The Hazards of Belief

Vivisectus

Please note that the comments to that article include someone complaining that teaching tolerance and inclusiveness in school denies them the right to be bigoted against gay people.

And that the SPUC immediately accused the CHIPS program of being intended to groom children for gay sex.

A real two for one! Conflating homosexuality with child abuse AND claiming that not tolerating bigotry is both intolerance and bigotry

Are all these idiots working out of the same manual or something?

PopePalpatine

Ah, SPUC, the solution to excessive faith in humanity. It reminds me of when JimiTime got butthurt over anti-homophobic bullying campaigns.

MrPudding

A report by Sharia Watch UK into Radicalisation in UK Universities.

I am not quite sure what to make of Sharia Watch... I quite like Anne Marie Waters' pieces on abortion, and the like, but I am not a fan of UKIP... I suppose we should separate the different aspects of a person and because we might find one aspect of them displeasing should not mean we should engage in self inflicted well-poisoning... I know plenty of people that I don't like everything about.

Anyone got any thoughts on Sharia Watch? I am not finished the report yet, but it seems to be reasonably well written and referenced, though I have not had a chance to check all the references yet.

MrP

Nodin

MrPudding wrote: »

.............

Anyone got any thoughts on Sharia Watch? I am not finished the report yet, but it seems to be reasonably well written and referenced, though I have not had a chance to check all the references yet.

MrP

I read a few articles on the site last night. The general tone would say to me that the only thing I'd be likely to give them is the toe of me boot, tbh.

Vivisectus

Looks like the usual crypto-fascist anti-muslim claptrap to me. These days it is popular in European countries to combine a fear of immigrants from muslim countries with a vague sort of reactionary good-old-days thinking, and package that as a patriotic protest vote. It seems to be western europe's answer to the tea-party: simplistic, chauvinistic, and deeply right-wing.

One of the recurring narratives among these groups is the idea that there is an over-arching conspiracy by all these muslim immigrants coming here and "taking our jerbs!" to convert western european countries and introduce sharia law everywhere.

Just read their website: Halal butchers fund TERRORISM!!

It is standard conspiracist fare, and when you get down to it, it is amazing how close the resemblance is to good old-fashioned anti-semite conspiracy theories. If you read their manifesto, you catch a whiff of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But loads of people across Europe, and now also in the UK, are lapping this stale **** up with gusto and canny politicians that are not getting ahead in mainstream politics are jumping on the bandwagon and making out like bandits.

I have no problem with reacting to some of the more objectionable practices of religious organisations, but here it is just a convenient cover for plain ole racism. Caveat Emptor!

recedite

What about the article on Rotherham? Racist conspiracy, or fact based?
I can understand the concerns of people in the UK, where whole districts, and in some cases towns, have been colonised by people who have imported a culture which opposes many of the fundamental values of the native culture.

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

What about the article on Rotherham? Racist conspiracy, or fact based?
I can understand the concerns of people in the UK, where whole districts, and in some cases towns, have been colonised by people who have imported a culture which opposes many of the fundamental values of the native culture.

They pulled the same **** with the Jamaicans in the fifties, the Pakistanis in the seventies, and us Irish since the reformation.

Sharia watch is nothing but Enoch Powell and his "rivers of blood" speech dug up and reheated.

Brian Shanahan

Seems like putting your trust in religious figures can get you killed in Pakistan.

Too trusting: Pir kills follower for miracle of life

Muhammad Sabir, a pir of village Mubarakabad in Bahawalnagar, gained popularity over the last five years for his ability to perform ‘miracles’.
He said on Tuesday, he announced that he could breathe life back into a dead man. The pir gave the condition that the victim must be married and have children.
Sabir said 40-year-old Muhammad Niaz, a daily wage worker and father of six children, volunteered for the miracle.
On Wednesday, Niaz was placed on a table in a square and his hands and legs were bound.
The police spokesman said Sabir then sliced his throat as people looked on.
Meanwhile, an anonymous caller informed the police about ‘the miracle.’ The spokesman by the time police reached, Niaz had died.
Witnesses said Sabir uttered some words to bring him back to life. They said when he realized his ‘miracle’ had not worked, he tried to flee.
He was detained by the villagers and handed over to the police. Villagers told police that he used ask a local pet store to donate birds and dogs so that could save villagers from black magic.

