Islamaphobia in Tory party?

[grumbledoak]

desolate said:

Not the case with Catholicism.
And many other Christian religions.

So, Catholicism and “many other” Christian religions are not hugely fragmented?

You realise the CofE is just a splinter group from the Catholic Church, right?

[Halb]

baroness Warsi and Nadhim Zahawi banged heads on PL today about this. INteresting chat.

[gregs656]

grumbledoak said:

So, Catholicism and “many other” Christian religions are not hugely fragmented?

You realise the CofE is just a splinter group from the Catholic Church, right?

It doesn't matter if there are a number of orthodoxies - the point is is that it is common in those orthodoxies to have a strict organisational structure and a head of the church.

[anonymous-user]

grumbledoak said:

So, Catholicism and “many other” Christian religions are not hugely fragmented?

You realise the CofE is just a splinter group from the Catholic Church, right?

To be a roman Catholic you believe in the authority of the pope.

The Anglicans don't. Which is why they aren't roman catholics.

They are both Christians though.

And "splinter group" - of course it is, clever boy have a lollipop.
See, I can be patronising as well.

[Halb]

biggbn said:

The crux of the matter is the word discriminate. I know Christian and Muslim people, and atheists for that matter who do not approve of homosexuality, but they work alongside, employ or in a few cases have homosexuals as friends. They will strongly and passionately argue that their belief is OK...but they don't discriminate.

DO you know why the atheists don't approve of it?

[irocfan]

gregs656 said:

Indeed, Catholics are in the business of people sinning and being forgiven, particularly if they are ready to pay for their forgiveness.

the days of "Peter's Pennies" have long since gone (thankfully!)

gregs656 said:

The underlying assumption there is that the interpretation of the religious text is static, which it is not. It is not difficult to read the Qu'ran and not see homophobia, if you want to read it in, you can do that, but no where does it say that being a homosexual is wrong in explicit terms. I have said this recently on another thread but Religions general obsession with homosexuality is a curious thing when you consider how little is written about it.

the thing is if you're a tribe/people/group banning homosexuality is actually quite sensible (ditto strictures on eating pork/shellfish in the ME) - it ensures the maximum number of breeders for your grouping. Hopefully more than your oppo. These days not really an issue.

[grumbledoak]

gregs656 said:

It doesn't matter if there are a number of orthodoxies - the point is is that it is common in those orthodoxies to have a strict organisational structure and a head of the church.

Yes. They are more similar than different. And, of course, all fragments of the Abrahamic whole.

Anyway, on the main point surely cries of “Islamophobia” are just attempts to leverage the victim status that we have made so powerful?

[Halb]

irocfan said:

the thing is if you're a tribe/people/group banning homosexuality is actually quite sensible (ditto strictures on eating pork/shellfish in the ME) - it ensures the maximum number of breeders for your grouping. Hopefully more than your oppo. These days not really an issue.

I think it's only 'sensible' if you don't know anything about homosexuality, and have no food standards. Not all ancient people were dummies (thinking of what chinese/greeks and other found out), but the sort of cultures that prevailed in the middle east when the religions were being made up, not great thinkers, I think.

[edh]

jakesmith said:

edh said:

I suspect most people don't think it's news that there are racists in the Tory party given the track record of the former home secretary, now PM.

That is an outrageous slur and completely out of order, you should retract that statement and apologise immediately

The things I find outrageous are:

Go home vans

Hostile environment

Windrush scandal

"papers please" landlord checks found by a court recently to be unlawful and racist.

Theresa May is responsible for all of that and more.

I'm not at all surprised there are racists in the Tory party. Are you? Is anyone?

[markcoznottz]

desolate said:

biggbn said:

I don't think it is irrational to have misgivings about any individual who slavishly follows a single interpretation of any religion or ideology...

Agree.
Same with those who are so aggressively against those who believe in a god.
"You don't count as a Muslim as you think it's ok to be gay, or to drink"
fk off.

I noticed that school is bang in alum rock territory, one of the highest % density of Muslim residents in the uk. Presumably mainly Pakistani and Bangladeshi. Do these demographics lend themselves to more problems with inflexible interpretation of Islam etc.

[Russian Troll Bot]

edh said:

jakesmith said:

edh said:

I suspect most people don't think it's news that there are racists in the Tory party given the track record of the former home secretary, now PM.

That is an outrageous slur and completely out of order, you should retract that statement and apologise immediately

The things I find outrageous are:

Go home vans

Hostile environment

Windrush scandal

"papers please" landlord checks found by a court recently to be unlawful and racist.

