice and
conscience. The worst possible ground is religious dogmatism or, worse
still, what Shelley called "bloody faith, the foulest birth of time".
And that goes for bloody faith calling itself Islam quite as much as
for Christianity.
Doubtless, as I say, there are reasons for voting against all those
MPs. Their being "targeted by Muslim voters" is reason enough in
itself to vote for them.
don Genaro
> The liberal establishment sits on its
> laurels: their best friend is black, their next-door neighbour
Indian,
> and their children don't even know what a golliwog was. Why bother
to
> challenge those teeny prejudices one still has about Muslims?
>
>
Ah, I get it now, You mean like the liberals that live in the Westwood
and Glodwick districts of Oldham?
> • Cristina Odone is deputy editor of the New Statesman
>
She also live in a select, yuppie area of London - known as 'Unreal PC
Delusionary Cuckoo Land', a land often invaded by an peculiarly local
weather condition known as 'Neuronic Fog'. Inhabitants of Cuckoo Land
rarely venture out of their cotton wool environment into the real
world: if they did, they would rapidly have to come to terms with the
fact that.one man's blasphemy, after all, is another man's prejudice.
welsh witch
and back again. I know one of the cleverer writers on this group has told me how to fix it
but it somehow takes more energy than I've got with my injury to my left hand!!
Maria you are a veritable virago in defence of the Asian community.....Do I recognise a
passion which has nothing whatsoever to do with an interest in politics??? |Just one
curious woman to another!!
http://www.jewelion.com/postcards/default.htm
http://walk-wales.org.uk/dogsalive.htm
Maria <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message news:3b120b79...@news.ntlworld.com...
> Found this while I was raking about on the Guardian web site;
> apologies if it has been posted before, but I thought it was quite
> interesting and pertinent to the current race discussions which are
> increasingly referring to Islamic Britons.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,2763,486782,00.html
>
> This liberal deception
>
> Prejudice is a dirty word. Unless liberals are talking about Islam
>
> Cristina Odone
> Sunday May 6, 2001
> The Observer
>
> How satisfying to stand on the moral high-ground and watch those
> terrible Tories turn the air blue with their racist insults: John
> Townend with his slur about a mongrel race; Sir Richard Body calling
> his book England for the English; and Willy Hague exposed by Lord
> Taylor - one of his very own - as a weakling unable to replace the lid
> on the Pandora's box of Conservative bigotry.
> Up in north London, chattering-class liberals rub their hands with
> glee: oh what a sorry spectacle those Conservatives make, how superior
> we all are. The word 'mongrel' - or 'nigger', or 'darkie' - would
> never pass our lips, no-one would ever be turned away from our home or
> business because of their colour.
>
> But liberal tolerance is only skin deep: when it comes to the belief
> system that most blacks and Asians in this country subscribe to, the
> bien pensants prove as prejudiced as John Townend, Lord Tebbit and Ian
> Paisley rolled into one. Anti-Islam is the acceptable face of racism;
> to give a Muslim a hard time about her faith is kosher, in a way that
> so much as to notice her different hue is not. Listen to the bastions
> of liberal Britain: Polly Toynbee, 'I am an Islamophobe'; Linda Grant,
> 'I am pretty Islamophobic myself'; and Andrew Marr, who in this very
> paper wrote of a 'thick impenetrable bubble' that separated a serious
> Muslim from 'planet Marr'.
>
> Racist sentiments all. For religion is, according to Bhikhu Parekh,
> who chaired the Commission on the Future of Multi-ethnic Britain, a
> fundamental component of ethnicity; an attack on its beliefs and
> practices constitutes racism, he writes in Integrating Minorities
> (published by the ICA). In other words, spitting at someone because
> she's wearing a head-scarf is the same as spitting at someone because
> she looks Asian.
>
> To attack other religions that ethnic minorities belong to - Hinduism
> and the Afro-Caribbean churches - would prove equally racist. But
> where Islam earns vicious words from the liberals, Hinduism with its
> gawdy elephant gods and the Afro-Caribbean churches with their
> happy-clappy guitar strumming, get away with a smirk of condescension.
>
>
> This scapegoating of Muslims prompted the 1997 Runnymede report to
> recommend that Britain broaden its anti-racist agenda to include a
> campaign against Islamophobia. That report called for a ban on
> religious discrimination - but in the well-protected avenues where the
> liberal consensus flourishes, the call fell on deaf ears. These
> liberals defend their anti-Muslim rants by pointing out that they are
> equally happy to discriminate against all religions. As if their
> anti-Christianity offers comfort to Muslims.
>
> No Muslim (or Christian, Hindu, or Jew) accepts this: religious
> discrimination, even when not rooted in racism, betrays medieval
> intolerance of the sort that fuelled the Inquisition and the trials of
> witches. It is fanned by a near-universal ignorance of the world of
> religion - any religion; and this ignorance forms the well-spring of
> fear.
>
> The notion of a spiritual authority that commands unswerving
> allegiance sends shivers down the secular spine. No atheist can
> understand that an attack on the god you love is as devastating as an
> attack on the name you bear or the pigmentation you have - indeed,
> more so: your faith informs what you think, do, wear and say, far more
> than being black or being called Patel does.
>
> Westerners mask their prejudice behind liberal posturing: in Muslim
> countries, they claim, women are not equal to men. Think of the
> Taliban women or of female circumcision practised in sub-Saharan
> Africa. Yet neither female illiteracy nor female circumcision has any
> place in the Koran; these are tribal practices, not religious. In this
> country, as Bhikhu Parekh reveals, Muslim girls' A-level participation
> rate is higher than that of white boys; and in the States,
> African-American women are increasingly embracing Islam, claiming they
> are accorded greater respect.
>
> Another stone cast against the Muslim world is that theirs is an
> oppressive regime, characterised by the cruel sharia law that cuts off
> a thief's hand and stones an adulteress to death. Yet this portrait of
> brutality ignores the role that Islam has played as a movement that
> challenges privilege, and works for social justice. Those who toppled
> the Shah in Iran, and work among the Palestinians and Indonesians, may
> be militant Muslims to the outside world, but among Arabs they are the
> voice of the poor.
