Charlie Hebdo

bianchimoon

cedargreen wrote:

The victims of terrorism are rarely or never the political classes who have created the problems, and who invariably make political capital out of terrorist attacks.

exactly right, Blair Bush et al will never be brought to justice, the system is designed to protect them
Political and Financial capital!

DeVlaeminck

cedargreen wrote:

I didn't claim the terrorists are reasonable or rational- they never are. Merely that perceived injustice creates the kind of anger, resentment and disillusion which allows extremist views to flourish and terrorists to gain recruits.

The victims of terrorism are rarely or never the political classes who have created the problems, and who invariably make political capital out of terrorist attacks.

I think you are over stating the case here. In what was does the situation in Palestine inspire a young guy in Birmingham, Derby or London to blow people up - unless they are already radicalised I don't think it does. I don't agree with much of the West's intervention in the middle east but I don't see that there is such a strong pattern between that and Islamist terrorism throughout the world. Yes no doubt those already radicalised use it as a justification for their actions and it may have some role in actually radicalising people but I don't see the evidence that it is a major part of it.

finchy

I think the problem is that people want a simple solution. It's either "Islam/religion is responsible" or "people are just using religion as an excuse". Is it not possible that it's a combination of the 2?

Moontrane

orraloon wrote:

Moontrane wrote:

More than a 1/3 of young British Muslim men want to live under sharia.

Your source for this fraction is?

Here's my question again: At what percentage does Islam [as opposed to extremists] become the problem?

Anyone up to answering? It's amusing that some of you respond to my posts with references to Fox News, a non-sequitur. It's not enough to dislike what I've written. If my numbers are wrong, prove it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... in-UK.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-law.html

finchy

Moontrane wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Moontrane wrote:

More than a 1/3 of young British Muslim men want to live under sharia.

Your source for this fraction is?

Here's my question again: At what percentage does Islam [as opposed to extremists] become the problem?

Anyone up to answering? It's amusing that some of you respond to my posts with references to Fox News, a non-sequitur. It's not enough to dislike what I've written. If my numbers are wrong, prove it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... in-UK.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-law.html

You've correctly quoted the numbers, but the conclusions to be drawn from these numbers aren't necessarily as straightforward as you might think. For one thing, sharia law covers a lot of areas, including civil and family law, financial dealings, etc. Just because someone is saying that they want Muslims (and only Muslims) to be covered by sharia doesn't necessarily mean that they want public stonings and beheadings for adultery or homosexuality.

Also, from those articles, it says that 99% of British Muslims believed that the London bombings couldn't be justified, even if large numbers sympathised with the motives of the bombers.

verylonglegs

Moontrane wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Moontrane wrote:

More than a 1/3 of young British Muslim men want to live under sharia.

Your source for this fraction is?

Here's my question again: At what percentage does Islam [as opposed to extremists] become the problem?

Anyone up to answering? It's amusing that some of you respond to my posts with references to Fox News, a non-sequitur. It's not enough to dislike what I've written. If my numbers are wrong, prove it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... in-UK.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-law.html

Let's take your numbers as being correct, a third. At the last census Islam made up 4.4% as the religion of people in the UK. How many of those number will be young men? Less than half if we are being generous for agruments sake.
So a third of that small number want sharia? Less than 1% of the population country wide. Seems a very long way off to being a problem for me, you'd probably get a higher percentage of people who want to ban cyclists from the road.

Moontrane

johnfinch wrote:

Moontrane wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Moontrane wrote:

More than a 1/3 of young British Muslim men want to live under sharia.

Your source for this fraction is?

Here's my question again: At what percentage does Islam [as opposed to extremists] become the problem?

Anyone up to answering? It's amusing that some of you respond to my posts with references to Fox News, a non-sequitur. It's not enough to dislike what I've written. If my numbers are wrong, prove it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... in-UK.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-law.html

You've correctly quoted the numbers, but the conclusions to be drawn from these numbers aren't necessarily as straightforward as you might think. For one thing, sharia law covers a lot of areas, including civil and family law, financial dealings, etc. Just because someone is saying that they want Muslims (and only Muslims) to be covered by sharia doesn't necessarily mean that they want public stonings and beheadings for adultery or homosexuality.

Also, from those articles, it says that 99% of British Muslims believed that the London bombings couldn't be justified, even if large numbers sympathised with the motives of the bombers.

Yes, there are different areas where sharia can be applied, and I think that's fine so long as they don't violate British law. I recall the former Archbishop of Canterbury saying that sharia can be introduced to Britain.

Is the growth of Islam in the U.K. a problem? Changing demographics tell a story (consider France) that shows it is. Since WWII the population of Muslims in Western Europe has increased from about 250,000 to nearly 20m - a many-fold increase. I previously commented that, over a ten-year period, the Muslim population of Birmingham increased 50%. Maybe this can serve as a microcosm of things to come in the U.K.. We'll all get to watch.

