In a World This Dark,
It Is Almost An Insult
To Be Liked
click.jpg

Saturday, February 09, 2008

More Calls For Archbishop To Quit

It appears an avalanche is indeed coming down on Rowan Williams head:


The Archbishop of Canterbury continues to face calls for his resignation despite attempts to defuse the row over his Islamic Sharia law comments.

Dr Rowan Williams has been condemned from inside and outside his church for saying the adoption of parts of the law was "unavoidable" in Britain.

At least two General Synod members have called for him to quit and he has been heckled as he left a church service.

But supporters say his comments have been misinterpreted.

The Archbishop is said to be shocked and hurt by the hostility his comments have provoked, and on his website he said he "certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law".


He's hurt? Well, fuck him. Imagine how all those who have been abused by Sharia law feel.

And, when he says that he did not call for Sharia to be introduced as a parellel system, it's bullshit. He did indeed call for a parallel system, the fucking asshole (I hate fucking liars, especially when they are trying to weasel out of bullshit, and especially bullshit of an epochal scale like this).

Here's what the Archbishop said:

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

"What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."


Meanwhile, the Right Reverend George Cassidy sounds like he's almost as much of a traitor as Rowan Williams, in that he is a full-apologist for the Archbishop:


The Right Reverend George Cassidy, Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, is the latest colleague to offer support.

He described the reaction as "hysterical" and said the Archbishop was simply trying to take forward a serious public debate.

"The Archbishop can count on the support of all serious minded people who are prepared to tackle the challenges of our complex society," he said.


In other words, all of us who think the Archbishop is completely out of line are instantly dismissed as not being "serious-minded." So, if Cassidy has his way, dissenters would not be invited to the debate, which I guess means there would be no debate.

Well, too bad, Cassidy. It looks like your friend the Rowan Williams is going down.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 8 Comments

Liberal Fascism: A Critical Review

Guest Review by Edward Cline:

The chief value in Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Doubleday, 2007, 487 pp.) is that it presents a nonpareil history of the origins and ends of American-style statism, a statism many facets of which were admired and emulated by Hitler and Mussolini. This is not a history likely to be required reading in contemporary “social studies” courses in American schools. No member of the NEA or of a teachers union is going to hold up a copy of it to a class, and with a finger tapping the cover with its smiley face and Hitlerian moustache, announce: “We are going to discuss this book all about how the public school system stole you away from your parents, and how it plans to steal your lives, as well, and enlist you into the great organic vitality of society, whether you like it or not, for the greater good.”

Liberal Fascism does not delve as deeply into American political trends as does Leonard Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America (1982); that is, it does not explicate the philosophical foundations of modern statism. Goldberg covers much the same ground and names the same names as does Peikoff. Peikoff, however, drills far below the surface to the philosophical bedrock of statism; Goldberg probes beneath the tundra but not much further. Goldberg cites the influence of especially German philosophical and political thought brought home by Americans in the period after the Civil War, but not nearly to the extent that Peikoff does.

Nor does Goldberg completely condemn the “good intentions” of American statists. He is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times and a contributing editor to National Review. In the latter capacity, he cannot question the alleged underpinnings of America’s Judeo-Christian “heritage.” These are what he vainly struggles to defend against the cascading encroachments of a “secular” altruism in politics. I say “vainly” because, at root, he and the conservatives he defends against the charge of fascism share the same “good intentions” as the statists. It is a circle he cannot square.

In spite of National Review’s notorious hostility to Ayn Rand, Goldberg cites her when he discusses the fascist program and spirit of John F. Kennedy:

“Particularly in response to Kennedy’s crackdown on the steel industry, some observers charged that he was making himself into a strongman. The Wall Street Journal and the Chamber of Commerce likened him to a dictator. Ayn Rand explicitly called him a fascist in a 1962 speech, ‘The Fascist New Frontier.’”

Unfortunately, Goldberg does not dwell on this interesting inclusion of Rand, and surprisingly, it is odd that he would invoke her name to help substantiate his correct charge that Kennedy was a fascist (although she is not listed in the book’s index; some of his National Review colleagues helped him edit the book). The text of Rand’s speech has not been included in any recent anthology of her political writings, nor reissued in its original pamphlet form, although excerpts from it can be found in The Ayn Rand Lexicon, so one wonders where he found it. (Given the nature of today’s political contest, I think the entire speech ought to be reprinted in some form and as widely distributed as possible.) Her inclusion in his book leads one to wonder if he has ever read her other articles, such as “Conservatism: An Obituary,” and “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus.” This is perhaps the first time a prominent conservative writer has called on Ayn Rand, of all thinkers, as a voice of authority. Perhaps this is a measure of her growing influence in the realm of ideas.

I will not reprise my own observations in my commentary “The Left-Wing ‘Conspiracy’ of the Right” (January 22), except to remark that the conservatives have been as leftish as the liberal-left that Goldberg dissects in his book. They have been compelled to partner with the Democrats and statists from default and out of necessity because they have had no credible counter-argument against them. While he masterfully traces the genealogy of American statism, Goldberg soft-pedals, but without excusing it, the “temptation” of conservatives to second the leftists in terms of moral appeal (what he designates “me-too” conservatism). He does not give evidence that he suspects that this is symptomatic of a moral and intellectual bankruptcy as bottomless as that of the left’s. He cannot let go of God and “tradition.” Intellectually, he cannot follow the logic and reach logical conclusions; his faith prevents him and renders him blind to the ominous parallels.

A clue to his inability to follow the path of his thinking to its logical conclusions can be found on page 404, in the chapter “The Tempting of Conservatism”: “Reason alone cannot move men.” In Goldberg, reason stopped when it encountered faith.

Perhaps not so curiously, Goldberg skirts the fundamental religious premises of conservatism, gliding over the subject but never quite alighting on it. Nowhere in his book does he propound that America is a “God-fearing” nation founded on the Ten Commandments. He alludes to it occasionally, but never explicitly expresses it. It is left to the reader to guess what he means. He does not say why the “traditional” values of “hearth, home…and family values” are best. They just are. He does not explain why the alleged conservative “classical liberal” values of private property, free markets, individual liberty, and freedom of conscience are values not to be surrendered to or corrupted by “mommy state” or “God-state” fascism. They just are.

He does not bother to question why indoctrinating American students with a collectivist, multiculturalist perspective on the nature of the U.S., as is being done now, is any worse than indoctrinating them with a religious perspective, which is what most conservatives would prefer. If he had bothered to question it, intellectual honesty would have revealed to him that the non-intellectual nature of both approaches has left Americans defenseless against the self-righteous thuggery and advocacy of force, which is what we are seeing and hearing in virtually every corner of American culture and society. When reason stops moving men, they are fated to succumb to the forces of nature or to the forces of statism. In either case, faith, prayer or earnest wishing will not protect them.

So, this is not an unqualified endorsement of Goldberg’s book. Its chief value is as a guide to just how increasingly statist America has grown for over a century. It does a soldierly job of piecing together the puzzle of today’s political phenomena, such as the rise of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain. One can put aside Goldberg’s conservative identity, which is not as intrusive as one might imagine, and focus on what he has to reveal about the ideological parentage of all the presidential candidates and of our economy and politics. There is just too much relevant information and well-reasoned argumentation in Liberal Fascism to dismiss it entirely as a conservative screed.

Goldberg’s central thesis is that right-wing conservatism has been smeared at least since the 1940’s by liberals and the left-wing as a fascist “reactionary” political phenomenon, when, in fact, it has been a semantic shell game to divert criticism from the liberal-progressive-left of being the true fascists, they having consciously and deliberately subjected the nation to censorship, the regimentation of industry and business, the invasion or abrogation of personal liberties, a looting welfare state, and the arbitrary establishment of a command economy governed by a clique of “experts,” all of it directed by the whims and prejudices of a “leader.” Goldberg does not settle for a single definition of fascism, but all the concretes he includes in his description of fascism can be found in the definition of it employed by Rand in her article, “The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus” (from The American College Dictionary, 1957):

“Fascism – a governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)”

The American Heritage Dictionary (1982) has this more detailed definition:

Fascism – A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism.” The belligerency, I might note, is first directed at a nation’s citizens – to control their diets, their amusements, their work lives, their purposes, and their time – before it is directed outward beyond a nation’s borders.