>
> As for Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses , which triggered a frenzy of
> righteousness and a flood of petitions among liberals from Hampstead
> to Hull: is a society that allows blasphemy against a god worshipped
> by a minority really so much better than one that censors a writer
> read by the intelligentsia? The liberal establishment sits on its
> laurels: their best friend is black, their next-door neighbour Indian,
> and their children don't even know what a golliwog was. Why bother to
> challenge those teeny prejudices one still has about Muslims?
>
> . Cristina Odone is deputy editor of the New Statesman
>
>
>
Steve
Look at http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/muslimparliament.html
It was much vaunted in the 90s, but seems to have dropped out of sight. I
don't think its gone though.
Another quote on here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lawrence/Story/0,2763,208690,00.html
http://www.netasia.co.uk/News/News_headlines.htm
Where I think I agree with the brainless opinion!
You could look through
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk to see the current POV.
Stan Spade
reasons, not to spread the faith. If they came to spread the 'faith', they
would not be selling alcohol, tobacco, pornographic literature and drugs,
neither would they be practising forced marriages, receiving bank interest,
etc. Also Islam is the fastest reproducing religion.
"The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3B122BE7...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
graphite
If youve never heard of it, then clearly you should put your islam/asian
apologist role on hold and read a bit more.
Maria
wrote:
^^^^^^^
When Isee how quick you lot are to judge and on what flimsy evidence,
I am bloody glad that I am not black or asian...
JHS
Maria wrote:
Nice maria, but you're making that point a bit too often now.
Maria
<welsh...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>I have to be flitting about from BT ng which doesn't work half the time to Great Escape
>and back again. I know one of the cleverer writers on this group has told me how to fix it
>but it somehow takes more energy than I've got with my injury to my left hand!!
>Maria you are a veritable virago in defence of the Asian community.....Do I recognise a
>passion which has nothing whatsoever to do with an interest in politics??? |Just one
>curious woman to another!!
And I am curious as to how posting an article such as that can cause
people to think that I am defending the Asian community! Now I see why
when Lord Limbic posts articles about race, he is accused of racism...
I have said this before, (but I don't think anyone believes me...)
that I *do* have a passion, a passion for justice and fairness. I have
studied law and I have also studied science, two of my favourite
subjects. I am always disappointed in how quick people are to judge
other people *and quickly come to conclusions* on the flimsiest of
evidence: I often wonder how they would feel if they were fitted up
for something they had not done, or if they suddenly found themselves
part of a group of people who are judged irrationally, or were judged
simply for being part of a group which is suddenly considered
undesirable in some way, and even why they berate the behaviour of
other sectors of society when it is no different to the behaviour of
their own.
So rather than jump on the bearest bandwagon (which wrt this
particular subject, seems to be based on a whole load of stereotypes,
preconceptions or plain prejudice) I try to step back and be
objective. The bit of me that is interested in science *and* law
demands rigorous proof that an assertion is actually true, which is
probably why I come across as being bloody-minded at times, and why I
find it difficult to accept that people can decide on an issue from
media reports that at other times they claim to be biased or
Wrt racism in particular, I am interested in it from a psychology
point of view, because I am interested in human behaviour. So I enjoy
the debate because it sheds light on other peoples perspective.
I am interested to know how and why they come to their conclusions,
particularly since colour/ethnicity has never been an issue that I am
willing to condemn people on.
Wrt this riot thingy, I am interested to know why people are jumping
to conclusions on the media reports that they otherwise find so biased
and unbelievable; they believe the bits that appeal to them while
dismissing the bits that don't, and misrepresent the actual report if
necessary to make their point. (an example being that the people
believe that the rioters were all asian, when white people were
present and arrested too)
I also have sympathy for people who find themselves on the 'B' team
(whatever their ethnicity) because they are often scapegoated for
society's ills, even when it is not their fault, or the theory is
dodgy. If they are to blame, then I find it a challenge to think
through a possible way of solving the problem.
I also have a general interest in politics (because it is influenced
by law, science and psychology) which is why I post to this group in
the first place.
HTH
Maria
wrote:
That is because I am being accused of it a bit too often.
I'll shut me cakehole when they do!
(I'll be off for a few days after tomorrow anyway...no time for
Usenet)
Magrathea
Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote in message news:cliffm-2805...@th-gt144-168.pool.dircon.co.uk...
Christians believe, that all people who do not accept christ will be
tortured by god for eternity
Religion is freaky stuff
Cliff Morrison
"Magrathea" <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
Fuck that too.
And all the rest as well,
including so-called humanists.
But to be fair maybe pagans, animists and other
such obscure ones are not as bad;
leastways they've not pissed me off.
> Religion is freaky stuff
Twoo.
Conor Turton
tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk says...
> If you don't happen to be Church of England then where does that place you
> ?
Pass BUT everyone seems to have forgotten that C of E is the official
religion of Britain and is/used to be required to be taught to every
child at school due to an Act of Parliament which AFAIK has not yet been
overturned.
Conor Turton
says...
>
> How do you know that? (I've honestly never heard of it...)
>
In the late 90's many leaders of the Asian community, mainly the
Muslims, stated on news interviews and talk shows that they did not
recognise the powers of Parliament and wanted to create their own and
have self Government.
Personally I thought that was treasonous and they should have hanged in
the Tower of London.
Conor Turton
tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk says...
>
> The Northern Ireland issue isn't a matter or culture or religion but disputed
> territory.
>
Tell you what mate..go do a tour over there like I did and then say its
sod all to do with Religion.
Diversity Isn't A Codeword For Anti-White
news:MPG.157c5dac1...@news.claranews.com...
> In article <3b123234...@news.ntlworld.com>, pl...@plonk.com
> says...
>
> > How so? What exactly is it the Asians want to do that is incompatible
> > with living in Britain?
> >
> Start their own Parliament.
And essentially to start their own Islamic state in Europe.