Seems like the victim's sister, Samina, is taking a more philosophic (mean people would probably use credulous or idiotic) view, however:

“Why should I mourn when I know that my brother is in heaven?” she said. “He will be rewarded for his services for the spiritual leader in afterlife.

Nodin

recedite wrote: »

What about the article on Rotherham? Racist conspiracy, or fact based?
I can understand the concerns of people in the UK, where whole districts, and in some cases towns, have been colonised by people who have imported a culture which opposes many of the fundamental values of the native culture.

Whatever discussion there is to be had about Rotherham, I'd suggest that Sharia Watch would not be the place to start having it.

Brown Bomber

recedite wrote: »

What about the article on Rotherham? Racist conspiracy, or fact based?
I can understand the concerns of people in the UK, where whole districts, and in some cases towns, have been colonised by people who have imported a culture which opposes many of the fundamental values of the native culture.

I think "colonised" is a bit strong. Especially given the majority of the people you are talking about have strong connections to being the colonised themselves.

Couldn't this extract from their article mostly apply to the British elite for the last 30 years?

I would like to believe that this creep was allowed to happen unwittingly, but the evidence suggests that it was policy from on high. Blair promised us that he would be “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime” but the grooming of underage girls was not perceived to be a crime by the relevant authorities in Rotherham. Obviously the Shariah interpretation of sexual crime against minors held sway there.

Now that this situation is out in the open, we will see if Shariah still holds in Rotherham - if the matter is just swept under the carpet, then we will know that Rotherham is still Shariah compliant.

There may however be a full enquiry, we will see the laws of the land enacted against those who raped vulnerable children, those who aided and abetted them, those who refused to investigate complaints and were thus accessories after the fact, and those who further victimized the victims saying that the sex was ‘consensual’ (they are all criminals and need to be punished with the full weight of English law, if only to demonstrate to all and sundry that Shariah is not the law of this land). Failure to do this will send a very loud, and very clear message to every authority in the country, its ok to implement Sharah as an alternative to English law.

I expect however that there will be a few junior ranks blamed, and the real criminals will get off scot free – that is how it works.

IMO, blaming Islam for Rotheram is no different than blaming homosexuality for the child abuse ring operating out of the gay guest house Elm House.

Brown Bomber

Vivisectus wrote: »

Looks like the usual crypto-fascist anti-muslim claptrap to me. These days it is popular in European countries to combine a fear of immigrants from muslim countries with a vague sort of reactionary good-old-days thinking, and package that as a patriotic protest vote. It seems to be western europe's answer to the tea-party: simplistic, chauvinistic, and deeply right-wing.

One of the recurring narratives among these groups is the idea that there is an over-arching conspiracy by all these muslim immigrants coming here and "taking our jerbs!" to convert western european countries and introduce sharia law everywhere.

Just read their website: Halal butchers fund TERRORISM!!

It is standard conspiracist fare, and when you get down to it, it is amazing how close the resemblance is to good old-fashioned anti-semite conspiracy theories. If you read their manifesto, you catch a whiff of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. But loads of people across Europe, and now also in the UK, are lapping this stale **** up with gusto and canny politicians that are not getting ahead in mainstream politics are jumping on the bandwagon and making out like bandits.

I have no problem with reacting to some of the more objectionable practices of religious organisations, but here it is just a convenient cover for plain ole racism. Caveat Emptor!

OK, but you are saying this from a position of knowledge. Would you accept that these kind of hysterical publications could be extremely effective amongst the ignorant? I was in London a couple of weeks ago and I'd never experienced racial/religious tension like it before, these propagandists can only add fuel to the fire, they legitimise people's bigotry. I cannot imagine why any secular society would forge alliances with them.

recedite

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think "colonised" is a bit strong. Especially given the majority of the people you are talking about have strong connections to being the colonised themselves.