Goldberg writes in the chapter on Woodrow Wilson’s contribution and application of statism,

“Fascism, at its core, is the view that every nook and cranny of society should work together in spiritual union toward the same goals overseen by the state. ‘Everything in the State, nothing outside the State,’ is how Mussolini defined it. Mussolini coined the word ‘totalitarian’ to describe not a tyrannical society but a humane one in which everyone is taken care of and contributes equally. It was an organic concept where every class, every individual, was part of the larger whole.”

It is the nationalist coloring and content of fascism that is fascinating to see described in Goldberg’s book. “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State” has been the unspoken slogan and goal of ambitious fascists from Woodrow Wilson to Adolf Hitler. Listen to the bland, nattering rhetoric of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain. Their details differ but their fundamental means and end remain the same. As Rand and Peikoff pointed out in their books and articles, statists today no longer rant about socialism, but rather about the imperatives of “change” and a “new direction,” without identifying what change is necessary or which direction to take – which, in practical political terms, they mean that everyone must change and take the direction they decide the nation must go.

The anti-intellectual, anti-theoretical nature of their emotion-based proposals is a confession that the statists’ programs of the past have brought nothing but disastrous consequences; if everyone and everything were overseen and controlled, then their collectivist/altruist programs would work. If every individual was treated as just part of an “organic” whole, and more importantly, if every individual regarded himself as just a cell in that whole, then the “caring” collectivism would work. Of course, Americans would need to be taught that as an unquestioned absolute. Which is why Clinton especially wants to get hold of children. Raise enough of them to be selfless, sacrificing, volunteering manqués, and they will do her bidding without much prodding or persuasion. They will become doctors, nurses, technicians; and some will serve the public in other capacities, to come knocking on one’s door, or breaking it down, if one attempts to exist “outside the state” and impede by word or deed the nation’s “destined progress.”

Rand captures the tone and content of today’s political battle between the statists in “The New Fascism” (p. 210, in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal):

“Today, nobody talks of a planned society in the ‘liberal’ camp; long-range programs, theories, principles, abstractions, and ‘noble ends’ are not fashionable any longer. Modern ‘liberals’ deride any political concern with such large-scale matters as an entire society or an economy as a whole; they concern themselves with single, concrete-bound, range-of-the-moment projects and demands, without regard to cost, context, or consequences. ‘Pragmatic’ – not ‘idealistic’ – is the favorite adjective when they are called upon to justify the ‘stance,’ as they call it, not ‘stand.’ They are militantly opposed to political philosophy; they denounce political concepts as ‘tags,’ ‘labels,’ ‘myths,’ ‘illusions’ – and resist an attempt to ‘label’ – i.e. to identify – their own views. They are belligerently anti-theoretical and – with a faded mantle of intellectuality still clinging to their shoulders – they are anti-intellectual. The only remnant of their former ‘idealism’ is a tired, cynical, ritualistic quoting of shopworn ‘humanitarian’ slogans, when the occasion demands it.”

Not much has changed since Rand made that speech in 1965, except that the voices of the statists have grown louder, more insistent, and shriller in tandem with their ever-shrinking visions of the collectivist good. (From where I sit, they are growing more and more Hitlerian in volume and style.) Listen to any one of the current presidential candidates or to anyone who advocates some kind of control, regulation or abolition, and one will see just how concrete-bound and range-of-the-moment they all are.

Whether the subject is the environment, or smoking, or obesity, or trans-fats, or mandatory nutritional guides in food, or universal health care, or immigration, or subsidized education – the list is long and growing longer – they advocate an identity-less “humanitarian,” all-inclusive, “one for all, and all for one” collectivism. In short, the statists want to control everything, because anyone or anything left “outside the state” would not only be a threat, but a reproach to their vision, marked for suffocation in the crushing embrace of a “caring” tyranny.

Rand writes in “The New Fascism” that “a system in which the government does not nationalize the means of production, but assumes total control over the economy is fascism.” Clinton has already outlined her intentions. Obama has yet to specify his, although his endorsement by Senator Ted Kennedy should telegraph what those will be. McCain will name his particular causes when he and his advisors think of which ones to campaign for and against to assuage Republican suspicions that he is “one of them.”

Goldberg’s book presents ample evidence that the precedents have been set – during Wilson’s administration, in Herbert Hoover’s, and FDR’s – and that what today’s presumptive “leaders” are proposing is nothing new. Under Wilson, the U.S. got its first taste of an idealistically imposed command economy. Federal intervention in the economy precipitated the stock market crash of 1929 and perpetuated the Depression throughout the 1930’s, giving the pragmatist Roosevelt a host of options to establish another command economy under the New Deal.

Goldberg barely mentions the administrations of Truman, Eisenhower, and Richard Nixon, calling those presidents “caretakers of the welfare state.” It was JFK who reanimated the liberal fascist spirit of an “idealistic” leader, much to the delight of morose advocates of federal power, who had been treading water in the relatively placid 1950’s. One of the countless pieces of the puzzle that Goldberg mentions is that Harold Laski, the British socialist, and on whom Ayn Rand modeled her Fountainhead villain, Ellsworth Toohey, was JFK’s professor at Harvard.

Lyndon Johnson launched the “Great Society.” Goldberg glosses over Jimmy Carter’s contributions to the growth of federal power with almost dismissive contempt, devoting barely two pages to his actions, crediting Carter with the creation of the Energy Department. Of Ronald Reagan, he has nothing bad to say. The Clintons come in for very damaging scrutiny, especially Hillary Clinton, to whom he devotes a long chapter, “Brave New Village.”

George W. Bush, also, does not escape Goldberg’s critical eye. Writing about Bush’s social and economic policies and his campaign for “compassionate conservatism,” he notes,

“The very adjective ‘compassionate’ echoes progressive and liberal denunciations of limited government as cruel, selfish, or social Darwinist. In other words, as a marketing slogan alone, it represented a repudiation of the classical liberalism at the core of modern American conservatism because it assumed that limited government, free markets, and personal initiative were somehow ‘uncompassionate.’”

This is consonant with Goldberg’s thesis that Bush “has probably been called a fascist more than any other U.S. president” – and by the leftists and liberals, who have ascribed to Bush in their semantic shell game the very totalitarian measures they themselves wish to impose, but who would characterize their own repressive, extortionate and expropriating actions as “humanitarian.” (It could be called a form of power-envy.) Goldberg cites Bush’s record-busting legacy as a liberal progressive:

“In 2003, he proclaimed that ‘when somebody hurts,’ it’s the government’s responsibility to ‘move.’ And under Bush, it has. A new cabinet agency has been created [the Department of Homeland Security], Medicare has increased nearly 52 percent, and spending on education went up some 165 percent. From 2001 to 2006 antipoverty spending increased 41 percent, and overall spending reached a record $23,289 per household. Federal antipoverty spending has surpassed 3 percent of GDP for the first time ever. Total spending…has grown at triple the rate under Clinton. Moreover, Bush created the largest entitlement since the Great Society (Medicare Part D).”

Goldberg continues:

“…Bush really is a different kind of conservative, one who is strongly sympathetic to progressive-style intrusions into civil society. His faith-based initiative was a well-intentioned attempt to blur the lines between state and private philanthropy.”

Since when is a “well-intentioned attempt to blur the lines between state and private philanthropy” not a conscious attempt to destroy the wall separating church and state in a “compassionate” effort to introduce theocracy? This is an instance of Goldberg gliding over conservatism’s religious foundation and hidden agenda but never quite elaborating on conservatism’s progressive, “Social Gospel” sympathies. If he can castigate Woodrow Wilson for seeing himself as an “instrument of God,” why not condemn the two Presidents Bush for their “good intentions,” as well?

In fact, is not the whole panoply of the welfare state, with its entitlements, redistributed wealth, regulations, selective censorship, and taboos but a gargantuan “faith based initiative” subscribed to and enforced by secular liberals and religious conservatives alike? Do not both liberal fascists and religious fascists act on “faith” or “confidence” and ask the electorate to grant them the same “faith” and “confidence”?

A symbolic pairing which Goldberg overlooked in his effort to excoriate the liberal fascists is the partnering of former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton in their globetrotting “humanitarian” campaigns. They were never really political adversaries. True adversaries do not play golf together and call each other “chum.”

