CHAPEL END CHARLIE

It's really not that difficult - you need only look and you will soon see. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/16/world/not-in-my-name-muslims-speak-out/

Re #2999. Try as I might (and I've read every post on here for my sins!) I just cannot see anyone on this thread arguing that either religious fundamentalism does not exist in the world, or that the threat of islamic terror can be discounted for some reason. Some of us may have sought to place the issue into some sort of perspective on occassion, but that of course is not the same thing as condoning violence. Clearly this thread would not even exist were islamic inspired terrorism not a very real problem today and I would hope that we are ALL appalled by terrorist crime. So the old adage about "pushing against a open door" does comes to mind here. I also suppose that any of us could easily enough find a video on YouTube of religous fanatics spouting the kind of intolerant stuff you would expect them to. Fanatism is as old as time is it not? Indeed, it was not so very long ago that a certain leading UK Protestant (who many on here will remember) was stating that the Pope was the "Antichrist" in his opinion and he was bold enough in his bigotry to express that view in the European Parliment, rather than on a anonymous street corner somewhere. So, fun as going over the same points ad infinitum can be, this activity does not really further the debate meaningfully. Where I would fundamentaly disagree with you is the conslusion you seem to have drawn that there is some widespread plot by Muslims in general to overthrow European cutlure (whatever that is) and impose a hard line version of Islam in its place. I say that because this British citizen just cannot reconcile that conspiracy theory with either the Muslims that he knows personally, or the evidence that clearly shows that British Muslims are no more prone to criminality than any other group in our society is. I don't expect you to agree, but I have stated this opinion to you on more than one occasion now and I cannot see how I can express myself any more clearly. Furthermore, I don't believe that there is a single monolthic "Muslim Culture" anymore than there is a single Christian culture in the world. It seems to me that Muslim individuals are liable to be as different from each other as any other societital group you could mention are. For example, some British Muslim women choose to wear the Burka when outdoors, while others feel that the Hijab headscarf is quite enough to satisfy the modesty requirements of their faith. I have also observed that a increasing number feel that neither is really nessisary and dress in a similar manner to modern western women. It seems to me that thinking about large groups of Human Beings in way that stereotypes them as essentially "all the same" is indicative of sloppy mental thought processes, or even racism perhaps. As for my attitude towards any conflict that might arise between the secular/liberal notion of "freedom of expression" and the old religious concept of "blasphemy", then here too I think I have already my viewpoint quite clear - i.e. in Europe at least the laws and customs of the existing Western style culture must prevail. Those fanatics who cannot accept that - men such as the Charlie Hedo attackers for instance - must be dealt with by the forces of law and order in the accepted manner.

I intend to reply to the above post (from the 'EU Referendum' thread) here because this seems a more appropriate place to do so. The story you relate of the Jewish 'holocaust' becoming a near impossible subject to teach in Dutch classrooms today is a utterly deplorable one. I would consider this to be totaly unacceptable here. In the UK the history of the holocaust is a mandatory subject that must be taught in all state schools as part of our national ciriculm - indeed all the (teenage) children I know have certainly been taught this aspect of 20th Century history as part of their 'Key Stage 3' education. I would surgest that expierence with the British press indicates that stories of this ilk are not always to be relied upon as fully accurate portrayals of the true situation as the press (everywhere one suspects) do tend towards sensationalism don't they? Perhaps these incidents are more the exception rather than the rule in Dutch classrooms - I certainly do hope so. As for UK antisemitism in general, the interminable IsrealI-Palestinian conflict has in a sense 'allowed' some on the left of our politics to express a passionate criticism of Jewish people and the state of Isreal (or the Israeli Government anyway) that few would dare to have expressed in the immediate post war era wth its horrific images of Belson sheered into our collective memory. I'm not one for simply 'taking sides' here as I regard the issue as a complex one and more of a tradgedy for all concerned rather than only one side. However, the asymmetrical nature of this conflict between mighty Isreal and the relatively enfeebled Palestinians does tend to promote a certain sympathy towards the (Arab) "little guy" - rigthly or wrongly the British always do love a underdog. Re the role Suadi Arabia plays in promoting international terrorism, I have read the links provided but must nevertheless admit that I still don't really feel especially qualified in all honesty to add much to the debate as the subject is clearly resistent to any simplistic analysis -- indeed a wise teacher once advised me that when you have nothing to say then it is best to say nothing. I will venture however that the great Sunni/Shia divide that lays in the heart of Islam is obviously key to understanding the matter. Not being the religious type myself I do struggle somewhat to immerse myself very deeply in the rather arcane and intensely dogmatic disagreements that true believers so often tend to exhibit. Yes, I probably should make more of a effort here. As for Simon Heffer and the ever contraversial Enouh Powell, Heffer is one of those journalists who always write with their own (Conservative) agenda firmly in mind and Powell was a failed politician best remembered now perhaps for his notorious "rivers of blood" speach. Opinions differ of course, but I have not observed myself that the streets of modern Britain do actualy flow with the blood of racially spilt violence - although I understand of course that Powell was speaking figuratively and the UK is far from a perfect and fully "at ease with itself" society. Do you know any that are? So in conclusion, I consider it reasonable to state that some British Muslims have become successfully integrated into our modern secular society while others - often radical young converts to this faith - obviously have not. My personal experience of life in modern Britain leads me to believe that the former group far outnumber the latter. Other opinions are available! .