Whether they were colonised themselves is irrelevant.

Leaving aside the actual detail of the Rotherham scandals, the valid point being made by shariawatch is that a sub-group of society were allowed the freedom to effectively apply their own ethnic/cultural/religious standards outside of the law of the land. So this is not comparable to other UK abuse cases, but it is somewhat comparable to the RCC abuse cases in Ireland (if you substitute canon law for shariah law)

Vivisectus

recedite wrote: »

What about the article on Rotherham? Racist conspiracy, or fact based?
I can understand the concerns of people in the UK, where whole districts, and in some cases towns, have been colonised by people who have imported a culture which opposes many of the fundamental values of the native culture.

Whole towns overrun by the brown menace you say! How concerning!

I too am concerned. My entire country, let alone a district or town, has been colonized by Catholics, whose fundamental values of misogyny and homophobia are diametrically opposed to the values of most modern democracies.

Vivisectus

recedite wrote: »

Whether they were colonised themselves is irrelevant.

Leaving aside the actual detail of the Rotherham scandals, the valid point being made by shariawatch is that a sub-group of society were allowed the freedom to effectively apply their own ethnic/cultural/religious standards outside of the law of the land. So this is not comparable to other UK abuse cases, but it is somewhat comparable to the RCC abuse cases in Ireland (if you substitute canon law for shariah law)

a sub-group of society were allowed the freedom to effectively apply their own ethnic/cultural/religious standards

Like, for instance, a religious organisation controlling 95% of the educational infrastructure and public funding in a country that supposedly has a separation of church and state?

recedite

Vivisectus wrote: »

Whole towns overrun by the brown menace you say! How concerning!

I too am concerned. My entire country, let alone a district or town, has been colonized by Catholics, whose fundamental values of misogyny and homophobia are diametrically opposed to the values of most modern democracies.

I already made the comparison with RCC canon law :P
But catholics have not "colonised" your country, they are indigenous. I'm not saying an indigenous culture is always "better" than a colonising one, I'm just saying the indigenous people are likely to get annoyed, and justifiably so.
And skin colour is irrelevant, why bring it up?

Vivisectus

recedite wrote: »

I already made the comparison with RCC canon law :P
But catholics have not "colonised" your country, they are indigenous. I'm not saying an indigenous culture is always "better" than a colonising one, I'm just saying the indigenous people are likely to get annoyed, and justifiably so.
And skin colour is irrelevant, why bring it up?

Catholics have not colonized Ireland? It was invented here? Someone better call the pope to explain!

The reason I am bringing up skin color is because the likes of "Sharia Watch" use terms like "culture" and "values" as dog-whistle words. What they really mean is "Pakis". It is really just racism with it's hair smoothed down and a clip-on tie put on.

recedite

Most of the Islamic State fighters have brown skin, but that's not why they do what they do. Correlation is not causation.

Vivisectus

recedite wrote: »

Most of the Islamic State fighters have brown skin, but that's not why they do what they do. Correlation is not causation.

Hardly the point. The problem is that Sharia-watch claims they are against religious values being pressured onto people in societies that do not hold those values and do not want them. But when you take a closer look, you see that they are uniquely against certain instances of Muslim religious literalism, and that they spend all their time putting together a scary narrative where nasty Muslims are plotting to take over their country.

Those phrases they sue are just dog-whistle. Racists know exactly what other racists mean when they use phrases like they use, and non-racists tend not to pick up on it.

recedite

It seems then that your argument is against the things sharia-watch does not say, as opposed to any objection to what they do say.
Which is a bit too speculative for me to have any opinions on.

Vivisectus

No, that is nonsense. There is a discrepancy between what they claim and what they actually do. Any organisation that is genuinely worried about cultural infringement would not be uniquely interested in one group.

By the same token it is not unreasonable to call mothersandfathersmatter.org homophobic: they claim to be very interested in the safeguarding of children, but when you look at what they actually say it becomes clear that they are uniquely interested in preventing gay marriage.