With the reservations expressed above, however, I highly recommend Goldberg’s book if only as a means to educate oneself in the historic scope of statism, its inception and growth in the U.S., not to mention its relatively unknown influences on Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Remarking on the timeliness of Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 novel, It Can’t Happen Here, Goldberg writes that the “irony, of course, is that it did happen here.” And continues to, and will continue to until it reaches a point when the smiley face sports a stern, Hitlerian frown – unless Americans rip off those smiley face buttons before it is too late and toss them into the trash, where they belong.

I must credit Goldberg for helping to explode the mystique of statism. But if he is truly concerned about the jeopardy in which free markets, individual liberty, and freedom of speech and thought have been placed, he should subject the conservatives and nascent theocrats to the same merciless examination to which he has subjected the liberal fascists.

Crossposted at The Dougout
Bookmark and Share
posted by Grant Jones at permanent link# 4 Comments

Storm Track Infiltration: When Worlds Collide

What do you get when you cross a Muslim nuclear physicist working on classified military projects and a Muslim chaplain who administers to prisoners?

A problem.

Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.

Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 0 Comments

Well it's the same, old song, but with a different beat now that...


Iran has pledged not to strike Gulf Arab states in any war with the United States.
Until 2008, Iran warned that GCC states, most of whom host American troops, would become targets in any war with the United States.

"We realize that there is worry among neighboring Muslim countries whose lands host U.S. military stations," Gen. Mohammed Ali Jaafari, commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, said.

In a television interview, Jaafari said Iran reserves the right to respond to any attack. But the IRGC commander said civilians in GCC countries with a U.S. military presence would not be harmed.

"If the United States launches a war against us
and if it uses these bases to attack Iran with missiles
then through the strength and precision of our own missiles
we are capable of targeting only the U.S. military forces
that attack us," Jaafari said on Feb. 2.

sunni&shia_love.jpg

The United States has deployed troops, aircraft and other military equipment in such GCC countries as Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Bahrain contains a pro-Iranian Shi'ite majority.

"We do not trust either one of them [the United States or Iran]," Adel Al Maawada, chairman of Bahrain's parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, defense and national security, said. "But I hope Gen. Jaafari is telling the truth."

Bahrain hosts the US Navy's main and major base in the gulf. BY THE WAY. So WTF?

Gulf analysts said the prospects of an Iranian-U.S. war in 2008 were low. They cited a change in Washington's position since the release of an intelligence report in December 2007 that asserted that Teheran had ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003.


Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 0 Comments

Muslims For Obama Hail One Nation Under "God"

Check out a couple of Obamasama's Muslim campaign sites here and here . Funny, but I just can't get myself to accept the notion that Barack is all for racial equality while he still belongs to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Nor do I find Keith Ellision's endorsement particularly reassuring. And may I be forgiven for being just a trifle curious as to why none of these devout Muslims seems concerned that Obama is apostate? Do they perhaps know something we don't?
Bookmark and Share
posted by revereridesagain at permanent link# 5 Comments

Friday, February 08, 2008

Approving Of Honor Crimes?

According to this post at World Divided, citing this article at the Daily Mail,
Police and authorities 'afraid to act against honour crimes in case they are called racist', claims report

Honour killing victim: Surjit Kaur Athwal disappeared on a trip to India in 1998
Teachers, police and councils are afraid to take action against so-called honour crimes for fear of being accused of racism, it is claimed.

Women are also being betrayed by community figures who believe those who break traditional taboos deserve to be punished, the report found.

Researchers say taxi drivers, police and government workers of Asian origin are returning women to the domestic abuse they want to escape....
Read the rest of the article at the Daily Mail.

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Always On Watch at permanent link# 12 Comments

Hoorah For The Archbishop

Having just watched the BBC 10'0 Clock News it is now obvious that Rowan Williams has done England a favour. The shock and outrage at his speech on sharia law has spread far and wide. From Archbishops and parish priests to ordinary church goers they are all appalled and disgusted and are now also looking at the wider issues of the Islamification of Britain.

Middle England has woken up, he has let the genie out of the bottle and it cannot be put back. This is the wake up call that was needed. This week has been a good week. Instead of the Islamists winning at every turn they are on losing ground. Firstly, al-Qaradawi, the “eminent scholar" has been refused a visa to visit the UK, secondly Abu Hamza is to be extradited to the US, and thirdly the "Sharia Shindig" put a very negative spotlight on Islam.

It's not often we can report victories for the cause, small though they may appear to be, perhaps the tide is turning. From the BBC:

Friends of Dr Rowan Williams say he is in a state of shock and dismayed by the criticism from his own Church.

All the main political parties, secular groups and some senior Muslims have expressed dismay at his comments.

The Muslims are dismayed, that can't be bad.

The BBC understands from sources who work on Christian-Muslim interfaith issues that Dr Williams has faced a barrage of criticism from within the Church and has been genuinely taken aback by how his words were received.

BBC News religious affairs correspondent Robert Pigott says both traditionalists and liberals in the Church have their own reasons for criticising Dr Williams.

Traditionalists maintain that English law is based on Biblical values and that no parallel system could be tolerated in the UK.

Liberal Anglicans believe giving Sharia legal status would be to the detriment of women and gay people.

Among those critical of the archbishop is the chairman of evangelical Church group Reform, the Reverend Rod Thomas.

"The Church at the moment, and the country, needs a clear lead. The country is itself in a debate about its own sense of identity," he said.

"The moral values that we pursue are ones that we need to know are clearly grounded, and it would be most helpful for the leader of the Church to be able to explain to people how the values we cherish stem from our Christian tradition."

Looks like he's pleased no one. Except me.

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Ray Boyd at permanent link# 4 Comments

Bishops' backlash as Archbishop of Canterbury defends calls for sharia law

Because I think the Archbishop of Canterbury is such an idiot, and his calling for Sharia in Britain a treasonous act possibly calling for the ultimate punishment, I can't help but post all the latest news with regards to this issue as soon as it comes out:


The Archbishop of Canterbury today launched a desperate backtrack over his endorsement of sharia law as his own bishops lined up to attack him.

Claiming he never called for the introduction of the Muslim system, Dr Rowan Williams claimed he wanted to "tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state".

In a statement on his website based on his controversial lecture in London last night, he added he had only used sharia as an example.

Dr Williams' comments, however, are likely to do little to stem the rising tide of anger from senior clergy.

As public condemnation of his speech grew, some of his own bishops were calling for his resignation.

In an astonishing attack, one senior Church of England clergyman demanded he stepped down immediately and branded him "gullible".

Meanwhile, the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, claimed it would be "simply impossible" to introduce sharia law in Britain.

The clergyman was put under police protection last month after receiving death threats following his claims that parts of Britain are 'no-go areas' for non-Muslims.

Today he claimed that sharia would be "in tension" with current laws, including the rights of women.

Dr Nazir-Ali, who holds dual British and Pakistani citizenship, also added that Muslim women's groups had blocked an attempt to introduce sharia in marriage dispute cases in Canada.

Debates on sharia "are not an argument for disturbing the integrity of a legal tradition which is rooted in the quite different moral and spiritual vision deriving from the Bible," he concluded.

In a separate attack, a clergyman identified only as a long-standing member of the Church's governing body the General Synod, told The Times that many people had now lost confidence in the Archbishop.

"I am just so shocked, and cannot believe a man of his intelligence could be so gullible," he said.

"I can only assume that all the Muslims he meets are senior leaders of the community who tell him what a wonderful book the Koran is.

"There have been a lot of calls today for him to resign. I don't suppose he will take any notice, but yes, he should resign."

The comments followed the Archbishop's statement that it seemed "unavoidable" that some form of sharia law will be introduced in Britain.

This morning, the Bishop of Southwark the Right Reverend Tom Butler was the first to break ranks and publicly attack Dr Williams.

He said: "It will take a great deal more thought and work before I think it's a good idea."

Asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme whether the Church of England leader, Dr Rowan Williams, should have been more diplomatic in his speech which sparked the controversy, Dr Butler said: "The Archbishop has a way with language but this was a very heavy lecture."

He admitted that the Dr Williams had entered a "minefield" with his views on sharia law and it was not clear whether he would backtrack on behalf of the Church of England, on this issue.

He said: "Like all bishops I'm waking up this morning to a shoal of emails from clergy asking what's going on."

