Posts
From Seraphic Secret: For those who don't know, the majority position among Sunni Muslim clerics is that anyone who gives up the Islamic faith to join another should be put to death. Not so fast, says new Ground Zero Mosque Imam, Abdallah Adhami. They should not be beheaded, merely jailed - I assume until they repent, though this enlightened Imam did not specify. Tell me again, why are we treating purveyors of this Wahhabist screed as equal members of civilization? Actually, in Britain, they are treating the radicals as suprerior to their native population. Do see the horror story below, about multiculturalism gone mad.
Showing posts with label muslim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label muslim. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The Madness Of The Brits
This from across the pond in the always interesting blog, Counting Cats in Zanzibar:
Eighty year old Muriel Clark of Hildenborough has caused quite a stir writing for her local church magazine, Hildenborough Keys. Here is what she wrote:
Islamisation
by Mrs. Muriel Clark
In view of the worldwide media interest in the fate of Mrs. Ashtiani in Iran, I am concerned about the ever increasing Islamisation of our own country, and think we should take a stand against:
a) uncontrolled immigration of Muslims whose birth rate exceeds that of other groups.
b) allowing Turkey to enter the EU with the inevitable consequence of the increase in our Muslim population.
c) establishment of non-integrated Islamic communities, including no-go areas to so-called infidels in our cities.
d) imposition of sharia laws, taking precedence over our legal and banking systems.
e) halal meat and dairy products stealthily introduced into our prisons, schools and shops.
f) the sometimes intense, and often subtle promotion of Islam in many primary schools in order to influence impressionable young minds.
If we are honest, we know about the oppression of Islamic regimes in Muslim lands, where infidels are not tolerated. Is that what we in Britain really want?
Despite the seeming lack of faith in our Christian heritage, even in sections of the Church nowadays, I am convinced that by far the majority do not welcome these undoubted pressures to bring our country into submission to Islam.All fair comment. This lady has voiced what many people are thinking and was supported by the magazine’s editor, Nick Hawkins and the Reverend John Chandler. She is right to voice her concerns, after all we live in a country that values free speech.
Not so fast. It seems Ms. Clark has violated the "hate speech" codes of today's Britain, for which she now well may be facing official sanction at the request of the local politicians, including a local Tory (conservative party) functionary. It is disgusting, but all too emblamatic of the stranglehold the left has on Britain. For a long discussion of Britain's "hate speech" codes and Muslim problem, see here. This will not end well.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Islam & Blasphemy, Censorship & Hearings
Islam is a "religion of peace" unrelated to the terrorism, murder and mayhem that we see perpetrated throughout the world. Or so CAIR, virtually the entire left in America and Europe, and the Obama administration wants you to believe.
The only way they can maintain that meme is to ignore reality when they can, cover-up for it when they must, and refuse to allow any competing message whenever possible. Thus did we see the Washington Post recently refuse to publish the comments of distinguished scholar Dr. Willis Elliot, a long time contributer to the Post, in answer to the following from the Washington Post:
The Mutual Blasphemy of Christianity and Islam.
2011 began with some bleak news for Muslim-Christian relations around the world.
Recent attacks against churches in Iraq, Nigeria and Egypt have killed dozens of Christian worshippers. Meanwhile, the Pakistani government is standing by the country’s controversial blasphemy law which critics say threatens religious minorities.
How should political and religious leaders in America and abroad deal with these challenges to interfaith relations?
You can read Elliot's entire offending response here. He merely pointed out some realities. One, while Christianity and Judaism, have at their core, the Golden Rule directing them to treat others as they would want to be treated by others, Islam is largely directed to be hostile to non-Muslims. And while promoting non-violence is a theme of the Christianity, it is not a theme of Islam. Elliot adds:
Muslims don’t know how to behave when they are not in power: it enrages them, makes them thin-skinned to “blasphemy,” drives them to achieve power and impose sharia, even motivates some of them to martyr-suicide in killing any they consider enemies of Allah.
Well, that is certainly true of "political Islam" that describes far too large a swath of the Islamic world. Elliot then pointed out:
[W]e can make no essential progress, religious or political, unless we honestly and courageously confront the reality that our two religions are essential enemies, antagonists each to the other’s essence, mutual blasphemers. Only with that realism can the mutual blasphemers begin to learn to get along with each other without violence.
How well said. Tolerance is the watchword, but there will never be tolerance so long as the left whitewashes both the nature of - and problems within - the Islamic world. Censorship, such as that done in this case by WaPo, contributes significantly to an already dangerous situation, as it allows the problems in the Islamic world to metasticize while much of Western civilization remains blissfully ignorant.
Fortunately, not all in our government are willing to accept the whitewash. Rep. Peter King has scheduled a hearing in Feb. on "the Times Square bombing attempt and the Fort Hood shooting, both involving American-born Muslims, as well as other incidents and on what he sees as the failure of Muslim leadership to combat extremism." Not surprisingly, he is getting a lot of push-back from people who do not want hearings like this to take place. On the other hand, Muslim reformers, such as M. Zhudi Jasser, are applauding the decision to hold the hearing. As Mr. Jasser wrote not long ago:
We are only playing defense against this growing threat with no signs of an offensive strategy. More and more, our homeland security strategy is turning out to be nothing more than a whack-a-mole program. This cycle will only be broken by the development of a national strategy that will counter the true root cause of Islamist terror-the ideology and continuum of political Islam that lies within the Muslim consciousness. This again calls for an American Muslim led strategy for reform against political Islam. . . .
As we move forward into 2011, Americans and particularly American Muslims need to wake up to their responsibility to frontally address the ideological threat that we are facing today. Mohamud's radicalization is not uncommon because the separatist ideology of political Islam is ubiquitous in Muslim communities. Condemnation of violence or terrorism is not enough. We can no longer allow the sound bite to be 'it is one deranged individual'. This is a Muslim systemic problem that needs a Muslim systemic reform.
American Muslims must teach our youth that the ideals of America and the principles embodied in our Constitution provide the best environment for Muslims to practice their faith. We must teach our youth that the idea of the Islamic State and governmental shariah (Islamic law) has no place in modernity and no place in America. Any other approach is mired in denial and avoidance of this core ideological problem."
Somehow, I doubt if Mr. Jasser's quote would ever make it past the WaPo censors, nor be referred to by Obama. That notwithstanding, for a much more realistic and in-depth discussion of issues related to the points raised above by Dr. Elliot, I urge you to read the text of a symposium involving M. Zhudi Jasser, Tawfiq Hamid, Robert Spencer and Timothy Furnish. It is not something you will see in the Washington Post or on the View, nor will you hear it discussed by Obama. But if we are to move forward, the starting point is knowing, realistically, where we are today.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
Worship and Recipes
[W]ith all this confusion abounding, we do wonder if it isn’t a bit judgmental of the mainstream media to condemn the 18 percent of Americans who say they think Barack Obama is a Muslim. For one thing, this is fewer than the number of Americans who say that intelligent beings from other planets have made contact with humans on Earth. And it has gotten hard even for people of good will to keep things straight.
Bill Kristol, The Weekly Standard
Bill Kristol at the Weekly Standard weighs in on the question of whether Obama is a closet Muslim? No, of course not. He's a multiculturalist progressive.
Obama’s problem isn’t that people falsely think he’s a Muslim. It’s that the public is correctly concluding he’s a garden-variety multiculturalist progressive. So November’s election won’t just be a repudiation of one non-Muslim president. It will be a repudiation of a multiculturalist progressive worldview—and of the bitter elites who cling desperately to that worldview and are consumed by antipathy to most Americans, who don’t.