Diversity Isn't A Codeword For Anti-White
oh!yes there's nothing wrong with Islamic culture, I mean just look at any
Islamic nation. Please,please,please lefties go and live in one of these far
superior countries, just like you babbled on about living in the true
freedom of Stalin's Soviet Union a few decades ago.
--
Welcome To "MTV Against Racism", and now the latest single from Ghostface
Killah.
Maria
All comments noted with interest,
Anyone any reason why they have not done so to date?
Cliff Morrison
Probability is their potential bigwig support enjoys too much patronage
and bungs off NuLab councils to let principle rule pocket.
Trampus
Trampus
> On Mon, 28 May 2001 17:04:10 +0100, "welsh witch"
> <welsh...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >I have to be flitting about from BT ng which doesn't work half the time
to Great Escape
> >and back again. I know one of the cleverer writers on this group has told
me how to fix it
> >but it somehow takes more energy than I've got with my injury to my left
hand!!
> >Maria you are a veritable virago in defence of the Asian community.....Do
I recognise a
> >passion which has nothing whatsoever to do with an interest in
politics??? |Just one
> >curious woman to another!!
>
> And I am curious as to how posting an article such as that can cause
> people to think that I am defending the Asian community! Now I see why
> when Lord Limbic posts articles about race, he is accused of racism...
>
> I have said this before, (but I don't think anyone believes me...)
> that I *do* have a passion, a passion for justice and fairness. I have
> studied law and I have also studied science, two of my favourite
> subjects. I am always disappointed in how quick people are to judge
> other people *and quickly come to conclusions* on the flimsiest of
> evidence:
I do not consider living amongst West Indians both here in England and for
three years in Jamaica as the flimsiest of evidence.
I was like you once upon a time, I played the race card in favour of the WI
Blacks, then something changed in their attitude they became "Uppity",
looking down on the Whites, denigrating everything we do and did.
They however have never been able to offer anything of substance in place of
it.
East Northants is sparsely populated by either Blacks or Asians compared
with many other places in England, perhaps the day is not too far off when
that will change and you'll meet the nasty Asians.
I attended a conference of Principals of Further education here in the West
Midlands about ten years ago, the principal from Sandwell college couldn't
believe how well behaved the asian students were in Dudley, whilst the
Wolverhampton principal was amazed at how well behaved the West Indians were
in Sandwell and Dudley.
Question which of the colleges had a predominant
A/ Asian
B/ White
C/ West Indian
Student body.?
Trampus
Bomber Blair gave it to them!!
Trampus
"Magrathea" <ga...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:VjxQ6.9175$WD.24...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Religion is freaky stuff
>
>
Conor Turton
> All comments noted with interest,
> Anyone any reason why they have not done so to date?
>
Probably because Westminster refuse to payroll it.
Maria
<babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
>news:3b12992d...@news.ntlworld.com...
>> On Mon, 28 May 2001 19:02:55 +0100, "graphite" <grap...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3b1265dd...@news.ntlworld.com...
>> >> On Mon, 28 May 2001 14:06:24 +0100, Conor Turton
>> >> <conor....@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <3b123234...@news.ntlworld.com>, pl...@plonk.com
>> >> >says...
>> >> >
>> >> >> How so? What exactly is it the Asians want to do that is
>incompatible
>> >> >> with living in Britain?
>> >> >>
>> >> >Start their own Parliament.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> How do you know that? (I've honestly never heard of it...)
>> >
>> > If youve never heard of it, then clearly you should put your
>islam/asian
>> > apologist role on hold and read a bit more.
>> ^^^^^^^
>>
>> When Isee how quick you lot are to judge and on what flimsy evidence,
>> I am bloody glad that I am not black or asian...
>
>Methinks you are!
>
>
<bloody big sigh>
http://www.gulliver1.demon.co.uk/gallery.htm
</bloody big sigh>
Maria
You are different; you are a person who has obviously made their mind
up and are prepared to speak out about it. I respect that even if I
don't agree with some of your views...
(and surprisingly I actually agree with quite a lot of your views...)
>I was like you once upon a time, I played the race card in favour of the WI
>Blacks,
But I am not 'in favour of blacks'; I am in favour of *all* people
being allowed to go about their lawful business free from harrasment .
That's all.
>then something changed in their attitude they became "Uppity",
>looking down on the Whites, denigrating everything we do and did.
>They however have never been able to offer anything of substance in place of
>it.
>East Northants is sparsely populated by either Blacks or Asians compared
>with many other places in England, perhaps the day is not too far off when
>that will change and you'll meet the nasty Asians.
Not really; check out Wellingborough and Kettering.
I will not deny that there are nasty asians...but that does not excuse
the behaviour of nasty whites, and nasty whites do not excuse the
behaviour of nasty asians.
I am interested in why people are nasty....
dormouse
[snip]Hmmm.... <cleavage>Might as well add sexism to my list of
offences</cleavage>
--
dormouse 8-}
Magrathea
Trampus <babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message news:9euequ$1a537$5...@ID-60076.news.dfncis.de...
I'm not sure where it came from originally, but like many of these paranoid
conceptualisations I imagine it is created sometime in childhood and is
brought to the surface by having a bit too much cheese before going to bed.
Maria
<conor....@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>In article <3b12b1bc...@news.ntlworld.com>, pl...@plonk.com says...
>
>> All comments noted with interest,
>> Anyone any reason why they have not done so to date?
>>
>Probably because Westminster refuse to payroll it.
I'm sure Mr Bin Liner would pay for it; he's loaded.
Built many of the roads in Sudan AIUI. Pocket money to him...
Paul Hammond
Steve wrote in message <4cvQ6.27867$PQ5.3...@news1.cableinet.net>...>news:3b1265dd...@news.ntlworld.com...
>> On Mon, 28 May 2001 14:06:24 +0100, Conor Turton
>> <conor....@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3b123234...@news.ntlworld.com>, pl...@plonk.com
>> >says...
>> >
>> >> How so? What exactly is it the Asians want to do that is incompatible
>> >> with living in Britain?
>> >>
>> >Start their own Parliament.
>> >
>>
>> How do you know that? (I've honestly never heard of it...)
