Views about Chris Hitchens, please!

[Chris Scott]

Not going to go in for multiple quotes, but just wanted to say - very good posts from Errata, Roy and Chris Scott. Obviously, I do not agree with all of you, but I like the quality of your debates.

I would like to add, if it is helpful in any way, that I am a Christian believer, but I do not have any problem at all with atheism, homosexuality, people of other faiths or, indeed, science. I even love the film 'The Life of Brian'!!

My faith is personal, it's about my relationship with God and how he works for me in my life. I share my faith with those who ask me about it, and with others of faith (often, I share with Muslims and Jews as I belong to a multi-faith discussion group at my place of work).

I don't concern myself with whether it's possible for the earth to have been created in seven days or whether the arc was big enough for two of every animal. I concern myself with prayer and with campaigning for a fairer world (I am also a socialist) and to a greater extent - I leave other people to live their lives in their own way (as long as it does not cause direct harm or offence to others).

Regards

Julie

A moving and humbling post for those of us who get caught up in the cut and thrust of this debate. If there were more like you in the world it would certainly be a fairer and better place
I don't share your politics or your faith but that doesn't matter - simple humanity ultimately urges us to hope for and work for a better place to live in
All the best
Chris

[Limehouse]

Many thanks Chris.

[Robert]

Hi Errata

That's an interesting reply, and I must confess I have always liked the apparently bolshie attitude of Jews to their god. The ending of the Book of Job was a bummer, but on the other hand there's a lovely story - I cannot remember where it's from - in which god loses an argument with some rabbis. The argument ends with some rabbi saying that according to such-and-such a text, they are commanded not to listen to voices. Someone asked god what he did when he heard that, and the answer was, god said "ah, my people have won."

[Errata]

I really don't care where the pressure comes from to teach Creationism in schools - I just think it a retrograde and unscientific step, akin to proposing that we teach pre Copernican cosmology in schools.

And I agree. I think teaching the various creation myths in school in a social studies class would be valuable in that it would be an introduction in to the religions of the people you are going to meet out in the world. I don't think Intelligent design should be taught at all, because it is not intelligent. And it's hypocritical to boot. But when such a movement is attributed to all religious people, regardless of the religion, that's kind of offensive. The same with the idea that all religious people think non religious people are going to hell. We don't have a hell. And we don't think people who are not of our faith are not "saved". That is not remotely part of our belief system, and never has been. Obviously other religions do have that belief. But not all. Technically not even most. We have the right to not be included in any statements regarding those issues. Remember that when you are saying that you have a problem with all religions because the fundamentalists of those religions think you are going to rot in hell for being an atheist, that simply isn't true. Jews don't think you are going to hell. Buddhists don't think you are going to hell, Wiccans don't think you are going to hell... We don't have a hell for you to go to.


If you honestly believe that Muslims do not proselytise then your experience is very different from mine - or maybe the situation in the UK is different.

I think it is different. Muslims here are still keeping very quiet. There is a new mosque not far from here that ha had to fight tooth and nail in order to exist. Every possible legal avenue of stopping construction has been tried, sabotage, taking shots at leaders and construction workers... Enough that they had to add a wall around the property in order to protect themselves. And of course now there are allegations that they put the wall up to hide their bomb making or whatever. As if anything in Tennessee could be considered a high value target. When I was younger I was invited to prayers with my Muslim friends. I think their understanding is that more Muslims would be great, but they aren't going to go out of their way to make it happen. And in fact as Jews we didn't even get bothered by Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, because they saw the mezzuzah on the door and moved on. Except the Mormons were really nice guys so we let them store their boxes of books at our place, since our neighborhoods terrain was... daunting to say the least. We used to find them collapsed on our doortep exhausted and sweating their lives out.

Your comment about atheists sharing a belief system because they all believe there is no God is as simplistic and ultimately meaningless as saying that all persons of faith share a belief system because they all believe in a God.

Perhaps. As best I can tell, there are three types of atheist. The organized atheist, such as that group in Texas who sues anyone who references religion in public. The ones that went after Apollo 8 for quoting Genesis. It's not that I don't understand the aim, but in my eyes they are no different than the people freaking out about the idea of taking "under god" out of the pledge of allegiance. Clearly they have never been introduced to the idea that it is a fair compromise when no one is happy with it.

