What's this about
Chamber Of Debate
10 December 11
Chamber of Debate
ISLAM - replacing Christianity?
Should we be blaming Muslims for the obvious fact that Christianity seems to be occupying less and less of the public space in this country? Perhaps the "distinctively Christian character of the nation's laws, values, customs & culture" isn't much more than a relic these days, and the Christian faith needs to take its place in line with all the others in our multicultural, multifaith society, and its importance judged on the level of demand for it.
Maybe continuing to insist on its primacy is rather like insisting that we continue to use Latin in the public sphere because it represents the source of a good deal of our modern-day language. We seem to manage without Latin; why can we not get along without Christianity?
Islam is after all a rational religion that deals more humanely with homosexuals and adulterers than the Old Testament (which prescribes death by stoning), and specifies in detail the procedure for going about getting a divorce.
Nor does it have to defend the incoherent Trinitarianism that those who are signed-up Christians must subscribe to: that the God of Christians is 3 in 1 (or 3 for the price of one) and that Jesus is Son of God.
Islam has a lower entry requirements and will make do with "“There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah” unlike the words of the Nicene creed which must not be varied, else schism will be the result.
The schism about gay priests would not have occurred in Islam, simply because the Koran already states that homosexuality is a sin. No Muslim would therefore wish to flaunt such a sin and expect a religious recognition and blessing of a homosexual relationship.
In short, the Islam of the Koran would tolerate homosexuality and adultery, provided it is not flaunted. (Four witnesses are required to convict a person of a homosexual act, an almost impossible burden of proof to satisfy.)
Homosexuals can therefore be left alone to go about their lives in peace, unless they are incorrigible exhibitionists.
What is moral and what is Libertarian seems perfectly expressed in this literal interpretation of the Koran.
It is a shame most Europeans cannot acknowledge this liberality in Islam, probably because they cannot quite believe that this is what the Koran in fact says, whatever the Saudi Wahabbis say or do.
Should we allow Islam to move into the space Christianity appears to have vacated?
Our Unique Parallel Polling System
(One Member One Vote)
(One Member Multiple Votes)
AAA Awarded members only.
Page 1 of 3
Records Per Page
Trinitarianism and that Jesus is the Son of God is only incoherent to those outside of the culture to which they are an expression.
"why can we not get along without Christianity?" - why can we not get along without Islam?
Just to pick up on two of the points made.
Immigration is actually irrelevant. If the EU tomorrow writes Islam into its constitution, then the provinces which used to the UK would be part of an Islamic state. It’s that simple.
The idea that most Britons would reject Islam and Sharia law as anti-democratic is nonsense. The majority accept the EU, they accept the laws of an unelected and non-British government, they accept that they are not allowed to govern themselves, they already embrace an anti-democratic state.
The koran tells muslims to kill unbelievers wherever they find them.
It also says that there can never be peace in the world, until the whole world is muslim.
If you read up on islamic history you will find that it has been spread by force much more than by voluntary conversion.
The slavery and sexual slavery of islam dwarfs that of the 'white slave trade', and is still in existence.
It has no place in British society.
In practice, finding 4 witnesses to prove a homosexual act is not so difficult as it may seem, under Sharia. Eg if 2 men go to a Hotel & book a room together & sign the register (produced & attested by the Hotel Porter) & two Chambermaids can then attest that the bed has been slept in. This kind of evidence is accepted in Sharia Courts for adultery & homosexuality. Only one more witness is then required & so it may be that the defendants will prefer to plead guilty & entrust themselves to the leniency of the Court (plea bargain) rather than risk the appearance of a fourth (& possibly fatal) witness.
Future8 thinks "the majority of humanity are lovely, decent people" & sadly this shows the fundamental flaw in liberalism,that it is so unrealistic about Human Nature.
The two million Muslims in England are already more numerous than practising Christians: Anglicans & Catholics are only about 800,000 each, plus a handful of sectarians.
In France the six million Muslims easily outnumber the few hundred thousand remaining Catholics (Catholicism has been virtually banned by law there since 1905). In the Balkans there are already 4 whole states with Muslim majorities (Kossovo, Bosnia, Albania & Macedonia).
As Islam builds up its strength & numbers, it will become far more aggressive & coherent (just as European colonialists did in Muslim countries, starting as small shopkeepers, until we were strong enough to seize power for ourselves, exploiting useful idiots like "Future8". For now they are in their 3rd & 4th generations, pretending to be liberal & tolerant, like chameleons on a branch, taking on the local colour. Their sixth generation will be the vital one, as it was for us in India (1600-1750). Remember the old Yiddish proverb: "We come in like pussycats - and then we become tigers".
