shuggy's blog
Yes, that's all true, Shuggy. Her charge is that liberal secularists have not fought their corner. That they have been supine. Her complaint is that liberal secularism is, by its nature, less focused and therefore less capable of certainty. A firm secular ideology might be a different matter, but then it would not be liberal. Her suggestion is for fighting fire with fire.
But then you are right. The C o fE is not any kind of fire, and the other fires Christianity offers have bad histories.
Besides which, as you point out, it's no use anyway if you don't believe in the Christian religion, whatever demonination. since you (and Mel P) are a liberal secularist.
We need a two-prong strategy. First, the preaching of brotherhood and love. Secondly, every male over 40 who has no criminal record is to walk about with a two-prong fork and a rounders bat, knoking hell out of any male under 25 who annoys him by anti-social activity. That'll fix it.
The Nazis weren’t seen off by a bunch of people singing Onward Christian Soldiers but by one lot, after much shilly-shallying, meeting its treaty obligations and the other defending Mother Russia. They were further spurred on by the horribleness of their enemy. I think the repellent nature of theocratic Islamism is becoming more and more apparent and will ultimately mean a less compliant Western population than Mel thinks – there will be a hatred of the Other, as the post modernists would say. And why not, when the Other is so patently hateful. Oh, and the Nazis always thought the west was decadent and wouldn’t fight but ultimately they did.
I like living in a country of Christianity-and-water and am a little sorry when I visit a fine English church and see that the congregation has so dwindled but no, that won’t convert me.
It is certainly the case that Europeans have not seen fit to take much of a stand against the religious intolerance coming from Islamists. It is not, however, clear that taking a stand leads to a better outcome than would appeasement or otherwise muddling through.
Of course, we cannot know what the future will bring. Maybe Islamism will run its course and its exponents will embrace their European heritage. Maybe not. The latter seems the more likely as Islamism has braved less attractive terrain and survived in Egypt, where the government fought it ruthlessly.
If Europeans stand up to the Islamists, perhaps Europe will come to more resemble a group of tribal communities, perhaps akin to the Balkans, with periods of peace punctuated by periods of civil unrest and civil war. Or, perhaps the Islamists may succeed in their quest to dominate Europe, with non-Muslims becoming dhimmis, as they were in Ottoman Europe. Or, perhaps fighting will become so bad that Europeans toss Muslims out or perhaps the Islamist movement will be suppressed. I am not advocating anything here but merely noting there are many possible futures. Non-Muslims will only, I submit, impact at the margins on what happens.
The main parameters are a function of demographics, not the response to it. Large numbers of Muslims in Europe - and having very large numbers of children - have resulted in the issues of the Muslim regions also being issues in Europe. There is now a large group of people in Europe who have leaders who see Europe through classical Islamic eyes and look to the Muslim regions for their ideological inspiration and outlook.
Islam, as is well known, is an exceedly evangelical faith that periodically embraces violence. The current violent phase may fizzle out or it might continue for a very long time. So long as the direction of Muslim thought is toward orthodoxy in faith, you can expect violence as classical Islamic theology advocates use of Jihad to spread Muslim rule under Islamic law. And the Muslim regions are going through a period of religious revival.
My point here is that it does not much matter, in the big picture, what Europeans do - short of expelling Muslims -. What matters primarily is what Muslims think. And that has little to do with whether non-Muslims fight back in Britain or in Europe but, instead, whether the goals of Muslims remain gripped by religious orthodoxy coming from the Muslim regions. Hence, the outcome may well have more to do with whether Muslims in Egypt and Pakistan tire of Jihad than with what non-Muslims do.
Sorry, I'm a socialist and I think the problem is that we have had governments since the 1970's that have enfeebled the working class movement such as the trade unions and the Labour Party. There is no red-blooded secularism in this country because our political masters wanted us atomised and defenceless to ram through all those wonderful 'reforms' that enable them to screw even more money and profit out of us. As I like to say, 'Forward to the Eighteenth century'. Internationally, the 'fall' of the Soviet Union was not a victory for anyone but the thieves and scumbags who could carve it up for themselves and I am not a Stalinist (in fact my roots are in Trotskyism) but I think the loss of active communist parties is showing in the level of politcal debate and decline of public action. So, I would argue, build the trade unions, demand properly resourced public services and show New Labour it's pragmatic moaneygrabbing has had its day.