First off, my appolgies go to those seeking to debate the coming EU referendum issue here as this thread has somehow become entangled with the long running 'Paris Attack' saga. This is type of thing is regrettable of course, but fairly common alas. Secondly, I don't agree that to simply point out that antisemitism is very far from being a uniquely Muslim problem, and in fact has a long history in Europe, is at all to "trivialize" this important issue. I raise this point only in a effort to counter any suggestion put about on here that Muslims display some special capacity for evil when such a idea is not supported by the historical record. I have stated on here before (on serveral ocassions) that I don't consider what might be crudely depicted as the 'Islamic World' has advanced into modernity at the same rate as many other areas arguably have. There is perhaps a interesting debate to be had on here someday exploring the issues surrounding this state of devlopmental retardation and why that should be. I cannot speak of the societital and crime situation pertaining in the Netherlands today as I have never been there and know little of the true position. I can however pass comment on the UK as (obviously) I have some direct person knowledge, both from my everyday working life and close family relationships. My experience, and the historical record, show that British Muslims are predominently of Pakistani or Bangladeshi extraction and are here in the UK today primarily because of reasons that are related more to this nation's imperial past rather than our EU membership. This segment of the UK population - around 4.5% currently - virtually all arrived here legally and now hold British citizenship. British Muslims today serve in government, our armed forces, the public services and make a significant contribution to our economy. Contrary to the impression some might have gained from reading this forum of late, the actual evidence gathered by the respected BCS (British Crime Survey) shows that there to be little or no difference between the rate and type of crimes British Muslims commit compared to other groups in society. In other words they are more typical rather than atypical in this regard. http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/crime-data-research-throws-new-light-on-british-muslim-communities Now it is VERY clear that extremist terrorists who profess to be devout Muslims (but sometimes exhibit a lifestyle that is anything but Islamic in nature) are a real problem that nobody would wish to underestimate. I put it to you that this problem is as much related to the failure of some EU nations to successfully intregate their Muslim populations, and the state of gross inequality that exists in the world, as it is to matters of scripture. As for your notion that Muslims are engaged in a attempt to obtain "world domination" ... well that presuposes that there is some sinister central power at work somewhere that is directing this well organised plot of yours. I see no evidence to support any such conclusion and must inform you that this idea has a certain ring of paranoia about it. Finally, if you wish to associate yourself with the likes of Sour then by all means do so. However, if I was you I'd take rather more care about the company I keep on here. .

Yes I know - adjust your irony filter!

We should wage war on Islam wherever we see it and then transport millions of British Muslims to the east on special trains - let's call them "Transports" shell we? Image of one dangerous proto terrorist Europe is now quite safe from:

He is attempting (badly) to equate what he imagines Islamic culture to be, with what might be defined as a 'terrorist culture' - as if they were one and the same thing. Some might say that is a rather simplistic interiptation of the situation! It may well also be that the sight and sound of people with different skins colours and accents walking the same streets as he does alarms him. But few would dispute that our old nation is indeed rapidly changing and this is unsettling for many - this type of fear is called "Metathesiophobia" by the way and there is no known cure alas.