>
>
>It was much vaunted in the 90s, but seems to have dropped out of sight. I
>don't think its gone though.
>
>Another quote on here
>
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/lawrence/Story/0,2763,208690,00.html
>
>http://www.netasia.co.uk/News/News_headlines.htm
>Where I think I agree with the brainless opinion!
>
>You could look through
>
>http://www.muslimnews.co.uk to see the current POV.
>
They call it a Muslim parliament, but it's basically Mr Siddiqui's very
own pressure group on Islamic issues. There are many muslims
in this country who think he's an idiot, and wouldn't have anything
to do with this group.
Paul
Paul Hammond
Diversity Isn't A Codeword For Anti-White wrote in message
<9euadi$ng9$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
You guys are taking them far too seriously!
The fact that someone wants to set up a muslim pressure group,
and call it a Parliament, and have someone called a Speaker in it,
doesn't really make it a parliament. When do they have elections?
What taxes do they raise? Do they run their own prisons and schools?
In what way, then, are they a parliament?
Most muslims in this country want nothing to do with Dr Siddiqui's
"Parliament" anyway.
Paul
Paul Hammond
abelard
>In article <3b123234...@news.ntlworld.com>, pl...@plonk.com
>says...
>
>> How so? What exactly is it the Asians want to do that is incompatible
>> with living in Britain?
>>
>Start their own Parliament.
like in saudi arabia?
--
web site at www.abelard.org - new, docs on godel also inflation,
logic, ethics and much more...~1/3 million doc. requests yearly
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
abelard
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> typed:
>It just severe differences in culture. There is nothing wrong with British or Asian culture.
>Its just the fact when two or more groups of people with conflicting interests are cooped up
>together as in Oldham then tensions form. Separatism is the one and only solution.
why is a forced single culture not an option?
abelard
>
>"Maria" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
>> When Isee how quick you lot are to judge and on what flimsy evidence,
>> I am bloody glad that I am not black or asian...
>
>Methinks you are!
are what?
regards.
abelard
>On Mon, 28 May 2001 20:54:34 +0100, "Diversity Isn't A Codeword For
>Anti-White" <allbla...@thewhiteman.com> wrote:
>
>>"Conor Turton" <conor....@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.157c5dac1...@news.claranews.com...
>>> In article <3b123234...@news.ntlworld.com>, pl...@plonk.com
>>> says...
>>>
>>> > How so? What exactly is it the Asians want to do that is incompatible
>>> > with living in Britain?
>>> >
>>> Start their own Parliament.
>>
>>And essentially to start their own Islamic state in Europe.
how are you defining 'state'? their own schools?
their own territory? their own courts?
>All comments noted with interest,
>Anyone any reason why they have not done so to date?
insufficient power?
abelard
<babyd...@postmaster.co.uk> typed:
Council of Basel (ecumenical council 17) 1431-45
[The church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those
who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or
heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go
into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his
angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end
of their lives
from
http://www.abelard.org/hitler2.htm
:-)
even the sally ann have their own version...
abelard
<stas...@orange.net> typed:
>The vast majority of migrants have come to Britain (and Europe) for economic
>reasons, not to spread the faith. If they came to spread the 'faith', they
>would not be selling alcohol, tobacco, pornographic literature and drugs,
>neither would they be practising forced marriages, receiving bank interest,
>etc. Also Islam is the fastest reproducing religion.
does the 'literature' help?
but it is a good point....perhaps one could argue that many are
also fleeing the islamic paradises...
please do not top post....
abelard
>Forced marriage was commonplace among Britons not so long ago; they'll
>grow out of it.
almost certainly...you calm thoughtfulness is restful
among so much hysteria....
regards.
abelard
<steve...@lineone.net> typed:
> I respect other people's
>religious beliefs or lack of them, and I expect them to respect mine.
please define 'respect'?
> It
>certainly seems that, as Christina Odone points out, a lot of people aren't
>prepared to extend that courtesy towards Muslims.
nor to the inquisition....
are you not confusing individuals with the power structures
that various belief systems tend to engender....
which states tend to show most tolerance for diversity....?
which least?
which belief systems show tolerance when they have
serious power?
abelard
>On Mon, 28 May 2001 17:04:10 +0100, "welsh witch"
><welsh...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>I have to be flitting about from BT ng which doesn't work half the time to Great Escape
>>and back again. I know one of the cleverer writers on this group has told me how to fix it
>>but it somehow takes more energy than I've got with my injury to my left hand!!
>>Maria you are a veritable virago in defence of the Asian community.....Do I recognise a
>>passion which has nothing whatsoever to do with an interest in politics??? |Just one
>>curious woman to another!!
>
>And I am curious as to how posting an article such as that can cause
>people to think that I am defending the Asian community! Now I see why
>when Lord Limbic posts articles about race, he is accused of racism...
very few people think....most live in a cotton wool
world of theory....
>I have said this before, (but I don't think anyone believes me...)
>that I *do* have a passion, a passion for justice and fairness. I have
>studied law and I have also studied science, two of my favourite
>subjects. I am always disappointed in how quick people are to judge
>other people *and quickly come to conclusions* on the flimsiest of
>evidence: I often wonder how they would feel if they were fitted up
>for something they had not done, or if they suddenly found themselves
>part of a group of people who are judged irrationally, or were judged
>simply for being part of a group which is suddenly considered
>undesirable in some way, and even why they berate the behaviour of
>other sectors of society when it is no different to the behaviour of
>their own.
most people are complacent....they believe the myths...
until they get first hand experience...
Conor Turton
abe...@abelard.org says...
> how are you defining 'state'? their own schools?
> their own territory? their own courts?
>
That is what alot of the same generation as the roters are calling for.
BOEDICIA
>From: JHS <john.s...@ntlworld.com>
>Date: Mon, May 28, 2001 04:56 EDT
>Message-id: <3B1212D1...@ntlworld.com>
>If muslims dislike christianity why do they come to a christian country.
A question I've asked 1000 times in this NG. Perhaps they should be informed
before they make the long trek that The Head of State is also the Head of
The Church of England and that Christianity is part and parcel of British
culture.
