133 Comments

srlucado:

“…that doesn’t mean it can’t fight, and fight successfully, against multiculturalism and the ruinous cultural relativism it has insinuated into the sinews of British society.”

Agreed, but first they have to admit that fighting is even worth doing. Remember, these are the people who won’t even let homeowners defend themselves against robbers; how likely are they to mobilize their entire nation to defend itself against a lethal infection?

To take an out-in-left-field example, even the Harry Potter books are more about bureaucratic fumbling than action, even in the face of a mortal threat.

Scott

Jul 30, 2008 - 1:43 pm Lee:

Excellent commentary. On the question of Cantuar’s advocacy of Sharia Law, I’ve read elsewhere that he’s been heavily influenced by the constitutional theories of Philip Bobbitt (”The Shield of Achilles”) regarding future models of citizen engagement under the emerging “market-state” (which Bobbitt argues will replace the established constitutional forms of the nation-state). I wonder if the same can be said of the Lord Chief Justice.

Jul 30, 2008 - 2:50 pm Bill:

“Britain’s confidence in democracy and Christian civilization have been severely weakened,” Dale Hurd concludes.

Isn’t the weakening of confidence in Christian civilization more cause than effect?

Jul 30, 2008 - 8:25 pm Mary Jackson:

The film clip linked is marred by major inaccuracies, a smug tone and ill-concealed Schadenfreude.

The inaccuracies first, some of which could have been avoided by using Wikipedia:

1. On Lord Phillips and Sharia law, please see my article here, which shows what he actually did say. Basically, Lord Phillips defined the limits of Sharia law which are the same as any other private form of arbitration, namely that it is strictly subordinate to English law. Thus there is no question of legalising honour killings or forced marriage. Those things are happening in Britain – and America, of course – but it doesn’t mean they are legal, or likely to become so.

2. I cannot comment on the details of Paul Ray’s case. However, I find it difficult to believe that it is purely on the content of his blog that he has been arrested. If that were the case, then many writers for Standpoint, the Spectator, and even the Times would be arrested.

3. Some of those preaching violence outside the Danish Embassy were indeed arrested and charged with incitement to murder and later sent to between four and six years imprisonment. So they didn’t “get away with it” as is implied.

4. Regarding Channel 4’s Undercover Mosque, which exposed violent preaching in Britain’s Mosques, nobody was “charged” (You can’t charge a news programme anyway.) An investigation was carried out by West Midlands police, and a complaint made to the regulator, Offcom. There was insufficient evidence and no charges were brought. The complaint was rejected. The programme makers sued for libel – Britain’s evil libel laws in action. West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service apologised and paid them £100,000.

5. On “unIslamic activity” – this is absurd, perhaps more so even than the American government forbidding the use of the word “jihad”. But nobody has taken any notice of it as far as I can see, and it certainly doesn’t have the force of law.

Inaccuracies aside, the tone of the film clip, as I said, is smug and gloating. Such smugness is unwarranted in those who fail to do even the most basic research. It is disappointing that Roger Kimball, whose work I generally admire, has taken the assertions made completely at face value.

Jul 31, 2008 - 2:41 am James:

Can America survive multiculturalism? The same disease is at work here.

Jul 31, 2008 - 6:07 am RE:

Despite Mary Jackson’s protestations, I do not feel optimistic for Britain’s future.

In reading the British press, there’s a steady steady stream of stories regarding Britain politically correct moral inversion.

I do not see ’smug and gloating’. I see an astonished disgust and deep sorrow at what postmodernism and multiculturalism has done to a once proud, once great nation.

Let it stand as a warning. Leftism is ultimately destructive.

Jul 31, 2008 - 6:16 am Wildmonk:

I have been disturbed by the tone of news coming out of England over the past few years and especially so with respect to the many cases in which law-abiding citizens have been charged with “hate” crimes and such for simply asserting a basic right to live unmolested. The approach to Islam and multiculturalism seems of a piece with this sense of Britain falling apart.

Nonetheless, I have to thank Mary Jackson for adding some balance here. While it works at cross-purposes to Roger’s article, it is useful information and, if you think about it, actually good news to all of us who appreciate England’s history and culture.

Jul 31, 2008 - 6:21 am Peg C.:

Can Britain survive multiculturism? No, because they have lost the will to and the faith in themselves and their civilization required to survive it.

As a lifelong Anglophile, I used to find this terrifying and very sad. No longer; the Brits are bringing this on themselves.

Jul 31, 2008 - 6:28 am Crass Børsting:

Mary Jackson reminds us that, whichever side you’re on, it’s a good thing to stick to the facts. And to admit to errors, once they are pointed out.

Jul 31, 2008 - 6:38 am misanthropicus:

Rowan, Grand Muphti of Canterburystan is right, and Britain has only to gain from fragmentation, acculturation and from a firm implementation of unconditional love policy.

Jul 31, 2008 - 6:39 am Zasdad:

“The inaccuracies first, some of which could have been avoided by using Wikipedia.”

This single sentence is the funniest I’ve read all month!

Jul 31, 2008 - 6:45 am Mary Jackson:

I do not feel optimistic for Britain’s future.

Nor do I, but I think that facts are important if the problems are to be tackled. There are so many inaccuracies in that video clip that it is worthless.

Jul 31, 2008 - 6:49 am john mcdonald:

The British are all too quick to congratulate themselves for their “tolerance” etc - they were always smug in their arrogant display of it but it was a lie - it was really a cover for moral and physical cowardice - what we are seeing now - the implosion of Great Britain is the result of cowardice - nothing more - I know I am British but left in disgust a few years ago - I could write down the future for Britain for the next fifty years but it would be too depressing.

Jul 31, 2008 - 7:13 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Jackson
RE: Say WHAT!!!!

“The inaccuracies first, some of which could have been avoided by using Wikipedia:” — Mary Jackson

Wikipedia is supposed to be some kind of ‘expert’? Where you ASLEEP last week or what?

Furthermore, if YOU think Wikipedia is an expert source, I have reduced your reliability rating, significantly.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Accuracy of information sources is essential to understanding what is going on. Bad sources make for bad understanding.]

Jul 31, 2008 - 7:25 am Blacque Jacques Shellacque:

First things first - in the UK a person’s right to defend themselves needs to be acknowledged. Until that has been established and upheld, nothing will matter.

Upon receipt of a death threat, what is one expected to do, run? If turning the tide is the ultimate goal, then standing one’s ground and fighting back will be the way to do it.

Jul 31, 2008 - 7:56 am beloml:

What Mark Steyn prophesied in his brilliant book “America Alone” is coming to pass. The demographic tidal wave coupled with a lack of will is sending Britain to its grave. Tragic.

Jul 31, 2008 - 8:20 am Mary Jackson:

As some people seem to have missed the point of my Wikipedia comment, I’ll spell it out.

“Some of the inaccuracies could be very easily verified, even by someone too lazy to look beyond Wikipedia.”

That simple enough?

One possible source for the facts about Lord Phillips’ speech, inaccuracies about which dominate both the video clip and Roger Kimball’s post, would be the speech itself. The Times law-reporter, linked in my article on the subject would be a good starting point too.

All the other details - about Undercover Mosque, etc, have been reported in our quality press, for those who bother to look.

For those who want quick sound bites, just watch the video.

Jul 31, 2008 - 8:21 am BackwardsBoy:

I read an essay by an ancient thinker (Aristotle, I think, perhaps someone could help me remember) that the act of residing in a certain place was an unwritten agreement to abide by the rules and laws already in place. If those rules and laws were not to your liking, there was always somewhere else to live. This sound logic has been upended by those who have no knowledge of their own history and no moral gage with which to measure the rightness of the rule of their own laws. This is, of course, the ultimate goal of pseudo-intellectuals who want us to think that all cultures are equal. Multiculturalism is doomed to fail because there will always be some of us who see through this fallacy. We have a responsibility to speak up and defend our values against the simple-minded.

Jul 31, 2008 - 8:34 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Jackson
RE: [OT] STILL…Not Quite Getting It

““Some of the inaccuracies could be very easily verified, even by someone too lazy to look beyond Wikipedia.”

That simple enough?” — Mary Jackson

The point I’m making is that you cannot TRUST information you get from Wikipedia. ESPECIALLY on anything controversial.

But you’re welcome to trust it all you want.

In the meantime, I know someone who would like to sell you the Golden Gate Bridge. If they advertise it on Wikipedia, would you buy it?

’nuff said.

RE: What Lord Chief Justice, Lord Philips Said

He [Lord Phillips] declared: ‘It is possible in this country for those who are entering into a contractual agreement to agree that the agreement shall be governed by a law other than English law.’ [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html]

The inference being Sharia.

That simple enough?

RE: What Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips Did…

…the next day after the firestorm broke was back-peddle furiously.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Good judgement is based on experience. Experience is based on bad judgement.]

P.S. Let us hope the good Lord Phillips has learned his lesson well. It’s obvious that others here may not have.

Jul 31, 2008 - 8:56 am Chuck Pelto:

P.P.S. As for being ’smug’, cuidado. I seem to recall someone around here behaving the same way last March. Something involving Dennis Prager and a ‘woodshed’.

Jul 31, 2008 - 8:57 am Morton Doodslag:

Mary Jackson may have a point, but she goes way too far in her glib dismissal of the thrust of the video. I think I would like Mary Jackson if I met her. I admire her pluck, and know she’s worried about the Jihad which is gradually eroding and destroying her nation. But perhaps the case of our combative (and arrogant) Mary Jackson provides an insight into why British society is going so seriously off the rails. In her post we see an overweening obsession with process and accuracy. So much so that she concludes the putative inaccuracies in the video render it “worthless”. I surmise that she exhibits an irrational dismissiveness which perhaps is motivated by a hatred of evangelical American Christianity? I may be wrong. But I digress.