Well said.
There has never been any indication that Obama, since adulthood, has been a practicing Muslim. That said, it seems apparent that his time spent in Indonesia where he was living in a heavily Islamic environment has colored his views on Islam. He seems to have extrapolated from from what he observed of the benign form of Islam practiced in the Indonesia of his youth to the Islamic world as a whole. That is an incredibly naive error.
The Shafi'i school of Islam, practiced in Indonesia during Obama's stay there, is not the norm for the Islamic world. More and more the norm is Wahhabi-Salafi Islam, the far more militant, racist, misogynistic ideology at the heart of al Qaeda. As I have pointed out countless times on this blog, there is a war going on today for the heart and soul of Islam. It is a war between those who would reform their religion and those who would keep it mired in the backwaters of 7th century Arabian tribalism. Andrew McCarthy makes the same point today at the NRO. Unfortunately for us, our government is not engaging in this war. But that has nothing to do with Obama actually being a Muslim. It has everything to do with the fact that Obama has close experience with a benign form of Islam.
Obama claims to have been converted to Christianity after hearing one of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's polemics, the one that took note of inequities created by "white man's greed." But that polemic seemed to have little or anything to do with Christianity and far more to do with socialism and the left's "social justice" construct.
I do not think Obama is a Muslim. Nor do I think he a Christian. I think he sees his deity every day when he looks in the mirror. Moreover, I think Afrocity hit the nail on the head in her post today, Obama is . . . . a recipe for disaster:
Monday, July 5, 2010
NASA - No More Manned Space Exploration, Now Muslim Outreach
This is beyond belief.
Obama has taken us out of the manned space exploration game. With NASA on the verge of being superfulous, he has given them new orders. Priority one - engage in Muslim outreach to make them feel good about their contributions to science and mathematics. Priority two, as Mr. Bolden makes clear in the al Jazeera interview below, is apparently to downplay America's role in America's achievements.
As an aside, the reality is that "contributions" to science and math emenating out of Muslim countries virtually all occurred a millenium ago. A bankrupt Islamic culture since then has generated very few "contributions" to science. But we do want them to feel good about themselves.
Could there be a greater misuse of taxpayer funds?
Sunday, August 9, 2009
Europe's Suicide
The socialist left, now largely in control throughout Europe, has warred on Christianity and made common cause with Muslims - in many cases radical Wahhabists - as a means of gaining political power and remaking Western society. An ever increasing Muslim population in Europe inevitably votes for the socialist left. In exchange, the left provides lax immigration, permissive public benefits, and pushes multiculturalism - a thoroughly bankrupt philosophy that denigrates the traditional foundations of Western civilization, including Christianity, and that actually encourages Muslims not to integrate into their respective Western societies. The end result is an ever growing population of Muslims who are, in many cases, even more radicalized than the general populations in their respective countries of origin. And a sizable portion of these individuals wish to see their European homes converted, forcibly if necessary, to Muslim rule and Sharia law. The process is very far along in many cases - with, for but one example, Brussels, the capital of the EU, now dominated by Muslims. And there is this today from the Telegraph:
Last year, five per cent of the total population of the 27 EU countries was Muslim. But rising levels of immigration from Muslim countries and low birth rates among Europe's indigenous population mean that, by 2050, the figure will be 20 per cent, according to forecasts.
Data gathered from various sources indicate that Britain, Spain and Holland will have an even higher proportion of Muslims in a shorter amount of time.
The UK, which currently has 20 million fewer people than Germany, is also projected to be the EU's most populous country by 2060, with 77 million people.
The findings have led to allegations that policy-makers are failing to confront the widespread challenges of the "demographic time bomb".
Experts say that there has been a lack of debate on how the population changes will affect areas of life from education and housing to foreign policy and pensions. . . .
To say that there has been a lack of debate on this issue is, in the UK in particular, a laughable understatement. In 1968, a Tory Shadow Minister, Enoch Powell gave a speech, commonly called today the "Rivers of Blood" speech, where he warned against allowing large scale immigration. Powell was utterly demonized by the socialists in Labour and kicked from the Shadow Cabinet by the Tories. And since his speech, the socialist left has made any criticism of the UK's permissive immigration policy sheer political suicide, while the Tory leadership has cravenly capitulated to the left on the issue. Indeed, so radioactive has the left made this issue and so thoroughly have the Tories put their tails between their legs that as recently as two years ago a Tory candidate for Parliament was forced to withdraw from his bid after he merely made an approving reference to Enoch Powell's speech.
The aftermath of Powell's speech is telling. While socialists demagogued and conservatives cowered, polls at the time immediately after Powell's speech showed public support for Powell rising to 75% of the electorate. This demonstrates that there was then, and very much still is today, a true disconnect between Britain's political elite and the rank and file. The rank and file of Britain were then and are now very concerned about the deconstruction of their society. The ruling elite have utterly refused to take heed of their concerns. And indeed, that is true on many of the critically important issues confronting Britain, including most recently the turn-over of British sovereignty to the EU without a promised referendum of the electorate. The rank and file, however, seemed like sheep - content to disagree vehemently while doing naught else but a shrug of their shoulders. It appeared until very recently that the blood of Cromwell lay dormant in their veins. That is not necessarily so today.
The demagoguery of the left on this issue was already starting to loose its force as the real problems facing the UK as a result of this mass demographic change became increasingly obvious and painful. More importantly though, the political landscape of the UK has changed drastically in the past months. The British rank and file exploded in Cromwellian fashion with real, seething anger - and MP's acted with real fear of the electorate for the first time in perhaps centuries - over the recent revelations of widespread and outrageous abuse of expenses by MP's. We have yet to see whether the rank and file anger at the MP's over expenses also resonates to the truly critical and existential issues facing the UK, one of which is clearly immigration - an issue also inextricably bound up in EU membership. Let us hope so, as it is not an overdramatization to say that the future of Western civilization in the UK and on the Continent hangs in the balance.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
The Rot Of British Socialism
Mary Griffiths, a 38-year- old fitness instructor, had told friends that she was concerned for her safety because of the unwanted attentions of a man. At around 6pm on Tuesday she dialled 999 saying she was being harassed and asking for help. The investigation is far too limited. It needs to include an examination of why Ms. Griffiths was denied all means of protecting herself by the British government. Indeed, as I wrote in the post A Constitutional Lesson In British History, the right to own a weapon for self protection is a part of the 1689 British Bill of Rights and, until less then a century ago, in a much more peaceful and law abiding Britain, anyone could own a firearm and travel about with it. Is the enlightened socialist Britain of today better off? If Ms. Griffith, who had been stalked for some time according to the article, knew full well the dangerousness of her situation, why was she not allowed the tools for her own defense. Are we all children in the eyes of the socialists, unable to live life without their constant adult supervision?
There is an utter rot at the heart of British socialism. Four stories over the past few days from across the pond highlight that rot - the joint attack on British identity by socialists and Muslims, the refusal to let Ghurkas immigrate to the UK, Health and Safety nazis run wild, and the British government's disarming of its citizenry, leaving them unable to defend themselves when their lives are at stake:
The Trinity Cross is a medal that has been awarded to "62 distinguished residents of the former colony of Trinidad and Tobago over more than 40 years." No longer. It has now been ruled "too Christian" and its design changed after a complaint was lodged by a Muslim lawyer. If the people of Trinidad and Tobago wish not to receive an award of a Trinity Cross, they can certainly refuse it. Why on earth should Britain acquiesce in order to assuage what is clearly just one more in a series of relentless attacks from today's politicized Muslims aimed at discrediting Britain's history and destroying it's Christian identity? Obviously, it suits the socialists of Britain who have in fact, since acquiesced to the Muslim demands. As I pointed out in the post Change and the Cessation of British History, the UK's socialists fully share the same interim goals as the radical Muslims - to defeat Christianity and discredit British history as something evil.