Even those who no longer practise the faith as their ancestors did, they
still celebrate Christian holidays and when asked their religion will still
reply
"Christian" - loony lefties excepted of course.
"Dieu et Mon Droit". Correct.
BOEDICIA
>Date: Mon, May 28, 2001 09:53 EDT
>Message-id: <CJsQ6.7378$lm5.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
>Are you also of the opinion that "there is nothing wrong with Catholic or
>Protestant culture.
They are religions. Asians are not white,
therefore not the same race as the English.
>I used to live just off Green Lanes in North London, where, as you'll know,
>there are large Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities. Everyone managed to
>knock along reasonably well, despite their difficulties in so doing back in
>Cyprus.
Perhaps they would be better off if they had returned to either Greece or
Turkey
instead of London.
forty-two
>On Mon, 28 May 2001 12:57:27 +0100, The Technical Manager
><tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> typed:
>
>>It just severe differences in culture. There is nothing wrong with British or Asian culture.
>>Its just the fact when two or more groups of people with conflicting interests are cooped
>>up together as in Oldham then tensions form. Separatism is the one and only solution.
>
>why is a forced single culture not an option?
>
because that's one component of the obvious solution, then it seems
reasonable to conclude that the answer to your question is one of,
or a mixture of the following:
1. the organised gang that governs, and looks like remaining in
power due to lack of serious opposition, is aware that gerrymandered
town halls wll turn against them if they break their side of the bargain
with anticommunitarian elements in control as an outcome of the
gerrymander
2. exceptionally, there reely peely is a massively resourced conspiracy
to subvert UK/EU by creating/promoting/facilitating large scale
unrest and general disorder
the latter becomes an attractive hypothesis if you set it against a
background of bizarre u-turns away from necessary reforms and
apparent cold-blooded frittering of a once_in_a_lifetime
exploit to exploit an unbeatable 'hand' of political cards
Alex Macfie
> as might the estimated 1500 victims annually of legalised
> rape as forced 'marriages' in hypocritical TB britain
> >
Forced marriage is not legal in the UK. The problem is that existing
law isn't enforced robustly enough. Thankfully there have been
recently some moves towards a more robust policy, but it's nowhere
near good enough.
Alex Macfie
> This is clearly rubbish. For a start the vast majority of blacks are Christians. Those that are Muslims include Nigerians,
> Somalis etc, but also members of the extreme racist Nation of Islam - the Black NF - who's exploits are well known and who's
> leader is (unfairly) banned form entering the country.
>
Why unfairly? I think it's entirely right that he's banned. When a
particular individual who is not a citizen is likely to immediate
damage if he entered the country, he should not be allowed in.
toadpďpe
abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:1cp5htglbdvfjv47a...@4ax.com...
>
> very few people think....most live in a cotton wool
> world of theory....
...and there are some who ignore the motive when is gets in the way. I'm
amused at all the self righteous claptrap emanating from the ranters on this
newsgroup, like drunks in the pub whose drunnkenness deludes them into
thinking that their gibberish makes sense.
> >I have said this before, (but I don't think anyone believes me...)
> >that I *do* have a passion, a passion for justice and fairness. I have
> >studied law and I have also studied science, two of my favourite
> >subjects. I am always disappointed in how quick people are to judge
> >other people *and quickly come to conclusions* on the flimsiest of
> >evidence: I often wonder how they would feel if they were fitted up
> >for something they had not done, or if they suddenly found themselves
> >part of a group of people who are judged irrationally, or were judged
> >simply for being part of a group which is suddenly considered
> >undesirable in some way, and even why they berate the behaviour of
> >other sectors of society when it is no different to the behaviour of
> >their own.
Tolerance has its limits. Sometime you have to stand up to the bigots. You
are very naive if you think that friendly persuasion will have any effect.
They rely on the good will of others.
> most people are complacent....they believe the myths...
> until they get first hand experience...
People create the myths and then act on them.
Maria
<toadpďp...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>People create the myths and then act on them.
Symptom of a bored and understimulated population...
The Technical Manager
> The vast majority of migrants have come to Britain (and Europe) for economic
> reasons, not to spread the faith. If they came to spread the 'faith', they
> would not be selling alcohol, tobacco, pornographic literature and drugs,
> neither would they be practising forced marriages, receiving bank interest,
> etc. Also Islam is the fastest reproducing religion.
Tobacco and most drugs are legal under Islamic law.
>
>
> "The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3B122BE7...@niobiumfive.co.uk...
>
> > One of the most important duties of a muslim is to spread the faith and
> > gain as many converts as possible. That is one of the reasons why Islam is
> > such a big religion despite it being so new compared with most other
> > religions.
The Technical Manager
> On Mon, 28 May 2001 12:57:27 +0100, The Technical Manager
> <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> typed:
>
> >It just severe differences in culture. There is nothing wrong with British or Asian culture.
> >Its just the fact when two or more groups of people with conflicting interests are cooped up
> >together as in Oldham then tensions form. Separatism is the one and only solution.
>
> why is a forced single culture not an option?
1 Most people do not like to give up their own cultures and way of life.
2 Attempting to force a single culture on everybody will turn this country into another
Yugoslavia.
3 A single unified culture is one of the main concepts of communism.
Cliff Morrison
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
> 3 A single unified culture is one of the main concepts of communism.
So is capitalist yankland "communist"?
dormouse
All elephants are grey,
Tony is grey
Tony is an elephant.
See the problem with that particular argument?
--
dormouse
RDM
Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes
>In article <3B122BE7...@niobiumfive.co.uk>, The Technical Manager
><tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> All muslims believe that one day it will be the only surviving religion and
>> the whole world will become 100% muslim !
>
Absolutely. Muslims can get fucked along with fundie Xtians, Plymouth
Brethren, JW's and any other assorted loonies. I've nothing against any
'racial' group as long as they have no wish to interfere in my
lifestyle. I do not believe this is so for the fundie Islamists who
would most definitely would attempt to change things for the worse. Lets
try looking at some countries that operate so called sharia law.
try nipping to the local pub in Afghanistan or Saudia Arabia. Try being
a women or a gay in these places. Want to be a Xtian in Pakistan? You
risk death. Want to flee your brutal husband or father, you face death.
