Pat Condell: "The crisis of secularism"

Post Reply New Topic

How do we tell when they're not?

Also, anyone - does the UK have a Christian armed forces? The Queen is our head of state as appointed by God (the Christian one), we are, as the Prime Minister observed, a Christian country, and they fight on behalf of Her Majesty and the country.

I don't know. It's not saying much to say armed forces only kill during wartime - It's not as though 'wartime' is akin to 'lunchtime' - some thing specific, set aside every few years. All you have to do is declare a war, then start dropping your bombs.

Personally, I think whoever kills you, and in whatever name, you're still dead. You don't become more dead just because you were killed in an Islamic terrorist act rather than by an invading/occupying army's landmine.

Nor do I see going to war for your country as any better than doing so for your religion.

I would criticize all religions equally.

How about going to war to protect yourself and your family against an aggressor?

Should Great Britain have surrendered to the Nazis? I think not.

ruveyn

No, but that's an act of defense.

Depends what you mean by 'war', but yes.

I don't know. It's not saying much to say armed forces only kill during wartime - It's not as though 'wartime' is akin to 'lunchtime' - some thing specific, set aside every few years. All you have to do is declare a war, then start dropping your bombs.

Personally, I think whoever kills you, and in whatever name, you're still dead. You don't become more dead just because you were killed in an Islamic terrorist act rather than by an invading/occupying army's landmine.

Nor do I see going to war for your country as any better than doing so for your religion.

You are missing the point. Your initial objection, as I understand it, was that we can't criticize anything about Islam, painting all muslims with the same brush and even calling it "racism" at one point. Again, Osama Bin Laden himself cited verses from the Koran in support of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and if people kill for their religion then I absolutely can criticize that religion for promoting that.

I also mentioned in my very first post that I made in this thread that it's not only such terrorist acts but the fact that in Islamic countries, women can be stoned to death for being raped, under the Taliban regime, women could not be educated past the age of eight years old and would be executed by being shot in the head at point blank range just for walking in the streets without their husbands, all cited to be for religious reasons and part of Sharia. How about the fact that sharia mandates the death penalty for blasphemy and even for apostasy? Remember Hamza Kashgari, who only last year was extradited to Saudi Arabia from Malaysia to face the the death penalty over three tweets? I absolutely can criticize a belief system over that.

christian abortion bombers cite the bible as well, does that mean i get to legitimately call all christians for violent irrational and hatefull?

(hint, no)

You are missing the point. Your initial objection, as I understand it, was that we can't criticize anything about Islam, painting all muslims with the same brush and even calling it "racism" at one point. Again, Osama Bin Laden himself cited verses from the Koran in support of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and if people kill for their religion then I absolutely can criticize that religion for promoting that.

I also mentioned in my very first post that I made in this thread that it's not only such terrorist acts but the fact that in Islamic countries, women can be stoned to death for being raped, under the Taliban regime, women could not be educated past the age of eight years old and would be executed by being shot in the head at point blank range just for walking in the streets without their husbands, all cited to be for religious reasons and part of Sharia. How about the fact that sharia mandates the death penalty for blasphemy and even for apostasy? Remember Hamza Kashgari, who only last year was extradited to Saudi Arabia from Malaysia to face the the death penalty over three tweets? I absolutely can criticize a belief system over that.

Somewhere out there is the Muslim that the British government seeks. Like all religious people he (the government is more likely to talk about Muslim women than to them) supports gay rights, racial equality, women's rights, tolerance and parliamentary democracy. He abhors the murder of innocent civilians without qualification - unless they are in Palestine, Afghanistan or Iraq. He wants to be treated as a regular British citizen - but not by the police, immigration or airport security. He wants the best for his children and if that means unemployment, racism and bad schools, then so be it.

He raises his daughters to be assertive: they can wear whatever they want so long as it's not a headscarf. He believes in free speech and the right to cause offence but understands that he has neither the right to be offended nor to speak out. Whatever an extremist is, on any given day, he is not it.