She herself commits several factual blunders, see for example #5 where she asserts that the “American government” forbids the term “Jihad” — this is untrue — this blinkered idiotic policy stems from several departments (albeit important ones) within one branch of our government, the Executive Branch. Does this trifling error on Mary’s part render her entire post “worthless”? Of course not. But she is prepared to dismiss out of hand a cohesive narrative about Britain’s plight because of a few possible minor infractions. If she is emblematic of that all too common British type which thinks that all religions including Christianity have caused her nation’s woes, or who are so obsessed with the details of process that they cannot see the forest for the trees, then I see little hope for Britain.

So while one major portion of British society is still engaged in expanding that socialist post modern multicultural nightmare which has inspired and inflamed Islamic Jihad, another portion is fiddling away on process, trifling details, and focusing blame on innocent factions and allies, nothing is done to crush the Muslim fascists or their vile socialist abettors.

Jul 31, 2008 - 9:00 am Jay Edwards Kactuz:

Multiculturalism is a one-way street. We (the West) must respect Muslims, but they respect nothing. They use are laws and goodness against us. Worse yet, they have learned that violence gets them special privileges and more calls for ‘understanding’ (appeasement) from our leaders, media and academia.

The Archbishop of Canterbury and Lord Phillips make the arguement that sharia will only be used among Muslims and it is needed because Muslims don’t feel “comfortable” with British law. They forgot to enlighten us as to what will happen when a Muslim and non-Muslim are involved in litigation and the Muslims still feels “uncomfortable.” I am sure they would not want the poor Muslim to feel “uncomfortable” — heaven forbid, anything but that.

Jihad is a good example of the lies Muslims tell. They pretend that it means inner struggle but in the Quran this “struggle” requires you to leave home and possibly get killed. The word jihad in the ahadith (Islamic traditions) is only used in one sense: holy war to kill and subdue non-Muslims. As pointed out, Muslims themselves always use it to mean war against non-Muslims (except when they are explaining it to foolish infidels). The hadith also tell us that Mohammad attacked, raided, plundered, enslaved, tortured, raped and even beat his own wife, yet Muslims, all Muslims, moderate and radicals, say “Praise be unto him” after this man’s name and consider him a great moral example. Figure out, if you can, what this means.

Things will get worse. Blood will flow. It is only a matter of time. A recent poll says that 1/3 of Muslims in the UK think it is OK to kill for Islam. I blame Muslims AND our leaders for the stupidity, blindness and self-serving policies — and for the evils to come. The future will not be nice.

Kactuz
I did take the time to study Islam, what it teaches and what Muslims tell us. The news is not good.
http://www.kactuzkid.com/lies.html
PS: Orwell was right!

Jul 31, 2008 - 9:08 am Sarge:

“Quality press” is nearly as funny as the concept of “wikipedian accuracy,” IMHO.

Jul 31, 2008 - 9:10 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: Roger, et al.
RE: Can They Survive?

I’m reminded of that 1930s swashbuckler Captain Blood, in which the ‘ruling elite’ sentence a doctor to slavery. Later, the people of England rise up and overthrew the government of James II and installed William of Orange [and Mary]. Lord Willowby, who brings the news to Jamaica say….

“The people of England will only stand for so much and then the rise up on the hind legs and fight back.”

Let us hope that bit of Hollywoodism actually rings true.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[History doesn’t repeat itself. It has a speech impediment….it stutters.]

Jul 31, 2008 - 9:12 am Mary Jackson:

Morton Doodslag:

she asserts that the “American government” forbids the term “Jihad” — this is untrue — this blinkered idiotic policy stems from several departments (albeit important ones) within one branch of our government, the Executive Branch

Fine. I admit it. But this is exactly the sort of distortion of which I complain. When it is “done to you” you don’t like it. Yet American blogs, even quality ones like Roger Kimballs, commit such distortions every day.

The ones I listed are not “minor errors”, they are misleading, if not outright lies.

I’ve admitted my error, but I doubt anyone here will admit theirs.

Jul 31, 2008 - 9:36 am tom:

People like Mary Jackson are intent on pouring oil on a troubled sea (but it is actually greasing the skids). OK Mary, we get you. Go to sleep Britain. Those buses and trains were not blown up. 911 was not an Islamic attack. The Spanish train bombing was fictitious. Islam is peaceful. The Bali bombings didn’t take place. Those thousand Churches in Indonesia, bombed by Islam, are not important. Forget the Buddhists killed in Thailand. Forget Darfur. Forget those embassy bombings. Forget “Behead those who insult Islam”. Mary thinks its all some minor flap which can be cured by the proper bureaucratic functionaries, saying nice things. Go to sleep Britain. Forget Islamic violence and threats.

Jul 31, 2008 - 9:48 am ChrisGreen:

If this soft attitude toward radical Islamic sensativities is truely being ignored by the British elite, and is truely a danger to Britian, perhaps it will be the Indians in Britian who rally to save their country:)

Jul 31, 2008 - 9:51 am BT:

The British people must pay a heavy price for their foolish holiday from reality. This is what happens when you vote knaves into power.

The western world needs a real good kick in the arse and Britian succoming to these anti-liberty forces just might be the thing to wake the other nations.

Jul 31, 2008 - 9:56 am Donald Graustein:

Unquestionably, Britain will survive. The question is, What kind of Britain? Probably a dhimminished one.

Jul 31, 2008 - 10:03 am PersonFromPorlock:

I take it from context that Mary Jackson’s cite of Wikipedia is only as a portal to the source documents which she based her comments on.

She appears to have raised some real questions about the truth of the information Roger Kimball presented. I believe he owes her (and all of us) a reply.

Jul 31, 2008 - 10:13 am Jack H:

Remember 1492? Ferdinand and isabella threw the Muslims out of Spain.

Now we know why.

Jul 31, 2008 - 10:16 am Iftikhar Ahmad:

Muslim Youths

Muslim youths are angry, frustrated and extremist because they have been mis-educated and de-educated by the British schooling. Muslim children are confused because they are being educated in a wrong place at a wrong time in state schools with non-Muslim monolingual teachers. They face lots of problems of growing up in two distinctive cultural traditions and value systems, which may come into conflict over issues such as the role of women in the society, and adherence to religious and cultural traditions. The conflicting demands made by home and schools on behaviour, loyalties and obligations can be a source of psychological conflict and tension in Muslim youngsters. There are also the issues of racial prejudice and discrimination to deal with, in education and employment. They have been victim of racism and bullying in all walks of life. According to DCSF, 56% of Pakistanis and 54% of Bangladeshi children has been victims of bullies. The first wave of Muslim migrants were happy to send their children to state schools, thinking their children would get a much better education. Than little by little, the overt and covert discrimination in the system turned them off. There are fifteen areas where Muslim parents find themselves offended by state schools.

The right to education in one’s own comfort zone is a fundamental and inalienable human right that should be available to all people irrespective of their ethnicity or religious background. Schools do not belong to state, they belong to parents. It is the parents’ choice to have faith schools for their children. Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods. There is no place for a non-Muslim teacher or a child in a Muslim school. There are hundreds of state schools where Muslim children are in majority. In my opinion, all such schools may be designated as Muslim community schools. An ICM Poll of British Muslims showed that nearly half wanted their children to attend Muslim schools. There are only 143 Muslim schools. A state funded Muslim school in Birmingham has 220 pupils and more than 1000 applicants chasing just 60.

Majority of anti-Muslim stories are not about terrorism but about Muslim
culture–the hijab, Muslim schools, family life and religiosity. Muslims in the west ought to be recognised as a western community, not as an alien culture.
Iftikhar Ahmad
http://www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

Jul 31, 2008 - 10:19 am Philip:

You Brits are already under the muslim heel. And you don’t seem to care either. Have fun with your dhimmitude. You’ve earned it with your complacency.

Jul 31, 2008 - 10:26 am Kal-El:

The last time someone asked how bad things had to get before the elite rulers started listening to the people, they got their answer when Hitler’s Army invaded and strolled through the Arc du Triumph.

Jul 31, 2008 - 10:38 am plutosdad:

“there is no question of legalising honour killings or forced marriage”

of course not, that is a red herring.
What IS in question though, is if a young woman claims to be forced, claims her life is in danger, will anyone listen or do anything. Will resources be spent to go after her father? Or to put her in protective custody.

Not legalizing it is not the same as letting it happen right under our noses. Because it already IS happening right under our noses! And over and over, it’s not until the woman is dead before anyone pays attention. That used to happen a lot with white western women, we’ve decided to work harder to protect them. But not these women.

Jul 31, 2008 - 10:58 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Jackson
RE: The Complaints

By the numbers….

RE: Lord Phillip’s Speech

1. On Lord Phillips and Sharia law, please see my article here, which shows what he actually did say. Basically, Lord Phillips defined the limits of Sharia law which are the same as any other private form of arbitration, namely that it is strictly subordinate to English law. Thus there is no question of legalising honour killings or forced marriage. Those things are happening in Britain – and America, of course – but it doesn’t mean they are legal, or likely to become so.– Mary Jackson

First off, thanks for the PDF text of the speech. It is rife with either disingenuous or at least ignorant comments, in my opinion.

I could make a tome out of the parts that are missing and I’m reminded of one of my favorite axioms of political speech….

What they are telling you may be important. What they are NOT telling you can be vital.