Culture Secretary Andy Burnham also launched a ferocious backlash against the Archbishop of Canterbury's claims about sharia law.

The Cabinet minister warned against such a radical legal shake-up in the UK stressing it would be a "recipe for social chaos".

Dr Williams faced a barrage of criticism for arguing that sharia law should be given some form of legal status in the UK.

Voicing the views of many MPs, Mr Burnham said: "This isn't a path down which we should go. The system, the British legal system, should apply to everybody equally.

"You cannot run two systems of law alongside each other. That in my view would be a recipe for chaos, social chaos. British law has to be based on British values.

"If people choose to live in this country, they choose to abide by that law and that law alone.

"It has got to be fundamental and a cornerstone of our country and our democracy that everybody is equal before that one system of British law."

This morning it also emerged that sharia crime courts are already operating in parts of Britain.

The Archbishop of Canterbury caused consternation yesterday when he called for Islamic law to be recognised in Britain.

He declared that sharia and Parliamentary law should be given equal legal status so the people could choose which governs their lives.

This raised the prospect of Islamic courts in Britain with full legal powers to approve polygamous marriages, grant easy divorce for men and prevent finance firms from charging interest.

His comments in a BBC interview and a lecture to lawyers were condemned at a time when government ministers are striving to encourage integration and stop the nation from "sleepwalking to segregation".

The Prime Minister rapidly distanced himself from Dr Williams's view. Gordon Brown's spokesman said: "Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes.

"The Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values."

Dr Williams's words opened a chasm over Islam between senior leaders of the Church of England, who are already trying to deal with an Anglican war over gay rights which broke out after he was appointed archbishop.

The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, is facing death threats following his warning last month about Muslim "no-go areas" in Britain.

And the Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu, who has been fiercely critical of Muslim extremists, said last year that "the imposition of sharia law, Britain as a Muslim society - that will never happen".

Alternative sharia courts as proposed by the archbishop would dish out enforceable law.

Muslim groups responded cautiously to Dr Williams's proposals. A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain said: "We will need to look carefully at the archbishop's lecture."

The Ramadhan Foundation youth organisation said the scheme would help build respect and tolerance.

Its director Mohammed Shafiq said: "Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some western countries with much success; I believe that Muslims would take huge comfort from the Government allowing civil matters being resolved according to their faith."

But he added: "We are however disappointed that the Archbishop of Canterbury was silent when Bishop Nazir-Ali was promoting intolerance and lying about no-go areas for Christians in the UK by Muslim extremists.

"Unless he speaks out against this intolerance, Muslims will take his silence as authorisation and support for such comments."

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said Dr Williams's comments gave "succour to extremists".

"He needs to understand that his words carry enormous weight," he said in a Channel 4 interview.

"What he seems to be talking about is a situation in which people are treated differently under the law according to their religion. People cannot be treated differently. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law.

"I don't doubt the archbishop's desire to accommodate diversity, but we cannot do so at the expense of our common values."

He described Dr Williams as "muddled" and "dangerous".

Mr Phillips was the first prominent Labour figure to condemn multiculturalism, the Left-wing doctrine which promotes different cultures.

He declared that under its influence Britain was sleepwalking to segregation.

Yesterday he said the "implication that British courts should treat people differently based on their faith is divisive and dangerous.

"It risks removing the protection afforded by law, for example, to children in custody cases or women in divorce proceedings.

"The first people who would suffer would be ethnic-minority citizens. Follow the logic of this extreme multiculturalism through and where do we end up?

With a group of white Christians in Barking and Dagenham deciding they had a conscientious objection to non-white Muslims in their neighbourhoods - and seeking the support of the courts?"

Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: "I am appalled that the head of the Church of England is advocating that parts of sharia law should be introduced into British law.

"The idea that you can have the moderate bits without the nasty bits coming along at a later time is naive."

Tory backbencher David Davies, an Anglican, said:
"I am astounded. Dr Williams is a nice enough man, very intellectual, but he has clearly lost the plot.

"He's one of the most influential Christian prelates in the world and he's supposed to be standing up for Christianity.

"What he's doing is abandoning his own religion.
If people come to this country they should be prepared to compromise their own traditions to fit in with the host country.

Tory cohesion spokesman Baroness Warsi, a Muslim herself, said: "The archbishop's comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities.

"Freedom under the law allows respect for some religious practices.

"But let's be absolutely clear. All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 5 Comments

Senior Anglican Clergyman Says The Archbishop Should Resign

Hopefully, this is the beginning of an avalanche which will drop on Rowan Williams head:


A senior Church of England clergyman called today for the resignation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, over his remarks supporting Sharia in England.

The call, from a long-standing member of the Church's governing body, the General Synod, demonstrated the strength of the backlash Dr Williams that faces from within his own Church — as well as from political and other faith leaders.


The senior Synod member, who insisted on remaining anonymous, told The Times: "A lot of people will now have lost confidence in him. I am just so shocked, and cannot believe a man of his intelligence could be so gullible. I can only assume that all the Muslims he meets are senior leaders of the community who tell him what a wonderful book the Koran is.

"There have been a lot of calls today for him to resign. I don't suppose he will take any notice, but yes, he should resign."

The Bishop of Southwark, the Right RevTom Butler, also challenged the Archbishop's comments. "It will take a great deal more thought and work before I think it's a good idea," he said.

Although the means of forcing an archbishop out of office are so costly and arcane — short of his committing a criminal act, he could never be made to go — the row represents the most serious threat to the authority of his office since he became Archbishop five years ago.

It comes on top of the disintegration of the Anglican Communion in the dispute over homosexuality, with up to a quarter of the world's 800-plus Anglican bishops intending to boycott the 2008 Lambeth Conference at Kent, and insiders are wondering if Dr Williams's moral authority has now been damaged almost beyond repair.

Weblogs and other sites have been overwhelmed by comments from members of the public, Anglicans and non-Anglicans, the vast majority being highly critical of Dr Williams and his apparent appeasement of Islamism.

Senior government figures also spoke out against the Archbishop, as the row escalated and threatened to undermine his authority in the public arena as well as within his own Church. David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, said that formalising Sharia in the UK would be "catastrophic" for social cohesion.

One of Dr Williams's arguments in favour of including some parts of Sharia under a parallel jurisdiction to secular law was to aid social cohesion. Mr Blunkett told the Today programme on Radio 4 : "I think this is very dangerous because the Archbishop used the term affiliations.
"We have affiliations to football clubs, to cricket teams, to all sorts of things that aren't central to our citizenship and the acceptance of that in terms of a common society.


"We don't have affiliations when it comes to the question of the law. And when it comes to equality under the law, we have to be rigorous in terms of making sure people do not find themselves excluded from it because of cultural or faith reasons."

Formalising Sharia "would be wrong democratically and philosophically but it would be catastrophic in terms of social cohesion", he said.

Virtually the only organisation to have come out on Dr Williams's side of the debate was the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which said that the media response to the Archbishop's speech could "only be described as a fanatical and emotional outpouring of exaggeration, misrepresentative statements, untruths and sometimes vitriolic hatred".

Dr Williams said yesterday: "It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system."

The latest controversy is the second time that Dr Williams's views on Islam have provoked dispute. In an interview last year with Emel, a Muslim lifestyle magazine, he accused the US of wielding its power in a way worse than Britain at the peak of the Empire, compared Muslims in Britain to the Good Samaritans, and praised the Muslim ritual of praying five times a day. He also said terrorists “can have serious moral goals” and argued that the 9/11 terrorists should not be called evil.

A senior member of General Synod, who asked not to be named, said that he had had high hopes of Dr Williams when he was enthroned five years ago but had now lost confidence in his archiepiscopacy. He thought that he should resign and said that many others were also saying the same thing privately.

Many who heard his lecture last night at the Royal Courts of Justice in London were also critical, although others pleaded for understanding of an Archbishop attempting to instigate debate on an area of international importance.

Ian Edge, who organised the event , is director of the Centre for Islamic and Middle Eastern Law at the School of Oriental and African Studies and a lawyer specialising in Islamic law. He said: "You can get married in your own religious community in the Church of England, but you can't as a Muslim so it seems rather discriminatory. But you wouldn't necessarily want to recognise Islamic divorce, but it may be that once you have admitted one religious right you would have to open it up to the whole spectrum."

