Restrict Religious Groups?

I don't think so. Take a look at this:

Four out of 10 Muslim students in Britain support the introduction of sharia into UK law for Muslims, according to a YouGov poll. Almost a third of them said that killing in the name of religion was justified; 40% said they felt it was unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely; and nearly a quarter do not think that men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah.

A quarter of Muslim students said they had little or no respect for homosexuals. As for whether British Muslim servicemen should be allowed to opt out of hostilities with Muslim countries, 57% said they should and a further 25% said they were not sure.

More than half of the Muslim students were in favour of an Islamic political party to support their views in parliament. A third don’t think or don’t know whether Islam is compatible with the western notion of democracy, and a third said they were in favour of a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.

Alarmed? From the words, you're clearly supposed to be. An Islamic political party? What a terrible thing. Next thing you know we'll have a Calvinist as Prime Minister...and a quarter of Muslim students with little or no respect for gay people? Why not try canvassing Christian students and see if you get an even bigger number! And speaking of Christians, Muslim servicemen should 'opt out' of hostilities with Muslim countries? Gosh you'll get civil registrars and policemen trying to opt out of their secular duties next.

What follows inescapably from this is that religious people and their views should not be officially recognised in groups. Religion should not be allowed a public space or public representation. This is hard for those of us who used to love the muddled Anglican compromise; it means the disestablishment of our national church – if it doesn’t self-destruct first.

The challenge of other, fiercer and more divisive convictions has forced the issue; multiculturalism has been subversive. There must be no more religious schools – personally I would leave those that exist alone. There must be no public recognition of religious associations as representatives of anything or anybody: not on campuses, not in student unions, not in government consultations or in parliament.

Absolute hogwash, and I say that as an atheist. Whilst I agree that Church and state should indeed be separated, this argument is tantamount to advocating that all MPs should be atheists, which is ridiculous. But for religion to have no public space at all would be insane. In a recent talk I watched by Bishop Gene Robinson, he and Sir Ian McKellen jointly argued that we can only progress together in society - that means atheist lobbyists working alongside gay bishops, that mean civil rights and religious rites side by side, but not one excluding the other. Only by making the civil and religious spheres distinct can we see the deficiencies in both and how each can aid the other.

Sure it's past time for the sake of fairness in society (for Muslims and non-Muslims alike) that disestablishment should take place, but to then say that religion should as a result wither on the vine would be ignorant. And to exclude religion from places of learning is downright inane. I agree that it should not be the means of learning (you're right, I think faith schools should be stopped - by which I mean Anglican and Catholic ones too), but not to allow its free expression by those best able to articulate it would be the most dangerous act of extremism of all.

Yet how can young Muslims fit into a liberal western democracy if they believe things that are intolerant, illegal and, in plain English, unBritish?

There's that fear thing again - the writer blaming Muslims for attitudes widely held by Christians. Want Islamophobia? That's how it's transmitted. Try attacking the levels of domestic violence and rape perpetrated by chuchgoing Christians. Try attacking the Christian Institute for trying to change the law to allow religious opt-outs such as Lillian Ladele's disgraceful example in Islington. And for that matter if we really don't like dictators maybe we should try to oust all of them rather than just the Islamic ones.

Jesus Christ, It's Iris Robinson!

As many of you already know, Democratic Unionist MP and MLP Iris Robinson, wife of Northern Ireland's new First Minister Peter Robinson, is a died-in-the-wool, fire-and-brimstone 'born again' Christian. Well when on a phone-in radio programme last week, she was asked for her response to the news that a gay man had been viciously beaten up and left for dead. She admittedly condemned the violence, but then qualified it by saying gay people were an 'abomination', who could always seek therapy with her pet psychiatrist, because he's good at turning gay people straight! You thought crap like this left with the Paisleys? Not a bit of it. I have a considered response here, but I wanted a freer word here too.



The woman is mad, bonkers mad. When challenged on TV she followed up her earlier slurs by likening us to murderers, and then complained about a 'witchhunt' against Christians speaking out! Of course she defended that by saying 'it's not me, it's God's word, and you can't disagree with Him'. How convenient - wanton bigotry by someone in a position of power, and an argument that can't be contradicted. Her husband needs to fire her as Chair of Stormont's health committee - that if nothing else is an abomination. This is not what someone in a position of a responsibility, in a devolved government statutorily committed to equality can be allowed to bleat about. Why? Because it's bonkers, does anyone really need that explaining?

Shut up, Iris (or at least laugh at your own madness in likening gay people to murderers in front of a TV camera again - that was priceless)! If only theists knew how hilarious their rants really were.

My Best Friend is an Atheist

So Parliament is about to debate repealing blasphemy laws eh? About time too - may the desperate theists trying to get special dispensation anyway be as successful as the latest attempt to prosecute Jerry Springer: The Opera.

Some sense may yet be out there.

More Muslim Anti-Artist Barbarity

And we're back at the old, familiar situation of an artist (again in Holland) getting death threats from Muslim extremists. I don't really know what to say - I'm sick of it. I don't care if she's as bigoted as Pim Fortuyn, as aggressive as Theo Van Gogh or set out deliberately to offend. She's an artist - she's allowed! That's how we do things in this part of the world. The secularised West allows everything to be artistically attacked, even religion. Religion is no longer the glue by which society is held together, and it works spectacularly well for us.



It's really time that all elements of popular culture came together - TV, newspapers, internet, magazines and more - to combat this unthinkingly monstrous behaviour, not just in Holland but everywhere. It's happening here too, not on the same scale, and currently mostly by Christians, but it's no less insidious for it. Whilst a society founded on the freedom of speech does require the maturity to use that freedom with wisdom and sensitivity, it's also founded on the responsibility not to take offence on behalf of others, particularly imaginary friends.