You will agree I take it that Europe has a long and dismal history of antisemitism that can be traced back many centurys - in fact a history that obviously long predates the establishment of the EEC/EU in the post WWII era. Arguments about immigration and free movement within the EU single market area are of course complex, however, the furtherance of old prejudices is not a EU policy that this observer of events can recognise. As we both clearly enjoy analogies, I would venture that to lay the blame for antisemitism at the door of the EU is almost akin to blaming the Eurovision Song Contest for terrible pop music - I.e. the situation is rather less straightforward than that. The fact that our continent has not yet rid itself of the appalling scourge of antisemitism is a matter that all right thinking people should deplore I would have thought, and we can only hope that those responsible for the race crimes you describe above will soon be held to account for their crimes. But it seems to me that we don't need to look too far back into that history of antisemitism to realize that these attitudes and forms of behavoiur are by no means limited to the followers of any one religious faith. For that matter, atheists are by no means excluded from any responsibility here either are they? I say that if both religion and the EU didn't exist today then we'd soon have to invent them because both respond to a recognisable Human need to understand the world or to cooperate together in order to increase both our prosperity and security. Neither the UK nor the Netherlands can "Pull up the Drawbridge" on the modern world - we have to engage with it and deal with the problems that internationalism does bring as they come along.

Well I don't remember claiming that modern British society has yet achieved that vision of idealised harmony we saw back in the old Cola advert. Neither do I recall saying that the process of assimilating new generations of immigration into British society is bound to be some quick and relativly painless expierence. Far from it. What I do say is that it is indeed possible for people from (very) different backgrounds and religious beliefs to live and work together peacefully - I base that claim not only on the study of the long history of these islands, but also from what I see happening in my very own family today. I have not alas read the specific book you mention. There are exceptions of course, but I have to inform you that most British Muslims I have encountered in my life neither seek, nor methinks would wish, to live in what you describe as a "parallel society". The majority respect the values and traditions of this nation, are generaly law-abiding, hard working and want little more than to be left alone to get on with their lives - so just like the rest of us then. But if you have some thought-out proposal for the creation of a better and more socially cohesive future for Britain and Europe - one that doesn't result in segregation, seeing yet more children drowning in the Medditerrean, and the construction of a Sparkhill Ghetto perhaps, then I shall of course be happy to consider the matter.

I dare say that very few would argue that so called' Faith Schools' that promote religious extremism are not a problem in society. Again, it seems necessary to point out to you that this issue has been identified and is being addressed - successfully I hope. So if you are attempting to make some deeper point here - let alone offer a solution to problems any fool could identify - then that remains unclear.

Well yes - what point are you attempting to make? Your analogy between the gun crime issue and religion, while somewhat entertaining, is a false one I think. The core purpuse of a firearm (if we ignore their sporting potential) is to inflict bobily damage or at least intimidate. Religion on the other hand is less concerned with destruction and intimidation and more involved in reflecting a near universal Human desire to comprehend the world around us and answer the enternal questions that surround the future (if any) of the soul after death. So while a superficial analogy between both the misuse of guns and religious doctrine may be drawn this cannot be sustained. http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Faulty-Analogy.html The old English idiom concerning the problem of comparing 'apples with oranges' also comes to mind here.

