Jesus in a Raincoat

Annual re-enactment of the crucifixion in Brighton

3:50pm Friday 2nd April 2010


A torrential downpour did not stop a community gathering outside for an annual re-enactment of the crucifixion.

The congregation gathered on the green in The Avenue, Moulsecoomb, Brighton, for the traditional Good Friday event clutching soggy hymn sheets, with only umbrellas to protect them from the elements.

Representatives from churches including St Andrew's, in Hillside, Mouslecoomb and the Salvation Army turned out for the service.

Matthew Burnham took his place on the cross to play Jesus.

At noon he carried the cross on his back from St Andrew's Church to the tree on the green where the crucifixion story was acted out.

Father John Wall, who led the service, said: “I think it is the soggiest Good Friday that we have had but well done for turning out in what are pretty horrible conditions.

“Because it's so soggy, we cannot actually use the electrical equipment to run the keyboard so I hope you are all going to be noisy.”

Tony Blair at Iraq inquiry - the ghost that came back to life | UK news | The Guardian

This was the big one. Yet as we sat down to the climax of the Chilcot inquiry, in walked a ghost. Its muscles were taut, its eyes bloodshot, its tan implausible, its mouth unsmiling. The hand visibly shook when pouring water. Tony Blair looked awful.

Outside they were chanting war criminal and liar. Blair had been smuggled in through the Queen Elizabeth II centre's "prisoner's entrance". The man who once "stopped the traffic" dared not try again. Sir John Chilcot might incant "this is not a trial," but you could have fooled us.

Then the extraordinary happened. Sir Roderic Lyne mumbled an interminable opening question about sanctions and containment. The face relaxed. The body did not squirm. The hands moved and the room was treated to the spectacle of Blair's ghost coming to life.

Slowly he established dominance and it was Chilcot and his colleagues who took on a hunted look. Within an hour they were listening mute to a seminar on neoconservatism for slow learners.

The former prime minister's case had already been stated by his two trusted aides, Alastair Campbell and Lord Goldsmith. This was that the pre-war evidence on Saddam and his weapons was compelling at the time. The dodgy dossiers were not sexed up. The case in international law would have been strengthened "politically" by a second UN resolution, but was legally robust.

Much of the questioning was dire. Sir Martin Gilbert asked if, before the war, Blair was worried about terrorism. He was, very worried, thank you Sir Martin.

As for Blair's beloved WMD, Sir Lawrence Freedman made such a hash of a question that Blair came to his aid and remarked: "You are absolutely right." The item was returned to the shelf.

Hours of damning evidence over recent weeks fell at the first hurdle. To Blair, tolerance for Saddam ended with 9/11, whether or not it was his fault, which he agreed it was not.

Any responsible leader had to follow the precautionary principle. Saddam had failed to comply with successive UN resolutions and was a continuing menace. Not to confront that menace, sooner or later, would be "to lose our nerve". He, Blair, had said so in speech after speech (some doubtless written by members of the inquiry).

Blair's self-assurance was extraordinary. He deployed sincerity and sweet reason. None of the bullet questions touched him. When asked to comment on the "beyond doubt" foreword to the dodgy September dossier, he confided with a smile: "I did believe it – frankly beyond doubt."

Saddam's notorious 45-minute threat seemed barely worth raising. "It was only mentioned by me once … and it would perhaps have been better to have corrected it in the light of the significance it later took on." Taxed with exaggerating the intelligence on WMD, he reflected: "I should in retrospect have simply published the JIC assessments … It is hard to come to any other conclusion but that this person [Saddam] had a continuing WMD programme." Nobody ventured a supplementary.

Only when the inquiry turned to the legality of the war did Blair show mild discomfort. He grasped at Goldsmith's volte face from the "wiser course" of a second UN resolution to the "safer view" that this was unnecessary.

Saddam had surely sacrificed his last chance by failing to comply with UN resolution 1441. Blair admitted that there was "a case either way" and that another resolution was "clearly preferable". But in the end, thank God for Goldsmith.

Then came the sting in the tail. Chilcot repeated his opening question: why really did we invade Iraq and why in March 2003? The honest answer was that Bush was going and Blair wanted to come along too. But his egoism got the better of him. It was all his decision.

"I never regarded September 11 as an attack on America. I regarded it as an attack on us, and I had said we stand shoulder to shoulder with them [Americans]. We did in Afghanistan and I was determined to do that again."

Chilcot did finally ask Blair if he had any regrets. It was an invitation to humility. Blair blew it, spoiling a near faultless performance. No, he had no regrets, not for toppling a vicious dictator and not for bringing a better life to the Iraqi people. He would do it again, and even let slip the word Iran.