Incidentally, is that a pun in the first post 'demonisation' instead of 'denomination'?
oh jolly good what a lark. so this means we can look forward to another re-run of all the holy roman empire business that kept us all occupied for so long. yum yum.
more secret societies no doubt..
George:
I assume that by "Mel P", you meanMelanie Phillips. If so, she's a 'non-believer' in Christianity, at least in the sense that she's a practicing Jew who keeps kosher at home, and, possibly away from home as well.
In that case a genuflecting retraction from me, Lynne. I think I meant she lives in a liberal secular society and would probably like to go on doing so.
Actually I admire Melanie Phillip's courage. For 25 years as an editor in the Guardian, she pursued equally rigorous arguments. As an inveterate researcher, I find little that is 'dodgy' in her obsession with presenting 'facts'.
What is amazing, to my unreconstituted left-wing brain, is that so-called 'socialists' have abandoned history, logic and traditional socialist values in order to accommodate, of all things, a 'revealed truth' 5th century fascism.
I do not use the word lightly. Islam dictates every aspect of Muslim life. Fascism dictates every aspect of individual life. Even a brief study of Islam, Islamic states, Sharia Law, and a quick comparison with the methodology and tenets of 1930s European fascism should wipe out 'liberal' complacency.
Insane immigration policies which are creaking the British infrastructure to breaking point highlights New Labour incompetence. Objections to the colonisation of large swathes of Britain by a cultural/religious minority that shows contempt for British law and culture has nothing to do with 'racism'; it is about intelligent pragmatism.
No other cultural or religious immigrant grouping has presented British society with confrontational religious or cultural demands which are alien to the majority community.
I disagree strongly with Neal's analysis. 'Doing nothing' is another expression for appeasement of ideas and Islamic religious requirements which 'should be' anathema in any secular society.
NO religious grouping has a right to special privilege e.g. five prayer breaks per day, taxi drivers refusing blind passengers because the Koran says dogs are 'unclean'. WHAT.
This is Britain. Dogs don't blow up their own species. Brits are animal 'lovers'. This is a diverse democratic state. What is the employer, who agrees to prayer breaks, to say to somebody who demands five equivalent 'smoke breaks'?
Human rights? It is NOT my human right to disrupt any organisation or business because I have an addiction to prayer, smoking, eating, or sex. There is no difference. Religion in keeping with all the others is a private matter. Not so with Islam.
Kate,
I do not claim people should do nothing. I just do not think you are going much to affect the basic flow of events. You can only affect the margins.
As ought to be rather obvious, demographics is destiny. The percentage of Muslims in Europe will grow and, with that growth, the reason to accomodate to European values will diminish. Thus, the probability that life in Europe will become normal depends more on what Muslims want than on what non-Muslims do.
Among the choices available, I think that standing up for one's rights is better than becoming a dhimmi - which is what a non-Muslim would be under Shari'a, assuming that the population enters into a dhimma rather than face jihad. So, please do not read more into my comment than I intended.
It is NOT my human right to disrupt any organisation or business because I have an addiction to prayer, smoking, eating, or sex. There is no difference. Religion in keeping with all the others is a private matter. Not so with Islam.
Hmmm, dunno - fag breaks and shag breaks? You could be on to a winner there. The prayer thing: do you work for an employer that gives Muslims five breaks a day? I don't. The taxi driver thing is obviously outrageous - but is this commonplace? I doubt it.
I actually don't disagree with everything you say here but I do disagree about Melanie Phillips. I'm not overly familiar with her writing but I do remember her articles about education when she wrote for the Guardian and she did write a rather poorly-researched book called, "All must win prizes". She used to go on about the 'British education system'. Well-researched? Hardly, since there's no such thing. And this was about her notion that Europe should re-Christianise, which surely must jar with an unreconstructed socialist mind? As would her conservatism, one would have thought.
Neal: "As ought to be rather obvious, demographics is destiny. The percentage of Muslims in Europe will grow and, with that growth, the reason to accomodate to European values will diminish."