I'm quite happy to be called an Islamaphobe but not a racist.
--
RDM
'It's a bad day for capitalism when you can't fly a midget from a kite in
Central Park'....PR Exec. New York
Cliff Morrison
<sorry.b...@isnt.real> wrote:
Specisism.
Sunil
On 29 May 2001, BOEDICIA wrote:
> >>Subject: Re: Librul Islamic Britain
> >From: JHS <john.s...@ntlworld.com>
> >Date: Mon, May 28, 2001 04:56 EDT
> >Message-id: <3B1212D1...@ntlworld.com>
>
> >If muslims dislike christianity why do they come to a christian country.
>
> A question I've asked 1000 times in this NG. Perhaps they should be informed
> before they make the long trek that The Head of State is also the Head of
> The Church of England and that Christianity is part and parcel of British
> culture.
And yet it was imported from the Middle East (via Rome) - hardly
indigenous to the Isles!
Alex Macfie
>
> 2 Attempting to force a single culture on everybody will turn this country into another
> Yugoslavia.
>
Ex-Yugoslavia was no more culturally diverse than the UK excluding
recent immigrants. And the only major conflict not involving recent
immigrants is in one small area of the UK (Northern Ireland --- and
please, no politically-motivated assertions that Ulster Protestants
are "immigrants").
The conflict in Yugoslavia was caused by self-serving power-mad
nutters whipping up hatred for their own ends, helped by a tendency in
that region for people to support such strongmen. Here, it's unlikely
to happen because, basically, we've grown up.
Sunil
On 29 May 2001, BOEDICIA wrote:
> >Subject: Re: Librul Islamic Britain
> >From: "Steve Glynn" <steve...@lineone.net>
> >Date: Mon, May 28, 2001 09:53 EDT
> >Message-id: <CJsQ6.7378$lm5.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
>
> >Are you also of the opinion that "there is nothing wrong with Catholic or
> >Protestant culture.
>
> They are religions. Asians are not white,
> therefore not the same race as the English.
Depends on which part of Asia. Chinese/Japanese/SE Asians are
Mongoloid, South Asians/Iranians are Caucasoid. 'Aryan' comes from the
Sanskrit, of course! Remember the Caucasus Mountains are 'East of
Suez', Marsha!
Maria
>
>
>On 29 May 2001, BOEDICIA wrote:
>
>> >>Subject: Re: Librul Islamic Britain
>> >From: JHS <john.s...@ntlworld.com>
>> >Date: Mon, May 28, 2001 04:56 EDT
>> >Message-id: <3B1212D1...@ntlworld.com>
>>
>> >If muslims dislike christianity why do they come to a christian country.
>>
>> A question I've asked 1000 times in this NG. Perhaps they should be informed
>> before they make the long trek that The Head of State is also the Head of
>> The Church of England and that Christianity is part and parcel of British
>> culture.
>
>And yet it was imported from the Middle East (via Rome) - hardly
>indigenous to the Isles!
Odd innit; at Christmas (which is set at pagan mid-winter) people have
Christmas trees (which is pagan I believe) and at easter, they worship
the egg (also pagan). Fundamentalist Christians refuse to use these
symbols as they know that they are pagan (and you shouldn't worship
false idols...).
Nice to see that the old things are incorporated into seasonal
celebrations, but many Christians would get upset if you accused them
of paganism...
As for Christ, I think they reckon he was born sometime in September.
Sunil
Sunil
On Tue, 29 May 2001, abelard wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2001 09:42:58 GMT, pl...@plonk.com (Maria) typed:
>
> >Forced marriage was commonplace among Britons not so long ago; they'll
> >grow out of it.
>
> almost certainly...you calm thoughtfulness is restful
> among so much hysteria....
even in the subcontinent, there are rumblings.....
this from an indian magazine.....found it in soc.culture.indian......
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 25 May 2001 07:26:15 -0700
From: Alex <alex...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian
Subject: Legal Indian Rape (Brides Getting Raped on the First Night)
Article from Femina [Indian Women's magazine]
LEGAL INDIAN RAPE
The new bride can be an unsuspecting victim of a legal
rape, says
Sudhir Vaishnav
WHAT is legitimised by law or practice, however
unjust it may be, will generally be accepted by
society as proper. It is the unfortunate truth.
The custom of arranged Indian marriage is one such
legitimised institution. A very large percentage
of marriages in India are arranged. And, in a
majority of the cases, the bride has little or no
say. She and the bridegroom are virtual strangers
to each other.
Unlike in a few fortunate alliances where
potential spouses meet head on, millions of urban
families still believe in shrouding the marriage
negotiations in secrecy. The bridegroom probably
has some inkling of the goings on, he might have
seen the bride's photograph, but she may not even
know that her photograph is being used as a sales
leaflet! Urban families may be literate, but they
certainly can't be called educated and sensible.
And, in many rural communities the bridegroom does
not even attend his own wedding. Unbelievable as
it may sound, the marriage party carries a sword
as symbolic of the absent man of the moment!
In all such marriages, on the nuptial night, the
bride has no choice but to offer herself
physically and mentally to a total stranger. And,
in that scenario of inevitable sexual giving of
herself to stranger, the sex act is nothing but a
rape. Just because society, in its most absurd
logic, has approved of the bringing of two
strangers together, or that the woman doesn't hit
out and fight (probably out of social fear), or
even that she, subsequently, lives with him, does
not make it any less a crime.
The first sexual encounter is a rape. What happens
to the victim and the rapist thereafter has no
bearing whatsoever.
The argument, if there is one, that the bride is
'willing' and, therefore, is consenting, emanates
from misconceptions.
A daughter has full faith in her parents and is
socially conditioned to believe that whatever they
do is for her good. Young brides realise that
they've been victimised only when they are made
conscious of the crime. Until then, this
convenient misconception will persist because it
suits all the interested parties.
