Nick Griffin on Question Time Page 39

Firstly Sharia is a huge and complex subject, I'd like to see usury laws on the statute books. Then ask what would they do to make it happen? Would they pick up a gun? Hide explosives? Or would they phone the police?

Statistically option 3 is usually the chosen option.

The thing about religion is it's organised foolishness. I could introduce to some number of Christians who believe we should be ruled by God's law. Including stoning bummers.

Taking someone seriously for what they say in the name of their faith is akin to arresting me for planning to kill orcs whilst playing Dungeons and Dragons.

Also all our leaders in the UK are Christian and Church going (including Jack Straw your time will come!). Our laws are based on Christian principles etc.

How ever nice our society is to an objective eye we are living in a Christian caliphate.

Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 31 2009, 12:52 AM BST

It's true that some religious doctrines contain more dangerous ideas than others (Islam vs Jainism for example), but I would say that religious belief itself is the problem. It will, probably indirectly, kill us all, eventually.

View original

That's why separation of religion and state is so important. It makes religion ultimately subservient to secularism. Religion maintains its power to be subverted when it controls the state. Where you have a state tolerating religion, yet not being seen to condone it then religion becomes merely personal, not political. This is why I'd agree with Kevin by banning all faith schools from being able to provide the primary source of a child's education in this country. The state should not be seen to support any religion beyond tolerating its existence. (This is where Labour have screwed-up by their well meaning but ultimately dangerous laws and social policies on supporting multi-faith agendas. A government should tell all religions to f**k off out of politics, never to darken its door again.)

Come on guys...

*Scottidog hugs everyone, and sings 'We are the World' by Michael Jackson*

*Sooty grabs the mic*...

Quote: Tim Walker @ October 31 2009, 1:08 AM BST

Where you have a state tolerating religion, yet not being seen to condone it then religion becomes merely personal, not political. This is why I'd agree with Kevin by banning all faith schools from being able to provide the primary source of a child's education in this country. The state should not be seen to support any religion beyond tolerating its existence. (This is where Labour have screwed-up by their well meaning but ultimately dangerous laws and social policies on supporting multi-faith agendas. A government should tell all religions to f**k off out of politics, never to darken its door again.)

View original

Fully agree!

Quote: sootyj @ October 31 2009, 1:05 AM BST

Our laws are based on Christian principles etc.

View original

Christian principles that have the will of the people, regardless of their faith or lack of. Christian principles may have shaped our society and its laws, but it is ridiculous to suggest that doctrine has been allowed to rough-shod over the views and values of the majority atheists and agnostics.

One might point out than in the 20th century a lot of the liberalising legislation that we now take for granted was not just pioneered by atheists and agnostics in politics. The Church of England did lead the debate on prison and penal reforms, hanging, definitions of rape, poverty and social justice. (Yes, it was very slow and often wrong on abortion and homosexuality, but you can't have everything.)

The point is that the Church of England does not even pretend to have the influence (in its core religious sense) to make law in this country anymore. Ideally, of course, the sooner no formal religious representative has a presence in the House of Lords the better. But the only Christian principles which are now applied to society are those which a liberal democracy agrees with in the first place.

Quote: Kevin Murphy @ October 31 2009, 1:10 AM BST

Fully agree!

View original

Yay! We got there in the end, Kev!

Quote: Tim Walker @ October 31 2009, 12:43 AM BST

I think that's a very interesting re-ordering of history to suit your hypothesis. There was anti-West terrorism before 2001 and Muslisms and Islamic states have been happily killing non-Muslims for years without any motivating Western factors.

View original

You appear to have willfully misread my post. I am not making any excuses for the recent history of Islam (though Western imeddling in the Middle East does rather pre-date George W. Bush), I am seeking to understand why a new generation of Moslems have been radicalised when a drift towards liberalism might be expected to be the natural in response to scientific enlightenment. (And which did in fact occur with medieval Islam when exposed to classical learning). I prefer my explanation to yours, which seems to be that Islam is inherently incapable of reforming itself as Christianity has done.

Quote: Timbo @ October 31 2009, 1:18 AM BST

You appear to have willfully misread my post.

View original

I assure you, Timbo, not "willfully", I might just be a bit dim mate!

Quote: Timbo @ October 31 2009, 1:18 AM BST

I am seeking to understand why a new generation of Moslems have been radicalised when a drift towards liberalism might be expected to be the natural in response to scientific enlightenment. (And which did in fact occur with medieval Islam when exposed to classical learning). I prefer my explanation to yours, which seems to be that Islam is inherently incapable of reforming itself as Christianity has done.

View original

There wasn't an "Enlightenment" there. The Enlightenment in terms of science, theology, art and mathematics can only be a true "enlightenment" when it goes hand in hand with a change in political and social culture. Due to the lack of separation of church and state this never could properly develop. This is why Islamic states are incapable of maturing into civilised liberal democracies. All thoughts and ideas are subject to religious verification. The sky is not blue unless the Prophet says so.