In Britain, immigration is at crisis proportions, largely because EU law mandates open borders. This has led to an ever growing spike in the radical Muslim population. Now, the Labour government has finally seen fit to draw a line in the sand as to that portion of immigration which it can control. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims who wish to destroy Western Civilization, they can immigrate. A few thousand Ghurkas, famed warriors whose regiments have fought and died for British freedom and the protection of Western civilization in all of her wars since WWI, they can't.
It is impossible to imagine a more skewed view. Indeed, the most recent idiotic justification for this policy was offered yesterday by Phil Woolas, the socialist Labour Party's Immigration Minister, who said "I can't say "let the nice people in and the nasty people not". We have to have a law." That statement came on the day another Ghurka died fighting for the UK in Afghanistan.
The socialist chattering class in Britain is so deeply immersed in multiculturalism that they seem congenitally unable to distinguish real friend from real foe. The UK's governing socialists reach out to Muslims without distinguishing between the non-radical and the radical, pretending they are all benign because they see in them a reliable voting bloc. They ignore the brutal reality that the huge portion of radicals among them are a viper in their midst that will, at the first chance, consume them and all of Britain whole. (I wrote on a similar, though exponentialy less severe problem in the U.S. here).
It would seem that the socialist's see their greatest enemy as those citizens within their borders who threaten socialist dogma. Thus we see socialists spend their greatest efforts in a war on free speech and Christianity (see also here) in an effort to destroy traditional society and remake it in their own secular marxian vision. As to actual external enemies, socialists invariably rationalize their hostility as justified using the canard of moral relativism. Thus these socialists clearly feel no great compulsion to act with loyalty to those who have defended Britain's traditional values against an enemy the socialists view as equal or morally superior to Britain itself. It is a travesty and a national disgrace.
Then there are the Health and Safety Nazis - another innovation of the socialists taken with the best of intentions - to protect the public from themselves by exercising intrusive control over their daily lives. The latest comes from Oxford University's Bodleian library, where a series of historic books have been kept on equally historic high shelves that, for four centuries, have been accessed, by step ladders. No longer. The public can't access these books anymore because the Health & Safety Officer has decided that using a step ladder is too dangerous for the general public. Using the dictatorial powers of her office, she has effectively shut down a portion of the library to the public.
This mentality, of not trusting the average person to take care of themselves, is a hallmark of the socialist left. Under Health and Safety laws, it simply stifles daily life. Its consequences turn deadly, however, when the government takes away all means for a person to defend themselves from society's predators. In Britain of today, you cannot protect yourself with a handgun as they are illegal. You cannot use a taser to momentarily stun an attacker, they too are illegal. You cannot even use pepper spray, as even that is illegal. What is left to allow the weak to defend themselves from the strong, the prey to fend off the human predator?
Well, there is the government, acting through the police. But police act retrospectively to arrest for crimes committed. They are not, as a rule, a particularly effective means to stop attacks before they happen. By the very nature of crime and predation, the chance of police being on the scene and able to intervene to stop an attack as it occurs is infinitesimal. And thus do you have people such as Melanie Griffiths, 39 year old mother of three, murdered in her house by a man who stalked her for over a month and after she called the police and asked for help on the eve of her murder. This from the Daily Times:
Police assured her they would be with her within an hour, but never showed up.
She was discovered dying from stab wounds to the chest at her home in Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk, in the early hours of Wednesday.
. . . IPCC Commissioner Len Jackson said: 'People will be understandably shocked and concerned by this vicious attack on a woman in her own home. It is important that we look carefully at how the police chose to respond to contact from Mary Griffiths prior to her death. 'We will therefore carry out a full and independent investigation into the police response.'
The Socialists of Britain can be credited with solving the class distinction problems that existed in the UK when they took power decades ago. Britain of today is much more of a meritocracy today, and the better for it. But that necessary cure was imposed along with a bevy of unnecessary toxins. Those toxins will destroy Britain if it stays on its current trajectory. I oft wonder when the rank and file of Britain will finally say, enough is enough, and force the issue.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
And You Think They Went Nuts Over Some Cartoons
The Pope will pray for the redemption of Islamic terrorists when he visits the site of the September 11 attacks in New York next week. Read the entire article. My hat is off to the Pope. He is doing precisely what he should be doing. The West has been subject to a truiumphalist Islam for decades. For the Muslims who are offended by this, I would ask, why must Muslims who convert be considered apostates and sentenced to death? If Islam is the only true religion, why cannot it compete in the world of ideas without using the sword to enforce adherence? 
Pope Benedict XVI is sounding at lot more like Urban II. After baptizing a famous Italian Muslim into the Catholic faith on Easter, Pope now plans to call for Islamic terrorists to convert to Christianity. And he will do it at ground zero.
Say what you will about my favorite former Hitler youth, he is no shrinking violet. He may well be buyoed by recent trends that show significant numbers of Muslims in the West converting to Christianity. Whatever may be the case, this today from the Telegraph:
The pontiff will call for terrorists to convert to Christianity, saying: "Turn to Your way of love those whose hearts and minds are consumed with hatred.
"God of understanding, overwhelmed by the magnitude of this tragedy, we seek your light and guidance".
The prayer is likely to further incense the Muslim world, which has already attacked the Pope for publicly converting Magdi Allam, a journalist and one of Italy's most high-profile Muslims, at Easter.
Osama bin Laden accused the Pope of trying to provoke "a new crusade" against Islam.
Aref Ali Nayed, a leading scholar and proponent of peaceful relations between the Roman Catholic Church and Islam, said that there were "genuine questions about the motives, intentions and plans of some of the Pope's advisers on Islam".
He said that religious conversion should not be "made into a triumphalist tool for scoring points".
The Pope's first visit to the United States begins on Tuesday. He will visit Ground Zero on April 20 and the prayer is expected to be the emotional high-point of his tour.
The Pope will also ask for "eternal light and peace to all who died" in the tragedy. His prayer will remember "the heroic first-responders: our firefighters, police officers, emergency service workers… along with all the innocent men and women who were victims of this tragedy".
Around 3,000 people died in the attacks on the World Trade Centre, including the 19 hijackers. The prayer will also mention the victims "on the same day at the Pentagon and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania".
The Pope will conclude: "Bring Your peace to our violent world: peace in the hearts of all men and women and peace among the nations of the earth." He will then sprinkle the crater with holy water and bless the site.
. . . The Pope's itinerary includes a Mass at the baseball stadium, and he will also address the United Nations.
He will visit the White House on the first leg of his trip in Washington DC, although his spokesman said yesterday that he would not attend a state dinner given in his honour.
The Vatican did not offer a reason for his absence.
The Pope will hold talks with President George W Bush, but Cardinal Raffaele Martino, one of the Vatican's most senior prelates, said the Holy See "cannot renounce its own beliefs on this visit, which are a rejection of the [Iraq] war and the constant encouragement of dialogue to resolve differences".
. . . The Vatican has also announced that the Pope will confront the issue of paedophile priests while he is in the United States. Several Catholic organisations have protested that he will not visit Boston, the epicentre of the sex abuse scandal.
One group took out a full-page advertisement in the New York Times.
However, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican's secretary of state, said that the Pope would address the issue in a speech and that the Church needed "constant purification" over the issue.