Alan Craig, the councillor campaigning against the building of a mega-mosque near the 2012 Olympic site in East London, said "I'm very, very wary of allowing Sharia courts in parallel. “There are real human rights issues under Sharia — women are not equal with men. If he is accepting that Sharia could be ingrafted in British law, it can only be ingrafted if it complies with British law in which case there's no point in ingrafting it."

Dr Doreen Hinchcliffe, Islamic family law expert and visiting lecturer at the School of Oriental and African Studies, said: "His assessment of the situation was great to hear. What he said is working out in terms of Muslims going to counsels to get advice. They have to accept that they live in England, but they shouldn't be discriminated against. It was very astute of him to pick up inheritance for widows —the share for a widow, one eighth, is so small".

Robin Griffith-Jones, the Master of Temple Church, said: "His argument in favour of transformative action will cause controversy but it starts the conversation and reacts against that state of grudging questioning"
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 3 Comments

Storm Track Infiltration: More Insanity from the Original Moon Bat - Islam

It’s not bad enough that they bring their 7th century superstitions and behaviors to local UK neighborhoods but now they want to overturn hundreds of years of medical knowledge to please their so-called prophet.

The Islamic Medical Association – no AMA by a long shot – has injected itself into the heat debate in Britain. It seems that medical hygiene in room must give way to dogma. Muslim medical students are refusing to obey hygiene rules brought in to stop the spread of deadly superbugs, because they say it is against their religion.

Read the rest at The Gathering Storm.

Bookmark and Share
posted by WC at permanent link# 0 Comments

London Times Asks: Has The Archbishop Gone Bonkers?

The Archbishop, as he stated the other day, believes Sharia law is "unavoidable" in Britain. The London Times questions the man's sanity:


Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?

Forgive the stark clarity of my headline, but sometimes when writing about the Archbishop of Canterbury, clarity is what is needed. I ask this of readers here, because this is the question put to me time after time this afternoon by incredulous commentators of every variety, stunned into blunt expression by the Archbishop of Canterbury's
uncharacteristically clear comments on Sharia in Britain.

The Archbishop believes adopting aspects of sharia law into British law would help maintain social cohesion. But who exactly is asking for this? No Muslim organisation in Britain has requested it, I could not find any who even wanted it. Instead, Muslims I spoke to this afternoon seem fearful of the effects the Archbishop's latest remarks will have on those already prejudiced against their community. As well they might be. His speech was delivered this evening at the Royal Courts of Justice in Strand, London. (Update: do read this interesting analaysis from Propaganda Box.)

The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, responded: 'English law is rooted in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and, in particular, our notions of human freedoms derive from that tradition. In my view, it would be simply impossible to introduce a tradition, like sharia into this corpus without fundamentally affecting its integrity.'

Read his full comments here. Also see here for a legal opinion from barrister Dr James Behrens.

Sheikh Michael Mumisa, an Islamic scholar at Cambridge University and who is affiliated to
Centre for the Study of Muslim-Jewish Relations at the Woolf Institute, said: 'I do understand that by sharia law here he means only the personal status laws of Islam such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and not its penal code.” Mumisa, author of the book Islamic Law: Theory and Interpretation, continued: 'I disagree and believe that the introduction of such laws within the UK will undermine the rights of Muslim women. Moreover, some senior Muslim clerics in the UK want more than just the personal status laws and would prefer that the penal laws were introduced as well.'

A few days ago, the Archbishop
argued also for the abolition of the blasphemy law - as long as it was replaced by something even more severe. People should be punished for daring to voice thoughts that were hurtful to others, he said, even when that hurt was unintentional. Now it seems he wants women, children, all of us in fact, to have to kow-tow to some of the strictest, harshest and most draconian laws dreamed up by any religious system, ever, anywhere in the world.

There might not be no-go areas for non-Muslims in Britain, as he recently argued against the Bishop of Rochester. But this is certainly the way to go about creating them.

Is the Archbishop of Canterbury unaware of the history of the Church he has been chosen to lead? Coming from Wales is no excuse, as until the early years of the last century, Wales was part of the Church of England as well. The Church of England was born out of an express desire to rid Britain of a foreign, ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Article 37 of the 39 says: 'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.'


Queen Elizabeth I early in her reign decreed that the Crown had restored to it 'the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual, abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same'.

And now Queen Elizabeth II's very own Archbishop - and let's not forget she is his Church's Supreme Governor - wants to introduce a new 'jurisdiction into this realm of England.' And an Islamic one at that!

It is one thing for judges to take
Sharia into account, as has happened in Germany. It is quite another to follow the line the Archbishop is suggesting. It led to near disaster in Ontario, Canada two years ago and would created untold and unnecessary distress here were it to be implemented here.

The Archbishop has staked everything on trying to maintain unity in his own Anglican Communion. At the same time, he is advocating a policy that could only fragment the society around him.





If you doubt me, watch this, above.

Or this, below.





A few weeks ago, I was chatting to a woman who works in an advocacy role for Muslim women in an area that, quite independently of the Bishop of Rochester, she described as a 'no-go area' for non-Muslims. Her clients were women in the process of being sectioned into mental health units in the NHS. This woman, who for obvious reasons begged not to be identified, told me: 'The men get tired of their wives. Or bored. Or maybe the wife objects to her daughter being forced into a marriage she doesn't want. Or maybe she starts wearing western clothes. There can be many reasons. The women are sent for asssessment to a hospital. The GP referring them is Muslim. The psychiatrist assessing them is Muslim and male. I have sat in these assessments where the psychiatrist will not look the woman patient in the eye because she is a woman. Can you imagine! A psychiatrist refusing to look his patient in the eye? The woman speaks little or no English. She is sectioned. She is divorced. There are lots of these women in there, locked up in these hospitals. Why don't you people write about this?'

My interlocuter went very red and almost started to cry. Instead, she began shouting at me. I was a member of the press. 'You must write about this,' she begged.

'I can't,' I said. 'Not unless you become a whistle-blower. Or give me some evidence. Or something.'

She shook her head. 'I can't be identified,' she said. 'I would be killed. And so would the women.'
So there you have it. After weeks of wondering what to do, inspired by the Archbishop, I've taken her word that she is telling the truth, respected her anonymity, and written it anyway.
And this, I imagine, is what the Archbishop wants for the whole of England. As they used to say in my father's country parish: 'Heaven preserve us!' I wonder what they're saying there today. Expressions somewhat shorter and sweeter, I fear.



Note that, it seems, even the feminists are starting to get into the action over there in the UK. This is a very good sign.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 2 Comments

And in case the stupid govt refusals to act clearly in defense against islamism isn't enough...


Chinese spy agencies taking toll on U.S. tech, counterintelligence

East-Asia-Intel.com, February 8, 2008

China's aggressive intelligence collection activities include operations by at least seven different spy services.

Larry Wortzel, a former military intelligence officer now chairman of the congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, told the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime last week that China intelligence activities pose the No. 1 threat to U.S. technology and government secrets.


"After a year of hearings, research and classified briefings from agencies of the U.S. intelligence community, the commission concluded that China's espionage activities are the single greatest threat to U.S. technology and strain the U.S. counterintelligence establishment," Wortzel said.

"This illicit activity significantly contributes to China's military modernization and acquisition of new capabilities."

Part of China's espionage effectiveness stems from a PRC national high technology research and development program started in March 1986 with the goal of benefiting China's long-term high technology development. The program is called the "863 Program" or Torch Program.

U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies and American corporate security professionals must contend with seven or more Chinese state-controlled intelligence and security services that can gather information for Beijing's industrial sector inside China or overseas, Wortzel said.

The services include the Ministry of State Security and its local or regional state security bureaus; the Public Security Bureau; the intelligence department of the People's Liberation Army (PLA), or Second Department; the PLA's Third, or Electronic Warfare Department; a PLA Fourth Department that focuses on information warfare; trained technical collectors from the General Armaments Department and the General Logistics Department of the PLA; the technical intelligence collectors of the military industrial sector and the Commission of Science Technology and Industry for National Defense; and the Communist Party Liaison Department or PLA General Political Department.

It was the first time a U.S. government official had outlined Beijing's extensive networks for spying, acquiring technology and for suppressing what Beijing considers regime opponents or dissidents.


They started this program to advance their military via stealing our secrets instead of paying for their own research in 1986, but the first time the program is outlined is 21 years later? Was someone afraid we might not like the chinese enough?