Three of the four 7/7 bastards were born and raised in the U.K.; the 4th moved there as young child. They all had the opportunity to embrace their country but sought instead to cause tremendous death and destruction.

About that 99% statistic you cited: 24% of British Muslims see justification for the 7/7 bombings.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/7-7-bom ... s-1-994602

Moontrane

verylonglegs wrote:

Moontrane wrote:

orraloon wrote:

Moontrane wrote:

More than a 1/3 of young British Muslim men want to live under sharia.

Your source for this fraction is?

Here's my question again: At what percentage does Islam [as opposed to extremists] become the problem?

Anyone up to answering? It's amusing that some of you respond to my posts with references to Fox News, a non-sequitur. It's not enough to dislike what I've written. If my numbers are wrong, prove it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... in-UK.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-law.html

Let's take your numbers as being correct, a third. At the last census Islam made up 4.4% as the religion of people in the UK. How many of those number will be young men? Less than half if we are being generous for agruments sake.
So a third of that small number want sharia? Less than 1% of the population country wide. Seems a very long way off to being a problem for me, you'd probably get a higher percentage of people who want to ban cyclists from the road.

I like your conclusion. 8) Just Saturday I was descending a hill faster than most cars, but my speed (at the posted limit and faster) didn't mean anything to the jackball passenger in a car that passed me at the bottom of the hill, who cursed at me for being on the road. :x

I did initially reference Muslim men, but 40% of Muslims overall want to live under sharia in Britain. The reason I referenced men is because of 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, too-many-others-to-list, and Charlie Hebdo. Islamists despise the laws of man, believing that only the laws of God should be implemented: sharia.

In Scotland Muslims succeeded in persuading the NHS to proscribe its employees from eating in front of Muslims during Ramadan. So, in 21st century Scotland much less than 1% of the population demands and receives special consideration in the workplace for their religious beliefs - but not for the right to do something; it's a restriction on what others can do around them. (Was this ever reversed?) It might seem a bit benign to read about it in isolation, but in the larger context of demographic changes and Muslim terrorist attacks and threats, it's part of a pattern.

finchy

Moontrane wrote:

About that 99% statistic you cited: 24% of British Muslims see justification for the 7/7 bombings.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/7-7-bom ... s-1-994602

The 99% stat came from the Telegraph article that you linked to. I would like to see the wording of the Scotsman question. The figure is very close to the % of Muslims who sympathised with the 7/7 bombers' aims rather than the means, so I wonder if they're being a bit misleading with their reporting, but without seeing the poll in question it's difficult to say.

I think the problem with applying sharia law in civil cases to British Muslims is what would happen if one wanted their case heard under sharia law, and the other under British law? I can see that becoming very, very unpleasant for the latter within the Muslim community.

mamba80

johnfinch wrote:

I think the problem with applying sharia law in civil cases to British Muslims is what would happen if one wanted their case heard under sharia law, and the other under British law? I can see that becoming very, very unpleasant for the latter within the Muslim community.

We live in Britain, we don't live in a Muslim state, once you start pandering to Muslims over Sharia, they will only want more, the aims of these extremists is the Islamification of Europe and indeed the world, this is what sets them apart from previous terrorist organisations, the breadth of their political ambition.
It is quite simple, if you don't like aspects of the legal system in this country, then either change it via the ballot box or move.
The French have the right idea on this.

ballysmate

Can't believe that otherwise seemingly intelligent people are seriously considering the merit of adopting Sharia Law. People have fought for centuries so that everyone has the same rights under the law.
You can't have two parallel systems, whereby some people are given additional or different recourse.

Anonymous

Ballysmate wrote:

seemingly intelligent people

HA!

ballysmate

coriordan wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

seemingly intelligent people

HA!

Don't worry! I wasn't referring to you!

ballysmate

Just to show that misogyny is not the sole preserve of the Islamic faith, I see the first consecration of a female bishop was not without dissenters.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... gland.html

Mind you, the protest was confined to an heckle. The protester didn't shout "God is great" and blow up himself and the congregation.

finchy

Religious law courts already exist in the UK.

bompington

johnfinch wrote:

Religious law courts already exist in the UK.

In this case it's really just a kind of arbitration service. Fine as it stands, the problem would come, as per your earlier point, in how "the community" might react to someone not wishing to avail themselves of the service. Not too likely to be a problem unless you lived in a ghetto community heavily under the influence of "community leaders", I suppose...

finchy

bompington wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Religious law courts already exist in the UK.

In this case it's really just a kind of arbitration service.