In my considered opinion, Lord Phillips would have been better traveling in Saudi Arabian and Iran to discuss with other learned colleagues the legal aspects of Sharia law.

Furthermore, the good Lord makes mention of how Sharia law could be used in civil or family matters, but he does not seem to be much on specifics.

RE: The Paul Ray Case

2. I cannot comment on the details of Paul Ray’s case. However, I find it difficult to believe that it is purely on the content of his blog that he has been arrested. If that were the case, then many writers for Standpoint, the Spectator, and even the Times would be arrested.– Mary Jackson

I do believe it would be easier to arrest a blogger than to arrest The Times. Don’t you think?

Besides. I don’t recall seeing much mention in any English newspaper about Muslim gang members being ‘savages’. In stead, I see a great absence of ANYTHING about Muslims behaving badly in the English old media. Not to forget the newer media, i.e., the BBC.

And the English have a well-known pattern of practices about going after the little guy while letting the criminals go free. Or have you forgotten that they arrest homeowners for defending themselves and their property against invaders?

RE: Preaching of Violence Unpunished

3. Some of those preaching violence outside the Danish Embassy were indeed arrested and charged with incitement to murder and later sent to between four and six years imprisonment. So they didn’t “get away with it” as is implied.– Mary Jackson

How many are ‘some’? What happened to the rest of them? I saw pictures of quiet a crowd with signs saying,”Kill those who insult Islam.”

RE: Undercover Mosque

4. Regarding Channel 4’s Undercover Mosque, which exposed violent preaching in Britain’s Mosques, nobody was “charged” (You can’t charge a news programme anyway.) An investigation was carried out by West Midlands police, and a complaint made to the regulator, Offcom. There was insufficient evidence and no charges were brought. The complaint was rejected. The programme makers sued for libel – Britain’s evil libel laws in action. West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service apologised and paid them £100,000.– Mary Jackson

So. If I get this right,

[1] An investigative reporter discovered people in a mosque inciting violence and practicing ‘hate speech’.
[2] A show reporting this was produced and broadcast.
[3] The police ‘investigated’.
[4] The police found nothing.
[5] The police complained to some government officials about the program producers.
[6] The government officials investigated the police complaint against the program producers.
[7] The government officials found nothing wrong with the show.
[8] The program producers sued government and the West Midlands Police for libel.
[9] The government paid the program producers 100K English pounds to buy them off.

I’m not surprised the police wouldn’t find anything wrong in a mosque. After all, (1) the mosque operators would have had time to cover their tracks and (2) reports I’ve seen about police enforcement of laws indicate that Muslims can do pretty much what they want.

I recall a report where one youth was arrested for criticizing Scientology on the streets. Scientology has a knack for causing trouble. Albeit not as violent as “UnIslamic Activists”. Furthermore, if you can get away with criticizing Scientology in the public venue, you should be able to get away with criticizing “UnIslamic Activists” too. So they could have people doing that in the streets. Better nip that one in the proverbial bud.

RE: UnIslamic Activity

5. On “unIslamic activity” – this is absurd, perhaps more so even than the American government forbidding the use of the word “jihad”. But nobody has taken any notice of it as far as I can see, and it certainly doesn’t have the force of law. — Mary Jackson

Someone’s taken notice. Roger. I noticed it myself. But I see it as nothing more than another indicator of the serious problems the English have with this mess.

Why are you pooh-poohing it?

For that matter, why are you pooh-poohing this whole thing? As if there’s nothing wrong with what’s going on in England.

Is this more of your anti-male predilections? You go after Roger. You go after the guy in the video. You go after Dennis. I think seeing a pattern of conduct here.

In the meantime, England goes noisily to hell in a hand-basket and you apparently don’t care.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[There are not enough jails, not enough police, not enough courts to enforce a law not supported by the people. — Hubert H. Humphrey]

Jul 31, 2008 - 11:39 am Colin Davies:

Re. Mary Jackson’s incredibly naive comment on Paul Ray’s case - “I find it difficult to believe that it is purely on the content of his blog that he has been arrested”.

You are talking about a country where the legal system is so obsessed with political correctness, that a British judge has proclaimed that accusations of anti politically correct racial comments are now legal grounds to repeatedly stab the person that issued those words.

This is by virtue of NOT issuing a jail sentence to a knife attacker. I refer to the case of a man in Newcastle who racially abused Amar Burton. Burton left the scene to get a knife, returned and repeatedly stabbed and slashed the person who had racially abused him.

It seems that the judge himself is so brainwashed with the concept of political correctness that he blindly accepts that this an equivalent response.

Is it any different or more offensive to a non white to be called a name than it is for a white to be called a name?. If there are any other cases of seriously violent premeditated assaults in response to name calling such as lanky, fat, skinny, ginger, bald, or derogatory comments about the area within the same county/country from which rival football fans originate, if that person is completely let off I will be as sickened and disgusted with this countries justice as I am in this case. But we all know that this will never happen.

And if you are going to accuse me of racism don’t bother - not that I should need to say it but I have friends from all colours, creeds and backgrounds and, if you think that, you are missing my point entirely (as per above paragraph). I have spoken to a number of them about this case and they are as amazed as I am.

And then the recent case of the liberal councillor who told some youths causing a disturbance to go home following endless noise/loutish behaviour. Guess who was arrested - her as the term “go home” was construed to be racist and this phrase was clearly more disturbing than their behaviour.

So back to the point - no Mary, impossible to believe that Paul Ray was in trouble for anything outside of his blog. Please could you and your ilk wake up, get your head out of the sand and take a long hard look at what is going on in Britain and the rest of Europe courtesy of our Dhim·mi politicians and media.

Jul 31, 2008 - 12:20 pm Andrew:

Attention, you Brits who still embody the spirit of Winston Churchill and those who flipped a two-finger salute to Mister Hitler during WW2:

Would you please rise up and

1) Stop the daily public rehearsals for the street-theatre version of “A Clockwork Orange”

and

2) Remember what it is that made Britain the mother of civilization and kick out those jihad-screamers who are dragging you back to the 6th century by your politically-correct noses.

Thank you.

Jul 31, 2008 - 12:21 pm gblab:

I watched the video and found Mary Jackson’s tone smug and gloating.

Jul 31, 2008 - 12:24 pm Sarge:

Iftikhar Ahmad wrote:
“Schools do not belong to state, they belong to parents. It is the parents’ choice to have faith schools for their children. Bilingual Muslim children need state funded Muslim schools with bilingual Muslim teachers as role models during their developmental periods.”

This is internally inconsistent: If the schools are to be funded by the state, they belong to the state; that is, the host culture under which they operate. He who pays, owns. Part of the purpose of school is to intentionally inculcate the young in a society’s culture. If the quoted poster desires that his children be inculcated in a different value set from that of the host society’s prevailing culture, he has the choice of doing so himself, or of living somewhere where the prevailing culture matches the value set he wants his children to adopt.

If ‘muslims in the west’ wish to stop being perceived as an ‘alien culture,’ they should stop behaving as an alien culture.

Or perhaps Britain’s schools no longer teach the definition of “alien,” in order to avoid offending?

(Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See Synonyms at foreign.)

It is not ‘discrimination’ to offer someone the exact same curriculum and facilities that others receive; it is in fact the demanding of favorable discrimination that is being pursued in the quoted poster’s offering.

“Separate but equal” is an oxymoron, whether people demand it or decry it.

Jul 31, 2008 - 12:25 pm BrianS:

“”It’s clear,” he says, “that multiculturalism and political correctness have backfired badly.”"

The purpose of multiculturalism and political correctness is *not* to defend Western Civilization - to defend reason and rights. The fact that they have “weakened” the “confidence” in such things is evidence that the multiculturalists are succeeding in their goals - not that they have “backfired badly.”

If one proceeds from the premise that multiculturalism’s purpose is good - or even valid - one has already lost the war against it.

Jul 31, 2008 - 1:43 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: BrianS
RE: Target!

“If one proceeds from the premise that multiculturalism’s purpose is good - or even valid - one has already lost the war against it.” — BrianS

Multiculturalism would accept human sacrifice as proper form of religious practice, because someone thought it was.

Indeed, someone already has….

…human secularism and a woman’s ‘right’ to sacrifice her unborn child for her own selfishness.

Thanks for twigging me to that one.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Where there is no religion, hypocrisy becomes good taste.]

Jul 31, 2008 - 2:08 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: gblab, et al.
RE: [OT] Mary Jackson & Modus Operandi

“I watched the video and found Mary Jackson’s tone smug and gloating.” — gblab

I think Mary has issues with misandry. I think I’ve just twigged to that over the last few hours and noticing how if some guy says something, she’ll—in knee-jerk fashion—disagree. However, I could be wrong. But I’ve never seen her say anything good about some man.

Maybe she has a kinder and gentler demeanor with meterosexuals. I wonder what she thinks of Obamessiah.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Hatred is the coward’s revenge for being intimidated. — George Bernard Shaw]

Jul 31, 2008 - 2:22 pm US Pay Attention:

The smugness of comments directed to the Brits astounds me. Just what do you think is happening here?

Anyone familiar with the Minneapolis taxi-drivers (who didn’t want to pick up passengers with dogs or alcohol for starters), Harvard’s “special hours,” for their gyms, and the situation at UC Irvine knows that its here too.

The New York Times will run endless photos of a crucifix in urine as “art” but it declined to run the Danish cartoons–”respect for religion” they said as they cowered in their offices. Ha. Look to the Brit experience for what we’ll likely see even more of in 5 years.