Wortzel discussed several serious spy cases related to China, including that of Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Ronald Montaperto, who was convicted of document mishandling. He had been indicted for leaking classified information to China's military intelligence service and hoarding classified U.S. documents in his home.

Montaperto was a close personal confident of several current senior U.S. intelligence officials, including National Intelligence Officer of East Asia Lonnie Henley, the U.S. intelligence community's most senior analyst on China.


Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 1 Comments

Not An Inch

This is not new but I thought it useful to remind us why we should not give an inch to the "Aliens from The Planet Islam" on sharia law or any other damned thing. There is a glimpse of blue sky however, the Sharia law controversy foolishly raised by Rowan Williams - Archbishop of Canterbury - brought a sharp rebuttal from Gordon Brown and many other politicians and the all the mainstream media.

The "proverbial" has well and truly hit the fan and the Archbishop is in it up to his neck. On the other hand we could say that the subject of "Sharia" has been brought into the open and well and truly thrashed.

It could be a long time before the Muslims bring the subject up again. Was the Archbishop being incredibly stupid or was he being extremely devious, with the end result being what he intended all along? Somehow though I don't think he is that clever or is he?



(cross posted with CommonSense)

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Ray Boyd at permanent link# 3 Comments

Maldives: Tourist bombing suspects hiding in Pakistan...

Ten suspects in September's bomb blast in the Maldives that injured One Brit, one Japanese and eight Chinese tourists escaped to Pakistan according to the Pakistan High Commission in Male'. The immigration official charged with helping two of the suspects escape has appeared in court today on charges of aiding terrorism.
Red Notices have been issued via Interpol on all ten suspects to aid their capture and extradition, in an unprecedented move by the Maldivian police.

Minivan News reports:
"The group of ten fugitives, said to be the "masterminds" behind the incident, fled out of the country to Pakistan to escape capture, with some leaving before and some after the incident on 29 September 2007.
The Pakistani High Commission's second secretary, Dr Jamuluddin, confirmed to Minivan News today that the suspects had entered Pakistan last year – with most flying in via Karachi – but that they did not know their current location.
Despite their absence, they have been charged with terrorist acts relating to the explosion that went off in Sultan Park, injuring twelve tourists.
...
The High Commission said that they were negotiating with authorities in order to find the escapees."The [Pakistani] government is trying to locate [the suspects] at the moment. If they are in Pakistan they will be found," Jamuluddin said.
Three other suspects arrested in the Maldives were each sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment last month after admitting to police they had planted the device to "target, attack and injure non-Muslims, to fulfil jihad."
And while the Chief Justice has suggested previously that the suspects learned how to make bombs at a madrassa in Pakistan, the police could not confirm this today and the high commission said this was "impossible".
"No-one has been trained in Pakistan. It is not true," Jamuluddin added, claiming that foreigners had been removed from madrassas following the US terrorism attacks of September 11th 2001."
Bookmark and Share
posted by Dhivehi Resistance at permanent link# 2 Comments

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Is He The One?


Barack Obama, Superstar, do you think you're who they say you are?

Oprah Winfrey famously proclaimed that he is the One. And, indeed, Barack Obama's following does sometimes behave as if they have found their messiah:


Obama supporter Kathleen Geier writes that she's "getting increasingly weirded out by some of Obama's supporters. On listservs I'm on, some people who should know better – hard-bitten, not-so-young cynics, even – are gushing about Barack…

Describing various encounters with Obama supporters, she writes, "Excuse me, but this sounds more like a cult than a political campaign. The language used here is the language of evangelical Christianity – the Obama volunteers speak of 'coming to Obama' in the same way born-again Christians talk about 'coming to Jesus.'...So I say, we should all get a grip, stop all this unseemly mooning over Barack, see him and the political landscape he is a part of in a cooler, clearer, and more realistic light, and get to work."

Joe Klein, writing at Time, notes "something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism" he sees in Obama's Super Tuesday speech.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for," Obama said. "This time can be different because this campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is different. It's different not because of me. It's different because of you."

Says Klein: "That is not just maddeningly vague but also disingenuous: the campaign is entirely about Obama and his ability to inspire. Rather than focusing on any specific issue or cause — other than an amorphous desire for change — the message is becoming dangerously self-referential. The Obama campaign all too often is about how wonderful the Obama campaign is. “
The always interesting James Wolcott writes that "(p)erhaps it's my atheism at work but I found myself increasingly wary of and resistant to the salvational fervor of the Obama campaign, the idealistic zeal divorced from any particular policy or cause and chariot-driven by pure euphoria. I can picture President Hillary in the White House dealing with a recalcitrant Republican faction; I can't picture President Obama in the same role because his summons to history and call to hope seems to transcend legislative maneuvers and horse-trading; his charisma is on a more ethereal plane, and I don't look to politics for transcendence and self-certification."

Then there's MSNBC's Chris Matthews who tells Felix Gillette in the New York Observer, “I’ve been following politics since I was about 5. I’ve never seen anything like this. This is bigger than Kennedy. [Obama] comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."


When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 12 Comments

The Netherlands Bans The Burqa




... the cabinet agreed that burqas would be banned for government workers and at schools. On Friday, the government is expected to announce that burqas will also be banned from public transport.

And for those of you cynical enough to believe that all of this has anything to do with Islamophobia, the ban, if introduced, will also apply to balaclavas and crash helmets.


De Volkskrant writes that a ban on burqas was first proposed by Freedom Party leader Geert Wilders in 2005, but the previous cabinet never got round to it as a result of internal divisions.

The current government coalition has decided against a general ban on burqas, arguing that a ban is only justified when the garment in question ‘seriously hampers integration and communication’.


However, when this is the case, societal interests outweigh religious freedoms such as the wearing of burqas.

It will come as no surprise that the Freedom Party does not think the ban is going far enough, and has submitted a bill banning the wearing of burqas not only in all public spaces, but also at home.


The burqa is a portable concentration camp for women. It is, indeed, anti-freedom and therefore anti-Western.

Three cheers for the Netherlands.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 4 Comments

The 95 Questions Tacked On The Door Of The Archbishop


The West needs to undergo a reformation. The pondering of these questions is the beginning (from the Danish paper Politiken):


Now, What If…?

Now, what if our ideals destroy our sense of reality and lead us down the wrong path? What if Bush is really a great president?

By Mogens Rukow

What if Bush…? What if Islam…? Think, what if the intelligentsia…? What if multicultural…? Think, what if Arafat…? What if my a.. was…? What if you could go on forever?

Now, what if there existed the equivalent of contrafactual history writing? What if there were the equivalent of hypothesizing what the world would be like out if history hadn’t turned out the way it did?

What if Hitler had won the war? What if the Iron Curtain had never been imposed on Europe? What if the incandescent light bulb had never been invented?

What if the mind could entertain these kinds of questions, which are counterfactual to the conventional wisdom.

What if some are more concrete, others more fluid. But what if all of them now work for the sake of clarifying reality, of the facts, of the sum of what we know about reality. What if we can open up a perspectives on an alternative world of thought to the one we already agree about?

What if many of them lead us directly into paradise or hell? What if they individually put history on a knife’s edge, where it balances and where it could have fallen out differently than it did?

Contrafactual questions shake the way we, by habit, react to the course of history. They are part of history’s teaching.

Aren’t there also questions which can shake up our thinking, so that it doesn’t become habitual thinking?

What if you could ask contra-conceptual questions instead of contra-factual?

To think new thoughts one often has to change concepts. Such a change of concept lies in the contra-conceptual.

Concepts are our prisons, our direction, and our freedom. They are our dreams and our nightmares.

Contra-conceptual questions do not have to be wise, or logical, or rational. Actually, they have to be the opposite. They have to be stupid, unthinkable, to the verge of ignorance.

What if Bush was a great president?

Is that unthinkable? Reagan was called a fool too, an actor, parvenu. Nor could he read — as Bush is said not to be able to — Reagan didn’t have any experience in foreign policy, should never have been in The White House. All these kinds of things they said, our foreign policy experts, many of our politicians, the intelligentsia, the intellectuals, the writers.

Now he is called a great president. By the same people, or among the same people who have little interest in what happens around them.