In fact, it's only social fear, pressure and
economic constraint that force many a woman to
continue living with the stranger that society
says is her husband. In all the cases of dowry
deaths, without exception, the women have alerted
their parents or friends to their misery, at least
once, if not more often. Some go back to their
parents, only to be mercilessly cajoled into going
back to the hell of the matrimonial home.
This is just the tip of the iceberg so to say, of
the terribly lopsided Indian marriage system.
On the other hand, there ARE marriages that have
turned out to be really happy. But there is also a
vast segment of brides, who would have felt raped
but have been subjugated in to silence by the
society. Some of them, in addition, are suffering
the humiliation of dowry demands. What a ghastly
scenario this depicts! Do our young women and the
country have to suffer thus?
A couple of million Indian men of all ages already
married to 'strangers' may squirm at reading this.
They, fortunately, have the shroud of social
approval
for their deeds, a shroud which has also helped
convert those victimised brides into wives. The
Indian woman's acceptance of the inevitable has,
unfortunately, sanctified this abhorrent practice
and, subsequently, legitimised it. So, there is
very little scope for any resistance without
generating a counter offensive.
Equally deplorable is the case of child marriage.
The country has taken some very appropriate steps
to stop child marriage, but loopholes abound. A
young adolescent who is no more a child by
chronology, does not have the protection of the
law.
Can nothing be done to save her from this kind of
a 'blindfold' wedding? Every Indian caste and
community has an elite, educated, forward
thinking, sensitive, expressive class of people.
It is up to them to institute reforms in their
marriage systems so as to enable a 'bride' to be
fully involved in deciding whether she wants to
marry a particular man. Social organisations
working against the absurdities and 'softness' in
rape laws also need look into rape.
** End of text from cdp:headlines **
***************************************************************************
This material came from PeaceNet, a non-profit progressive networking
service. For more information, send a message to
peacen...@igc.apc.org
***************************************************************************
regards,
sunil
--
forty-two
>
>
>On 29 May 2001, BOEDICIA wrote:
>
>> >>Subject: Re: Librul Islamic Britain
>> >From: JHS <john.s...@ntlworld.com>
>> >Date: Mon, May 28, 2001 04:56 EDT
>> >Message-id: <3B1212D1...@ntlworld.com>
>>
>> >If muslims dislike christianity why do they come to a christian country.
>>
>> A question I've asked 1000 times in this NG. Perhaps they should be informed
>> before they make the long trek that The Head of State is also the Head of
>> The Church of England and that Christianity is part and parcel of British
>> culture.
>
>And yet it was imported from the Middle East (via Rome) - hardly
>indigenous to the Isles!
>
yeah, it's great pity that the Celts didn't stay in occupation of Rome -
we might have evaded thousands of years of religious pollution
of human evolutionary processes
>
hand
dormouse
<grin>
--
dormouse
abelard
>
>abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>news:1cp5htglbdvfjv47a...@4ax.com...
>>
>> very few people think....most live in a cotton wool
>> world of theory....
>
>...and there are some who ignore the motive when is gets in the way.
true of course...but each ranter has individual motives....
>> most people are complacent....they believe the myths...
>> until they get first hand experience...
>
>People create the myths and then act on them.
indeed...
good to see you...and an umlaut for added value!
forty-two
>On Tue, 29 May 2001 10:49:51 +0100, "toadpďpe"
><toadpďp...@btinternet.com> typed:
>
>>
>>abelard <abe...@abelard.org> wrote in message
>>news:1cp5htglbdvfjv47a...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> very few people think....most live in a cotton wool
>>> world of theory....
>>
>>...and there are some who ignore the motive when is gets in the way.
>
>true of course...but each ranter has individual motives....
>
>>> most people are complacent....they believe the myths...
>>> until they get first hand experience...
>>
>>People create the myths and then act on them.
>
>indeed...
>
until invited to publicly support the myths,
when they do a runner and pretend
that the challenge doesn't exist
>
hand
Steve Glynn
> On Mon, 28 May 2001 12:21:40 +0100, "Steve Glynn"
> <steve...@lineone.net> typed:
>
> > I respect other people's
> >religious beliefs or lack of them, and I expect them to respect mine.
>
> please define 'respect'?
I mean I respect other people's right to hold them, and accept that they're
important to them, even though they may seem off the wall to me. I also
accept that they probably know more about what they think and beleive than
do I -- which is one of the points I was trying to make about the Islamic
fundamentalist girl with whom I used to work. Quite simply, her views were
not at all ones I'd prevously have associated with Islamic fundamentalism,
but then, of course, all I knew about it previously was what I'd gleaned
from press reports of events in Iran and so forth.
I also don't particularly like getting into arguments about religious
beliefs because they don't seem susceptible to argument unless both parties
are working from the same basic premises. In some ways it's a bit like
getting into an argument with a third party about whether or not my wife
love each other. We know we do, but we'd be hard put to prove it to a
third party in the sense that we can prove we're British citizens by
producing our passports.
In any case, I'm much more interested in what people do than in what they
think. I've nothing against Jehovah's Witnesses, except when they wake me
up first thing on a Saturday morning.
>
> > It
> >certainly seems that, as Christina Odone points out, a lot of people
aren't
> >prepared to extend that courtesy towards Muslims.
>
> nor to the inquisition....
>
> are you not confusing individuals with the power structures
> that various belief systems tend to engender....
> which states tend to show most tolerance for diversity....?
> which least?
> which belief systems show tolerance when they have
> serious power?
>
I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here. I certainly hope
I'm not confusing individuals with power structures (except, of course, that
power structures are composed of individuals who do things to other
individuals). Certainly in the last century, off the top of my head, the
least tolerant states must include Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the
People's Republic of China, assorted military dictatorships all over the
place, the former Warsaw Pact countries, especially the former GDR and the
former Czechoslovakia, Saddam's Iraq, Iran (under both the Shah and the
Ayatollahs) and, in the last few years, Afghanistan. Doubtless there are
more.
Probably among the most tolerant places, come to think about it, (though
they've all been guilty of some spectacular acts of intolerance) are
European constitutional monarchies and members of the Old Commonwealth. I
don't really want to comment on the USA, since it's such a big place and
parts of it have, over the last 100 years, been responsible for some pretty
spectacular acts of religious, racial, and political intolerance.