Jul 31, 2008 - 2:33 pm BrianS:

The opposite of subjectivism (be it of the collective or individual variety) is not mystic intrinsicism. In other words, the ’solution’ to the arbitrary is not the arbitrary.

The false alternative between multiculturalism and religion is no alternative at all. They two are simply attacks on the same thing: reason.

Jul 31, 2008 - 3:57 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: BrianS
RE: [OT] Reason and It’s Logical Sources

“The false alternative between multiculturalism and religion is no alternative at all. They two are simply attacks on the same thing: reason.” — BrianS

Obviously a digression here, but it would be interesting to discuss WHICH set of ethics/mores works best.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[All law is prejudicial. All law is based on morals. All morals are based on ‘religious’ beliefs.]

Jul 31, 2008 - 4:07 pm Christopher:

So the idiotic police allow this poor girl to get beat up….making Sharia law higher then British law. How stupid.

Jul 31, 2008 - 4:29 pm BrianS:

Chuck,

“Obviously a digression here…” Indeed. And not one which this venue (comments to a blog post) makes very fruitful. Suffice to say, if your sig quotes represent your epistemological position, we are in opposite camps - I for reason, you for the arbitrary.

Jul 31, 2008 - 4:34 pm alan143:

It’s vital to understand the effect that enormous illegal immigration has had on England in the last 11 years.

Our official population figures are as fraudulent as our parasite politicians. The capable English, of fighting age, are now a MINORITY in our own country. We are – I have this from an army contact. Why would the non-native majority resist Islamic fascism for the sake of a country they are here simply to exploit for cash?

Now, does America also have a problem with illegal immigration, and two parasite-class candidates who strongly support illegal immigration? Because the Anglosphere needs to learn from this death of my England: voting slips and laws are soon made worthless where the voters won’t ever turn their guns on their parasites.

OK, that’s seditious possibly BUT, what is the Washington crowd currently planning to happen in Tehran, and why? An outbreak of armed democracy perhaps? So you see, they admire us really …

Jul 31, 2008 - 4:43 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: BrianS
RE: Opposition

“…if your sig quotes represent your epistemological position, we are in opposite camps - I for reason, you for the arbitrary.” — BrianS

Perhaps. But as some WAG put it to Job, “Come. Let us reason together.” Albeit, this is not the venue and topic for such. You’re welcome to visit my blog for such a discussion. Just click on my name.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[As iron sharpens iron, so does one man sharpen another. — some other wag, beheaded by the Romans]

Jul 31, 2008 - 4:45 pm jay kactuz:

Iftikhar Almed is a prime example of what is wrong with islam and Muslims. Notice that it is always the fault of others. Muslims always blame everything on something else. They will say it is racism, bullies, alienation, lack of jobs, anger, a “small group” that has “hijacked” the religion. Other common excuses are colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, the Jews, Bush, the Crusades, the Vatican, Hollywood, lack of education, insecurity, the suffering of the Palestinian people, that non-Muslims “don’t understand,” bad translations, it is cultural, and so on. The excuses never end. Muslims are never honest about the Quran, their doctrines, or even their own actions.

No, Mr Ahmed, anti-Muslim stories are about terror. They are about Muslims doing vile things, hurting others and preaching hate. So as Mohammad did, so do Muslims today.

Question: why don’t the Hindu immigrants from India have the same problems as the Muslims?

Another question: Why doesn’t Mr Ahmed just pack his bags, grab his students and go to some Islamic country where he can be happy? OH, they are all rotten! What could it be…

Pathetic

Kactuz

Jul 31, 2008 - 4:55 pm fred:

I get the impression that, with respect to this thread, both British and American Liberals/Leftists pretty much mock conservative opinions, regardless of the country of origin. Either we are not in sufficient possession of the right truths or we have bad attitudes that must be adjusted. So, we are not allowed to critique multiculturalism and political correctness. It is verboten.

Sorry, I’m just an American hayseed who’s made an observation about this discussion. I could share some thoughts, but why should I throw pearls to swine.

Jul 31, 2008 - 5:03 pm whiskey:

You can’t be a little bit pregnant. You can’t have just “a little” Sharia. Sharia is Sharia is Sharia. Polygamy, female genital mutilation, forced/arranged marriages, death for apostates, and more.

It DOESN’T MATTER if it’s “formally” legalized in Britain’s courts (which of course it will be — you can’t have just a little bit of it). The power on the streets are Muslims. Who make no-go areas in Britain for non-Muslims and kill and threaten with impunity. Britain can’t even deport terrorists, it must pay them tribute (welfare) in the millions of dollars.

Britain is lost. It’s already effectively Muslim-ruled. All else is in the details. Even the French have more spine than the surrender-minded British.

Jul 31, 2008 - 5:10 pm Roger Kimball:

I generally avoid commenting on comments–except for occasionally exhibiting some particularly silly ones–but the accumulated animus directed at Mary Jackson prompts me to deviate from this rule of thumb. Not, I hasten to add, that I agree with all of Ms Jackson’s observations. I do not, for example, agree that Dale Hurd’s CBN video “Can Britain Survive Multiculturalism?” was marred by a “smug tone” and “ill-concealed Schadenfreude.” I found the tone urgent but reasonable. Nor do I agree that the video is hopelessly compromised by “major inaccuracies.” Ms. Jackson offers various clarifications and corrections–at least one of which she later re-corrected. I am grateful for those clarifications and corrections. But I am not sure–or, rather, I am willing to assert with some confidence–that Ms Jackson’s clarifications and corrections do nothing to alter the essential point of the video (and of my post): namely, that the ideology of multiculturalism and political correctness has been a disaster for Britain, particularly with respect to its dealings with radical Islam. Nevertheless, despite these disagreements, I greatly admire Mary Jackson’s work–she links to some of it in the course of her comments–and I was disappointed to discover that some readers decided that contempt and personal abuse were the appropriate response to her comments.

Jul 31, 2008 - 5:57 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: plutosdad
RE: Red Herring, Anyone?

““there is no question of legalising honour killings or forced marriage”

of course not, that is a red herring.
What IS in question though, is if a young woman claims to be forced, claims her life is in danger, will anyone listen or do anything. Will resources be spent to go after her father? Or to put her in protective custody.” — plutosdad

Is there REALLY any need to ‘legalize’ honor killings when the police apparently do NOTHING to prevent them?

This, interestingly, ties in with the government of the elite being unwilling to allow citizens to defend their persons and/or family and/or property against attack vis-a-vis OUR Second Amendment.

Of course those same elite have armed body-guards. Regular folks aren’t allowed to arm themselves.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[God made men. Colt made men equal.]

Jul 31, 2008 - 6:13 pm b:

Iftikhar: “The conflicting demands made by home and schools on behaviour, loyalties and obligations can be a source of psychological conflict and tension in Muslim youngsters. ”

Loyalties? You said it…

Jul 31, 2008 - 6:17 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: Roger
RE: [OT] Abuse?

“…I was disappointed to discover that some readers decided that contempt and personal abuse were the appropriate response to her comments.” — Roger

I was disappointed that Mary Jackson resorted to such in her initial comment to this thread, i.e., declaring the information ‘inaccurate’ and that the video proffered was ’smug’ and reeking of ‘Schadenfreude’.

Whereas the former was cogent to the discussion at hand, the last two definitely qualified as ‘contemptuous personal abuse’.

You’re a gentleman for coming to her defense in this. But I still stand by my analysis of her comportment, as I’ve noticed it over the last four months.

Keep up the good work….

….we’re all excited.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out. If anyone bothers to pay any attention to it. Or even if they don’t.]

Jul 31, 2008 - 6:17 pm Javelin:

Chuck Pelto, I trust Wikipedia and Mary more than some moron, that is too stupid to be a hypocrite, who complains about the MSM while getting all his news from juvenile talk show programs and blogs. Mary’s points are valid and if you want to trust CBN as some unbiased source than you have no credibility. The truth has virute in itself and if you want to rewrite things to suit your agenda, then flush your credibility.
Ultimately, it is a pompous right wing twit like Mr. Kimball, when uses such inaccurate sources, flushes what little credibility that he has. Just because someone shares some of your views, it doesn’t make them a trustworthy source.

Jul 31, 2008 - 6:27 pm Javelin:

Mr. Doodslag,
“So while one major portion of British society is still engaged in expanding that socialist post modern multicultural nightmare which has inspired and inflamed Islamic Jihad, another portion is fiddling away on process, trifling details, and focusing blame on innocent factions and allies, nothing is done to crush the Muslim fascists or their vile socialist abettors.”
Sound like you have more of an agenda than simply fighting Islam. You speak in cheap, dishonest generalities that liars and crackpots use.

Jul 31, 2008 - 6:34 pm rae:

” Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. Bible, Proverbs 27:5-6

There is much to admire in the British. But they’re surrender to this vile gangrenous Islam is sickening. So too America’s erosion towards the same cesspool of confusion and self-destruction.

Mary Jackson: I hope we can agree that our passionate rejection of Islamic poison may cause us to vent frustrations at the wrong people.

I’ve found Dale Hurd to be a reliable reporter. No doubt he missed nuances that Brits would pick up on quickly. But believe me, the vast majority of Americans hear little or nothing of Britain’s woes. “Quick sound bites” are better than nothing when our own media is vapid and self-serving.

Our collective rage and indignation finds few venues of expression. Our own “gummitup” shrugs off immigration woes and labels anyone racist for expressing dismay about rising violence, mayhem, drug infestation, and foreign fingers in every pie.

Neither America nor Britain has the will AT THIS TIME to make hard sacrifices and grassroot changes to stop this annihilation. Something must FORCE US TO STOP AND TURN 180 DEGREES.