Apologies if I misread your intent. But I do believe even this (demographics) must be confronted. What about a working knowledge of English as a basic requirement for immigrants, stringent security checks and a requirement that all economic migrants support themselves for five years. It is lunacy that we now find an 'open door' policy has enabled well known Islamists to 'set up' unhindered.
Britain is overwhelmed by a community that seeks to usurp the secular culture. I merely aver that the British majority is entitled to protection from 'invasion' from whatever source, and that the British working class has been abandoned in favour of millions spent on a delusion of cultural relativism.
Free speech means the right to say 'enough'. Democracy facilitates 'change' if enough people speak out and vote accordingly. Theocracy facilitates clerics and those who are brainwashed into submission - dhimmi.
Shuggy: "And this was about her notion that Europe should re-Christianise, which surely must jar with an unreconstructed socialist mind?"
Do your research. My father was an active and vocal trade unionist, dedicated socialist and Christian. Some of the greatest socialists in history were Christian. In the Irish context, think Connolly; in the British, Keir Hardie, Tillich, Tawney. The Trade Unions grew out of the Friendly Societies. There is no dichotomy.
Except for the fact that, historically, those religions with a tendency to autocratic/ theocratic, hierarchial supremacy oppose socialism. Example: the Catholic Church (sometime in the 1930s) issued the statement that 'Socialism is not compatible with Catholicism' - read, of course, from every pulpit in Ireland. Yet, many who went with Ryan to defend Republican Spain were Christian.
So. No logical objections to Melanie's thesis that Christianity is part and parcel of the British democratic ethos. I don't think it has to do with 'fundamentalism' or sentimentalism; she's Jewish after all.
I think she is referring to the British Protestant ethos which, from the beginning, objected to ecclesiastical authority and favoured secular political authority. She also needed to include the influence of enlightenment philosophers in the argument.
My contention is that socialists have become 'sluggish', complacent, and ignorant of their own history. We also stand condemned for ignoring that section of British society (black and white) which is denigrated as 'disaffected', unemployable youth.
I do not fear 'up front' Conservatives; I admire anyone with the courage to speak their thoughts and present 'alternative' facts. You are correct - there is no absolute truth - there is however, still the freedom to explore all options, weigh and balance conflicting facts and reach a
I was thinking about this thing about the Muslims taking over the West and then I realised thsat in fact they are too bloody divided among themselves to actually succeed. For example, would we be taken over by the strand that practices female circumscision or the niquab lot? Would we be forced to become Sunni or Shia? It may be wishful thinking on my part, but I don't think they actually have the ability to nation build or even run a modern state. I think Iraq will show that because when Britain and America pull out the geo-politcal entity that is Iraq will disintegrate. However, the fact that these people could not run a piss-up in a brewery (or should that be cook a kebab in a souk?) does not mean they are not capable of causing great damage. The Times today was scaremongering about Middle Eastern countries adopting nuclear technology, and of-course we all know about Iran and it's race to develop a bomb. The horrible danger is that Bush may decide to launch a pre-emptive strike and then, hellzapoppin'. It's all terrible sad and I think I might just hie me to a nunnery...
I think she is referring to the British Protestant ethos which, from the beginning, objected to ecclesiastical authority and favoured secular political authority.
Take your point about the Brit Labour movement having more to do with methodism than Marxism - but that's all, or mostly, in the past, isn't it?
Ok, now it's my turn to say do your research. British Protestant ethos? Excuse me? What's that when it's at home? You'll have heard of Calvinism, it was very popular up here for a while. Favoured secular authority, did they? You must be joking.
Calvinists: YEP! Agree. Secular values and/or any sort of 'liberal' thought the work of the devil. Not too far removed from radical Islam. Except the Calvanists were/are not interested in territorial gain OR subjugation of 'the rest'.
Sorry. I should likely have said England in my reference to MP's preference - the Lutheran rather than Calvanist ethos.
Main points:
a) traditional Christian values (as they exist in Britain today) do not threaten secular society.
b) a section of the 'left' Ken Livingstone, Galloway, SWP, et al actively support ecclesiastical fascism.
c) New Labour is guilty of a policy of cultural relativism exposing their ignorance of the term which philosophically recognised 'facticity', i.e. the historical and circumstantial situation of individuals within a specific culture.