The second kind is the militant atheist. My best friend is one, and it's irritating, but kind of hilarious. He says "I don't believe in god, and you don't either." an then tries to tell me why I don't believe in god. And nothing he says is incorrect, but I keep telling him that a belief in god is a lot like paranoia. a: Unless you've felt it, you can't understand it and b:Paranoia is not a function of fact. It's a function of belief. But just because you are paranoid, doesn't someone isn't out to get you. Just because there is no factual evidence of god doesn't mean he isn't there. But he cannot reconcile the fact that I am rational, reasonable, liberal to an almost alarming degree, a huge fan of science, and a believer. I tell him it's because I have abetter imagination than he does, but it's a facetious explanation.

The third kind is like my fiance. He just doesn't believe. It doesn't bother him that he doesn't, it doesn't bother him that others do. His atheism is not a religion. He doesn't believe in god the way he doesn't like alfredo sauce. It's not a big deal. He doesn't refuse to attend religious functions, if I asked him to convert he probably would to make me happy, but I wouldn't ask it. It is such a non issue with him.


I also have a strong issue with faith schools and the way religion is "taught." I emphasise "taught" because it is actually in many instances inculcated into young children as unquestionable truth - that is not teaching. When I see the swaying figures of young boys learning the Koran or young Jewish boys reciting the Torah like automata my blood runs cold.

I'm not a huge fan of religious school either, but mostly because of the amount of discipline required of a child in those institutions. I think kids should be kids for longer than they give them. Otherwise, I have met any number of people who attended religious school and really benefited from it. Or were not harmed by it. My mother attended Catholic School her whole life. Even went to a Catholic nursing school. And then seven years later she converted to Judaism to marry my father. So evidently she overcame whatever training they gave her. Even now that they are divorced she is still Jewish. We have a Jewish day school here, kindergarten through sixth grade. We got any number of those kids in seventh grade. Really the only difference between them and the rest of us were that that could read and speak Hebrew. One girl in my grade came from Akiva, then became a pagan in tenth grade. All of the others except for two intermarried. The one thing they all have in common is that they are much more socially active than the rest of us. They all sit on charity boards. Basically, I always trust kids to rebel.Maybe it sticks, maybe it doesn't, but one thing I have learned about religious school kids is that when they break loose, they break loose with a vengeance. It's like Rumspringa, but with less cocaine.

But if one has problems with the very idea of theism then obviously comments will be addressed across the boundaries of faiths. That is not to ignore the fact that different faiths have their own unique histories, developments and moral codes, but if a faith is posited on the basis of a supreme being whose existence is not amenable to logical proof or even testing, then it would fall within my definition of a theist system.

Well, I confess I am not entirely sure why you would object to theists. I mean, I can totally see not being one. But for example, if I don't care that you are atheist, why would you care than I was Jewish? How does that harm you? And would you really have the same problem with a goddess who just changes the seasons and occasionally makes it rain as you would with a vengeful god demands his followers convert or kill under penalty of eternal torment? I mean, were I an atheist, gods would be like Star Wars characters. Not real, but still pretty impactful on it's audience. I mean, I don't have a problem with people who dress up like Mon Mothma, but I have a problem with people who don the slave Leia costume because I mean come on. Feminism happened. If someone thought Star Wars was real, but otherwise had a healthy relationship with reality, I swear to god I wouldn't care. Whatever gets you through the day, you know?

My life would be easier if I could manage to be an atheist. And I've tried. Not because atheism is easier than theism, but because it's easier than my particular relationship with god. Which is like having to live in a house with someone you are pissed off at and don't talk to for 34 years so far. And I tried to be other religions. But ironically, Judaism was the only religion I could find that allows me to have this messed up relationship with god without somebody demanding that I fix it. That and there is an old quote that says in order to be a righteous Jew you must act as though god doesn't exist. Which I am a total pro at. So it's nice to be successful at something.