For an audience which he knew included bereaved families it was too much. The room lost its self-control in boos and tears. The ghost face returned, and it stormed grim-faced from the room chased by bodyguards.

Why did Blair do it? We shall never know. But as the families cried, I swear I heard a wizened old man in a cave in Waziristan, cackling with laughter.

A good framework for public consultation isn’t everything (From The Argus)

A good framework for public consultation isn’t everything

2:31pm Monday 25th January 2010


If Councillor Oxley (Letters, January 18) really believes that Brighton and Hove City Council “consults with integrity” he cannot know about the consultations carried out by its planning officers in developing their masterplan for Brighton Marina. At one of the so-called consultation events, I was one of many present who were keen to discuss the need to prevent excessively tall or dense development. I was told that topics had already been decided by officers and what we wished to discuss was not among them. When I insisted on bringing up this crucial issue, I was told that if I continued to be “disruptive” I would be asked to leave. Another participant who tried to raise the subject was told by a council officer that he was being “childish”.

Another example: during the council’s consultation on Explore Living’s planning application for Brighton Marina, more than 100 savebrighton members wrote to complain about misleading images in the supporting documents (which, at the recent public inquiry, Explore Living was forced to admit to). The complaints fell on deaf ears and were not mentioned in the planning officer’s report.

Whatever the council’s fine words, all too often its officers prove by their actions that they “consult” because they have to, but have no real interest in listening to residents’ views or allowing them to influence their recommendations. And too many councillors accept this dismal state of affairs.

Brian Simpson
savebrighton campaign, The Cliff, Brighton

Councillors are to be congratulated for reversing the decision to close the Brighton History Centre in response to fierce public opposition. The council’s Community Engagement Framework merits equal praise. However, Councillor Oxley, in his alarmingly complacent letter, has apparently overlooked discrepancies between the fine intentions of this Framework and the reality of many recent council-led public consultations. Poorly presented exhibitions, biased questionnaires and late notice of imminent deadlines are just some of the factors contributing to the sense that little more than lip service is paid to the concept of community engagement. On issues ranging from communal bins to cycle paths and building development schemes – including those by commercial developers, which the council is charged with overseeing – public consultations often fall short. Yet Councillor Oxley claims that the council demonstrates “high standards of consultation and responsiveness”. Anyone suspecting otherwise can look at the clear guidance in the Government’s Code of Practice for Public Consultations, online at www. berr.gov.uk/files/ file47158. pdf Sorry, Councillor Oxley, but the Audit Commission does have a case.

Ninka Willcock
Terminus Street, Brighton


Your SayYour Argus

Manage Your Account »

The thin blue line of jihad

Thursday, 21st January 2010

The Telegraph reports that the National Association of Muslim Police has attacked government policy on countering Islamic extremism. In evidence to a parliamentary committee investigating Islamic extremism, the NAMP attacked

the Government’s anti-terrorism strategy, warning that it is an ‘affront to British values’ which threatens to trigger ethnic unrest... that ministers were wrong to blame Islam for being the ‘driver’ behind recent terrorist attacks. Far-Right extremists were a more dangerous threat to national security... that Muslims were being ‘stigmatised’ by the Government’s attempts to tackle terrorism, which was adding to ‘hatred’ against entire communities.

...The memorandum warned that Muslims were subjected to 'daily abuse' due to the strategy. 'We must not diminish our British values further by continuing to allow such behaviour and policies to continue unchecked.'

This is an extremely alarming development.

First, a general point. The very idea that police officers form themselves into interest groups of any stripe whatever should be anathema to the ethic of policing. That applies equally to Black, Gay, Jewish or One-Legged Transgendered Red-Haired Police associations. Police officers should serve the entire community equally, and should have no agenda but that professional commitment of equal public service to all. The idea that they identify themselves as an interest group is simply wrong, and the police service should never have allowed this to develop.

The memorandum by the National Association of Muslim Police, however, is of a different order of magnitude altogether.

To take their least serious point first: the idea that there is no Islamic threat and that the real threat to Britain comes from the ‘far right’ is demonstrably ludicrous. The ‘far right’ poses no threat to Britain other than some low-level thuggery. The Islamist threat to Britain is very great indeed. Dozens of Islamist plots aimed at murdering thousands of people have been thwarted, and the security service say between 2000 and 4000 British Muslims are radicalised to potential acts of terrorism. This terrorism is part of a global holy war being waged in the name of Islam. While many British Muslims support neither the aims nor the tactics of this holy war, an insupportable number do. For Muslim police officers to deny this is extremely disturbing. It means they have bought into the radical narrative of systematic denial and deceit.