Theresa May is responsible for all of that and more.

I'm not at all surprised there are racists in the Tory party. Are you? Is anyone?

Windrush started under Labour. And what is wrong with telling people who have no legal right to be here that they should go home?

[biggbn]

Halb said:

biggbn said:

The crux of the matter is the word discriminate. I know Christian and Muslim people, and atheists for that matter who do not approve of homosexuality, but they work alongside, employ or in a few cases have homosexuals as friends. They will strongly and passionately argue that their belief is OK...but they don't discriminate.

DO you know why the atheists don't approve of it?

Some atheists man, not all. Personal choice I guess or an outmoded outdated moral compass due to environmental drivers?

Edit...is moral compass the correct term? Will think on this

[anonymous-user]

markcoznottz said:

I noticed that school is bang in alum rock territory, one of the highest % density of Muslim residents in the uk. Presumably mainly Pakistani and Bangladeshi. Do these demographics lend themselves to more problems with inflexible interpretation of Islam etc.

I read some of their stuff yesterday.

There arguments are very similar to those used by those small c conservatives 20 odd years ago.

I still haven't been able to work out if religious schools have an exemption. As far as I can tell this school isn't a religious school, but if there are any exemptions it makes it all not worth fighting over.

Load of bks.

[gregs656]

grumbledoak said:

Anyway, on the main point surely cries of “Islamophobia” are just attempts to leverage the victim status that we have made so powerful?

I think generally in Britain proclaiming your theism will bring you more condemnation than proclaiming your a-theism, or agnosticism if you are an intellectual coward.

Islamaphobia is nothing really to do with religion, or a properly formulated criticism of that religion - it is more emotional and hateful than that, occasionally wrapped up in arguments against the religion which could just as easily be applied to the Abrahamic religions but never is.

[grumbledoak]

gregs656 said:

I think generally in Britain proclaiming your theism will bring you more condemnation than proclaiming your a-theism, or agnosticism if you are an intellectual coward.

Islamaphobia is nothing really to do with religion, or a properly formulated criticism of that religion - it is more emotional and hateful than that, occasionally wrapped up in arguments against the religion which could just as easily be applied to the Abrahamic religions but never is.

I think the first is only true of Christianity these days. It seems to be open season on them! Much less so Islam.

But how real or common do you think genuine illogical fear of Islam is? How are you so sure when any criticism is portrayed as phobia for the benefits it brings? Particularly in the context of politics, where power and influence are everything.

[gregs656]

grumbledoak said:

I think the first is only true of Christianity these days. It seems to be open season on them! Much less so Islam.

But how real or common do you think genuine illogical fear of Islam is? How are you so sure when any criticism is portrayed as phobia for the benefits it brings? Particularly in the context of politics, where power and influence are everything.

I don't think so, but it doesn't matter.

I reject the definition of phobia to be only genuine illogical fear, it has been in common usage as a hatred or dislike or something for a long time and I think this insistence on a historic definition is a waste of time.

I don't think you have to look very far to find islamaphobia in Britain. I am sure just a few minutes reading the comments under Stephen Yaxley-Lennon's latest YouTube video would prove that.

[m3jappa]

SpeckledJim said:

Should you discriminate against Muslims for their discrimination against homosexuals?

Choose your favourite protected characteristic, because you can't protect both.

Awkward one...?

I have often thought this, the people shouting for the rights of muslims are maybe the same people shouting for the rights of gay people.

Anyway a possibly controversial opinion i have is this:

Why cant people be racist? or dislike this religion or that group of people etc.

You dont have to agree with it, you dont have to join in you dont have to like them. I have been around a few properly racist people over the years and it leaves me feeling very uncomfortable, but that is their opinion, they can think wtf they like, they aren't forcing me to join in.

Surely living in a world where we dictate what you can and cant like is dangerous, surely it is worse than hatred because these people are making you join in, you either think like us or we will disregard you permanently.

[skyrover]

Love the person, not the religion.

[anonymous-user]

m3jappa said:

Why cant people be racist? or dislike this religion or that group of people etc.

.

People can be and people are.

There is a set of circumstances in which you can't allow your racism to manifest itself in your actions.

But no one can force you not to be racist and it's not illegal.

[Halb]

biggbn said:

Some atheists man, not all. Personal choice I guess or an outmoded outdated moral compass due to environmental drivers?

Edit...is moral compass the correct term? Will think on this

I think moral compass can be used, since morals come from all places, not just superstition