As to the issue of paedophile priests, it was the Pope prior to his acessionion who did much to throw gas on the fire of this nightmare for the American Catholic Church by dismissing the scandal when it first broke. I am glad to hear that he will be addressing it while here.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Interesting News & Posts - 26 February 2008
The interesting news and posts from across the blogoshpere, all below the fold.
________________________________________________________
Art: Bouguereau, The Rapture of Psyche, 1895
A porkbuster’s update from Instapundit: Senator Jim DeMint is proposing a one year moratorium in the Senate on bills containing earmarks.
Democrats trying to tag McCain as a friend of lobbyists may make for a sound bite today, but it is very far from the reality of the Real McCain.
From Gateway Pundit, free speech under fire in New Mexico as a Christian photographer is hauled before the Human Rights Commission for refusing to accept a job that would have required her to photograph a same-sex wedding.
"Death to . . . the Islamic Regime of Iran." Not the usual crowd chant in Tehran, but it was the one being shouted during a riot after the modesty police attempted to arrest a young woman for not dressing modestly enough to suit Ahmedinejad and his cronies. PJM has the story.
The Irish Elk weighs in on the NYT hit piece on McCain, providing an interesting historical anecdote. And TNOY has the scoop on new bombshell facts the NYT intends to expose in their next McCain piece.
At BizzyBlog, reporting on state government financial woes ignores the woeful over-spending that led to the problems in the first place.
Jules Crittenden’s site is unique in combining biting sarcasm with thoughtful commentary. And he is at it today with Gunga Din.
That said, as Rick Moran rightly states, "Enough with all this "Obama is a Muslim" crap." I concur, though I strongly disagree with Rick’s suggestion that the use of the word "Crusades" by Bush was a major faux pas. I refuse to bow down or rewrite history to serve anyone’s sensibilities – be they Muslim, Catholic or whatever. And the Crusades were merely the first time Christianity fought back against a Muslim onslaught that had been on-going for centuries.
The UN has finally identified the source of Palestinian terrorism. If you thought it might be Salafi Islam or Arab nationalism, think again. Its Israel, of course.
The Conservative Beach Girl still thinks that Hillary is in the race. But, she notes, if you want real Socialism in a hurry and not incrementally, Obama's your man.
From the Intergalactic Source of Truth, is supporting Kosovo independence a wise idea? I have not thought so. IGST offers some thoughtful commentary.
Victor David Hanson ponders whether the ailing Europe wants a President Obama. As he so eloquently puts it: Europe is in a classic paradox. Emotionally and culturally, Europeans are invested in a leftist such as Obama who reflects their soft socialist values and fuzzy multilateralism. But given their inherent military weakness and rough neighborhood, they have grown to count on an antithetical America — religious, conservative, militarily strong — that is not afraid to use force to fulfill its obligations to preserve the shared Western globalized system from its constant multifarious challenges.
Siggy needs to start doing stand-up. See his proposal for the new government seal.
Soccer Dad does an exceptional job of taking a semantic scalpel to the MSM’s agenda journalism.
From JoshuaPundit – Obama gets caught in another whopper. He does seem clueless about the military. Having led an infantry platoon and commanded an infantry company, I can assure you that Obama’s pronouncement gets just about ever possible wrong – all of which JP does a good job of cataloging.
From the Jawa Report, arch-terrorist Imad Mughniyah’s widow is blaming Syria for his assassination.
The Fulham Reactionary discusses the characteristics deemed by Child Services to make a parent unfit in a world dominated by socialists and multiculturalists. MK tells us the same socialists are planning on sex education for five year olds. Meanwhile, at Shield of Achilles, Hamas shows us a different message for children – its Bugs, the psychopathic bunny.
Dinah Lord examines the problem of pedophilia in the Maldives.
Seraphic Secret notes the power of movies to motivate, and the power of movies to in the hands of people with an agenda to spread lies. It is a double edged sword – but the answer to lies is a determination to make the truth known.
Monday, February 18, 2008
The Barbary Wars, Islam in American History & Churchill on Wahhabism
. . . The Barbary Powers (called Barbary “pirates” by most Americans) attacked American civilian and commercial merchant ships (but not military ships) wherever they found them. Prior to the Revolution, American shipping had been protected by the British navy, and during the Revolution by the French navy. After the Revolution, however, America lacked a navy of her own and was therefore left without protection for her shipping. The vulnerable American merchant ships, built for carrying cargoes rather than fighting, were therefore easy prey for the warships of the Barbary Powers, which seized the cargo of the ships as loot and took their seamen (of whom all were considered Christians by the attacking Muslims) and enslaved them. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the laws of their Prophet [Mohammed] – that it was written in their Koran that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that is was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. Given this “spiritual” incentive to enslave and make war, the Muslim attacks against American ships and seamen were frequent. In fact, in the span of just one month in 1793, Algiers alone seized ten American ships and enslaved more then one hundred sailors, holding them for sale or ransom. Significantly, when Adams and Jefferson queried the Tripolian Ambassador about the seizure of sailors, he explained: It was a law that the first who boarded an enemy’s vessel should have one slave more than his share with the rest, which operated as an incentive to the most desperate valor and enterprise – that it was the practice of their corsairs [fast ships] to bear down upon a ship, for each sailor to take a dagger in each hand and another in his mouth and leap on board, which so terrified their enemies that very few ever stood against them. The enslaving of Christians by Muslims was such a widespread problem that for centuries, French Catholics operated a ministry that raised funding to ransom enslaved seamen. . . . This is a long article and there is much more. Do read the whole article. It is footnoted, though I have deleted them in the section quoted above. "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248 50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899). And later, Churchill would write specifically about the Wahhabis and Ibn Saud: "A large number of Bin Saud's followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relationship to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of [Europe's] religious wars. Read the entire article. Unlike our modern Nero's, Churchill spoke the truth about what he saw. How prescient and clearheaded was Churchill? In 1919, he wanted to fully invest the White Revolution and end Boshevism before it took hold and became the communist state of the Soviet Union. In 1933, he wanted to threaten military force against Nazi Germany to stop their rearmanent. In between, he argued against backing Ibn Saud to take over Arabia. Amazing, that this one man clearly saw the three greatest threats to civilization of the past century, and had we but listened to him at any of those junctures, how many tens of millions of lives would have been spared?
One historical perspective of Islam concerns the very first war America fought after its Independence from Britain. It was a 32 year war against the Muslim Barbary pirates who believed their religion justified attacks on the shipping of non-believers and enslaving all Christians they could take prisoner. A second perspective that we get is through the eyes of Winston Churchill, who wrote of his observations of Islam in the Sudan and Afghanistan, and warned against the Wahhabi Islam of the Sauds. Had we but listened to Churchill, our world would be very different today.
____________________________________________________________
There are a couple of fascinating posts that I have stumbled across today. The first, with a hat tip to Red Alerts, is a very good article on the history of Islam in our nation and the first war that our nation ever fought against the Muslm pirates of the Barbary Coast. This from Wallbuilders:
In 1784, Congress authorized American diplomats John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson to negotiate with the Muslim terrorists. Negotiations proceeded, and in 1786, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson candidly asked the Ambassador from Tripoli the motivation behind their unprovoked attacks against Americans. What was the response?
And as long as we are speaking of historical perspectives on Islam, one should never forget the observations of one of the greatest men of the West, Winston Churchill. As a young man, Churchill served in the military in the Sudan, eventually writing his first book about his experiences, The River War:
Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.
Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."
The Wahhabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets.