This, today, is distorted to embrace ALL cultural mores as equivalent and relevant to ALL societies. It is intellectually sloppy and (as we are discovering) dangerous.
Sue R: I hope you are right in your perception of schism in Islam. Still think it has to be confronted politically.
"I think I might just hie me to a nunnery...". Please don't. As a resident in a state just lately escaped from clerical rule (Ireland), I assure you - that's jumping from the frying pan to the fire.
Kate,
You write: Apologies if I misread your intent. But I do believe even this (demographics) must be confronted. What about a working knowledge of English as a basic requirement for immigrants, stringent security checks and a requirement that all economic migrants support themselves for five years. It is lunacy that we now find an 'open door' policy has enabled well known Islamists to 'set up' unhindered.
The lunatics who wanted to blow up a bunch of plains spoke English just fine. As did the shoe bomber. As did, so far as I know, 9/11 leader Atta. The issue is not English.
The issue with these people is their beliefs, not their language. Your country is not going to be able to pierce their beliefs because your country is unwilling to examine their beliefs as they really are. Consider the BBC's religion webpages in which the topic of Jihad is discussed. It is something that ought to be read carefully and, after that, read what most Muslims claim - and have always claimed - Jihad is. They are, frankly, not talking about the same thing.
Now, Islam is a very, very fascinating religion and it stands up quite well to Christianity, at least if you are (and being unfair to today's Christianity - but not Mel Gibson's -) comparing the Medieval versions of the religions. That still means understanding Islam's actual tenets as they are, not those which make us feel comfortable.
I do not see that happening. When the BBC can explain, in simple terms, that Jihad is the Muslim struggle to spread Muslim rule, by force as needed, to the entire world, I shall believe that your suggestion might make sense. That is not going to happen until a lot of people have, unfortunately, died and political correctness is dropped.
Neal: We agree on quite a lot here. Islam is 'fascinating' as a medieval phenomenon; but, NOT as a 21 century ideology with an agenda to subjugate secular culture.
I've read the Koran and Hadiths - albeit in translation - I was horrified by the contradictions AND by the fact that those contradictory exhortations are adhered to, literally, as a way of living today. Not only that, but used as an example to highlight the degenerate nature of Britain.
Yes. The BBC is culpable, ergo the Guardian and the Independent. I am loathed on BBC & Guardian Cif. I find it all so pathetically orientalist (Said), so terribly 'correct' and so deeply stupid. All 'interpret' the language of radicals as benign or (at best) misguided. Lord Comer believed the 'natives' were a 'bit simple' as we say in Ireland; so do the BBC et al in their interpretation, appeasement and promotion of Islam.
Unfortunately, even the intellectually challenged need to be controlled when they play with bombs or plot treason.
Cultural relativism has disenfranchised us. It is 'perfectly' understood that immigrant Muslims will want to crowd together, take over swathes of land, build enormous mosques and keep separate from the majority community.
It is not acceptable for white or black working class Brits to claim similar rights of 'clan' or community - in PC speak, that's racism or bigotry.
The country has gone mad. When I say it must be confronted, I mean we must get rid of the philosophy of despair and keep articulating dissent.
All immigrant children should be taught at least a working knowledge of English. If they cannot speak the language, they are disadvantaged in the job market. All schools should be required to teach British history. It doesn't matter what the post-colonialists say; history is an intrinsic part of how the culture evolved.
Actually, I think I too may be heading for insanity. I've spent a lifetime battling for equality, liberty, fraternity. I celebrated in 1997. I knew nothing of Islam until my son escaped with his life from Kings Cross. Then I started to do the reading! Whew.
Kate,
You write: "... appeasement and promotion of Islam ..."
That, in a nutshell, describes European policy. The reason for the appeasement, so far as I can discern, is business and politics.
The politics involved is the the desired creation of a common EU-wide foreign policy. That policy, in order to become a common policy, requires goals that are common to the group. In this case, the aim of the policy is to limit US power. Such is a policy around which pretty much all of Europe can unite, to varying degrees. In order to achieve that goal, the EU and EU countries adopted a foreign policy friendly to the Muslim Arab regimes of the Arab League.
The price for that goal was and still is cooperation with the political objectives of the Arab League. That means that the EU and EU countries needed to adopt a view of the world that is friendly to the view of the Arab League.