But the NAMP went much, much further than this. They attacked government policy; worse, they attacked government policy aimed at protecting the lives and safety of British citizens; worse still, they suggested that British Muslims should resist that policy, and implicitly threatened disorder if it were not changed.

Let us pinch ourselves: these are British police officers, subject to the same disciplinary and professional codes as any other police officers. Yet their call for action to ‘check’ counter-terrorism policy, and the implicit threat of violence if it is not so checked, suggests that rather than helping form the line of defence against the Islamist threat, these police officers must be considered to be part of that threat.

On its website, moreover, NAMP recommends that British Muslims reporting crimes should also ‘report any such actions to the Islamic Human Rights Commission’. Let’s think about the implications of this for a moment. The IHRC is an extremist organisation with links to Iran. The NAMP is therefore advising British Muslims to use an extreme Iran-linked Islamic jihadi front organisation, which threatens the security of this nation, as a parallel law enforcement mechanism in Britain. The attempt to set up parallel Islamic institutions and jurisdiction in Britain is a core element of the Islamist attempt to suborn and take over this country.

The irony of this frightening situation is extreme. The government has bent over backwards to avoid associating Islam with terrorism. In an attempt to peel moderate Muslims away from the radicals, it has poured more than £140 million a year into ‘moderate’ Muslim groups. It has positively fallen over itself to encourage the recruitment of Muslim police officers in the belief that that this would persuade British Muslims that the government had no problem with them, only with the radicals in their midst. Yet these are precisely the policies which the NAMP claims have led to ‘hatred against Muslims’ which ‘has grown to a level that defies all logic and is an affront to British values’.

Thus the fruits of appeasement. Rather than taming jihadi extremism in Britain, the cowardice of politicians has merely resulted in fracturing the thin blue line that protects us -- and turning it into a potential weapon of the jihad.

 

 


Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article  |  Email to a friend  |  Permalink   |   Comments (22)

Post this entry to:   del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Comments

Post a comment


C. Gee

January 22nd, 2010 12:12am

-"our British values"-

What are they, when they're at home?

David

January 22nd, 2010 12:31am

Muslims dont take responsibility for anything...everything is always everybody elses fault [ie...non muslims]

John A. Davison

January 22nd, 2010 12:56am

We have the same problem here in the USA. Barack Hussein Obama refuses to treat captured Muslim terrorists as prisoners of war and insists on giving them civilian rights and trials in the very cities they attempted to destroy. Obama is the only truly dangerous person ever to occupy the White House. He hates Democracy in any form and has all his adult life.

Alcuin

January 22nd, 2010 1:27am

There is a very lively discussion of this issue on Harry's Place, in which many pertinent points have been made. Melanie is right, these people are not fit to wear a police uniform.

What should happen is for any policeman expressing such views to be put formally through the discipline procedure. His supervisor should tell him in no uncertain terms that his job is to police British Law on our streets, and that further such parochial activity is incompatible with his further employment.

Frank P

January 22nd, 2010 2:31am

The only thing that surprises me is that you seem surprised, Melanie. And there are those who want Police Chiefs to be elected.Who will stand and by whom will they be elected, I wonder?

From the day that Police Chiefs, presumably under the dictate of the Home Secretary, allowed two extreme political associations to be officially permitted inside HM Constabularies: The National Black Police Association (NBPA) and Lesbian and Gay Police Association (LAGPA) – both militant and predominately left wing bodies; it was inevitable that the next stage would be a National Association of Muslim Police.

I can confirm that this policy flies in the face of all previous practice in British policing which traditionally was apolitical, with officers banned from political membership of political parties or militant factional groups.

Gramsci's methodology of infiltration and defeat of the Western hegemony from within its own institutions has been adopted by militant Islam's chief propagandist Yusuf al Quarawadi. As with Gramsci and the Left - so with Qarawadi and Islam.

The Left and Islam are an unholy alliance, each treating the other as ‘useful idiots’ and each believing that in time the other will submit to their ideology/religion when Comintern is established/The Caliphate restored.

The stranglehold of these insidious groups inside the police services of the UK represents the final nail in the coffin of traditional policing in this country. The populace is being betrayed by its own government and by a very sizable percentage of the Quislings that make up the electorate.

Those within the police who disagree with the aims and objectives of these groups are not allowed to express dissent; on the contrary, they are specifically debarred from so doing on threat of discipline proceedings or even prosecution ‘hate crimes’.

Ergo, we no longer have a police force that can possibly be wholly effective against terrorism; the ultimate subjugation of Britain to Sharia Law and demographic annihilation of the indigenous Judeo/Christian traditions is also now inevitable. The transformation is taking place at breakneck speed, aided and abetted by those who run this magazine. Both Question Time and This Week tonight provided political bellwethers on just how far down the road we have travelled already.