(On the subject of how The Enlightenment certainly still has a tough time of it in the West - partly due to morons like Tony Blair - I'd recommend Francis Wheen's excellent (and very funny) book How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered The World )

Yes. Rejecting religion is the only way to live in a half-decent world.

Quote: Timbo @ October 31 2009, 1:18 AM BST

I prefer my explanation to yours, which seems to be that Islam is inherently incapable of reforming itself as Christianity has done.

View original

So how many more centuries of human suffering shall we give it? Jesus was only around a less than a thousand years before the Prophet, not much of a head start. Oh, of course, it's not our people suffering is it? So never mind. (This is naturally not what I believe anyone here would ever really think, but it's certainly a question for those people of influence in the world.)

Quote: Tim Walker @ October 31 2009, 12:43 AM BST

Religious terrorists and militia (of any flavour) are the biggest, thickest bunch of f**king losers on the planet. The Yorkshire Ripper says that "God told me" to kill prostitutes, we rightly diagnose him a psychopath, stick him in Broadmoor and let the psychiatrists/psychologists prod him to see what makes him tick. A religious fundamentalist say that "God told me" to kill non-believers and we wring our trying to understand why it must be a reasonable thing to believe.

View original

Problem is being angry and self-righteous does not solve anything. You have to deal with the bastards. It is not a case of whether something is reasonable to believe it or not. F**k it, people believe the Daily Mail, and there are a lot more effective propaganda organs in the Islamic world than that. Find a grievance, give people an enemy, you can make them believe just about anything. So how do you deal with them, you listen to the grievances, and if there is something to them you, admit it, and you listen to the lies, and you argue against them with reason. You understand, and you learn, and then you educate. It is slow and painful, but you might just get somewhere. I like to think I have when arguing with Moslems, both in this country and abroad. But treat them with contempt and you just fuel the fire.

Quote: Tim Walker @ October 31 2009, 1:31 AM BST

So how many more centuries of human suffering shall we give it?

View original

As long as it takes, because we don't have any choice.

Quote: Tim Walker @ October 31 2009, 1:23 AM BST

Due to the lack of separation of church and state this never could properly develop. This is why Islamic states are incapable of maturing into civilised liberal democracies.

View original

I doubt anyone looking at Christian societies down the centuries would have though that separation of church and state was a likely outcome. (And as Kevin has pointed out we still have the vestiges of state religion.)

Quote: Timbo @ October 31 2009, 1:33 AM BST

As long as it takes, because we don't have any choice.

View original

In places like Somalia (less than 1% Christian) the West has tried to help, understand, be tolerant and help the Sunni Muslims see that fighting each other has achieved nothing. Didn't work. They prefer to kill each other, no matter how much food and structural aid is offered. Go back in a hundred years time and they still will probably prefer slaughtering each other in a shit hole. Where's the solution for the innocents there? Hope that a nice secular liberalised democracy suddenly appears?

Why is it that in countries and states which are predominantly Muslim they like killing other human beings so much?

Quote: Timbo @ October 31 2009, 1:39 AM BST

I doubt anyone looking at Christian societies down the centuries would have though that separation of church and state was a likely outcome. (And as Kevin has pointed out we still have the vestiges of state religion.)

View original

Secularisation is more likely to happen when the theology doesn't support control of the State. The separation of Church and State in this country was borne not just out of rejection of religion, but the rejection of influence of religion above the monarchy and subsequently parliament. How land, peoples and taxes were controlled was as important a reason for defeating the primacy of the Papacy and subsequently imposing subjugation on the Protestant bishops.

Tell me of any major Islamic cleric that is advocating a secular State as the goal of good Muslims.

Quote: Tim Walker @ October 31 2009, 1:42 AM BST

I Where's the solution for the innocents there?

View original

So what's yours then?

Why is it that in countries and states which are predominantly Muslim they like killing other human beings so much?

As opposed to Christian Rwanda or atheist Cambodia or... I could go on. And on. And on.

The problem is not religion; certainly not any particular religion. It is ideas. Religious, racial, political, whatever. F**k it, I wouldn't put it past Richard Dawkins to start a Darwinian Jihad. He's got that glint in his eye.

The only hope for the human race lies in agnosticism and apathy.

Quote: Timbo @ October 31 2009, 1:49 AM BST

So
The only hope for the human race lies in agnosticism and apathy.

View original

Agnosticism? No.

For f**k's sake.

It's the f**king idiots who have a religion who have to prove their point, surely.

Quote: Timbo @ October 31 2009, 1:49 AM BST

So what's yours then?

View original

The thing is there isn't one that well-meaning liberal democracies can impose or lobby for. You limit trade, you stop monetary aid, you break off diplomatic relations and you walk away. If a self-determined secular state emerges you start talking again. Thousands die for a potential change rather than die for the continuation of a malignant philosophy. Most likely less die than when you tried to exert influence. This of course will never happen because it is too horrific a proposition to countenance.

Why does anybody need religion?