As a Christian, I pray we wake up, stop believing all the lies, and do what is necessary to assert a vigorous national identity.

Jul 31, 2008 - 6:56 pm fred:

Where is the liberal/Leftist empathy and compassion for the ones who will most immediately suffer when Sharia Law is allowed in the British court system, namely, the women?

But because they so hate Christianity and Western civilization, and because the Muslims do hate it as well, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

Jul 31, 2008 - 7:00 pm fred:

I just viewed the video clip and I want to know what about it was condescending, smug, and full of Schadenfreude. The video hones right in on the female victims of Islamic practices that keep women in servitude. Allowing Sharia Law principles to govern in the matter of marriages and family disputes consigns Muslim women in the U.K. to an inferior status.

BTW, we have a lot of Leftist women here in the U.S. who do not want to make judgments about Islam and Sharia Law. They too kick Muslim women to the curb, all in the interests of not offending this filthy alliance of convenience which the Left has with Islam. This points to the essentially nihilistic and savage nature of Marxist principles, that they would set aside what would be normal concerns for Western women and would be liberating for Muslim women.

This is just one of the reasons why I left the Left years ago: hypocrisy, intellectual bankruptcy, and immorality.

Jul 31, 2008 - 7:13 pm Chip:

It used to be the Muslim matrimonial ads which popped up everywhere the subject of Islam arose, and now it’s spamming the notion of making our (UK first) public schools Islamic madrassas to make all the progeny of the Islamic marriages happy.

If you just look at the ads and the spam, we’re losing.

Jul 31, 2008 - 8:29 pm Polemicscat:

The most disturbing part of this to me, is the apparent loss of reason in prominent, educated leaders of society. What recourse do have when an appeal to reason is insufficient to persuade? Isn’t our development of reasoning what we in the West have been so proud of since Plato’s time?

Jul 31, 2008 - 8:47 pm Eris:

It was once Great Britain, now it is Little Britain and soon Britistan.
stick on facts - muzzies do not want acculturate. but maybe too easy and simple for leftists. they want to bring hordes of criminals in order to terrorize natives for having excuse for implementation of the police state. and they are doing it, step by step.

Jul 31, 2008 - 11:38 pm Michael Canzano:

When you welcome disaster with open arms you deserve its consequences. Insanity is the soup of the day in Europe soon to be Eurabia.
American Christian Infidel

Aug 1, 2008 - 12:07 am Mary Jackson:

Roger Kimball:

Many thanks for your kind comments.

the ideology of multiculturalism and political correctness has been a disaster for Britain, particularly with respect to its dealings with radical Islam.

This I totally agree with, but for reasons other than those outlined in the video.

Aug 1, 2008 - 2:13 am Thiagan:

01/08/08

Iftikhar Ahammed

The Hindus are the second largest minority group in UK. Why there are no stories about them or any one being profiled for wrong reasons. They also have a grouse against public schools; that the course is not as tough as it is in India. Why they never have any cultural problems? They copntinue to maintain a separate identity but live comfortably in the British society. Do not blame others for your refusal to integrate. You can not ask for burkha wearing school teachers or nurses. Then you will have to go back to Pakistan.

Aug 1, 2008 - 2:21 am ReCon USMC:

One suspects the terminal Cancer has already set in…In England and for that matter much of Europe .
America is headed that way faster than Al Gore can say what ever it was.. it was caused by Global warming .
Your ”Treat ” Cancer before it spreads throughout our bodies or Nations . If we live …. We will never be quite the same since it destroyes our bodies and freedoms from within. The only Women that could believe in Sharia is someone that needs to go back to a country where it destroyies all women EQUALLY that live under its male only Iron Hand . I l like fun but watching a Women being Stoned to death for who she liked better than the one Picked for her ? Not interested .I saw the beating and beheading of women in Afghanistan on TV by the Telibon carying out Sharia law .
Tell me again Women in England want that ? Never !

Aug 1, 2008 - 4:44 am ReCon USMC:

England has had 21 totally different Bombing since 9/11 and Arrested 9 men and three Women who were planning to fly many 747’s to America and play out another 9/11 .Over 137 Brits were murdered and other 600 plus wounded .
They have also arrested 231 that were caught in the middle of planning attacks on England and America .
Another 927 who had SECRETLY gone to AL QUEADA training camps in Pakistan were caught . We don’t know how many else that were not or for that matter America as well .
All of them practiced Sheria .
Even Five of them were even Dr.s and 4 were Lawyers !
MANY OTHERS HAD HIGHLY SKILLED AND EDUCATED BACKGROUNDS .
THIS IS NOT ABOUT EQUALLY AT ALL ! IT IS ABOUT SHERIA RULING ALL ON EARTH AND BEYOND !

Aug 1, 2008 - 5:10 am RE:

I’ve watched the report once again a day later and after having read the objections to it.

I think the video is absolutely correct in its main point - a collective insanity has indeed settled over the British authorities. The incidents reported are corroborated elsewhere. These few incidents are only the tip of the iceberg.

This video is closer to the truth than those objecting to it - moral confusion has produced a dysfunctional state.

Britain is committing suicide.

Aug 1, 2008 - 5:14 am ReCon USMC:

Too Iftikhar Ahmad:
They came to England .England didn’t go there .
If any Brits go to “Your countries “of faith they play by their rules . Period ! That would be like an American going to England and wanting our Const. or be tried in and American legal system .Ain’t going to happen !
Many of those countries like Saudi A. don’t allow Bibles and women have to dress per their Sheria laws from England and America .
You Kind are the Problem .Not England .You mad because you said JUMP
AND ENGLAND DIDN’T JUMP HIGH ENOUGH . ENGLAND IS ENGLAND AND SAUDI A. IS SAUDI A. GET IT ? NAH !

Aug 1, 2008 - 5:48 am Alan:

Me smells a rat, perhaps our little Mary is not so little, and not a Mary, but an ali, or malic, or a Hussein, But perhaps I could be wrong, she could be a leftie who has found love in her squat with an illegal of the Islamic faith, but I don’t think so, After watching my 14 year old being chatted up by so called young girls (Yes Girls) who turned out to be middle aged Muslim men, who want to meet her to chat about Britney spears ect, I find it difficult to trust one who has pro Islam views and female,(I wonder if she has been circumcised)
Let us not forget the numerous cases of human waste being sprinkled on chocolate cake and pizzas.
Or the white wash over the murder of kriss mc Donald, the freezing of news reports.
The rise of Muslim gangs in Glasgow,(Not reported)the attacks by Asians on whites that strangely are not class as racial attacks
And let’s not forget about the drugs, in particular heroin,
The case last year of the 12 year girl taken to Pakistan by her uncle, who was found dragging a teddy bear with 12 kilo of heroin threw customs. No crime was committed as the uncle high tailed it and the family knew nothing of her being brought home. So the child was returned to her family,
And what about our version of 9/11 the crime of the pan am flight that came down over Lockerbie,
You don’t see the Hindus, or the Sikhs, bombing or rioting,
This is Britain, once great, they are our laws live by them or leave, women in this country no matter their religion, must be given full protection of the law, to hell with shiaria law. Look at the shairia rape law. It’s a rapist charter.
I don’t care if your black, brown, yellow, white, green with pink spots, if you want to live my country you are welcome. But you live by our laws, not yours, if you want to live under sharia law, go to Pakistan, or the yeman,or one of the Gulf States,
Islam see’s non muslims as pigs, dogs and monkeys, it’s islamic culture, Our women are there to be used and abused, our laws are there to be broken by muslims, because they are taught in their mosques that our laws dont apply to them,
When is this Goverment going to wake up to this…………………

Aug 1, 2008 - 6:06 am Spence:

Mary Jackson is a fraud. The commentary was not smug it was more ‘concerned’.

No-one was arrested at the demo, the token arrests were made afterwards.

The Police ‘proposed’ that the TV regulators should investigate Ch4, it’s not their job to propose any such thing, it’s actually none of their business, unless of course the police are politically controlled (who would have thought that)

Aug 1, 2008 - 6:32 am Jules141:

Ahem..

I think people seem to be completely missing the point.

America and Britain are very different places, the British people are not afraid of Islam’s petty threats of violence. Accommodating for them so much, which is what the government is trying to do, gives the government more control over them. And they hate it. I shouldn’t generalise, but nothing annoys these few so-called “terrorists” more than being fairly treated. What can they do then, in the country they live, that treats them so well?

And to these suggestions that the non-Islamic British people are giving up their rights and culture in the name of politically correctness is utter garbage. A few new laws implemented by the government make no difference to peoples way of life. The examples shown on that video where complete hype, if you look you’ll find just as many cases that sway into anti-Islamic, pro-Christian territory. Islamic people become more and more British by the day. Young Muslims are decent, respectable, and very British people, who have never been to the country of their parents.

People in Britain realise now that religion doesn’t matter. Most people are agnostic or atheist. Most people do not mind other’s believes, because we are not afraid of those believes. Laws that accommodate for their believes show them that. All religions, no matter how strange and deluded they are, should be treated the same.

Once they have lived here long enough and become part of British culture, the only thing that make them different to us is their colour and their surname. And if you care about that then you are racist.

The fact that so many non-British people think we are drowning in PCness and are giving up free-speech and liberty I find quite hilarious. And very hysterical.

Hype.