Hence, Muslim Arab political objectives became European political goals. That is, for example, likely the main reason why the switch in policy by European countries regarding Israel occurred. And, strange as it may seem, that is why immigration from Arab League countries and multiculturalism are tied together. Which is to say, immigration policy was to accommodate Europeans to Muslims rather than, as might have been wiser when permitting massive immigration, to accommodate Muslims to Europe.
The business "bone" - as we say in America - thrown to obtain cooperation from European business and the public was and still is the promise of uninterrupted supplies of oil and lucrative contracts in the Arab League countries. And, further, the bone thrown to Europe was - and this is, at this point, in the past tense - that Jihad would not be aimed at Europe, which would, in Islamic parlance, be considered a Dar al-Suhl (land of truce).
The entire policy literally blew up in Europe's face. By holding the Palestinian Arab side of the Arab Israeli dispute on a pedestal when, in fact, Palestinian Arabs were engaged in Jihad, suggested and still suggests that Jihad can be legitimated in and carried out against Europeans. The circumstances, at least in Islamic theology and thinking, are the same - namely, land ruled by non-Muslims and not under Shari'a is illegitimate. Hence, when forces friendly to Jihad - who see the world as such - examined the landscape of the West, they saw the West deeply divided about its own position and susceptible, at least in their minds, to attack. Hence, the Dar al-Suhl vaporized. Jihad, as an ideology and policy, is the eye through which radical Muslims viewed Europe.
So, if you want someone to blame - and, for what it is worth, I think the blame game is worthless -, blame politicians who sold Europeans down the river for the dream of European power, money and greed.
Neal:
Your analysis is sound. I think we have been following the same lines of readily available information. The essential difference being that you have reasoned/analysed one step further.
My anxiety is now compounded.The premise that the EU is willing to abdicate democracy and enlightenment principles - which so many millions died to safeguard - simply to facilitate rampant capitalism is mind-blowing. Willing to literally accommodate a covert invasion of Europe in the interests of personal power!
But it makes sense. I have been pondering on WHY so much Saudi money has been allowed into Britain; why the introduction of Sharia-friendly banking and mortgages; why the proposed ultra-mosque in East London (financed by Wahhabis) which will dwarf St Paul's, accommodate 70,000 Muslims and engender further demographic shifts.
Also, HOW the UN came to be so heavily weighted in favour of Muslims; how the government of Darfur was welcomed by Kofi Anan onto his Human Rights committee?
All is now clear. The 'blame game' is, as you point out, worthless; I am more interested in the majority demanding accountability from the present government and the rigorous application of existing laws against subversives.
The terrible dilemma is, who (with power) will lead that demand. In Britain, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prince of Wales and New Labour all get on their knees and touch the ground three times with their foreheads when Muslims riot/protest. What white 'liberals' are now experiencing is inverted racism.
I who have marched and fought against fascism, find myself today in the invidious position of supporting a statement made by the BNP, i.e. "Islam is an evil religion". Yet, I do still have a small glimmer of hope. There is poem in the back of my head something about 'the men of England who have not spoken yet' but when they do...!! Off to look it up. Thank you for all the above.
Shuggy: " ... more to do with methodism than Marxism - but that's all, or mostly, in the past, isn't it?"
I hope to God you are wrong. Dissenters are needed today more than ever. If the country is to depend on an ABC with his head up his own academic proverbial, start growing your beard. I'll take the "wee frees" any day in preference to being black bin-bagged.
That is not a totally ignorant preference. Long ago I spent one of the most hilarious and instructive evenings of my life with the extraordinary Iain Crichton Smith. If such as he could emerge from the extremes of dissent, I'll stick with that.
Kate,
I do not believe that Islam is an evil religion. I think it is an extremely evangelical religion. A large number of the religion's followers have retained a Medieval understanding of the world and hence reason as pretty much everyone reasoned until fairly recently. And that includes the use of violence for overtly religious purposes. But note: the rest of us find ways to use violence, just for reasons we find more reasonable.
The issue here, however, is that Europeans have placed their future in the hands of other people for their, not Europe's, benefit. And that has had and will continue to have unfortunate results for Europe and the world.
Commenting by HaloScan