I feel it necessary to add that while my original post followed yours, the only part of your post that I objected to was the "all religions" part. The rest of my issues came from posts scattered throughout the thread, because I got here late in the discussion. So I didn't object to you, just something you said, and threw in a bunch of other objections as well. Since I was in the neighborhood so to speak.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Errata
Thanks for your thoughtful reply which explained a lot.
I am certainly not an "organised" or a "militant" atheist - indeed I don't class my atheism as a "belief" but rather a lack of belief. I have never found a faith system that convinced me of the truth of its claims and I suppose over the years that broadened out into doubting the very idea of a deity at all.
In the vast majority of cases people's beliefs are none of my business and of no concern to me - whether or not I agree with them worries me not in the least and I'm sure it, quite rightly, does not worry them. The only time I get galvanised by faith matters is when it insists on intruding itself into public life - into my life, to be selfish - and has what I consider to be a negative influence. When I see a member of the Westboro Baptist Church accosting people with their messages of hatred and homophobia, when I see Muslim extremists in the UK attacking the police with placards saying that "Europe is the cancer - Islam is the cure" or "Sharia Law for the UK" then I feel I have every right to be incensed. When I see the hospitality and resources - financial and medical - of this country being openly and cynically abused in the name of religion, then I, and many of my countyrymen, feel aggrieved at the apparent inability or unwillingness of our Government agencies to do anything about this.
I know many fine, kind and generous people of faith - I cannot understand their belief in a deity but that is entirely up to therm. In our history there have been many examples of exemplary people of faith who have effected social reform, from Lord Shaftesbury and Elizabeth Fry to Albert Schweitzer.
I hope this helps explain a bit more where I am coming from
Chris

[Errata]

Hi Errata
Thanks for your thoughtful reply which explained a lot.
I am certainly not an "organised" or a "militant" atheist - indeed I don't class my atheism as a "belief" but rather a lack of belief. I have never found a faith system that convinced me of the truth of its claims and I suppose over the years that broadened out into doubting the very idea of a deity at all.
In the vast majority of cases people's beliefs are none of my business and of no concern to me - whether or not I agree with them worries me not in the least and I'm sure it, quite rightly, does not worry them. The only time I get galvanised by faith matters is when it insists on intruding itself into public life - into my life, to be selfish - and has what I consider to be a negative influence. When I see a member of the Westboro Baptist Church accosting people with their messages of hatred and homophobia, when I see Muslim extremists in the UK attacking the police with placards saying that "Europe is the cancer - Islam is the cure" or "Sharia Law for the UK" then I feel I have every right to be incensed. When I see the hospitality and resources - financial and medical - of this country being openly and cynically abused in the name of religion, then I, and many of my countyrymen, feel aggrieved at the apparent inability or unwillingness of our Government agencies to do anything about this.
I know many fine, kind and generous people of faith - I cannot understand their belief in a deity but that is entirely up to therm. In our history there have been many examples of exemplary people of faith who have effected social reform, from Lord Shaftesbury and Elizabeth Fry to Albert Schweitzer.
I hope this helps explain a bit more where I am coming from
Chris

One of the things I have found is that many of these objectionable "articles of faith" really kind of aren't. They are cherry picked phrases from a 2500 year old book to justify their own secular prejudice. Yes the Torah says that homosexuality is not good. Although the specific phrase that is often quoted to support this claim doesn't mean what people think it means, since most translations leave off a significant part of the verse. But the Torah also says mixing fibers is bad, eating shellfish is bad, etc. and nobody plucks those out to go on some religious rampage. There is no one in the history of ever who has said "gee, I don't have a problem with homosexuality personally, but the bible says it's bad so I'm going to go harass a soldier's funeral". And since the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't stand in front of Wal-Mart with signs saying "God Hates Poly-blends" they are hypocrites.