Aug 1, 2008 - 7:25 am Freedom, Soar!:

Some relevant thoughts from the legal eagles at volokh.com:

It also seems to me that this helps illustrate the force of censorship envy. When speech hostile or insulting towards one religion or symbol is suppressed by government action (as has been urged by many in Europe and Canada with regard to the Mohammed cartoons), or by self-censorship in the face of threatened violence, what happens when other groups are similarly offended? Their sense of outrage — and of entitlement to similar suppressive power — is increased, because they are now outraged by the perceived unequal treatment as well as by the original offense.

Then, either the other speech will be suppressed, too, in which the scope of speech restrictions (again, either legal restrictions or restrictions prompted by fear of violence) increases. Or the other speech won’t be suppressed, in which case the offended groups will become even more offended — and then an attempt to prevent offense and maintain social harmony (which is how the original restriction is often justified) will have exacerbated offense and reduce social harmony. That’s true, as I argued, about flagburning bans; and it’s true about bans and other coercive restrictions on insulting representation of religious symbols.

Aug 1, 2008 - 7:44 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: Javelin
RE: Trust

“…I trust Wikipedia and Mary more than some moron….” — Javelin

You’re welcome to trust who you will. That’s not my problem. However, I will point out Roger Simon’s comments of four days ago….

This is disgraceful behavior on the part of Wikipedia, which is demonstrating bias that errs on the side of laughable. But we should be grateful. This censorship reminds us never to trust anyone.

[See…

http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2008/07/28/edwards-wikipedia-engages-in-some-political-cleansing/

TO: All
RE: Intersting Indicators

It seems interesting that the two most vehemently antagonistic people I’ve seen in this thread both trust Wikipedia.

I wonder if there is some sort of connection.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Birds….Feathers….and Flocks….]

Aug 1, 2008 - 7:52 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jules141
RE: Really?

“People in Britain realise now that religion doesn’t matter. Most people are agnostic or atheist.” — Jules141

You left out of your consideration one VERY important factor.

The Islamists are hardly “agnostic or atheist”. And, in a battle of wills, the side that is more dedicated to a unifying concept has the greater chance of victory.

Please explain how people who do NOT BELIEVE in anything, let alone in particular, can be victorious in such a conflict as Islamism vs. the World.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[In battle, morale is to physical as 9 to 1. — Napoleon]

Aug 1, 2008 - 8:33 am Bugs:

Mary & Others,

The true situation is always more complicated and less important than the press makes it seem. I can cobble together some emotionally-charged video footage and out-of-context quotes and use them to prove - well, just about anything as long as it makes people pay attention (and money) to ME. It’s a case of “Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?” I’m surprised anyone has to be told that.

The big problem with multiculturalism is that it inhibits honest discussion of problems involving “special” groups. It’s as if the “experts” in government and elsewhere don’t want public debate on the issues because they don’t trust the citizens to come to a reasonable concensus. Like the people who elected them are nothing more than a lynch mob waiting to happen. Kind of paranoid - especially in Britain, which if I understand correctly has historically been less susceptable to that kind of violence than the US. Not sure what it’s all about - what the appeal of multiculturalism is.

Aug 1, 2008 - 8:51 am Jules141:

To Chuck Pelt:

I wonder to what extent there is actually a “battle” going on. For British Muslims to take over more than non-Musilm British themselves would be very un-PC, and very unbalanced. In a PC country that can’t happen.

And to say the atheists or agnostics don’t have a unified concept is wrong. Most would want a world where, low and behold, every religion is treated equally. Which is hardly what these Muslims want, therefore we would definitely have something to fight for. The only difference, as you have pointed out, that Muslims are far more extreme in their dedication to their view. But to suggest they will gain more ground until the time comes where we will have to fight against their “unifying concept” is absurd. It is incredibly sensational to say that that time is slowly creeping up on us, but we just can’t see it. Things are nowhere near as bad as what the media has said.

Aug 1, 2008 - 9:03 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jules141
RE: The Religious Aspect

“I wonder to what extent there is actually a “battle” going on. For British Muslims to take over more than non-Musilm British themselves would be very un-PC, and very unbalanced. In a PC country that can’t happen.” — Jules141

Au contraire, mon cher. It can very easily happen. Indeed, this whole topical thread is how it IS happening. Right before our very eyes….for those who have eyes to see.

RE: Atheists On a World Religious Approach

“And to say the atheists or agnostics don’t have a unified concept is wrong. Most would want a world where, low and behold, every religion is treated equally.” — Jules141

The only aspect of religion that I’ve seen atheists hope for in the world is there is none.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Those who have eyes, let them see….and understand. — Some Wag, around 2000 years ago]

Aug 1, 2008 - 9:13 am Jules141:

To Chuck:

“The only aspect of religion that I’ve seen atheists hope for in the world is there is none.”

And then it wouldn’t be a problem.

I honestly do not believe “the Muslims are taking over” to put it simply. There are more Muslims with more power in Britain, but the country is still the same, and the country is still fair.

Most of all this is the media’s attempt to paint more problems with the government, and they have simply sensationalised a few new PC laws. Nothing is “getting out of hand” there is no “problem”. And if there ever is a serious and Muslims vs Britain actually happens, how could they possibly win?

Aug 1, 2008 - 9:32 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jules141
RE: So….

“And then it wouldn’t be a problem.” — Jules141

What did you do with the people who believed in something being greater than themselves? What the Islamists do with those who don’t believe in Allah?

That makes atheists no different than the Islamists, at face value. However, there is ONE key difference, if you look beneath the surface.

At least the Islamists are better organized and better focused than the atheists. And this puts the atheists at the same disadvantage that the British are at vis-a-vis the threat to their society.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[I am the lord my god. Thou shalt have no other god before ME! — Atheist’s First Commandment]

P.S. The problem is that each atheist is a god unto him/herself.

Question: With so many godlings running about who is in charge?

Answer: The most bloody-minded and better organized.

Oh dear. Religion is a great organizer. And if a religion has no compunction against killing people who disagree….well….three guesses….

Aug 1, 2008 - 10:01 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: fred, et al.
RE: The Common Factor

“But because they so hate Christianity and Western civilization, and because the Muslims do hate it as well, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”” — fred

So we have Jules141 and Javelin here who are obviously anti-Christian. And we have Mary Jackson who shows such leanings in her attack on the speaker in the CBN video.

I do not know what Mary Jackson’s form of ‘religious’ faith takes, but I see something of an indicator. And if that indicator is correct, it would seem that YOU have hit the nail on the proverbial head; the atheists have made common cause with the Islamists against their common ‘enemy’, Christianity.

If this IS the case, and I’m not certain of it just yet, these people think they can tame a tiger and use that tiger to attack their foes who believe in a god other then themselves.

In the Army, we call this problem ‘target fixation’; being so focused on one target that they forget there are other things on the battlefield that will get them killed. In this case, the tiger they hope to employ.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Aug 1, 2008 - 10:17 am Jules141:

I am not anti-Christian, but I do think religions should be treated equally.

My opinion on this whole matter (or at least the news report) is that it has blown real circumstances out of proportion. There are people convinced Muslims are taking over under our noses, but we can’t see it. It will never happen. People think the government are weak and cowardly for “giving in” to Muslims by being PC. But nothing has changed, this news report takes a few cases and uses it as conclusive evidence. Soon after we have hysterical posts commenting on the “downfall of Britain” and how we are “already under the Muslim heel”!

Already under the Muslims heel? I don’t know what Britain they live in, but it’s not the same one I do.

Aug 1, 2008 - 10:47 am Mary Jackson:

I don’t know what Britain they live in

For the most part “they” live in America.

I’m amused to see myself described as some kind of Islamophile. Has anyone read my articles here and at New English Review?

Aug 1, 2008 - 11:05 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jules141
RE: Indicators

“I am not anti-Christian, but I do think religions should be treated equally.” — Jules141

As you indicated above, if there were no religions, THAT would be ‘equal treatment’. And you seemed, to me, quite happy with that idea.

What is your religious preference, anyway?

RE: Equal Treatment

So, how do you propose to treat Islamism equal to other religions? When they’ve got guns in their hands and they’re pointing them at you?

Would you allow them special treatment, e.g., practice of Sharia in special Mosque-based courts in England?

RE: This Report

“….it [the situation as reported initially] has blown real circumstances out of proportion.” — Jules141

You’re entitled to your opinion. But a lot of other people are not quite as oblivious as you seem to be.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If you’re not paranoid, you’re not paying attention.]

Aug 1, 2008 - 11:38 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Jackson
RE: Paranoid?

“I’m amused to see myself described as some kind of Islamophile.” — Mary Jackson

As I said earlier, I don’t know your religious faith. And I find it ‘interesting’ that you did not address that matter in this post. So I ask you directly….what is the nature of your religious beliefs/faith?

As for you’re possibly being an Islamophile, I don’t know that for certain either. But I do notice your comportment….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[To learn more about paranoids, follow them around.]

Aug 1, 2008 - 11:41 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Jackson
RE: Linked Articles

Having reviewed those at PJM and NER, I see nothing in there that indicates anything other than an antipathy towards religious belief.

Another ‘indicator’ of being an atheist.

So….which is it for you? Atheist? Deist? Prebyterian? Roman Catholic? Free Catholic? Hindu? Muslim? Shinto? Chthulu?

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Vote for Chthulu! Why settle for the lesser evil?]

Aug 1, 2008 - 11:49 am Mary Jackson:

Having reviewed those at PJM and NER, I see nothing in there that indicates anything other than an antipathy towards religious belief.

My goodness, that was quick.

Aug 1, 2008 - 12:31 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: Mary Jackson
RE: Quick?

“My goodness, that was quick.” — Mary Jackson

How ‘quick’ they forget.

I’ve been reading and commenting on a number of your PJM articles. So I only needed to refresh my memory there. And the link to NER only had two items; one was non sequitur about Art with a Capital F and the other a rehash of one of your PJM items.