Steve
Marc Living
<tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote:
>Conor Turton wrote:
>> In article <3b1213ed...@news.ntlworld.com>, pl...@plonk.com says...
>> > Is this a Christian country?
>> The official religion of this country is Church of England.
>If you don't happen to be Church of England then where does that place you
>?
Unable (ironically) to get into many muslim countries.
(Unless you are of another Christian denomination.)
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK." to reply)
"The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall would be to make
Parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the next to overturn or
diminish trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin (http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk)
Marc Living
>>And yet it was imported from the Middle East (via Rome) - hardly
>>indigenous to the Isles!
>Odd innit; at Christmas (which is set at pagan mid-winter) people have
>Christmas trees (which is pagan I believe) and at easter, they worship
>the egg (also pagan).
Yet the egg carries the same symbolism as Easter (being a symbol of
life), so there is no reason to refuse to use it merely because it has
been so used before.
By that argument, fundies ought also to refuse to use the cross.
>Fundamentalist Christians refuse to use these
>symbols as they know that they are pagan (and you shouldn't worship
>false idols...).
An idol wouldn't be an egg. A statue of the Madonna would be more like
an idol: although I don't know whether they make them "graven".
(I'm not sure how "graven images" are made. Aiui there is some sort of
incantation which turns them from an "ordinary" image into a "graven
image" (or idol).)
Jeremy Barker
writes
>I have said this before, (but I don't think anyone believes me...)
>that I *do* have a passion, a passion for justice and fairness. I have
>studied law and I have also studied science, two of my favourite
>subjects. I am always disappointed in how quick people are to judge
>other people *and quickly come to conclusions* on the flimsiest of
>evidence: I often wonder how they would feel if they were fitted up
>for something they had not done, or if they suddenly found themselves
>part of a group of people who are judged irrationally, or were judged
>simply for being part of a group which is suddenly considered
>undesirable in some way, and even why they berate the behaviour of
>other sectors of society when it is no different to the behaviour of
>their own.
>
>So rather than jump on the bearest bandwagon (which wrt this
>particular subject, seems to be based on a whole load of stereotypes,
>preconceptions or plain prejudice) I try to step back and be
>objective. The bit of me that is interested in science *and* law
>demands rigorous proof that an assertion is actually true, which is
>probably why I come across as being bloody-minded at times, and why I
>find it difficult to accept that people can decide on an issue from
>media reports that at other times they claim to be biased or
>
>Wrt racism in particular, I am interested in it from a psychology
>point of view, because I am interested in human behaviour. So I enjoy
>the debate because it sheds light on other peoples perspective.
>I am interested to know how and why they come to their conclusions,
>particularly since colour/ethnicity has never been an issue that I am
>willing to condemn people on.
>
I see two main factors at work.
Firstly, there is a deep prejudice against black (and by
extension other dark skinned) people embedded in our culture. It goes
back two or three centuries at least, and is related to slavery and
religion in ways I do not properly understand. I have felt this
prejudice myself from time to time. The problem arises when the feeling
pushes aside reason and manifests itself in relatively irrational
thinking. It is easy to demonise groups when they are seen at a
distance. Hence stereotypes etc. I am sure Abelard could elaborate on
the psychology aspect of it.
On the good side I have heard the opinion that this underlying feeling
is beginning to wane. Certainly my grandchildren play happily with other
kids of any colour.
Secondly, problems perhaps arise through the changing
relationship between races. I lived briefly in a country where the few
white people were in charge, and the blacks were subordinate. (White
people, incidentally, were always know as "Europeans"). The relationship
between black and white seemed to work all right, even though when you
thought about it, it was an unjust situation. And it was easy to think
of the blacks as "lying little thieves" (and some of them were :-) ).
The point is that this type of relationship persisted when such black
people settled in Britain. Then gradually their attitudes changed so
that they naturally now think of themselves as equals, and stand up for
their rights. On the other hand some white people may think of them as
"acting above their station". Thus we have a situation which can easily
lead to antagonism between the groups.
You do a useful job in looking at racial incidents in
detail. The above are just my thoughts on possible underlying reasons.
How we progress from here and promote racial tolerance is another
matter.
Jeremy Barker
Innumerable forms of evaluation haunt our simplest decisions
Iris Murdoch
SOF
"Alex Macfie" <al...@flagboy.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:16158b65.01052...@posting.google.com...
You Wish!
SOF
Barton Whoops
wrote:
>The Technical Manager <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3B137056...@niobiumfive.co.uk>...
>>
>> 2 Attempting to force a single culture on everybody will turn this country into another
>> Yugoslavia.
>>
>
>Ex-Yugoslavia was no more culturally diverse than the UK excluding
>recent immigrants.
I fear Yugoslavia is only too typical of what happens when
multicultural societies go bad.
>The conflict in Yugoslavia was caused by self-serving power-mad
>nutters whipping up hatred for their own ends, helped by a tendency in
>that region for people to support such strongmen.
A bit like the CRE? Or any of the local council Race Relations Depts
who exaggerate racial tensions 'for their own ends' See Birmingham;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/et?ac=002652578056074&rtmo=wess0QQb&atmo=tttttttd&pg=/et/01/1/21/nbirm21.html
"A LABOUR council is to pay out almost Ł300,000 after sacking a race
adviser who refused to fabricate figures to suggest that racial
harassment had soared by 150 per cent."
> Here, it's unlikely
>to happen because, basically, we've grown up.
Human beings anywhere have not 'grown up' for thousands of years [if
ever], their basest and vilest instincts are there, just under the
surface, and always will be. Yugoslavia had decades of forced 'growing
up' under authoritarian rule yet turned to savagery very quickly. What
happened in Yugoslavia can happen absolutely anywhere.
Stan Spade
economy...what do you expect?
and when the work finishes (recession, global competition, etc), what do you
do with them and their offspring?
"The Technical Manager" <tec...@niobiumfive.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3B123D27...@niobiumfive.co.uk...