The nation has been stripped of common sense and patriotism. It does not deserve to survive. And the erstwhile credentials of this magazine, as the voice of traditional conservatism, are now worthless.

Roy

January 22nd, 2010 2:45am

Excuse me! Am I hearing correctly? There is actually a "Muslim Police Force" in Britain? Admittedly I'm some distance away but this isn't a mistake? I’m not dreaming, surely this can’t be right. There is a part of the police force of Britain that is Muslim controlled? This must pass the Guinness book of records for stupidity of the highest order! This takes the cake! The British people have become mesmerized; they have become as thick as two planks. They are idiots and have lost all rational behavior. I'm thinking I've heard it all, but I dare say there'll be more.

Sam Armstrong

January 22nd, 2010 4:47am

Well said.

Nicholas Swan

January 22nd, 2010 5:55am

This is simply incredible. They are almost actively announcing treason - and I bet your government won't do one thing about it. Nor the Tories if they gain power.

What has happened to Britain?

Taipei Exile

January 22nd, 2010 6:08am

Absolutely obscene. We've had to endure a great deal under this government but this really takes the cake. It was bad enough when Ian Blair politicised the police service but now we have political islam attacking it from the inside too with the tacit agreement of our repugnant government. No doubt the NAMP, which shouldn't even exist, enjoys a high level of funding courtesy of you the taxpayer.

David in Canada

January 22nd, 2010 7:28am

the National Association of Muslim Police

the what? you british have really lost your minds. there's not much to complain about when you've offered your heads on a silver platter to the islamofascists who are surely going to take over and destroy your country. you are the canary all right and your on life support, prognosis not good.

Andre

January 22nd, 2010 7:38am

Britain has to accept it is at war with radical Islam terror. Repeat the mantra about peaceful muslims all you like the fact is we, the Christian west, are struggling with a religion that wants to destroy us. There can be no place in our armed services or police for politicized followers of that religion.

Austin Barry

January 22nd, 2010 7:44am

An appalling situation about which our weedy, enervated ruling elite will do nothing. An elite which has been cowered into submission by our domestic suicide bomber's injunction not to "..mess wiv de mooslims".

Why don't we just haul the green flag of Islam above our institutions and get it over with now?

Taipei Exile

January 22nd, 2010 7:54am

Surprisingly can't find any reference to this on the beeb website.

BritZek

January 22nd, 2010 7:57am

So the inevitable result will be that police in muslim areas will be muslims and have these sort of views. So when indigenes get arrested in these areas they will have the feeling of being dealt with by an alien force. But worry not, there will be yuman rites to protect the poor dears from excessive mistreatment beyond their suspicious feelings. So they will be living under a deep gnawing sense of alienation in their own country with only pathetic foreign laws devised to avoid barabarism that we never committed - in their own country - which they will not be allowed to call so. So, remind me, what is the limit of the social contract again?

Ray

January 22nd, 2010 8:06am

Contrast all this with the Christian Police Association, founded in 1883, whose members categorically do NOT regard themselves as a political lobby group (even though, goodness knows, of late police forces have occasionally engaged in some dubious harassment of citizens who hold Christian beliefs).

Instead, the CPA exists primarily to pray for each other, for their forces and their communities, and to offer practical support when their fellow officers are in need.

Shouldn't that be what the NAMP confines itself too instead?

Prester John

January 22nd, 2010 8:06am

Of more interest will be to see the official (Dhimmi?) response to this threat.

In a sane country they would be given the finger, not recognised and membership made a sacking offence.

Isn't it funny though how it is a sacking offence to be a member of the BNP, an organisation that is established to protect the interests of native Britons, and yet the Police Force positively encourages the establishment of an Islamist police organisation with links to Iranian Jihadi activities.

There WILL be blood on the streets of the UK unless the government gets a grip. We are moving inexorably towards massive civil unrest - perhaps civil war - within 50 years

Harold

January 22nd, 2010 8:36am

Just out of curiousity, is there a Jewish equivalent of the NAMP in the UK?

Bhaskar

January 22nd, 2010 8:39am

I am afraid Melanie's analysis is simplistic. Yes, ideally the police should be politically neutral but has this ever been the case in reality? Under Thatcher the police federation, representing the rank and file police officers openly espoused a centre right agenda. The federation was contemptuous of Labour and only Tory MPs (such as Eldon Griffith) were invited to be their parliamentary advisers. As far as Melanie's assertion that the threat from the far right is limited to low level thuggery, tell that to the victims of the Soho nail bomber. Only last week a man from Yorkshire with far right connection was given a long prison sentence. Moreover, there has usually been clear links between racially motivate crimes including murder and far right activity. I would advice Melanie to subscribe to the excellent anti fascist magazine 'Searchlight' where instances of far right violence and terrorism (not low level thuggery!) is clearly highlighted.

cuffleyburgers

January 22nd, 2010 9:07am

Granted the statement is dangerous nonsense, and I fully agree about the undesirability of "identity policing".