Hotblack Desiato

It's 1948 and you're sick of 16 years of DeValera and FF kowtowing to the RCC. You vote for the opposition, for change...

Archives show deference of Seán MacBride to Vatican on foreign policy

MacBride, a founder of the radical republican group Saor Éire and a chief of staff of the IRA during the 1930s, was leader of Clann na Poblachta and minister for external affairs in the first inter-party government, which held office from 1948 until 1951.

His first action after his appointment in February 1948 was to draft a message from the government to Pope Pius XII. He sought and received the approval of his cabinet colleagues for the message to be sent in the name of taoiseach John A Costello.

The message read: “On the occasion of our assumption of office and our first cabinet meeting, my colleagues and myself desire to repose at the feet of Your Holiness the assurance of our filial loyalty and devotion as well as our firm resolve to be guided in all our work by the teaching of Christ and to strive for the attainment of a social order in Ireland based on Christian principles. John A. Costello. Prime Minister.”

It had been assumed until now that the message was sent on the initiative of Costello, who was a devout Catholic, but the archives show that it was drafted and dispatched at the behest of MacBride.

It would be of tremendous assistance if Your Grace could obtain the views of the Youth Unemployment Commission concerning the proposed stoppage of the emigration of young girls. Should the commission support the raising of the age to over 21, I would be delighted.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/irish-state-secretly-intervened-in-italian-1948-general-election-1.2002970

The equivalent of more than €2 million in today’s money was secretly channelled through the Irish embassy to the Vatican in an effort to influence the outcome of the Italian general election in 1948, according to documents in the archives of the department of external affairs to be published next week.

Previous generations would be astounded at attitudes to churches in Ireland today

RikuoAmero

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

snip

Wasn't Ireland broke in 1948? And yet somehow, we had the money to spend on covert operations to manipulate foreign democratic elections?

TwoShedsJackson

The message read: “On the occasion of our assumption of office and our first cabinet meeting, my colleagues and myself desire to repose at the feet of Your Holiness the assurance of our filial loyalty and devotion as well as our firm resolve to be guided in all our work by the teaching of Christ and to strive for the attainment of a social order in Ireland based on Christian principles. John A. Costello. Prime Minister.”

Mortifying. Surely even in 1948 Ireland that must have set a record for obsequiousness.

Brian Shanahan

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Wasn't Ireland broke in 1948? And yet somehow, we had the money to spend on covert operations to manipulate foreign democratic elections?

Probably came out of the share of that year's Marshall Aid budget given to Ireland. Remember it was in 1948 that the US extended the Plan to neutral countries like Ireland.

Vivisectus

Maybe we helped fund Gladio :P

recedite

..my colleagues and myself desire to repose at the feet of Your Holiness the assurance of our filial loyalty and devotion..

Strange, they have not asked to lick the soles of his holiness's shoes while reposing at his feet.
But I suppose they didn't dare to ask for too much on the first date :pac:

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

But I suppose they didn't dare to ask for too much on the first date :pac:

Them fellas would allow all-comers to kiss their ring though...

MrPudding

This just in. Pope still a cnut.

Please excuse the Daily Telegraph link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11239702/Brittany-Maynards-mother-hits-back-at-Vaticans-criticism-of-physician-assisted-suicide.html

MrP

RikuoAmero

MrPudding wrote: »

This just in. Pope still a cnut.

Please excuse the Daily Telegraph link.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11239702/Brittany-Maynards-mother-hits-back-at-Vaticans-criticism-of-physician-assisted-suicide.html

MrP

Well of course they had to condemn her. If they didn't, that would mean that people aren't their god's playthings, their lives his to do with as he pleases. Nope, gotta spread the word that we're just puppets.

Vivisectus

I wonder what it is about pain and the degrading slow failure of your body and it's functions that the church considers so spiritually uplifting. I have seen terminal bowel cancer, and I completely failed to see what is compassionate, holy, or inspirational about excruciating pain and hourly nappy changes.

But then again, we are talking about a church that has a long history of approving and encouraging self-harm.