Islam is far more complicated, but even though these people are believers, that's not the issue. The West IS a cancer to the Middle East. Islam is not really the solution, and I think if you asked those people how they would fix it, they would not say that the world should convert to Islam. They would say the West needs to butt the **** out. But they are aware how Muslims are viewed by a lot of people in the West, they know that Sharia Law is about the most objectionable thing we can think of, and they are using it to provoke people. These people are super red hot pissed. And they have a right to be. Especially at the US and Britain. We have been using them as chess pieces for 100 years now, doling out countries, changing borders, indulging in "regime changes" to suit our own needs. And some of these people haven't had their own sovereign nation since 600 BC. Not every country profits from a democracy. Not every country that follows Sharia Law abuses it. And every time we change things, it goes cataclysmically wrong. And these people suffer the most. It is not surprising that people cling to the only true constant order in their lives, which is Islam. People get more religious when things are bad. And things are really really bad. It's easy to see why a 14 year old boy will strap a bomb to his chest when all he has to look forward to is living behind barbed wire, hungry, poor and completely powerless. We have an entire section of the globe that are cornered like animals. Why should we be surprised that they behave like cornered animals?

As for their leaders... I think the photos of Saddam Hussein's palace speak volumes. I think the legally sanctioned human trafficking on behalf of Saudi princes speak volumes. I think the Taliban's relationship with the Warlords speaks volumes. And Bin Ladin's relationships with drug dealers speak volumes. These men are more interested in power than religion. They do not practice what they preach. They do not obey the laws they set forth for others. And those who follow them know that. Most do not share their leaders idea of an ideal world. But they will pay lip service to it if it gives them the chance to have as much power as a gun or a bomb will get them. They will accept almost anything for a chance to get back at those they perceive to have wronged them. And I'm afraid in our case, we have in fact wronged them badly.

[Chris Scott]

Hi Errata
With respects, injunctions in the Bible about mixed fibres and eating shellfish are not impacting negatively on people's lives, causing people to be persecuted or driven to suicide. No extremist Christian group is parading in the streets saying that those who eat shellfish will burn in hell. I agree that taking passages from any book in isolation is a risky pastime and this, coupled with the dangers of translation and transcription errors, can lead to some bizarre misinterpretations. There are two biblical passages quoted in support of the Judaeo Christian attitude to homosexuality. One is Old Testament - the famous passge in which it is called an "abomination" - and one in the letters of Paul.
One of the dangers of seeing the Bible or any other document as divinely revealed and infallible is that it can be seen as extratemporal (i.e. existing out side time) and therefore divorced from its historical context. In the case of both the Bible and the Koran their context and social setting are crucial.
When a small, indigent, peripatetic population is trying to establish itself in a new and hostile homeland what does it need almost beyond anything else? Numbers, new settlers to swell its ranks and ensure its hold on its new territory, by force of arms if necessary. So there will be stern injunctions against any activity which militates against procreation. That is the origin of the Old Testament injunction, albeit that it was written long after the events it portrays. The crucial period for the codifying and writing down of the Old Testament was the Exile in Babylon for 50 years, when the Jewish people were stateless, dispossessed and threatened. It is no coincidence that at this period the Biblical version of the Flood story was written down and is closely m odelled on the much older Babylonian epic version.
The injunction in Paul's letters has to be seen in the context of the increasing Hellenization of the Jewish world and the attempted resistance to this. From the full blown Hellenizing of Herod the Great down to the invasion of Antiochus this is a very important theme, compounded by the very important Jewish population in one of the great Hellenic centres, namely Alexandria. Paul's concern, like other early Christian writers and fathers of the Church, is more concerned with effeminacy rather than homosexuality per se.
Of course, the comment that taking a passage out of its context is risky. This applies equally to the instances of Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament. The passage about Bethlehem Ephrata is quoted in the Gospels but if read in its original setting and in context a very different picture emerges.
Despite my feelings about Islam I agree largely with what you say with one exception. We should be honest and say that the majority of our dealings with many of these countries is for one reason only - oil. I absolutely opposed the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and if I had my way all our troops would be withdrawn tomorrow. We know what will happen within a year of withdrawal from Afghanistan, as is happening in Iraq. I am speaking now specifically for the UK and not "the West" when I say that we have no business being there, we are not the world's policeman and we have more than enough problems in our own country to deal with. When I vote in an election it is for a UK Government to run the affairs of the UK - not to sort out the problems of other countries. We have no place being there, we are not wanted there and so it would be to everyone's good if we left Muslim countries to sort out their own affairs. We have made bedfellows of appalling regimes such as Saudi Arabia and have happily traded, until the nuclear dispute, with the hideous theocracy in Iran. That country is not a few extremists wreaking havoc - it is state sponsored and state approved barbarity that hangs teenagers in public, hauling them up on cranes to die by slow strangulation because they are gay.
The one issue on which I have to disagree with you is when you said that Muslims would not say that the world should convert to Islam. That is the avowed aim as expressed in the Koran that any interaction with non believers should be based on the final aim of converting them to Islam. the now banned group Islam4UK had the avowed aim of establishing a "British caliphate" and there have been serious attempts within British cities to establish Sharia controlled zones in predominantly Muslim areas. There are still pressure groups in the UK - perfectly legal ones - that espouse this cause.
I will now speak candidly - what pisses off a lot of British people is that many of those most critical of decadent, sexualised, binge drinking Britain not only choose to live here and be housed and have medical care but fight tooth and nail to stay here, often for years on end. You will now so often hear the two comments - "If they hate us so much why do they come here?" and "If I go to live or work in a Muslim country I have to abide by their rules and cultural sensitivities - why is that not the case with those who come here?"