However you then go on to recycle all the crap about global war on terror- which is no such thing.

There are of course of number of groups of terrorists, but recent developments indicate that they are more a threat to themselves than to anybody else.

Western governments are doing Al Quaeda's work for them by hyping a low-to-medium level threat as if it were the armagheddon which it plainly isn't.

The biggest threat to western values is the behaviour and overreaction of western governments.

Margaret Muller-Johansson

January 22nd, 2010 9:20am

Roy I feel the same, Muslim Police Force in Britain?
I didn't know they had things like that but anything is possible in the Islamic republic of Great Britain, I am not surprise, Islam is taking over Britain now 25% of the population is muslims "religion of peace" and they are already creating alot of problems I wonder how this country is going to be when there is 50% muslims?

Larry

January 22nd, 2010 9:30am

Alcuin writes:
"There is a very lively discussion of this issue on Harry's Place, in which many pertinent points have been made."

Harry'sPlace is a dhimmi PC blog. Just because they are not nearly as bad as the rest of the British Left and most UK conservatives when it comes to Islamic extremism and Israel (which let us be honest isn't saying much), doesn't mean they get it at all. They don't.

HP is living proof that there is no such thing as a decent Left left. Melanie herself has been attacked there for not being PC enough like HP. I could come up with several examples of their dhimmitude and PC moral relativism but this is just a comment on a blog and I don't want to go on forever...

HP now censors/moderates comments from anybody who criticises/shows them up on the PC moral relativist front, on the Middle-East at least.

just Louise

January 22nd, 2010 9:38am

Wise words, Frank P (as usual!).
NuLabour banned police from being Freemasons - remember how Lab MP/minister Chris Mullin embarked on an anti-Masonic witchhunt some years ago? - yet they permit this divisive organisation?!
The Trojan Horse springs inexorably to mind.
As WSC's grandson asked not so long ago, in warning of the installation of extremist Saudi-style Muslim imams in British mosques (Call Me Dave appears to have had wax in his ears that day) "Who will save the Homeland?"

Will Alpha put Britain’s ‘most Godless city’ back on the path to Christianity?

REMEMBER the Reverend Archie Coates? He made it onto this blog last October when he arrived in Brighton to reclaim this, Britain’s “most godless city”, for Jesus.

Coates came to atheist Brighton – home of the Freethinker –  to establish a franchise of London’s evangelical Holy Trinity Brompton church at the failed Anglican St Peter’s Church.

The thing was about to close when Holy Trinity took over the crumbling landmark building in the hope of reversing its fortunes.

As part of its revival plans, the church this week launched an Alpha Course – just weeks after the National Secular Society revealed that Alpha had launched a programme to bring its literalist brand of fundamentalist Christianity to state schools up and down the country.

The NSS is receiving increasing numbers of complaints from parents who are alarmed by the number of evangelical groups that are being allowed into schools to spread intolerant religious teaching, but the Alpha Course is by far the most organised and widespread.

The Times Educational Supplement recently reported the growing influence of the Alpha trend. It cited Archbishop Blanch Church of England High School in Liverpool, where “Youth Alpha” courses have been running for three years and had 300 pupils participating. Each runs for eight weeks at lunchtime and is promoted throughout the school on notice boards and in assemblies.

Liverpoo, incidentally,l has one of the highest rates of homophobic crime in Britain. And according to Liverpool city councillor Steve Radford, it has the second highest proportion of pupils in faith schools after Wigan, with around half of all schools in the area attached to a religious denomination. He added that the churches are still powerful in the city, which has a sizeable Catholic population.

The course was set up with the headteacher’s backing by Reverend Kate Wharton, the Bishop of Liverpool’s appointee on the school’s board of governors. She claims that the Alpha Course is a “balanced introduction” to Christianity.

What she does not mention, says the NSS, is its homophobia and the final sinister “holy spirit” session that encourages participants to speak in tongues and behave hysterically.

Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said:

This is real fundamentalist stuff all wrapped up in reassuring words and delivered by a bloke in a jumper with a permanent smile who looks remarkably like Tony Blair. This is not a ‘balanced introduction’ to anything; it is a carefully planned attempt to push people in a very specific direction. It is deeply manipulative and has no place in schools paid for by the taxpayer.