So I will take your response of no-answer to indicate your agreement with my analysis of your opinion of religion.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[No response is to answer in the affirmative. — English Common Law]

Aug 1, 2008 - 12:50 pm Carter:

“If it is to be successful, though, that struggle will have to encompass not only the negative fight against the Islamic enemies of Western civilization. It will also have to involve the reanimation of the central principles of Western civilization: virtues like patriotism, public affirmation of the rule of law, and an outspoken allegiance to the formative values of Western democratic society: values like freedom of religion, respect for individual initiative, and equality before the law.”

That’s quite the list, and yet again I notice that missing is any mention of putting a halt to immigration, a first step so obvious I can’t believe Mr. Kimball has not only never thought of it himself, but has also never heard anyone else suggest it.

Aug 1, 2008 - 12:50 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Atheists and Answers

I find it interesting that many atheists I encounter refuse to answer direct about their ‘religious’ belief. Instead they obfuscate, evade and make false statements about it.

One would get the impression from all this prevarication that they are ashamed of their beliefs. Or at least afraid to speak of them openly.

I wonder if it might have something to do with projection. As I get the idea that if they had it in their power, they’d do-away with anyone who held any REAL religious belief. Sort of like Jules141 implied (above). And therefore, they think christians and others feel the same bloody-minded antipathy towards them. Hence the paranoia of being outspoken in their religious beliefs.

As evidence of my point regarding the atheists’ approach to religious beliefs held by others, I’ll just point out how the organized atheists, as in People for the Separation of Church and State, are continually attempting to squelch the expression of religious beliefs in the public venue. Especially the beliefs of the christian persuasion.

Meanwhile, all the christians I know don’t really care about squelching the atheists expression of opinion in public venue.

Go fig….

But it does seem to make a good correlation between the behavior of Jules141, Javelin and Mary Jackson.

And, to wrap this up, it goes far to explain their position on this topical thread as described by fred (above).

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Where there is no religion, hypocrisy becomes good taste.]

Aug 1, 2008 - 1:00 pm Sam:

“In his peroration, Dale Hurd goes to the heart of the matter: “It’s clear,” he says, “that multiculturalism and political correctness have backfired badly.”

lol no. They have not backfired, this is exactly what they are designed to do. They are the tools of cultural Marxism.

Aug 1, 2008 - 1:50 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: Carter
RE: Stopping Immigration

“….I notice that missing is any mention of putting a halt to immigration.” — Carter

I don’t think one has to stop immigration. Rather one needs to be more selective on who one allows to immigrate. And that could well entail {HORROR!} ‘profiling’.

There are other aspects of immigration that could be considered. For example, a common or ‘official’ language. You learn it or you go back to where you came from. The thought being along the lines of

You came here to become one of US. Therefore, become one of US or go back to where you came from.

I don’t think we need to halt immigration; there or here. We just need to be careful about who we let in. Those that do not intend to become part of US or are intent upon doing US ill, should not be allowed in. Or if allowed in and determined to be anathema to US, deported.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[America was indebted to immigration for her settlement and prosperity. That part of America which had encouraged them most had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture and the arts. — James Madison]

Aug 1, 2008 - 1:56 pm Jules141:

I am definitely an atheist, and I think all religion should be treated equally. I have never said people shouldn’t be entitled to religion, and I honestly think all should be entitled to it.

Chuck-

“There are other aspects of immigration that could be considered. For example, a common or ‘official’ language. You learn it or you go back to where you came from. The thought being along the lines of:

You came here to become one of US. Therefore, become one of US or go back to where you came from.”

Many people seem to be under the impression that foreign people are migrating to Britain only to live there own culture. This is incredibly far from the truth. They do live British culture for the most part. Yes there are few extremists not willing to respect the country, but sending them back is just giving up.

I agree that if people wish to live somewhere, and truly want to live there they should be willing to change and adapt. The truth is: THEY DO. That’s what this news report blows out of proportion.

And it wouldn’t be so bad, but the people immigrating just happen to be suspected terrorists. The media hype feeds off of people’s fear, and in turn creates more fear. Britain is not a weak and cowardly country for accommodating for its “terrorists”, if that’s what you like to call them.

Why don’t you people come and live in the real world where not everyone is trying to blow you up … with the help of the government! I’m not oblivious, I’m not optimistic. I just don’t blindly accept news items as solid evidence (or any kind of evidence at all), and think I have some sort of insight, and that every person who disagrees is ignorant and oblivious to the dark future thats obviously coming.

Oh, and that “dark future” that some of you are suggesting:

The dark future where Muslims takeover Britain because a few new PC laws give them rights that they jolly-well don’t deserve!!!

Get off your grassy knoll.

Aug 2, 2008 - 12:36 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: Jules141
RE: Good On You

I am definitely an atheist….– Jules141

You’re one of the few I’ve encountered who’ve admitted to it. I appreciate your forthright announcement.

….and I think all religion should be treated equally.– Jules141

I’m of a like mind.

I have never said people shouldn’t be entitled to religion, and I honestly think all should be entitled to it.– Jules141

Unfortunately, as I’ve seen them (see comments above), you’re one of the few in this regard as well.

RE: Immigration

“There are other aspects of immigration that could be considered. For example, a common or ‘official’ language. You learn it or you go back to where you came from. The thought being along the lines of:

You came here to become one of US. Therefore, become one of US or go back to where you came from.”– Chuck Pelto

Many people seem to be under the impression that foreign people are migrating to Britain only to live there own culture. This is incredibly far from the truth. They do live British culture for the most part. Yes there are few extremists not willing to respect the country, but sending them back is just giving up.– Jules141

Maybe it is ‘far from the truth’, but the evidence we’ve seen to date, would indicate it’s not quite as ‘far from the truth’ as you might believe. I point out the burqas, the honor killings, the bombings, the preaching in the mosques against Western ideals.

What is your response to those items of obvious evidence.

I agree that if people wish to live somewhere, and truly want to live there they should be willing to change and adapt. The truth is: THEY DO. That’s what this news report blows out of proportion.– Jules141

Please re-read my reply to your item immediately above in this comment. And to compound my argument, I will point out that a father murdering his daughter is hardly a news report blown out of proportion. It’s now a statistic.
If you don’t care for facts, where does that leave you?

And it wouldn’t be so bad, but the people immigrating just happen to be suspected terrorists. The media hype feeds off of people’s fear, and in turn creates more fear. Britain is not a weak and cowardly country for accommodating for its “terrorists”, if that’s what you like to call them.– Jules141

Not just ‘suspected’. Or are you forgetting 7/11?

Why don’t you people come and live in the real world where not everyone is trying to blow you up … with the help of the government! I’m not oblivious, I’m not optimistic. I just don’t blindly accept news items as solid evidence (or any kind of evidence at all), and think I have some sort of insight, and that every person who disagrees is ignorant and oblivious to the dark future thats obviously coming.– Jules141

Where did I say “Everyone is trying to blow me up”?

You were talking about blowing things out of proportion, just above here. Seems to me that you’re projecting.

And if everyone WERE out to ‘get me’, would I not be as Will Smith in I Am Legend? Believe me. I’m quite capable of being such. Fortunately apparently everyone isn’t out to get me….yet. My sense of paranoia is not clinical in nature. It is borne of 27 years in the infantry and recognizing reality better than some others can. [Note: You should take some courses from the US Army Command and General Staff College. I recommend something to do with Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB). The lessons learned there can be applied to politics and business VERY well. Even to such esoteric matters as prophecy, if you have eyes to see.]

RE: The Dark Future

Oh, and that “dark future” that some of you are suggesting:

The dark future where Muslims takeover Britain because a few new PC laws give them rights that they jolly-well don’t deserve!!!

Get off your grassy knoll. — Jules141

The future, from my perspective, i.e., Christian, is hardly ‘dark’. A bit messy, here and there, but hardly the doom you seem to think.

To an atheist it might seem such. Or they might suspect others think such…and I can understand why they might be projecting in that regard {nudge-nudge, wink-wink}. After all, from the atheist perspective there is either (1) eternal nothingness or (2) the unfortunate discovery that Christianity—or some other group—was correct; albeit too late for a change of heart. The former is merely ‘dark’. The latter is literally horrific; a much worse form of ‘dark’.

RE: Can Atheism Survive?

Kimball’s initial thread can be retitled to this.

As I pointed out above, atheists are ill-equipped, mentally and socially, to withstand the onslaught of Islamism. And as evidence, I offer the primate of the Church of England himself. Not to forget some of his more orthodox subordinates. They are bemoaning the falling away from their Faith of the population.

I’ve no hard data, but I suspect that the general population of England is less christian than the general population on US’s side of the big pond. And therein may be an interesting indicator.

As has been proven, time and again throughout the long march of history, people of poor moral are easily overcome by people of a more dedicated moral. How is it I can say this? History. Every time civilization gets knocked to its knees, the self-indulgent societies caught in the crunch are overrun by other, less self-indulgent groups. It’s happened at least five times as far as I’ve noticed.

Atheists are probably the most self-indulgent people on the face of the planet. Each is a god unto him/herself. Therefore, the greater the concentration of atheists, or the ‘unchurched’, in a society, the less likely it is of defending itself against outside pressures of a nefarious nature. Why? Because contrary to President Kennedy’s famous inaugural address, they ask what their country can do for them. Not what they can do for their fellow citizens.

Am I afraid of this? Hardly. I just see it as the natural evolution of societies and the normal progress of history; civilizations rise and fall. And I’m just passing through…..on my way to another venue.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Life is boot camp. We are all expected to go out and become heroes.]