[The Good Michael]

Personal insight into what Islam is doing these days:

Kazakhstan was of course, part of the Soviet Union. As such, it was an atheist state for the most part. After the dissolution, people grabbed hold of old practices with orthodoxy for the Russians, Islam for the Kazakhs and all other faiths for the various minority groups. For the Kazakhs, Islam was just an idea and they didn't practice it with any vigor. They drink a lot, smoke a lot of pot (blamed on the Russians who get it from Afghanistan and ship it down), and see tons of prostitutes, preferring to keep their women virginal. Lately, mullahs have been coming into the country and preaching. Young people are picking some of the fundamentalism up because that is what the mullahs preach, and Kazakhs can't be arsed to read things themselves. ( I know this because I teach these people). There have been several little fundy cells cropping up her and there. It scares the haves because these cells are made up of the have nots.

Now as for the Turks: Turkey is a secular state. A certain group of Islamic businessmen have been opening international schools all over Central Asia. The idea is to educate everyone in Turkish and English. Anyone with money sends their kids to these schools, called 'Gulen' schools. They emphasis is on science and English with Turkish being also mandatory. I taught at one in Tajikistan. Instead of being some sort of advanced school, it's actually run by fundamentalists and all teachers, except the foreign, English teachers, must be Muslim to work there. I'm in the air about this kind of movement. I don't agree with any schools based on religion. In my school I taught social studies, but I wasn't allowed to talk about religion because, I was told, the students already have their beliefs.

Mike

[DVV]

There are still people believing that Bin Laden or any other muslim terrorist are not real muslims and have misunderstood the message. It's cute. But they should read the Sira.

[Errata]

When a small, indigent, peripatetic population is trying to establish itself in a new and hostile homeland what does it need almost beyond anything else? Numbers, new settlers to swell its ranks and ensure its hold on its new territory, by force of arms if necessary. So there will be stern injunctions against any activity which militates against procreation. That is the origin of the Old Testament injunction, albeit that it was written long after the events it portrays.

Would it surprise you to learn that I was taught that the injunction against homosexuality has less to do with procreation and more to do with separating the practices of Judaism from other religions? The typical translation you get of the passage in Numbers is "Cursed be he who lieth with another man, for it is an abomination." In the Hebrew, it is "Cursed be he who lieth with another man as though he were a woman, for it is an abomination." And I should also point out that having sex with sheep is perverse, but not an abomination. The word abomination is kind of specific in the Torah. It doesn't mean really awful, or even especially damning. It pretty much applies to practices that are linked with other religions of the day, as those practices are seen as corruptive. Our dietary restrictions fall into three categories. Things we didn't know existed, things that are actually bad for you from a food safety standpoint, and things that are in other religions rituals. Eels for example. Eating them was a part of certain ceremonies that required a phallic symbol. So we can't have them. Not that I mind, cause I know what eels eat, and I'll pass.