In those days you where taken as a big idiot if you said anything else except that Reagan was a big idiot. People laughed at you if you didn’t laugh at Reagan. But the experts say that it was Reagan’s policy that ended the Cold War, that it was his stubbornness that won it.

The man who didn’t know anything about politics, the ridiculous fool who could not read, the actor, won the biggest political fight in modern time, after forty years of cold war.

Do you have to be illiterate to become a great politician? Do you have to be a Western politician not to understand a thing?
- - - - - - - - -
What if the Iraq war is a real war?

The Korean war was stupid. The Vietnam war was insane, all the good people said as much in those days. But both wars stopped communist aggression. Both served in part to hasten the fall of communism.

What if the war in Iraq will lead to a new balance in the Arab world, if it is a probe thrust into the Muslim sea?

What if it is only a temporary fiasco, what if it becomes a success? What if it made Libya give up its weapon of mass destruction program in December of 2003 as a reaction to the war in Iraq, or if it is true, made Iran to halt its development of nuclear weapons in 2003, also for that very reason. Is that not enough to call the war in Iraq a good war?

What if there is no such thing as a legitimate war, as some opponents of the Iraq war claim because they see the war in Iraq as illegitimate.

What if legitimate war is only a concept which has been invented by some bureaucrats as a concept that allows them to make wars that are just as insane as any other war but which they would not be able to do without the juridical term “legitimate war”, partly because they don’t have the power, partly because there is no reason to do it?

What if “legitimate war” leads us into the most insane wars because some insane states in the UN vote for it?

What if UN with all their perception and legitimacy are leading the world into Armageddon, if it becomes an instrument for powerless madness.

What if the fight against Islam is the big European war right now?

What if it is the new Thirty Years War that replaces the old one prior to the peace of Westphalia, which is now defines Europe?

The European establishment, the European debate , treats Islam as if it was only a religion.

Think — what if Islam is only a religion if seen from the perspective of the individual Muslim?

What if Islam is already at war from within the mosque and further up in the hierarchy. And think — what if it actually already is at war from the viewpoint of the individual Muslim believer.

What if the order in the Quran about killing or dominating the infidel (non-Muslim) is part of the doctrine that the individual Muslim recognize?

What if the Muslim terrorists are only the storm troops in the war, those who commit the commando raids in the broader fight?

What if the only way the war can be won for Christian Europe is by prohibiting Islam and sending all Muslims back to Islamic countries? What inhumane conduct does the war not impose on us?

What if all European countries develop Muslim no-go zones as already exist in Great Britain?

What if the Bishop of Rochester is right, and the problem is the political establishment, as the chairman of the Muslim Forum, Manzoor Moghal, has replied: “No matter how much his (the Bishop’s) opponents are rumbling against his accusations, the fact is that the determination with which some of my Muslim kinsmen stick to a specific lifestyle, specific habits, language and way of living has led to create neighborhoods where non-Muslims would feel uneasy, and might even get attacked.”

What if the rising violence in our streets is actually making no-go time zones? Will the politicians still talk about freedom of religion, about tolerance towards different ways of thinking, when they speak of Islamophobia?

What if any generation of Muslim immigrants in reality functions as occupying troops?

What if the positive results of multiculturalism do not exist. What if the brotherhood, mutual understanding, deeply felt empathy, and cross-fertilization are only part of the mental activity of some members of the intelligentsia?

What if multiculturalism dissolves society?

What if the big survey of multiculti societies by Robert Putnam — who has studied 41 multicultural areas in the US — is right? What if it is true that diversity not only reduces the so-called social capital between different ethnic groups but also inside the groups themselves?

What if multiculture not only dissolves society, but destroys it.

What if the problem of multiculture is not the ethnic conflicts or the difficult race relations, but the fact — as the survey shows — that confidence in society, and “the others” in society, is lower. What if — as was reported — altruism, which the distribution of burdens in the welfare society is built upon, is reduced.

What if such a simple thing as friendships between likeminded men and women is not as frequent in a multiculti society. “In plain speech, people who live under ethnic diversity ‘keep their head down’, hide like a turtle”.

What if many Muslims throughout their childhood have been raised to show more solidarity towards the Quran than towards the country where they were brought up?

What if it is a fact that “the terror threat does not come from marginalized citizens with a pure Danish or Dutch background, it comes solely from citizens with Muslim background,” as Ayaan Hirsi Ali says?

What if that is what we have seen in the last few years?

What if the divide in opinion surrounding the Mohammed Cartoons was a consequence of this diversity. What if the violence in Nørrebro and the violence in general is a consequence of this?

What if the tough debates are coming from this? If the tone in the debate is not a consequence of anybody’s cynicism, but a consequence of the destruction of our society?

What if the knife-stabbers understand more about multiculturalism than the guys behind “Images of The Middle East”?

What if a festival with title “Images of The West” could win the curiosity of the intelligentsia?

What if those writers — good writers of fiction — who warned against the sharpening of the tone and the exclusion of the Muslims especially by that tone, by supporting the multicultural development themselves actually bring the sharpened tone into society accompanied by the use of sharp knives?

These “Now, what if…” questions are aiming at exactly these kinds of circumstances. On the absurd reverses of events, reality’s grotesque play between surface and foundation.

What if now the fulfillment of intentions tends to produce the opposite of what was intended?

What if we are on the verge of a world war?

Consider whether such a war is as all other wars: the solution to conflicts that politics cannot cope with.

What if the politicians had taken care of the conflicts without war, and with the consent of the populace. Which social development is prevented by the intelligentsia, DR, Politiken and Information [PC Danish media outlets]?

What if it’s true that war solves insoluble conflicts, but that negotiations do not.

What if it is violence and negotiations together that solve the conflicts? First violence, then negotiations.

What if those who speak of peace actually generate wars.

What if the biggest threat to peace is to focus on peace, while focusing on war preserves the peace?

What if those people who speak of peace (with Islam) only promote our defeat, and the victory of Islam?

What if paradoxical preparations for war are exactly preparations for peace?

What if immigration is actually occupation?

What if the Muslim immigration into Christian Europe constitutes an army of occupiers, even if the individual Muslim does not want to be a soldier in that army, but just wants to be a respected settler.

What if the Jewish settlers on the West Bank are nothing but immigrants?

What if the world’s problems with these Jewish settlers are the same as our problems with integration?

Now, what if the Palestinians have developed a strategy that makes them the gangsters of the world?

What if the Palestinians suffer due to our massive aid to the Palestinian areas ($6 billion over three years), where the help up until now has only turned the whole population into social clients, while their leaders have ruled with corruption and lawlessness — just like a bunch of mafia bosses?

What if the Israeli attacks into Gaza should be the model for Århus in dealing with Gellerupparken [Muslim ghetto outside Denmark’s second largest city]?

What if Arafat was a mafia boss of the magnitude of Saddam? What indicates otherwise?

And what if there actually were no Palestinian problem, but that a Palestinian problem has been created by the Arab side going all the way back to the 1920s, and that it is inspired by the Nazis’ anti-Semitism?

What if there still exists only an Islamic/Jewish problem? And that what we see around Israel is of the same character as what is about to happen in Europe: The Muslims everywhere invent their “legitimate” rights.

Now, what if.

What if Europe is a huge West Bank? If neighborhoods such as Gellerupparken and Mjolnerparken are only Arab settlements in Denmark.

What if Israel’s military strength — as weakened as it may be by now — is its only possibility of survival in an Arab world, and that it is now equally necessary for the military to be raised in European countries and turned against other usurpers?

Now, what if we have a common foe, Islam?

What if Huntington is right about the clash of civilizations, and that is what we see in the Arab-European space; as opposed Fukuyama’s end of history, “the point in human ideological evolution and the universalization of the liberal democracy of the West as the final form of governance”; as with any other fascist development, in this also the religious foundation must stand up against it and fight.

What if sharia should replace Roman Law? Have we no rights? Shall tolerance make room for Allah and Mohammed?

Shall experiments and innovation be succeeded by a literal reading of primitive scriptures?

Now, what if the control whose intended imposition on the public, instead of enhancing efficiency of public affairs, drains it of energy?

Is it not what we see in connection with aid to the elderly, help in the home, in the hospitals, and in the schools?

What if our habits have destroyed our foresight?

What if our ideals destroy our realities? What if our ideals actually mislead us instead of showing us the right way?