It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette and, as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Ibn Warraq Argues The Superiority of Western Values
The great ideas of the West—rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy—are superior to any others devised by humankind. It was the West that took steps to abolish slavery; the calls for abolition did not resonate even in Africa, where rival tribes sold black prisoners into slavery. The West has secured freedoms for women and racial and other minorities to an extent unimaginable 60 years ago. The West recognizes and defends the rights of the individual: we are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live lives of our choosing. Read the entire article.
Indian born secular Muslim author Ibn Warraq, speaking from the heart of multicultural Britain, argues eloquently that the West should assert the superiority of its values.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ibn Warraq took part in a debate with well known Islamicist and grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Tariq Ramadan, on the issue of whether Brits “should not be reluctant to assert the superiority of Western values.” Writing in City Journal, Warraq sums up the arguments that he made in favor of that proposition:
In short, the glory of the West, as philosopher Roger Scruton puts it, is that life here is an open book. Under Islam, the book is closed. In many non-Western countries, especially Islamic ones, citizens are not free to read what they wish. In Saudi Arabia, Muslims are not free to convert to Christianity, and Christians are not free to practice their faith—clear violations of Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In contrast with the mind-numbing enforced certainties and rules of Islam, Western civilization offers what Bertrand Russell once called “liberating doubt,” which encourages the methodological principle of scientific skepticism. Western politics, like science, proceeds through tentative steps of trial and error, open discussion, criticism, and self-correction.
. . . Moreover, other parts of the world recognize Western superiority. When other societies such as South Korea and Japan have adopted Western political principles, their citizens have flourished. It is to the West, not to Saudi Arabia or Iran, that millions of refugees from theocratic or other totalitarian regimes flee, seeking tolerance and political freedom. Nor would any Western politician be able to get away with the anti-Semitic remarks that former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad made in 2003. Our excusing Mahathir’s diatribe indicates not only a double standard but also a tacit acknowledgment that we apply higher ethical standards to Western leaders.
A culture that gave the world the novel; the music of Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert; and the paintings of Michelangelo, da Vinci, and Rembrandt does not need lessons from societies whose idea of heaven, peopled with female virgins, resembles a cosmic brothel. Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine; societies that deny the rights of supposedly lower castes; societies that execute homosexuals and apostates. The West has no use for sanctimonious homilies from societies that cannot provide clean drinking water or sewage systems, that make no provisions for the handicapped, and that leave 40 to 50 percent of their citizens illiterate. . . .
. . . Western values remain the best, and perhaps the only, means for all people, no matter of what race or creed, to reach their full potential and live in freedom.
(H/T Brits At Their Best)
Monday, February 11, 2008
The Danger of Turkey
A crowd of 16,000 expatriate Turks cheered Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at a vast indoor auditorium in Germany on Sunday as he told them to resist assimilation into the West. Read the article. Under no circumstances should Turkey be granted full entrance into the EU - a move that would flood Europe with Muslims and put a stake into the last vesitges of Western culture, values and ideals. It would quite literally be opening the gates of Troy and dragging in the Trojan horse. That analogy is all the more ironic since Troy's probable location was in modern day Turkey.
Turkey's Prime Minister spoke yesterday to a large crowd of Turkish ex-patriates in Germany and told them to resist assimilation into the West. Turkey is being slowly Islamicized and is no longer a secular nation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Political Islam - synonomous with Wahhabi Salafi Islam, is a threat to the West. And, as I have noted before, its corrosive effects can be seen ever more starkly influencing Islam throughout the world, including in Turkey. As Mark Steyn has written extensively, while Europe has thrown open its doors to Muslim migration, Salafi and Salafi influenced Muslim leaders promote seperatism and advocate the establishment of Sharia law and Muslim rule. Add Turkey's Prime Minister Erdogan to the list.
The political rally by Germany's biggest ethnic minority upset German politicians, who objected to a major public event on German soil being advertised on posters in Turkish only.
Erdogan indirectly addressed those concerns, saying it was right for Turkish immigrants to learn German and other languages so they could integrate, but wrong to abandon their Turkish heritage and assimilate.
"Assimilation is a crime against humanity," he told the crowd. Many Turks had travelled from France, Belgium and the Netherlands to hear his hour-long address in the shiny venue, the Koelnarena.
"I can well understand that you are against assimilation," he said. "It is important to learn German, but your Turkish language should not be neglected."
He said ethnic Turks abroad should be more confident in standing up for their interests, and should win election as mayors and members of European national parliaments.
The prime minister called for a swift inquiry to find the causes of a fire a week ago that killed nine Turkish people in the German city of Ludwigshafen.
Erdogan was lionized by other speakers at the event, organized by the Union of European Turkish Democrats, a group that supports his moderate Islamist AKP party.
. . . Outside, bearded members of the audience spoke politely to an elderly woman protester, Vera Villinger, who wore a scarf in German colours and claimed Islam was taking over Germany.
(H/T Shield of Achilles)
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
The "Pernicious Doctrine of Multiculturalism"
The comments by Britain's Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, about the existance of Muslim areas in Britain that are no-go areas has led others in Britain to voice similar opinions. Though, to their everlasting shame, none of the Tory leadership are among them. To the contraty, today's Tory Party, just like the other major political parties in the UK, are part of the multicultural problem, not the solution. As explained today in an editorial in the Telegraph, talking of how the parties have responded to the Bishop of Rochester's charges:
. . . Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems have responded with knee-jerk predictability, desperate as ever not to offend Muslim sensibilities. It shows once again how difficult it is to engage in a mature debate about the damaging impact of multiculturalism in this country in general, and the threat posed by Islamic radicalism to our way of life in particular.
And indeed, the Bishop's charges were dismissed out of hand by the U.K's Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who stated "I know that there are pressures in many areas of the country but I don't accept that there are or should be no-go areas in any part of the country." Not everyone was hiding their head in the sands, however. Richard Littlejohn in the UK's Daily Mail:
. . Bishop Nazir-Ali is bang on the money when he talks about 'no-go' areas for Christians in fundamentalist Muslim ghettoes in Britain. But he could have gone further still.
This country is littered with 'no-go' areas, not just physically, but culturally, spiritually, intellectually and academically, too. Our very liberties are being torched in the name of 'diversity'.
The pernicious doctrine of multiculturalism has turned us into a society where people are frightened to speak their minds and justice has been flipped on its head.
To express an opinion contrary to the ruthlessly enforced, politically motivated conformity of the Fascist Left is to risk a vicious campaign of character assassination which, if you work in the public sector, will almost certainly cost you your job.
The private sector isn't immune, either.
Only last week, we learned of a banker who was sacked for making a harmless, lame joke about Shi'ites.
We have reached the ludicrous position where a Pakistani clergyman is facing demands for his resignation and is being accused of stirring up racial and religious hatred simply for speaking the truth.
All Bishop Nazir-Ali did was state the bleedin' obvious. Yet even [Tory Shadow Foreign Secretary] William Hague has attacked him, saying the idea that Christians are made to feel uncomfortable by Muslim extremists is not a Britain he recognises.
In which case, I suggest Hague heads a few stops east of Westminster, along the Mile End and Whitechapel Roads, where Muslim monoculturalism holds sway. Or visits Leicester, Bradford, Burnley, Oldham or parts of Birmingham.
It is beyond dispute that there is a concerted campaign by Islamic extremists to force sharia law on to significant areas of Christian Britain. And there is no doubt that in predominantly Muslim areas, they are winning.
It's ludicrous to accuse the Bishop of inciting hatred. The real hatred is coming not from Church of England pulpits but from inside those mosques controlled by fanatics.
Yet when Channel 4's Dispatches programme exposed the sermons of hate and violence against 'kaffirs' and ' infidels', the West Midlands police not only refused to act, they launched an investigation into the programme-makers.