Yes, and I imagine that's what advocates of sharia law courts in the UK are referring to. I'm not in favour of them myself, but I don't think that supporting them necessarily marks you out as a fundamentalist.

ballysmate

IMO law and religion should not be mixed, they should be separate.

Yes, I know that 26 bishops sit in the Lords, and I agree that they shouldn't be there either.

bianchimoon

Ballysmate wrote:

IMO law and religion should not be mixed, they should be separate.

Yes, I know that 26 bishops sit in the Lords, and I agree that they shouldn't be there either.

definitely, I joined the secular society years ago to help campaign against religion in government/schools etc
http://www.secularism.org.uk/

RDW

bianchimoon wrote:

definitely, I joined the secular society years ago to help campaign against religion in government/schools etc
http://www.secularism.org.uk/

That all looks a bit evangelical. They really seem quite upset about 'Thought for the Day'.

bianchimoon

RDW wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

definitely, I joined the secular society years ago to help campaign against religion in government/schools etc
http://www.secularism.org.uk/

That all looks a bit evangelical. They really seem quite upset about 'Thought for the Day'.

it is a bit evangelical, fighting fire with fire eh

metronome

Ballysmate wrote:

IMO law and religion should not be mixed, they should be separate.

Yes, I know that 26 bishops sit in the Lords, and I agree that they shouldn't be there either.

Not to mention our Head of the State also being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

:roll:

BelgianBeerGeek

metronome wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

IMO law and religion should not be mixed, they should be separate.

Yes, I know that 26 bishops sit in the Lords, and I agree that they shouldn't be there either.

Not to mention our Head of the State also being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

:roll:

To be fair, the royals are hardly fundamentalists. Fairly sure the Queen makes mention of those of faith, and those of no faith. And Charlie was ridiculed for stating he would like to be defender of faith(s), rather than The Faith.

ballysmate

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

metronome wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

IMO law and religion should not be mixed, they should be separate.

Yes, I know that 26 bishops sit in the Lords, and I agree that they shouldn't be there either.

Not to mention our Head of the State also being the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

:roll:

To be fair, the royals are hardly fundamentalists. Fairly sure the Queen makes mention of those of faith, and those of no faith. And Charlie was ridiculed for stating he would like to be defender of faith(s), rather than The Faith.

Although the monarch plays no part in drafting laws I would like to see the HoS and Head of CoE separate.

tangled_metal

Wasn't there something about Prince Charles changing his extra title of Defender of the Faith (meaning CofE) to Defender of Faiths (meaning all faiths). I am not sure if there was a similar inclusiveness applied to the Queen's title as well.

Unfortunately with the history of the foundation of the CofE I doubt very much if there can be a separation of head of church and head of state unless you give the roles to two different Royals. I agree that it is time the State and the Church originally founded by a past Monarch should separate. I do believe they can both stand on their own now. Above all that I think there is no impediment to remove the role of our Lord Bishops from our legislature. There was a removal of hereditary peerage a good few years ago which was the perfect time for that. If any Religious Leader presented himself or herself as having qualities needed in a legislature then I can see no reason why they can't then be put back into the Lords under the existing patronage scheme which applies equally (in law if not in reality) to all citizens of good standing. Indeed that applies to Bishops, priests, Monks (of many faiths) and Imams. I see no reason why religious figures can't be in the Lords as a private individual not in the role they have in their religions. I find it offensive it is otherwise.

Short version - no Bishops in the Lords except due to merit and then only as private not public individual.

mamba80

Seriously Off Piste :shock:

tangled_metal

mamba80 wrote:

Seriously Off Piste :shock:

Yeah! Not unusual on here I think, but I was kind of commenting on the Ballysmate comment about HoS and Head of CoE being separate. Kind of continuing the thread's diversion off piste not starting it.

Back on topic (well if there is anything as being on topic this far into the thread)...

Isn't Hebdo devoutly secular/atheistic in their mission? They polemicise about all and every religion including those oif a political nature. To here them use the phrase "defender of Faith" makes not sense to me. The use of the word "faith" implies a belief or a view without evidence to support it. I would have thought secularism and atheism is more related to the removal of faith based beliefs in favour of evidence based views and arguments. To say theyu defend "faith", even though I am guessing the meaning is their right to free speech and not to be controlled or dictated to by religion or politics. Perhaps the word faith is better explained by ideology.

RDW

Did I miss the meta-irony, or did you just confuse Charlie Hebdo with Charlie Windsor?

mamba80

I was a staunch defender of france and their freedom of speech laws and attitude but I can see I am wrong....
http://time.com/3681714/nutellla-child/

ballysmate

Not only do some people refuse to believe there is any link between the attacks in Paris and Islam, according to our national broadcaster, the BBC, they aren't even terrorists.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... utive.html.

FFS !!