Quoted in the TES, Jonathan Bartley of the Ekklesia Christian “think tank” said the courses deal with doctrine rather than Christianity as a way of life.

It’s about sin, hell and resurrection and what people must do to get to heaven. I would be very worried about the adult content being used in schools unless it has been heavily modified.

He said that governing bodies of “faith schools” (who are mostly representatives of the local diocese) are “overstepping the mark” in pushing these courses in schools.

Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the NSS, told the TES:

We have pupils, a captive audience, funnelled into hardline proselytising on school premises. These schools should be seeking permission from parents, but I’ll bet they aren’t.

Our man in Brighton, Dr Robert Stovold, signed up for the new St Peter’s Alpha Course. He is somewhat of an Alpha veteran.

I went to the first few weeks of one course, to all twelve weeks of another, and got part of the way through yet another course before I reluctantly decided to stop going.

Why would someone content with atheism bother going to four Alpha Courses?

Stovold explained:

Well, I think religion asks all the right questions – it just gets all the wrong answers!  By asking critical questions and supplying relevant information, I hope I can engineer a more rational outcome than might otherwise be the case.

He added:

Christians today are a mixed bunch, if the Alpha Course is anything to go by.  At the one extreme are the happy-clappy evangelicals.  They’re great in the sense that they’ll rigorously proclaim the truth of just about every word in the Bible, and they really give you something to argue against.  On the negative side though, they turn very nasty if you start asking awkward questions, and (in my experience) they’ll boot you off the course!

At the other extreme are the more thoughtful Anglicans.  While the atmosphere there’s a lot friendlier, I sometimes find myself thinking along the Pythonesque lines of “Is this the right room for an argument?”  Anglicans tend to listen intently and politely to all that you have to say ­ whilst somehow managing to remain completely unphased by it.

The Alpha Course was developed by Nicky Gumbel of Holy Trinity Brompton, London.  The current Vicar at St Peter’s, Archie Coates (currently Associate Vicar of Holy Trinity Brompton) and the Curate is Jonny Gumbel (son of Nicky, who masterminded Alpha).

The Anglican nature of the church is something of a mixed blessing – on the downside the people don’t seem to be making much of an attempt to answer my questions (Evangelicals come up with some awful answers, but you can’t fault them for trying).  On the plus side though, the atmosphere is relaxed, and I haven’t been kicked off the course.  But I am only in the first week …

The Barry Building is irreplaceable (From The Argus)

The Barry Building is irreplaceable

4:11pm Wednesday 13th January 2010


It is a great shame that the central building (known as the Barry Building) which forms the nucleus of the Royal Sussex County Hospital has not received support from English Heritage and will be demolished without a fight (The Argus, December 8).

The old hospital once stood in isolation on land donated by Thomas R Kemp and was designed by the renowned architect Charles Barry.

The simple and solid building, with the look of a country mansion, is in complete contrast to his magnificent design of St Peter’s Church.

The Georgian portico was demolished long ago, but we still have the façade and the building’s pediment, with its engraved name.

Surely, in this age of technical achievement, it would be relatively simple to include the central façade over the new hospital’s entrance. Other facades have been preserved, such as the Royal Spa (1825) in Queen’s Park and Royal Assembly Rooms (1833) in St Margaret’s Place.

The two great square stone pillars outside the main entrance look original. They once held the iron entrance gates and at least these could be left untouched.

There is also a very fine chapel inside the building, completed in 1856 with the Marquis of Bristol making up a shortfall of funds. The wooden panelling, doors, pews and pulpit are of the highest quality, as is the stonework of the windows – two of which hold quality stained glass.

There are several memorials around the walls and a board lists the matrons back to its earliest days.

The chapel must be preserved and not perish, as happened to the Brighton General chapel.

Laurie Keen
Hangleton Road, Hove


Your Say YourArgus

puddingandpi, Brighton says... //--> puddingandpi, Brighton says...
8:14pm Wed 13 Jan 10

You can't knock down Barry Building!
It's always sounded to me like a bloke who does a DIY show - I know, that was Barry Bucknell.
But it feels as if Barry Building is a real personality, I feel as if I know him! I'll miss him when he's gone.
You can't knock down Barry Building! It's always sounded to me like a bloke who does a DIY show - I know, that was Barry Bucknell. But it feels as if Barry Building is a real personality, I feel as if I know him! I'll miss him when he's gone.