That's about par for the course in what passes for law enforcement these days.
Two years after 9/11, the Met were still providing a police escort for Captain Hook to preach hatred and death on the streets of London.
They weren't so much concerned about protecting us from Hook - since convicted of terrorism and wanted for extradition to the U.S. over Al Qaeda training camps - they were more bothered about protecting him from being ridiculed by a bus sent along by the Sun to drown him out by playing Night Boat To Cairo over its loudspeakers.
Yet the white 'liberal' Establishment still refuses to confront the very real threat to our way of lives, even after terrorist attacks on our own soil by home-grown headcases.
It's instructive that the only two Church of England clergymen to put their heads above the parapet are Pakistani Nazir-Ali and Ugandan Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York.
And that the highest-profile critic of multiculturalism is the black head of the equality commission, Trevor Phillips, who for his trouble was smeared as no better than the BNP by the disgusting Jew-baiter Ken Livingstone.
The rest of the Establishment is locked into a cycle of appeasement, terrified of incurring the wrath of the 'community'.
Even when soppy Hazel Blears comes up with a silly plan to pay Muslim women to combat extremism, she is monstered by the absurd Mr Bean lookalike who speaks for the 'moderate' Muslim Council, which never misses an opportunity to try to extort more concessions.
I'm only surprised that the high priest of 'diversity', Met chief Ian Blair, hasn't ordered Nazir-Ali to be arrested and charged with incitement to racial hatred.
Maybe he's still trying to work out whether sending a woman officer to nick a Pakistani cleric is a 'no-go' area.
Read the entire article. It is good to see this getting raised. Britain is already at the point where trying to right the ship is going to be difficult and messy. But clearly, pretending their is no problem and punishing any who dare raise is just upping the inevitable cost that will eventually have to be paid to resolve this situation.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Muslim Organizations Call For The Resignation of Bishop Ali-Nazr After His Remarks on Muslim No-Go Areas
Comments made by Britain's Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, about the existance of Muslim areas in Britain that are no-go areas have set off a firestorm in Britain. At least one prominent Muslim leader, Manzoor Moghal, chairman of the Muslim Forum in Britain, has confirmed the Bishops assertions. Writing in the Daily Mail, Moghal expressed his horror at the rise of radical Islam in Britain's Muslim population, and, in a stinging indictment, expressed his judgment that the U.K. socialist's policy of "multiculturalism has backfired spectacularly." Their beliefs would seem supported by a recent article in the Times, discussing how multiculturalist policies have fanned the flames of radicalism in Britain to the point where the majority strain of Deobandi Islam now present in Britain is more radical and 
militant than that to be found in Pakistan where it forms the core of the Taliban ideology. Just as a reminder of what that means, the Taliban are the fellows in the picture at the left, executing a burkah clad mother in Kabul's soccer stadium a few years ago.
Not surprisingly, today, we have various Muslim organizations in Britain calling for Bishop Nazir-Ali's resignation. And also not surprisingly, we have a supposedly conservative Tory party member coming down on the side of the Islamists. This today in the Telegraph:
Religious groups have demanded the resignation of the Bishop of Rochester after he claimed that Islamic radicals had turned parts of Britain into "no-go" areas for non-Muslims.
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali wrote in The Sunday Telegraph that fundamentalism had made some communities hostile to Christians and those from other faiths.
But Mohammed Shafiq, from the Ramadhan Foundation, said: "Mr Nazir-Ali is promoting hatred towards Muslims and should resign."
Ajmal Masroor, of the Islamic Society of Great Britain, said: "It's a distortion of reality. Our communities are far more integrated than they were 10 years ago.
"If the Church of England had an iota of fairness they would take serious action."
But senior figures from the Church of England have backed the Bishop of Rochester's remarks about faith and said Christians in predominantly Muslim areas could feel isolated and nervous about how to express their belief.
The Bishop of Burnley, the Rt Rev John Goddard, said his colleague had raised serious questions about the role of faith, race and culture in British society.
The Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Rev Nicholas Reade, said it was becoming difficult for Christians to share their faith in areas where there was a high proportion of other faiths.
William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said: "I don't think that view is factually correct. I'm not sure where these no-go areas are, I don't recognise that description."
But Bishop Goddard said that Christians, who are outnumbered in many parts of Blackburn, were frightened that their ideas could be misinterpreted by other faiths and seen as a form of oppression.
. . . Bishop Goddard said Christians in northern towns such as Blackburn and Burnley, where 95 per cent of the Asian population is Muslim, could find life difficult.
"I think they sometimes feel as though they are strangers," he said. "It is a question of how people of different beliefs work together. Of course, the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving."
Endorsing Bishop Nazir-Ali's comments, he said: "Bishop Michael has raised these issues as a start of a debate which has serious connotations.
"The seriousness is how do you enable people of different cultures, races and faiths to live together as one nation, that seems to be at the back of what he is saying." . . .
Read the article here. One wonders if the good Bishop might not receive a visit from the U.K.'s police, as has Lionheart for the audacity to question Islam in the UK.
As to the blanket statement by former Tory party leader and now shadow Foregin Secretary, William Hague, that he refuses to believe the Bishop's allegations, that goes to the heart of the rot in Britain today. The Tories sold their soul and have not been a conservative party since they got rid of Attila the Hen, Margert Thatcher - Britain's most successful PM since Churchill - because she opposed Britain's integration into the EU. Today, under the leadership of the boy wonder, David Cameron, the Tories are merely a lite version of the Labour Party. As evidenced by Mr. Hague, they are courting the Muslim vote irrespective of reality, just as Labour has done. They recently forced the resignation of one of their prospective candidates for office becasue of his "Enoch Powell" comments on how immigration is threatening Britain. And the Tories are playing games, refusing to state unequivocably that they hold a referendum on the transfer of British sovereignty to the EU once accomplished by the odious Gordon Brown. It is utterly horrifying. Britain cannot look for salvation today to the party of Churchill.
Britain's Independent Party seems to be picking up the mantle of conservatism, but you rarely hear of them. They get no play in the press because of what appears to be institutionalized bias. We are witnessing a great nation committing national suicide. My only thought is God save the Queen - because it would seem at this stage that her only hope is divine intervention.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Muslim Fortresses Flourish In Multicultural Britain
I blogged below on a British blogger, Lionheart, who is facing prosecution for critizing Islam. Juxtapose that with this today, from the Telegraph, and you will have some idea of just how dire things portend to become in Britain as the socialists use their police power to enforce a suicidal multicultural philosophy on the indigenous population:
Read the article. This is true insanity. Note that even as Britain's socialist PM, Gordon Brown, moves towards disestablishment of the Church of England, he has recently appointed radical Islamic organizations to MINAB to oversee the countries Islamic clerics and standards for Islamic education. Will Britain survive this?Islamic extremists have created "no-go" areas across Britain where it is too dangerous for non-Muslims to enter, one of the Church of England's most senior bishops warns today.
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester and the Church's only Asian bishop, says that people of a different race or faith face physical attack if they live or work in communities dominated by a strict Muslim ideology.
Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, he compares the threat to the use of intimidation by the far-Right, and says that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Christianity to be the nation's public religion in a multifaith, multicultural society.
His comments come as a poll of the General Synod - the Church's parliament - shows that its senior leaders, including bishops, also believe that Britain is being damaged by large-scale immigration.
Bishop Nazir-Ali, who was born in Pakistan, gives warning that attempts are being made to give Britain an increasingly Islamic character by introducing the call to prayer and wider use of sharia law, a legal system based on the Koran.