Referring to estivboy’s comments above
1. If I were gay I surely wouldn’t want to have to be tolerated by my society’s leaders. Who gives them the right to ‘tolerate’ a set of individuals – oh yes – their books… hmm! The word ‘tolerate’ and being ‘tolerant’ is often seen as a positive disposition to have but in fact it is a pompous, self-righteous characteristic where one sees the other as lesser.
2. In your comment about Turkey’s secular state (Secular government can exist in an Islamic country only so long as secularism is guaranteed by force), Estiveboy, you seem to have little faith in the Turkish people. They are just people after all and they will, I believe, have a secular democracy just as we have in many countries in the West, without the need for Military insurance. Turkey is a complex place but the biggest let down for Turkish people, I believe is that when the more secular, left and centre parties had a chance to get things right in Turkey, they did not. They grew complacent, self-serving and out of touch with people and the leadership has been poor at times. While this subject is too much to debate here perhaps, I would just like to say that, if a party were to arrive on the scene which could solve a lot of the problems facing Turkey (the power of those who are self-serving being one), then they would be elected (as long as people believed in them). The current party gives out the right messages at a certain level – a Turkey for all, crack down on corruption, etc, but the connotations of their past and their grass –roots leadership leave many worried. Let’s hope they do a good job in the end. However, Turkish people, I believe, are happy to live in a secular society if their leaders make sure that they have opportunity through commerce, education, and freedom to live as they want.
I am a bit saddened by this debate as its tone sets us towards division rather than collaboration. While it is true that our country’s laws do seem to reflect a Christian origin, they are, more importantly based on more humanitarian grounds, i.e. they have been accepted as laws by people considering what is right and what is wrong and coming up with an idea that was considered just at the time. There are laws which might seem outdated or unsuitable at the current time but we have the right to debate and petition their change. Our laws are not necessarily from God – any sensible society would have laws such as ‘thou shalt not kill’ etc. As a secular state, we can decide on the laws for ourselves, judges (the legal system) determine their interpretation. However the most important thing here is not that we debate religions but that we debate what is right and wrong. There are people who have acted badly in every society and religion. Religion has just been a kind of conduit for people to behave through and they have done so with terrible reasoning and also with positive understanding of the human condition. What we need to be debating here is how we can maximize people’s understanding not only of each other but of themselves – addressing this at the roots not superficially. We need to create a society in which the public have enough self-confidence as people to cut through the tribal bickering and take on the more important task of discussing what’s important. For too long we have allowed various parties blinker us into pitting group against group as nations, religions and classes. What we need to focus on now is hearing the voices of reason from humanitarian people – religious or otherwise – who truly believe in the qualities we understand to be those of the sort of society we want. I also think it’s about time we started thinking about how we choose our leaders in all areas of society. Why do we end up at times with bad leaders? Why is it that we as a public are allowed to hear so little from secular Muslims for example? Perhaps we should recognize that it is not about religion but about human nature whether the ‘religious’ are being good or bad and elevating or besmirching their religion in the eyes of others. All over the world there are people who are open-minded, thinking, balanced, caring, etc. These are the people who need to be empowered and they are the ones who need to collaborate to build a better future where we can all live together without pointing fingers. Religion, in my mind, is for the individual, having the dispositions to live and work together as a society is the responsibility of us all as parents, politicians, educators, media-makers, community leaders, business people, etc. If we can manoeuvre our society into this realm then it will be a sturdier and more successful one and then it will be all the easier to deal with the people who rant on about religion – because their audience will dry up.
AN EMPHATIC NO!
Read the article 'The Defence Of Christian Civilisation', by Tim Heydon, in the February 2008 edition of 'Identity' magazine.
The bedrock of Great Britain is Christianity, nothing, absolutely nothing, should be allowed to change that!
I am a lapsed Catholic and the one thing that has made me consider going back to Church he most is the thought of the Christian basis of my country being overtaken by Islam. Don't get me wrong - I've nothing against Muslims (I know a couple and like the majority of humnity they are lovely, decent people) but that's not what made my country and not what should be its guiding influence in the future.
The UK is a secular society. I could imagine a time in the near future when government and church dis-establishes with little consequent effect. Our recent history is one of liberal tolerance to religious faith, but many faiths do not understand the concept of religious tolerance. It seems that religious tolerance is only feasible in a secular society.
All comments are subject to approval.
- My Profile
- Edit My Profile
- Reset My Password
- Quick Search
- Advanced Search
- Name Search
- Saved Search
- Who is Online
- List of Correspondents
- Blocked Members
- Refer a Friend
- Chamber of Debate
- Classified Advertisements
- AAA Award
What's this about
, All Rights Reserved