He regards himself as British - first, foremost and for ever. But whenever a bomb goes off he will happily answer for Islam. Even as he defends Britain's right to bomb and invade he will explain that Islam is a peaceful religion. Always prepared to condemn other Muslims and supportive of the government, he has credibility in his community not because he represents its interests to the government, but because he represents the government's interests to Muslims. He uses that credibility to preach restraint and good behaviour. Whatever a moderate is, on any given day, he is it.

On his slender shoulders lies Britain's domestic anti-terror campaign. And as soon as the government finds him things are going to start turning around. Until then we are resigned to the fact that we will be about as successful at fighting terrorism at home as we are abroad and for the same reason. Unburdened by any desire to forge consensus or engage in negotiation, the government seeks to craft new realities out of whole cloth and then wonders why no one wants to wear them. And so it is that the mythical Muslim will prove as elusive as weapons of mass destruction or the beacons of democracy that Iraq and Afghanistan were supposed to become.

...

"There is a grievance," explains Salma Yaqoob, a Respect councillor in Birmingham. "There's no reason to deny that. All you need to know that there is a grievance is a TV. These young men who want a short cut to heaven see innocent people being killed and then retaliate by going out and killing innocent people. There's a chilling logic to it. It's wrong. But it is logical."

But while the problem may start with foreign policy it does not end there. Lest we forget, there were riots involving Muslims in Britain's northern towns during the summer of 2001. Back then the issues were poverty (of Muslims and non-Muslims), organised racism and segregated housing.

...

...the government continues to approach Muslims as though their religion defines them. It rarely speaks to them as tenants, parents, students or workers; it does not dwell on problems that they share with everyone else; it does not convene high profile task forces to look at how to improve their daily lives. It summons them as Muslims, talks to them as Muslims and refers to them as Muslims - as though they could not possibly be understood as anything else.

"The confusion between the plural identities of Muslims and their Islamic identity is not only a descriptive mistake, it has serious implications for policies for peace in the precarious world in which we live," writes Amartya Sen in Identity and Violence. "The effect of this religion-centred political approach, and of the institutional policies it has generated ... has been to bolster and strengthen the voice of religious authorities while downgrading the importance of non-religious institutions and movements."

And when it does talk to them as Muslims, it demands they join a society that doesn't exist, on terms that would not be set for any other religious group. The Home Office pledge to challenge those who "reject parliamentary democracy, dismiss the rule of law and promote intolerance and discrimination on the basis of race, faith, ethnicity, gender or sexuality," is laudable. But, in a period that has seen the Catholic church stained with endemic child sex abuse and the Church of England rent asunder over homosexuality, the idea that Muslims should be singled out is laughable.

I have no problem with people criticising Islam, or any other religion, or any form of thinking or belief system, in good faith. I do have a problem with someone who will attack religion as a load of nonsense, yet have no problem with nationalism or patriotism.

I do have a problem when racists suddenly pick up the sticks of gay rights or feminism or secularism with which to beat Islam.

Racism is not a response to/attack on an existing biological 'race'. It first of all racialises a group of people, and then attacks them for being what the racist supposes them to be. In this sense, some attacks on Islam are racialised, as Tequila let slip last night.

And no, you can't paint all Muslims with the same brush. Islam is not a monolith. There are a lot of disagreements, and a lot of conflict within it, as there is in any belief system. What religion do you think the majority of victims are under strict Islamic countries? I'd say most would identify themselves as 'Muslim'. The problem in these countries is more political than religious.

Gary Younge on the 'good Muslim':

I have never even attacked all muslims and neither for that matter has Pat Condell.

Actually, it does mean that you get to legitimately call the religious beliefs held by the bombers as violent and irrational, since the act of bombing the abortion clinic is justified by those beliefs. Considering that not all christians bomb abortion clinics, I wouldn't call all christians violent and irrational no, just like I never used the phrase "all muslims" either.