If memory serves I'm not so sure that you ever have made much of a point about oppossing homophobia. Nevertheless, I do symaptise with your sense of confusion about the sheer complexity of life in the modern multi-culteral Britain. It seems to me that immigrants arriving here must show respect for, and adapt to, this society's core (often liberal) values. It goes without saying that they, like everyone else, must also abide with UK law - or face the consequences. We on the other hand should respect their right to worship the religion of their choice and try to comprehend the different culture they come from. Where the these objectives clash then existing British law and the democratically expressed will of the majority must prevail. As ever a sense of moderaton and mutual respect is key. It would be so much simplier if we could somehow go back to a point in the past where everyone in the UK followed the same religion, exhibited the same skin colour and shared a similar set of values and beliefs. We can never go back to that monoculture past for a number of reasons alas - not the least of which being that this Britain of the imaginaton never really existed in the first place! Putting my amateur historian's hat on, I predict that what will happen here over time is that Britain will again successfuly absorb this latest wave of immigration just as it has done so many times in the past. Whether they be: Saxon, Viking, Jewish, Norman, Huguenot, Caribbean or Islamic - our history suggests that eventually these islands have a way of consuming newcomers and turning them into Britains. That is what I hope happens anyway because I don't see a better alternative on offer from the likes of you or Sour. A future Britain that kind of resembles that famous old Coca Cola advert - if you are old enough to remember it.

But I was refereing to the Whelk!

I must propose a vote of thanks to one particular SWF member one here who, by his tireless efforts to make a complete arse of himself, has achieved what I had hitherto considered to be a virtual impossibilty - i.e. he has united everyone. So outstanding has his recent work on here been that even the great Donald Trump himself would struggle to come across as more ill-informed or bigoted. WELL DONE THAT MAN!

You're quite right of course, but I have observed that he likes to skirt around his obvious islamaphobia with the intention of giving himself just enough "plausible deniability" to escape conviction. For example, he will not quite overtly state that he thinks Muslims make no positive contribution to society - but he will certainly imply it. He will just about avoid unambiguously stating that no muslims oppose the extremists, but he will accuse those who refute that of dishonesty. All this is transparent. When challenged on his racist views he will inevitably resort to either semantics, the "I didn't say that" defence, or as a last resort the old "deny everything" strategy familiar in police interview suites up and down the length of the land. That is what he is selling on here - thankfuly I don't see many buyers frankly.

So you've - rapidly - moved on from claiming that stories of moderate Muslims marching in favour of peace was some kind of invention promoted by Soggy, to now opining that these protests are not big enough for your tastes. A more honest reply would be to just admit that you were mistaken - let's face it we all are from time to time. Be that as it may, you will I suspect be surprised to read that for once I actually do agree with you to some extent because I too would like to see more Muslims taking a public stand against terrorism. However, that is just my personal opinion and the obvious counter-argument is that the millions of law abiding Muslims who are utterly unconnected to the extremists are under no obligation to do anything because these events have nothing to do with them. I don't remember the Pope or the Irish Prime Minister publicly apologising every time their fellow Catholics in the Provisional IRA carried out some bloody attack - and neither should they because they were not responsible.

I see. So this march in London carried out by Muslim citizens calling for "peace and unity" differs from a backlash against terrorism in what way?

Oh really? http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hundreds-muslims-marching-against-terrorism-6977099

Well I fully accept your explanation that you were not specificaly depicting any contributors on here as 'appolgists' and in turn apologise myself for any offence taken.

I too struggle to find Ms Hopkins thoughts and deeds of be of any great relevance to the subject in hand. But if you really do want to debate (and perhaps even attempt to understand) terrorism on a deeper level than mearly condemning the latest outrage then a broader perspective is I think useful if not unavoidable. For example - and my apologies for the Godwin - Dr Gobbels often described Allied strategic bomber aircrew of WWII as "terrorflieger" - which might be translated as 'flying' or airborne terrorists. Far be it for me to defend Nazism, but in a sense that highly pejorative term the Nazi Propaganda Minister coined is not entirly inappropiate because we actually were (it's a complex story but in part anyway) engaged in attempting to bomb - and therefore terrorise - the German civilian population into submission at the time. Few on the Allied side (both then and now) would accept that terrorflieger terminology of Dr Gobbels of course, and in truth the Luftwaffe's bombing of places such as Warsaw in 1939, and then again Rotterdam in 1940, fit into the very same pattern - so the minister's rank hypocrisy is obvious. However, the old adage that 'one man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter' is not entirly lacking in some truth is it?. If you don't want to discuss the subject from such a historical stand-point then the so-called "Shock & Awe" tactics employed to oust Saddam Hussein are broadly comparable I think. If that too is objectionable then we might even consider Hamas v the IDF (a issue very much in the 'here & now') and try and decide whether just one of those two organisations are prepared to resort to terror tatics - or both. So I put it to you then, that the line we draw between the concepts of warfare and terrorism is a rather fine one that is dependent upon perspective. Indeed, terrorism might be seen as 'the continuation of warfare by other means' - to misquote Von Clausewitz. Furthermore, it seems to me that very often those some choose to depict as terrorists would not consider themselves to be any such thing, but rather warriors in a cause they happen to believe in. We can all form our own judgements as as to whether WE happen to consider that a particular cause justifies the use of extreme violence or not. But it seems to me that is what THEY probably think. ........................................... Earlier you claimed that some (unnamed) people on here are attempting to "appogise" for terror. Speaking for myself, I reject that and tell you that none of the above is offered in a attempt to excuse the violence of groups such as the IRA, ETA, Hamas or ISIS etc. I put forward the above only in a effort to understand the issue better. You do comprehend I hope that understanding something, and then condoning it, are not at all the same thing.