In an attack on the Government's response to immigration and the influx of "people of other faiths to these shores", he blames its "novel philosophy of multiculturalism" for allowing society to become deeply divided, and accuses ministers of lacking a "moral and spiritual vision".
Echoing Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission for Equalities and Human Rights, who has said that the country is "sleepwalking into segregation", the bishop argues that multiculturalism has led to deep divisions.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, has accused Muslims of promoting a kind of "voluntary apartheid" by shutting themselves in closed societies and demanding immunity from criticism.
In the Synod survey, to be published this week, bishops, senior clergy and influential churchgoers said that an increasingly multi-faith society threatens the country's Christian heritage and blamed the divisions on the Government's failure to integrate immigrants into their communities.
It found that more than one in three believe that a mass influx of people of other faiths is diluting the Christian nature of Britain and only a quarter feel that they have been integrated into society.
The overwhelming majority - 80 per cent - said that the Government has not upheld the place of religion in public life and up to 63 per cent fear that the Church will be disestablished within a generation, breaking a bond that has existed between the Church and State since the Reformation.
Calls for disestablishment have grown following research showing that attendance at Mass has overtaken the number of worshippers at Church of England Sunday services.
Bishop Nazir-Ali, whose father converted from Islam to Catholicism, was criticised by Ibrahim Mogra, of the Muslim Council of Britain. He said: "It's irresponsible for a man of his position to make these comments.
"He should accept that Britain is a multicultural society in which we are free to follow our religion at the same time as being extremely proud to be British. We wouldn't allow 'no-go' areas to happen. I smell extreme intolerance when people criticise multiculturalism without proper evidence of what has gone wrong."
But the Bishop's concerns are shared by other members of the General Synod.
The Rt Rev Nicholas Reade, the Bishop of Blackburn, which has a large Muslim community, said that it was increasingly difficult for Christians to share their faith in areas where there was a high proportion of immigrants of other faiths.
He believes that increasing pressure will be put on the Government to begin the process of disestablishment and end the preferential status given to the Church of England. "The writing is on the wall," he said.
Gordon Brown relinquished Downing Street's involvement in appointing bishops in one of his first facts as Prime Minister - a move viewed by some as a significant step towards disestablishment.
Last night, Mr Davis said: "Bishop Nazir-Ali has drawn attention to a deeply serious problem. The Government's confused and counter-productive approach risks creating a number of closed societies instead of one open, cohesive one. It generates the risk of encouraging radicalisation and creating home-grown terrorism."
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Germany's Islamic Problem
This from Der Spiegel on a recent study released by Germany’s Interior Ministry on a recent survey of the attitudes of its Muslim population. Muslim’s comprise 3,000,000 of Germany’s population of 82,000,000 and is the fastest growing group in Germany. It would appear that Germany is having a significant problem with integrating its Muslim population, a minority of which appears already to be radicalized:
A new study released by Germany's Interior Ministry has added new fuel to the debate about integration of Muslims in Germany, with the report warning about the danger of radicalization of Muslims.
According to the study, which was published Tuesday, around 40 percent of Muslims surveyed had a "fundamentalist orientation," which the authors defined as a strongly religious worldview and moral values.
. . . [T]he authors saw a potential threat in a small minority with Islamist leanings: Around 6 percent of those surveyed were classified as having "violent tendencies," while 14 percent of respondents had "anti-democratic" tendencies.
Around 12 percent of the Muslims in Germany identified with a religious-moral critique of the West and supported corporal punishment and the death penalty. The report also concluded that religious beliefs are becoming increasingly important for young people.
The study, which was carried out by Katrin Brettfeld and Peter Wetzels from the Institute for Criminology at the University of Hamburg, was commissioned by the Interior Ministry in an attempt to finding out the extent to which the Muslim community in Germany provides a breeding ground for extremist groups and potential terrorists. The authors interviewed 1,750 Muslims living in Germany for the study. Of that number, around 40 percent had German citizenship.
In the introduction to the report, Interior Minister Wolfgang Schäuble writes that the study leads to the "worrying conclusion that a serious potential for Islamist radicalization has developed in Germany." According to Schäuble, the lack of integration of immigrants into German society is leading to a "fundamental religious orientation."
The survey found that more than half of the respondents felt themselves excluded from German society and felt they were treated as foreigners. Around 20 percent had experienced some form of racism within the last 12 months.
Reacting to the study, Christine Haderthauer, general secretary of the conservative Bavarian party the Christian Social Union, said that her party "has always warned against the dangers of parallel societies. . .
. . . The Interior Ministry under Schäuble has sparked a series of controversies in recent months. Schäuble was the subject of heated criticism in July of this year when he appeared to suggest in a SPIEGEL interview that the targeted killing of terrorists might have to be considered. Schäuble's opponents have condemned him for attempting to constantly stretch the limits of what is acceptable under Germany's constitution in the fight against terror.
Other controversial positions Schäuble has promoted recently include taking terrorists into preventive custody, deploying the German army in domestic operations and searching suspects' computers online without their knowledge.
Read the story here. And there is this on Germany’s Demographics:
The German gov't is trying to encourage parents to have more kids by offering money as incentive, though this holds for both "old" and "new" Germans. The question is who would make better use of these incentives. If the purpose here is to encourage only "ethnic" Germans, I doubt this would work. Though Burhan Kesici, vice president of the Islam Federation in Berlin, is quoted below as saying that money is not an issue, it would certainly be an issue if it is offered.When a bureaucracy creates a criteria by which one is eligible to receive cash it has created a new job.Just 1.3 babies per German woman"
The German population is permanently shrinking while the foreign population is permanently growing," says Dr. Herwig Birg, a demographic expert who just retired as head of the Institute for Population Research and Social Politics at the University of Bielefeld and authored "The Demographic Time Change." "Germans will soon become a minority in major German cities [like Berlin] in the under 40 age group."A quick glance at birthrates in Germany highlights Birg's point. Immigrants in Germany -- those of Turkish origin make up the largest immigrant group in the country -- have about 1.9 children per woman. A modest rate given that demographic experts say a birth rate of 2.1 children per woman is necessary to maintain population stability. But it's productive compared to ethnic Germans. They only have a paltry 1.3 babies per woman. In other words, a dropping population isn't the only societal change currently going on in Germany.
Demographic statistics released in March by the Federal Statistics Office provided the most recent wake-up call. Only between 680,000 and 690,000 babies were born in Germany in 2005 -- the lowest number since World War II. And a quarter of the kids, according to a New York Times article, were born to women with immigration backgrounds.
Even more striking are some nuts and bolts statistics that have remained true in Germany since about the 1980s: Births here have registered somewhere in the mid 700,000s while deaths come in at around 850,000 according to Birg's research in his latest book "The Missing Generation." Meanwhile, net immigration into Germany adds up to about 200,000 per year. In other words, Germans are not only dying out, but they're slowly being replaced by non-Germans.
It's a trend that will likely only accelerate. According to projections from the Federal Office of Statistics, the country's population will shrink from its current 82 million to 70 million by 2050 assuming an annual influx of 200,000 immigrants. The population drop, combined with Germany's aging society, is likely to have dramatic effects on the country's social system and labor market . . .