I was taught that while Judaism certainly had a vested interest in keeping a stable population, we weren't hugely invested in growth. Still aren't. Birth control is not forbidden, abortion is considered sanctioned by the Torah, and while it is not in the Torah, the Jews of the day who had deformed or imperfect babies exposed them in the desert to die. Having sex with sheep is as non productive as having sex with another man, but is not an abomination. It's perverse. I can't say as I disagree, but there is no reason for any other kind of unproductive sex to be more hateful to god. So why is homosexuality an abomination? Technically, it isn't. We were taught that this is one of those laws that came about because it forbids us from doing something others were doing in a religious vein. It has to do with "Temple prostitution" which technically didn't exist in they way people think it did, but it did exist. There were sex practices in the cults of Ashera and Ba'al that required the participants to become embodied by the god or goddess, and sometimes recreate parts of the god or goddesses particular mythos. One of those practices, or so we were taught, involved men "submitting" to the god. "As though he were a woman". Which is why that seemingly repetitive bit is in there. That little bit of seeming reiteration and the fact that it is an abomination means that it's not homosexuality that is forbidden. It is a specific homosexual act that essentially requires role play that is used to honor other gods, and therefor is not allowed.

Is it a bunch of sophistry to allow us to believe that god doesn't hate gay people? Maybe. But most of Judaic practice is a bit of sophistry, since we didn't get any new instructions after the destruction of the last Temple as to what to do next. So we've been winging it for awhile.


I will now speak candidly - what pisses off a lot of British people is that many of those most critical of decadent, sexualised, binge drinking Britain not only choose to live here and be housed and have medical care but fight tooth and nail to stay here, often for years on end. You will now so often hear the two comments - "If they hate us so much why do they come here?" and "If I go to live or work in a Muslim country I have to abide by their rules and cultural sensitivities - why is that not the case with those who come here?"

You're not wrong. We have people like that here. And really the best explanation you can ever get on the matter is to ask a plain girl why she thinks all pretty girls are dumb. These people blame us for their problems. And they aren't entirely wrong to do so. They want what we have, the freedom, the opportunity, the options. Things they think we don't deserve because we took that away from them. They think we are wasting what we have with our frivolous attitude. They think they could do better with what we have if they had it. And maybe they could. It's not completely out of the question. Plain girls think that pretty girls are dumb because they can't handle the idea that there are people out there no more deserving than they are who get to have it all. These Muslims think we are wicked because they can't handle the idea that there are people out there no more deserving than the are who get to have it all. If beauty, no brains. If success, no morals. It isn't true of course, but sometimes people cling to those notions because it keeps them from just giving up. They have to believe that the world isn't that colossally unfair.

[Limehouse]

Personal insight into what Islam is doing these days:

Kazakhstan was of course, part of the Soviet Union. As such, it was an atheist state for the most part. After the dissolution, people grabbed hold of old practices with orthodoxy for the Russians, Islam for the Kazakhs and all other faiths for the various minority groups. For the Kazakhs, Islam was just an idea and they didn't practice it with any vigor. They drink a lot, smoke a lot of pot (blamed on the Russians who get it from Afghanistan and ship it down), and see tons of prostitutes, preferring to keep their women virginal. Lately, mullahs have been coming into the country and preaching. Young people are picking some of the fundamentalism up because that is what the mullahs preach, and Kazakhs can't be arsed to read things themselves. ( I know this because I teach these people). There have been several little fundy cells cropping up her and there. It scares the haves because these cells are made up of the have nots.

Now as for the Turks: Turkey is a secular state. A certain group of Islamic businessmen have been opening international schools all over Central Asia. The idea is to educate everyone in Turkish and English. Anyone with money sends their kids to these schools, called 'Gulen' schools. They emphasis is on science and English with Turkish being also mandatory. I taught at one in Tajikistan. Instead of being some sort of advanced school, it's actually run by fundamentalists and all teachers, except the foreign, English teachers, must be Muslim to work there. I'm in the air about this kind of movement. I don't agree with any schools based on religion. In my school I taught social studies, but I wasn't allowed to talk about religion because, I was told, the students already have their beliefs.

