Showing posts with label Muslims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muslims. Show all posts

Sunday, July 27, 2008

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.

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

I Pledge Allegiance to The Queen...

The former Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith has recommended that school children should pledge allegiance to the Queen, as one of many measures to try to re-entrench 'Britishness' into civil life. Silly me, I wasn't aware that it had ever left, there must be a moral panic afoot. Nick Clegg is right in trashing the idea - developing a sense of belonging for young people can only come by allowing them an active role in society. Yet soon they'll require ID cards merely to get student loans...

As much as I love the United States, I have no comprehension why this country is so totally obsessed with becoming the 51st state. Their pledging allegiance to their flag isn't something which can be copied for a whole litany of reasons, nor should it be desirable in this country. The nationalism which that engenders can currently be demonstrated in Iraq. Of course this is merely an attempt to get young, disaffected Muslims 'back on board' with their British identity, but how reciting an oath could reverse a disengagement with society (the reasons for which are well known and often documented) is beyond me. This government is stupid. Rather than empowering young people to form their own identity and determine allegiances which work successfully for them, they might instead be required to pledge their allegiance to nobility?!

Someone point me out the Minister for Children and Young People. No? Acknowledge the findings of the UK Youth Parliament? No? Withdrawing ID cards? No? At least saying 'sorry' for Iraq? No? Genuinely creating more opportunities for ethnic minority young people and educational opportunities for all poorer young people? No. A prescriptive oath of allegiance will fix everything.

Thursday, December 06, 2007

Appeasement

A local BBC radio presenter joked that Gillian Gibbons' dog was called Mohammed. Then the BBC issued an on-air apology. Why, exactly? Were they really afraid that a sarcastic jibe at a hysterical Muslim element in a foreign country would lead to her meeting Theo Van Gough's fate?

They stand firm over Jerry Springer: The Opera, yet cave in and apologise to world Islam before a complaint is even made. Why bloody pander to people who choose to take offence, before they even do?

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Lashings


Cartoons
Originally uploaded by lewishamdreamer

Every once in awhile I see a story which makes me despair of humanity. This is one of those times.

A British primary school teacher arrested in Sudan faces up to 40 lashes for blasphemy after letting her class of 7-year-olds name a teddy bear Muhammad.

And it happens to be a very common name in the Islamic world. Fucking backward. Remember the cartoons? And even that began with an artist and editor who did mean to cause offence. These are children and teddy bears.