I saw 'Maigret Sets a Trap' yesterday starring Rowan Atkinson in the title role - ITV's latest offering in their long running feature length crime drama habit that started all those years ago when Inspector Morse first caught the 'Last Bus to Woodstock'. A serial killer is stalking the streets of the Montmartre area of Paris killing young women. So the pressure is growing on the cerebral Chief Inspector Maigret to identify the attacker before he strikes again ... I really wanted to like this because the premise is interesting enough and I've always admired Atkinson. However, the whole thing fell rather flat for me as our hero delivered a glum, low key (to the point of being monotone) performance that failed to inspire this viewer with any sense of the 'thrill of the chase' or even welcome outbreak of humour to lighten proceedings. Many comedians go on to make fine 'straight' actors as long as the audience can learn to see past their comic roots. But on this evidence it seems that Atkinson may be a exception to that rule - or maybe a rather lacklustre script just didn't give him very much to work with. I must also add that, although filmed in France, this almost entirly British production lacked much in the way of a authentic Gallic flavour that might have set it apart somewhat from all the other detective series that clutter our screens today. A French TV adaption of these stores may have proved to be more satisfactory I suspect. Be that as it may, I see that ITV have more episodes 'Maigret' in the pipeline. We can only hope this series finds its feet soon because this first story was a bit limp.

What a grand day out that was - I remember our coach being overtaken on the way home and being 'mooned' in broad daylight by our fellow supporters on the North Circular Rd. We were also treated to the sight of a middle aged lady lifting her top up to reveal the message "I'm Rickie's Mum" boldly emblazoned cross her t'penny bits. It may not have been a very pretty sight in all honesty, but it sure seemed funny at the time!

I've just recieved a direct mail shot from the 'Leave EU' organisation soliciting my vote in the coming referendum. There is nothing very new in it worth debating on here methinks, but it does go to show how well funded this campaign is.

I plead guilty to this charge brought under Godwin's Law and ask the Court to take my 748 previous offences into account before sentance is passed.

Just to confuse the "was Hitler a Christian?" issue further. Below you will see the so called "Loyalty" oath of Himmler's SS, which dates back to 1935: So there you go then, if every German who volunteered to became a member of the elite SS movement swore a oath that does specifically mention God by name (and one you will note that also firmly rejects the atheism that lays at the heart of much Nazi ideology) then does that mean that this organ of the Nazi party can somehow be considered to be a Christian order? Well my answer to that question would be a resounding 'no' because we judge induviduals and organisations on what they do rather than on what they say. Very obviously the appalling actions of the SS during (and before) WWII are surely utterly incompatible with the teachings of Christ - as most will understand them anyway. However, much the same could be said of the Spanish Inquisition I suppose, so you might say that I am arguing that the Catholic Church is not really a religious organisation either! The deeper point here is that inconsistency rules and that there is often a huge gulf that exists in that space that lays between the teachings of the great religions and the deeds of many of those who attach themselves to those faiths. It seems to me that history seldom provides us with easily understood black or white answers to almost any question you aim at it.