Your SayYour Argus

Manage Your Account »

Why Not Ask God for Moral Guidance? - Michael Shermer - Skeptic - True/Slant

In my previous blogessay I claimed that we can make moral judgments on which religions are really better or worse, and that the source of this moral judgment is transcendent but not supernatural. How can this be? Before I disclose my answer (if you’ve read my book The Science of Good and Evil you already know the answer), what’s wrong with the supernatural answer? That is, why can’t we just ask God? Virtually every believer you know believes that “without God anything goes.” There are three problems with this source of moral judgment: (1) Euthyphro’s dilemma, (2) Silence, (3) No longer applicable.

(1) In his dialog The Euthyphro, the Greek philosopher Plato presented what has come to be known as “Euthyphro’s dilemma,” in which his favorite protagonist—the cantankerous political gadfly Socrates—asks a young man named Euthyphro the following question: “The point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods?” The underlying assumption for Plato, as it has been ever since for most theologians, is that moral principles are and must be linked to a God or gods in order to be considered absolute, eternal, and meaningful. Socrates is trying to show Euthyphro that there exists a dilemma over whether God embraces moral principles naturally occurring and external to Him because they are sound (“holy”) or that these moral principles are sound because He created them. It cannot be both.

(2) What if the moral issue is not discussed in the sacred writings of one’s religion? Cloning, stem cell research, and genetic engineering, for example, are not discussed in the Bible, so what are believers to believe about these very real moral issues? One must either attempt to infer from ancient biblical writings something that is loosely related to the modern moral issue, or one must think it through independently.

(3) What if the moral issue is discussed in the sacred writings, but is clearly inappropriate or outright wrong in its moral command? Consider, for example, the many Old Testament moral rules that make one blanch with embarrassment. For emancipated modern women thinking of adorning themselves in business attire that may resemble men’s business ware (or for guys who dig cross-dressing), Deuteronomy 22:5 does not look kindly on such behaviors: “A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.” An even worse abomination is a rebellious child. Deuteronomy 21:18-21 offers this parental moral guideline: “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”

Death penalty for disobedient children. All in favor raise your hands.

If that isn’t risibly ridiculous enough, here is the Bible’s recommendation on how to deal with women who may or may not have had sex before marriage. According to Deuteronomy 22:13-21, “If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,’ then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate.” (For those not accustomed to reading between the biblical lines, the phrase “goes in to her” should be taken literally, and “the tokens of virginity” means the hymen and the blood on the sheet from a virgin’s first sexual experience.) “But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you.”

Death penalty for pre-marital sex. All in favor…oops, there won’t be many left to vote.

When slavery was the social norm, it was simple for pro-slavery defenders to point to passages such as those in Exodus 21, which outlines the rules for the proper handling of slaves, for example, “when you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing,” and “when a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do,” and, finally, slave families should be kept together, unless the master gave the slave a wife, who then bore him children, in which case the master gets to keep the woman and children when the slave is sold.

If you are going to claim the Bible as your primary (or only) code of ethics, and proclaim, say, that homosexuality is sinful and wrong because the Bible says so, then to be consistent you should kill rebellious youth, non-virginal pre-married women, and treat your slaves properly. Since most people today would not endorse that level of moral consistency, why pick on gays and lesbians but cut some slack for disobedient children and promiscuous women? And why aren’t promiscuous men subject to the same punishment as women? Those women are having sex with someone, right?

The answer is that in that culture, at that time, men legislated and women obeyed. Thankfully, we have moved beyond that culture. But what this means is that we need a new set of morals, and an ethical system designed for our time and place, not one scripted for a pastoral/agricultural people who lived 4,000 years ago. The Bible and other sacred texts have much to offer, but we can do better.

(Note: This blogessay is a modified excerpt from Chapter 7 of The Science of Good and Evil, which should be read for a fuller defense of my argument here.)

Dispelling the Myth of Eurabia

To listen to Europe's far right, it would be easy to conclude that the continent is poised for another round of bitter conflict with a centuries-old adversary. "The first Islamic invasion of Europe was stopped at [the battle of] Poitiers in 732. The second was halted at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Now we have to stop the current stealth invasion," argues Geert Wilders, the leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom, which claims that Islamic doctrine encourages terrorism.

It's rabble-rousing stuff. But underlying Wilders's polemic is an argument shared by many more mainstream right-leaning thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic. Europe, its will sapped by secularism and anything-goes tolerance, has allowed decades of mass immigration without serious challenge. Too feeble to defend their own values, governments have been ready to appease Muslim opinion and must expect the worst. The argument has been gaining ground for some time—fed by alarmist and highly speculative projections from writers like the Canadian Mark Steyn, author of the bestselling America Alone—that immigration and high birthrates could mean that Muslims will make up 40 percent of Europe's population by 2025. Similar and very public warnings have come from American diplomat Timothy Savage, who claimed that forecasts of a Muslim majority in Western Europe by midcentury "may not be far off the mark" if present trends continue, which would heighten the risk of conflict. The British historian Niall Ferguson has written that "a youthful Muslim society to the south and east of the Mediterranean is poised to colonize—the term is not too strong—a sene-scent Europe." And the American journalist Christopher Caldwell forecasts that an "anchored" and "confident" Islam looks likely to impose its will on an "insecure" and "relativistic" European culture. The gloomiest commentators, including Steyn and the conservative Ameri-can writer Tony Blankley, talk of an emerging "Eurabia" hostile to American interests and in thrall to Islam.