What if tolerance, for example, is not a universal notion but only valid under circumstances which have disappeared — even though we thought that it was universal?

Now, what if our language has thereby been emptied?

Now, what if our language only has meaning in the most banal circumstances, and no longer serves to express actual careful thought?

What if fiction is now the proper form for a clarifying documentary realism?


Those are the questions heard round the world.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 0 Comments

But they sure play a mean pinball


Melanie Phillips hits right on my last post:
melanie_regina.jpg

Last night's Moral Maze, on which I am a panellist, discussed the Home Office guidelines which advise officials not to call Islamists Islamists or Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists but to use instead euphemisms based on the premise that the jihad against the west is not a war of religion but merely 'violent extremism' and that the jihadis are not jihadis but 'criminals'. So gripped is the Home Office by the belief that speaking the truth to Muslims will 'alienate' them that its Orwellian attempt to manipulate the language descends into pure farce when it suggests that even the word 'Islamophobia' should be avoided since this

can be misunderstood as a slur on Islam and perceived as singling out Muslims (even though it indicates we are positively addressing their concerns).
Alas-- with the sole exception of witness Anthony Browne from Policy Exchange, my own view on all this was drowned out. I found the programme deeply troubling, indeed terrifying, since it revealed so much deep denial of the blindingly obvious among otherwise intelligent people who on this subject appear to be impervious to facts and to reason itself. (There was also a notable performance by a young Muslim who, when I asked him how Islamic terrorism could be un-Islamic when it was endorsed as a religious duty by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, one of the pre-eminent religious authorities in the Islamic world and who has a significant following among British Muslims, declared with a straight face that Qaradawi was in a minority of one).

If people really are incapable of seeing that what we have to fight is religious fanaticism operating through a strategy of mind-bending intimidation and coercion, and instead succumb to that very intimidation and coercion, then we are indeed finished.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 1 Comments

The bell is tolling from sledge hammer blows and the silence is immense






Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld

beale.jpgEzra Levant

Mark Steyn

The Archbishop of Canterbury's cowardly existance

The SIOE blog in Holland

The moral collapse over the Mohammad cartoons

Now the Dutch govt has stepped in to delay Geert Wilders release of his film, which surely is now more timely after the recent calamity of the Archbishop of Canterbury announcing.


It should be clear now, that many if not ALL western leaders are purposefully managing the decline of the west and its freedoms as a better alternative than complete resistance, for whatever reason they deem important.

The malignant, pernicious, invasive form of Islam which today has BECOME Islam promulgated by the racist Muslim Brotherhood founded by Hassan al Banna, expanded by the Nazi Haj Amin al Husseini, buttressed by the philosophy of Sayd Qutb, and cyncially supported in its goals even by muslims who deny the support of violence against innocents, and the money comping out of the ground every day has become insufferable.

Europe is headed for domination, and conquest or civil war since the governments no longer serve the needs of the people, and the demographic bomb is in place to explode in the next 50 years.

And in the news, on the campaign, in the papers.....
SILENCE.
Ignorance.
Vaccuum

WHY?


Catastrophe.

Bookmark and Share
posted by Epaminondas at permanent link# 1 Comments

Is There No End to This Nonsense?

Only a matter of some days ago, we learnt that the United Kingdom is to recognize polygamous marriages. This, of course, is to accommodate the Muslims. The taxpayer will have to pick up the tab. It will hasten the Islamization of our once great country, since more and more children will be born, at taxpayers' expense, to Muslim families.



Now, today, we get this nonsense from the Archbishop of Canterbury! One could be forgiven for believing that the political élite are involved in some sort of conspiracy to undermine the system!


As the Archbishop of Canterbury, and being the leader of the Anglican Communion worldwide, this man should be upholding Christian values, not Islamic ones. If the leader of the Anglican Communion doesn't defend Christian values, then who can we expect to do it?



But instead of that, this weak, cowardly, fawning man chooses to side with the very religion which is engaged in a war against the West, against Judeo-Christian civilization, against all that Christianity stands for. This is really quite, quite unbelievable!



The churches are emptying more with each passing day; yet all this man can think of doing is standing up for Muslims, the Christian Church's traditional archenemy.



What this man should be doing is preaching that there is no salvation other than through the Lord Jesus Christ, for that is what a true Christian is supposed to believe. He therefore should be spending his time trying to figure out how to fill the empty churches again. After all is said and done, isn't that the raison d'être of an archbishop in the first place? To fill churches.



Muslims need no help to establish Shariah law in the UK; indeed, it is already operating in many no-go areas throughout Europe, including the UK. Moreover, there is no doubt about it that it will spread, because there is nobody in power strong enough, or determined enough, to stop Islam and Shariah taking root.



Does the Archbishop of Canterbury not realize that each and every country which Islam has ever entered, and has been allowed to put down roots, it has eventually taken over? Each and every single one of them! There is only one exception to this rule, and that was Moorish Spain. But it took the Spaniards over five hundred years to reclaim their land for themselves, and there was much bloodshed in the process, much bloodshed in the 'Reconquista'.



Is this what we want for our country? Is this the legacy we wish to bequeath to our children?



It seems to me that the best thing that this Archbishop can do is hang his head in shame, and resign. The already weakened Church can do without his sort. Moreover, he must surely realize that Muslims deny the Christ, they deny the crucifixion, they deny Jesus as the Son of God. So they would do him out of a job straightaway. Muslims are not in the habit of compromising; it's their way or no way.

©Mark Alexander

All Rights Reserved

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Mark at permanent link# 5 Comments

Mitt Romney Drops Out & Speaks About Jihad

My own video upload today, Mitt Romney the only realist about Islamic extremism speaks about the Jihad and why he has dropped out of the presidential race. Why not rate it while you are there, it's all about numbers. Have a look at my other uploaded vids on CommonSenseAnon

Labels: , ,

Bookmark and Share
posted by Ray Boyd at permanent link# 2 Comments

Oil Importing And Exporting - A Complex Of Shared Interests


It is often stated that, in order to reduce the power of the Arab/Islamic world, we have to reduce our dependence on oil imports from the nations of the Middle East. On the surface this seems like a truism. However, let us think this over.

First, sorry to be pedantic, but oil is a commodity sold on the world market. The price of oil is dictated by supply and demand. If America buys its oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, Canada, Mexico, or any other nation, it is still a bidder on the open market, and its bidding offer effects the price of oil on the world market no matter which country it buys from. In other words, if Saudi Arabia can charge $100 per barrel of oil, then so can Canada, and so can Mexico and any other country selling oil on the open market.

It is a little known fact that, comparatively, the United States gets far less of its oil from Middle Eastern nations, as a percentage, than do the other largest oil importers in Europe and China.

The United States currently gets about 17% of its oil imports from the Middle East.

Europe and China respectively gets approximately 31% and 44% of their oil from Middle Eastern countries.

Ok, so now think for a second what would happen if America were suddenly to make it its policy to buy all of its oil from non-Middle Eastern countries?

First, as America would be limiting the pool of oil suppliers from which it could prospectively buy, the price of oil would immediately go up for American buyers.

Second, since America would then no longer be an importer of Middle Eastern oil, the amount of oil available on the Middle Eastern market would be increased, and the price from those Middle Eastern suppliers, would then drop for Europe and China.

Third, and this is the most important point, to my mind; because the United States would then no longer be a buyer of oil from Middle Eastern countries, whereas the Europe and China would be, the United States influence in the Middle East would decrease, and the influence of China and Europe would increase.

Think of it this way, if you own a shop, the opinion of the customers who come through your door and make purchases matters very much to you.

It is a very crude understanding of economics which says, the seller has the power. The truth is, the buyer and seller have shared interests in the success of each others business. In fact, the buyer and seller are, indeed, partners in the promotion of each others interests.

Were the United States to discontinue buying oil from Middle Eastern nations, our power to influence political decisions in the Middle East would also decrease. In so far as the United States is a force for good on the world stage, it would be dangerous to the world as a whole for our power to decrease in the volatile world of Middle Eastern politics.

All economics, and all sectors of the business world, are composed of groups of organizations who have shared interests. The sum total of these shared interests composes the direction of the economic system on an economic as well as a political level.

Therefore, we must continue to buy oil from Middle Eastern nations until the day that oil no longer matters to the world's economy.
Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link# 8 Comments


Older Posts Newer Posts