P.S. The question becomes, what is the graduation ‘ceremony’ from ‘boot camp’?

I went through the Army’s ‘boot camp’ at Fort Lewis in the Summer of 1970. Beyond that was a world of adventures….

Aug 2, 2008 - 1:19 pm Karan:

It’s really interesting reading the comments on this thread.

Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of posters here don’t realize the gravity of the situation or just think it’s being blown “out of proportion”. However, as comments by Iftikhar Ahmad (presumably, one of the “educated Muslims”) show, the problem doesn’t lie with just a ‘few disgruntled youth’. It’s about an entire mindset, which says, ‘I’m right, all my problems are caused by others (non-believers?), Mine is the ONLY true religion, all non-believers should either convert, accept their Dhimmi status or die/be killed.’ Politically incorrect to say — yes, but it’s far closer to truth than many of us would like to believe.

Ever thought that why Christians/Jews/Hindus/Sikhs/Buddhists can live in peace and without ‘cultural assimilation’ problems in UK, but the ‘believers’ can’t?

Sadly, my country seems to have lost its war already, hope Britain wins its.

Aug 2, 2008 - 4:17 pm fred:

I have an example of how the Left tried to “ride the tiger” in an alliance with the Ummah, and got their clock cleaned in the process. This is not made up shit, it really happened and there is plenty of documentation of its veracity.

The Iranian Revolution. The Communists, Socialists, and various other kinds of Leftists sided with the Islamists in 1979. When the dust settled, the Ummah turned on the Left in Iran and started killing them and driving the rest into exile. I’ve met dozens of these people, and they will tell anyone who will listen that this filthy, evil alliance of convenience between the Left and the Muslims is only going to end badly for the Leftists. And in Britain, the Left’s stupidity and sloth will get a lot of people killed. And destroy the nation. But then again, that’s been the Left’s goal all along: to destroy Western civilization and replace it with hedonistic, nihilistic, physicalist reductionism.

Aug 2, 2008 - 6:58 pm tanstaafl:

Britain to me feels slightly schizophrenic on the subject of Muslims and accommodation to those systems of law that would replace English common law.

On the one hand, you’ve got the “we want to avoid giving offense” ethos that translates into idiotic concessions to a well orchestrated Islamist agenda and idiots like George Galloway and the (former) mayor of London, Ken Livingstone. And you’ve got pronouncements of the (probably completely insane by now) Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.

On the other hand, there is the British Secret Service/Scotland Yard getting on top of Islamist yahoos, interdicting plots (often involving airplanes), putting idiots like Abu Hamza on trial, tossing other extremists back to their native countries and, generally, keeping a reasonably good eye on the place.

Aug 2, 2008 - 8:16 pm nino:

Britian gave us the bedbugs or whats there name beatles…they punished more Catholics then spain punished in their so called inquisition…our wonderful southland back in the 1860s were more England then New England and always wanted a small tariff….well the southern demoncrat party,which did NOT lose that horrible war,for they DID stay in control…have their wish with Nafta…go figure…

Aug 3, 2008 - 5:28 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: fred
RE: Good Point, That!

“I have an example of how the Left tried to “ride the tiger” in an alliance with the Ummah, and got their clock cleaned in the process. This is not made up shit, it really happened and there is plenty of documentation of its veracity.

The Iranian Revolution.” — fred

I recall that Hitler used the same techniques, albeit with different groups, in HIS rise to power.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[History repeats itself. Especially to the advantage of nefarious types who pay attention to it.]

Aug 3, 2008 - 10:06 am fred:

Chuck,

I am almost finished reading Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” and it is THE book that has Leftist “intellectuals” buzzing. They just don’t know HOW to take apart his thesis, because Mussolini, Hitler, and “progressive” Democrats in 20th century U.S. were all men of the Left (statists, socialists, etc.). Goldberg does so much research and it’s documented, foot-noted.

I used to be a neo-Marxist. My angle and project years ago was the intersection of Liberation Theology and Marxist analysis, and trying to get around Novak’s and Buckley’s critiques of it. I was focusing in on he human attitudinal/behavioral end - to see if “human nature” is a fixed thing or can be modified. Or even if there is such a thing as human nature. I left the Left around 1987 because I discovered that socialist experiments did not make a new moral human being and that there are a lot of reasons why socialism fails, has failed, and always will fail. It has primarily to do with the fact that utopian thought is not based on anything scientifically rigorous. I was trying to explore in philosophy and science any ways in which the case could be made that socialism was not counter to human nature. The historical record weighed heavily on me. My forays into Marxism began in college and continued during my Jesuit seminary days. I was motivated by humanitarian and moral concerns, not by some unconscious need for political power or meaning. And because I also cared about the truth, the arguments against my beliefs MATTERED. Unlike most Leftists, I did not dismiss them. They had weight. Their arguments defined where I think I needed to go in order to arrive at a new synthesis. When I saw how certain factors were lining up, I saw the handwriting on the wall and abandoned this ideology.

I felt liberated afterwards, since there were other issues in the Left’s culture that disturbed me, which I did not identify with. Anytime you follow the truth it is a liberating experience, no matter where it leads.

Aug 3, 2008 - 10:31 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: fred
RE: [OT] The Leftists

“….Mussolini, Hitler, and “progressive” Democrats in 20th century U.S. were all men of the Left (statists, socialists, etc.).” — fred

I’ve always held….

Fascism and Socialism are opposite faces of the same coin, made of base metal; totalitarianism.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Aug 3, 2008 - 11:23 am tanstaafl:

Iftikhar Ahmad:

Muslim youths are angry, frustrated and extremist because they have been mis-educated and de-educated by the British schooling. Muslim children are confused because they are being educated in a wrong place at a wrong time in state schools with non-Muslim monolingual teachers.

They were doing just fine when I spent a winter living in London in the early 1970’s, staying in the middle of a Pakistani neighborhood.

Than little by little, the overt and covert discrimination in the system turned them off.

Really ? It wouldn’t have anything to do with incitement to hatred piped in live to the mosques from a ranting and raving (Saudi Arabian) Grand Mufti, as was revealed in the Channel 4 “underground” series ?

Would it ?

There is no rationale for the way (some) Muslim citizens in Britain are behaving. And the notion of pasting Shari’a over English common law (and either surviving in tact) is perfectly absurd.

Aug 3, 2008 - 11:49 am Chuck Pelto:

TO: Iftikhar Ahmad
RE: Muslim Youths

“Muslim youths are angry, frustrated and extremist because they have been mis-educated and de-educated by the British schooling. Muslim children are confused because they are being educated in a wrong place at a wrong time in state schools with non-Muslim monolingual teachers.” — Iftikhar Ahmad

Based on YOUR report, it seems rather obvious that these Muslim Youths don’t want to become part of the country, i.e., Britain, they live in.

I would suggest that instead of trying to transform Britain into another part of the Middle East, they move to a place more accommodating of their ’spirit’….the Middle East. Or Pakistan. Rather than perpetuating violence in the land their parents moved to.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. tanstaafl….

…thanks for pointing that one out. I’d missed it earlier.

Aug 3, 2008 - 12:08 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: fred
RE: It Surely Does

“Anytime you follow the truth it is a liberating experience, no matter where it leads.” — fred

And especially to a sense of peace.

Keep up the good work….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[And the Truth shall set you free. — John 8:32]

Aug 3, 2008 - 12:11 pm Chuck Pelto:

P.S. I’m suddenly reminded of a line from Babylon 5.

Lanier is confronted by a ‘true-believer’ from a politically-charged camp who asks him, “Whose side are you on?”

Lanier replies, “The Truth. Is there another?”

Aug 3, 2008 - 12:50 pm Chuck Pelto:

TO: All
RE: Interesting….

…our ‘friends’, a la Jules141, Javelin and Mary Jackson, seem rather ’silent’ on the latest discussion of this thread.

I can only wonder why….

…NOT!

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Aug 3, 2008 - 3:28 pm Jules141:

Excuse me Chuck Pelto, I can only apologise on my personal lack of response to this thread, but I have been and will be very busy. So don’t expect another response from me for a while, but I will try, I promise.

Anyway, this thread has somehow gone from multiculturalism to atheism. My thoughts on the matter … you are right to say that religions are more organised, and much much better at organising than atheists. The only thing that makes someone an atheist is disbelieve in a god. And this is why secular society should be wary of extremist or simply religious groups.

But if, and this is a big if, a war between one religion and atheists were to break out, the atheists would have to fight to defend themselves. Yes they wouldn’t be organised, but where would there limits be? Atoms colliding against other atoms. They wouldn’t be fighting for a believe but simply for life itself. They would also be fighting with the knowledge that they are fighting against idiots. No matter how many weapons they have.

Chuck - “The future, from my perspective, i.e., Christian, is hardly ‘dark’. A bit messy, here and there, but hardly the doom you seem to think.”

Are you sure its the future I seem to think? Sarcasm is easily misunderstood.

Chuck - “After all, from the atheist perspective there is either (1) eternal nothingness or (2) the unfortunate discovery that Christianity—or some other group—was correct; albeit too late for a change of heart. The former is merely ‘dark’. The latter is literally horrific; a much worse form of ‘dark’.”

This is just an attack on atheism, which has nothing to do with the point at hand. But whilst where here:

You see I have the, oh? What would you call it? “self-indulgence”? To think that what some (most) people believe in is rubbish. Just as you are either a Christian or a Muslim, and have the “self-indulgence” to choose what you believe in, the consequence will be bad if you happen to be wrong.