Mike

Thanks for this interesting insight Mike. Although Soviet Russia and its associated states was officially atheist, there were strong underground organisations that kept various religious faiths going. I vaguely knew a man who spent some years in jail for smuggling bibles into the Soviet Union.

I teach a lot of Polish and Lithuanian students. They tell me that since the break away from Soviet control, the catholic church has almost a stonghold on the people and their lives are almost as restricted as they were under communism. For example, a student of mine was deeply troubled because her sister (still living back in Poland) had been terribly verbally abused by her priest for seeking IVF treatment. I thought that was very sad.

What is even more interesting is that when the people leave Poland to live elsewhere (there are lots of them in here in the Fens working in agriculture) they actually fully embrace their catholic faith, they don't reject it. The catholic church here has grown sixfold and has to run four of five services on a Sunday morning to accommodate everyone. The difference is it's not so oppressive here.

Regards

Julie

[DVV]

There is an ethnic/religious cleansing going on in almost every muslim country. Nobody cares about. Eastern christians are killed, insulted, compelled to flee their own countries.
Better be a Palestinian in Israel than a Christian in Gaza.
But here again, it must be the fault of the Spanish Inquisition.

[Chris Scott]

There is an ethnic/religious cleansing going on in almost every muslim country. Nobody cares about. Eastern christians are killed, insulted, compelled to flee their own countries.
Better be a Palestinian in Israel than a Christian in Gaza.
But here again, it must be the fault of the Spanish Inquisition.

The situation you describe is dire and for some reason either under reported or not reported at all.
Can I make one elementary point which has been levelled at me by e-mail (not from anyone on this site I hasten to add!)
I make no secret of the fact that I have many and deep concerns about Islam and its effect in the modern world, particularly in my case its effect on social and political life in the UK. I am not an "Islamophobe" (since that implies an irrational fear - I do not fear Islam nor are my concerns irrational) nor do I subscribe to the methods or message of any groups such as the EDL or the BNP. I can argue my own case, thank you, and do not need to hitch my wagon to any such organisation.
However any time I or any other person raise concerns about Islam and its effects we are labelled, in the Pavlovian manner of the multicultural bandwagon and its vocal "anti fascist" supporters, as "racist," the most damning of modern labels. Incidentally, I find it ironic in the extreme that "anti fascist" groups march in support of a faith that is the bedrock of some of the most oppressive and "fascist" regimes in the world.
For those who don't grasp it, I will explain slowly one more time.
Islam is a religion, a belief system. Indeed it is one of Islam's boasts that it has followers and converts in every country from every ethnic group. There are Arab muslims, Caucasian muslims, Chinese muslims, Slavic muslims, African muslims, Russian muslims, Indian muslims - I think you probably get the point.
Muslims are NOT a racial or ethnic group. I repeat - Muslims are NOT a race - they are a multiracial, multilingual group whose only commonality is their faith system.
Therefore to use the term "racist" of someone who criticises or raises concerns about Islam is not only totally inappropriate it is, in fact, completely meaningless in that context.
But as "racist" is the most damning and readily used insult in the modern world of correctness and fear of offending, it slips readily to the tongue even when its use is nonsensical.
The other two favourite labels for those who dare to raise concerns about Islam are "bigoted" and "ignorant." For plenty of examples of these (and a plethora of non stories) see the Islamophobia Watch website.

[DVV]

I'm in complete agreement, Chris.

[The Good Michael]

There is an ethnic/religious cleansing going on in almost every muslim country. Nobody cares about. Eastern christians are killed, insulted, compelled to flee their own countries.
Better be a Palestinian in Israel than a Christian in Gaza.
But here again, it must be the fault of the Spanish Inquisition.

This absolutely true. In Ethiopia, Muslims were met with open arms and allowed to form communities in this massive Christian country. In Egypt orthodox Christians are hated and despised, and their one opportunity make a little money, through the raising of swine, has been taken from them and the swine slaughtered. In Nigeria, Christians are constantly under attack, dying in droves. In Syria they are also hated. When there are two man-made religions and one is opposed to violence, guess which one wins. More proof that man creates religion to fit his prejudice.

Mike