Read the entire post here.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The E(U)nd of Britain
. . . [MP] Richard Shepherd, veteran of [the debates over the previous EU Treaty of] Maastricht . . . says: . . . there is a sameness about these debates. …in this debate, in these proposals, now over 34 years old, in the strong drift towards the creation - or attempted creation - of a federal state, the same question nags away. Who governs? To whom is this Parliament accountable? It is not accountable, surely, to a Commission in Brussels. It is not accountable to institutions formed by others. It is accountable to the people who sent us here.There was a joy, in that at the last election all three parties promised that the people should be invited - no, not invited, but should be given the right, which we would express by law - to take part in a referendum on this treaty. Do read the entire post, taking careful note of the concluding line. And see here. [Cameron] concedes that "we should bring down the level of net immigration to a more sustainable level" – although we are not allowed to know what that is. Instead, we are told this: Now, here we have an interesting problem because, according to Andrew Green of Migration Watch, writing last year in The Daily Telegraph, among the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, some 30 to 50 percent of the second and third generations marry partners from their countries of origin. And, in Bradford, this figure reaches 60 percent.The effect, he writes, is to increase the number of households greatly, adding to the pressure on housing, and setting back integration by a generation - assuming, of course, that people now living in those rather closed communities wish to integrate. Read the entire post. And to pile on, there is this today from the Daily Mail: A migrant baby boom is fuelling the fastest growth in the UK's population since the 1960s - with one in every five children now born to foreign mothers. Read the entire article. Britain's sovereignty ends as it becomes a province of the EU. And in light of the unrestricted immigration dictated by EU law, the birth rate statistics and Britain's multiculturalist approach to immigrants, the death of Britain's Anglo-Saxon culture and values is in the awning. All of this leads to an inescapable conclusion. The first step that Britain must take to survive as a soverign nation with its Anglo-Saxon values intact is to leave the EU. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be on Gordon the "_________"'s docket today.
Britain faces two existential threats this day. They arise directly from that grand experiment in non-democratic socialism that is the European Union, the outrageously imperious acts of the UK's Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and the multicultural ethos of Britain's left that disdains Britain's traditional values, culture and history.
As to the first threat, you can mark your calendars, for today is the most momentous day in British history since the foreign conquest of Britain in 1066. Today marks the second foreign conquest of Britain. This one will occur not with the Norman sword of William the Bastard, but with the pen of Gordon the "____" (feel free to suggest an appropriate title in the comments section). And it will not occur upon the field of Hastings, nor anywhere on British soil. It will occur in Brussels where Gordon the "____" will today sign the Treaty of Lisbon, the document by which he will surrender Britian's sovereignty to the EU. And incredibly, he does so with no mandate from the people of Britain.
The idea of creating a United States of Europe, born more then half a century ago, culminated in the drafting of an EU Constitution in 2004. The Constitution would have replaced all existing treaties and cemented the role of an unelected, anti-democratic EU super-state without any checks and balances written into its structure. It would have officially made of the EU a federal government and turned the countries of Europe into its provinces. Britain's Labour government promised as part of its election platform in 2005 to give the British electorate an opportunity to vote on the Constitution. Polls indicate that Britain's electorate would have rejected the Constitution, but before that came to pass, voters in France and Denmark voted "non" to the Constitution, thus ending it as an issue.
But the leftist elite of Europe and Britain were bound and determined not to allow their world vision to be sidetracked by something as meaningless as the will of the people. Thus they took all of the substantive terms of the Constitution and simply transcribed them into the Treaty of Lisbon as amendments to the other existing EU treaties - with even a few additions to the power structure of the EU not in the original Constitution.. Thereafter, they adopted the canard that, since this is a mere Treaty, no voter referendum is necessary. (Update: For more detail on this and a good, short description of powers conferred upon the EU by the Lisbon Treaty, see this post at American Thinker). Even the canard disappeared today, however, as Gordon the "____" began referring to the Treaty of Lisbon as the "Constitution."
The issue will now go before Parliament who will either allow the treaty to stand or reject it in toto. The former seems assured, though, as EU Referendum reports, there are MP’s in Parliament virulently opposed to the Lisbon Treaty, if not membership in the EU itself. This is a small sample of the debates now occurring on the floor of the "local government’s" Parliament:
. . . Labour's 2005 election manifesto promised this:"We will put it" - the European Union constitution - "to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a 'Yes' vote".That was the undertaking given by the Labour party - the Labour Government, in fact - and the then Prime Minister made clear not only that the British people would have their say on the EU constitution, but that if the constitution were rejected he would not sign up to what was simply an amended version. At the time he said:"We don't know what is going to happen in France, but we will have a referendum on the constitution in any event—and that is a government promise".He went on to say:"what you can't do is have a situation where you get a rejection of the treaty and then you just bring it back with a few amendments and say we will have another go".But is that not exactly what is happening now? That is the deceit . . .
And as goes Anglo-Saxon sovereignty into the dust-bin of history, 
so too will follow the remenants of the Anglo Saxon culture and values that are the heritage of every free, democratic and capitalist nation on this earth. Gordon the "____" cannot sign those away in Brussels, but it is both Gordon the "____" and the EU that are at the root of the mortal threat to that culture and those values. The threat is defined by the insane immigration policies dictated to Britain by EU law coupled with the multicultural ethos of Gordon the "____"'s Labour - and now local - government. Large scale immigration, the majority of it mandated by EU law over which Britain has no say, is already at crisis proportions, already overwhelming Britain's infrastructure. And the immigrant population is not integrating, thus ultimately threatening to extinguish Anglo Saxon ideals, values and culture.
The failure to integrate is a direct result of the multicultural ideology of the chattering classes. Their brand of virulent multiculturalism combines a disdain for their own culture with a "framework for the 
coexistence of separate cultures rather than a transitional mechanism for integrating newcomers into a dominant culture." With "open borders" immigration for citizens with no attachment to the anglo saxon ethic, and large scale immigration of Muslims, many of whom are openly opposed to Anglo-Saxon ideals, this is a looming catastrophe. And it is a problem that, as to its Muslim populaton, Labour is massively compounding.
As to the insane EU laws that are driving the immigration problem, they apply to Britain as a result of past treaties dating all the way back to the 1957 Treaty of Rome. In other words, the immigration problems arising out of EU law would continue irrespective of the Lisbon Treaty. EU Referendum explained the laws when commenting on a speech on immigration by Tory leader David Cameron:Of course overall non-EU migration includes asylum seekers, students and family members as well as economic migrants. But non-EU economic migration is something we can and should limit, and I cannot understand why this government has not done so.
Now that would seem a significant target for immigration control but, as we see, Cameron excludes it. And well he might. No doubt this time he has been correctly advised that he cannot exclude such persons under EU law – our old friend Directive 2004/38/EC. This gives rights of residence to spouses of "EU citizens" – whether they are nationals of EU member states or of third countries. And of course, immigrants who are awarded British citizenship automatically become EU citizens as well, affording them the full rights under the directive.
Furthermore, this privilege applies to children, parents and in-laws. None can be excluded. Nor indeed can we exclude immigrants from other EU countries, who in turn have immigrated from non-EU countries and have been awarded citizenship of those EU countries. And that applies to their relatives as well.
Similarly, since we have handed over control of the admission of asylum seekers to the EU under Regulation 343/2004, nor can Mr Cameron hope to have any effect on this flow – it is out of his hands.
Rising fertility rates, particularly among immigrants, are playing a major role in the population growth, the Office of National Statistics said.
On average, foreign women have 2.5 children each - rising to almost five for those from Pakistan, and 3.9 from Bangladesh.
The number of babies born to British mothers is also increasing, but lags far behind immigrants at an average of 1.7 children each.
The ONS predicted the UK population could reach 71million by 2031, with migrants and their UK-born children accounting for 69 per cent of that growth.
Update: And you can find the reaction in Britain to the signing here.
H/T: Bookworm Room / Done With Mirrors
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