These warnings chime with public fears that Europe has already become an incubator for worldwide terrorism. After all, the September 11 hijackers plotted in Germany, and homegrown terrorists were involved in the Madrid and London attacks. Concern is growing that a swelling immigrant population resistant to assimilation or integration will steal jobs and strain public services. Last year a Pew poll found that about half of respondents in Spain and Germany held negative views of Muslims. In Spain the figure had climbed 15 points, to 52 percent, since 2004. In the June elections to the European Parliament, Wilders's party won 17 percent of the national vote in the Netherlands. The anti-immigrant British National Party, which warned of the "creeping Islamification" of British society, won its first two seats. In Austria the right-wing Freedom Party almost doubled its share of the vote, at 13 percent.

Alert to the public mood, European governments, which are now almost entirely center-right, have been slamming doors to further immigration from Muslim countries and elsewhere, and have reinforced the message that Muslim Turkey is not welcome in the European Union. Italy is now in the process of approving a bill that will jail landlords for leasing properties to undocumented immigrants. Last month French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared the burqa to be "a sign of subservience" that "would not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."

But all this obscures a simple fact: the rise of a Eurabia is predicated on limited and dubious evidence. A much-cited 2004 study from the U.S. National Intelligence Council outlines a number of possible scenarios. Its most aggressive is that the number of Muslims in Europe could increase from roughly 20 million today—about 5 percent of the population—to 38 million by 2025. But that projection turns out to be attributed to "diplomatic and media reporting as well as government, academic, and other sources." In other words, it's all speculation based on speculation—and even if it's accurate, it would still mean the number of Muslims will represent just 8 percent of the European population, estimated by the EU to be 470 million in 2025. Indeed, if there is a surge ahead, its scale looks overstated. "There is a quite deliberate exaggeration, as has often been pointed out—but the figures are still being cited," says Jytte Klausen, an authority on Islam in Europe at Boston's Brandeis University.

Coming up with a reasonable estimate for the percentage of Muslims now living in Europe, let alone making projections for the future, is a virtually impossible task. The number of illegal immigrants is unknown and, in a sign of the sensitivity of the issue, many countries including France and Germany do not even tally census data on the religion of legal residents. It is true that the Muslim minority is destined to grow steadily in Europe, especially given the youthful profile of today's immigrants. Fertility rates remain higher among Muslim immigrants than among other Europeans, and Muslims may continue to arrive in Europe in large numbers. But the alarmists assume that past patterns are sure to hold. "The worst of the scaremongering is based on the assumption that current behavior will continue," says Grace Davie, an expert on Europe and Islam at the University of Exeter in Britain.

Philip Hensher: Blasphemy laws can only invite trouble - Philip Hensher, Commentators - The Independent

Philip Hensher: Blasphemy laws can only invite trouble

None of us likes being insulted, but only a priest seeks to pass a law against it

Monday, 4 January 2010

sponsored links:
'); google_ad_client = 'ca-pub-5964551156905038'; if (ref_url.indexOf("/arts-entertainment") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+4791354580'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/environment") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+1107748553'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/indybest") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+3474960607'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/life-style") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+2301525710'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/money") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+3913758598'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/news") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+1985344535'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/offers") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+4759364625'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/opinion") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+6546546544'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/sport") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+5668950562'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/student") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+4306162616'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/travel") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '6756172661+9352556589'; } else { google_ad_channel = '6756172661'; } google_ad_output = 'js'; google_max_num_ads = '4'; google_ad_type = 'text'; google_image_size = '728x90'; google_feedback = 'on'; }else { document.write('
'); }
5) $("div.box").removeAttr("style"); }); });
sponsored links:
Ads by Google

NHS Organ Donor register
By becoming an Organ donor youcould save a life. Find more here.
www.OrganDonation.NHS.uk

100% Funded MBA With ACCA
Study A MBA For Free With Your ACCAQualification! 250 Places, Book Now
ACCAMBA.com

Diane Von Furstenberg
Shop The New Resort 2010 CollectionOnline At The Official DVF Site!
www.DVF.com

Forex Trading - GFT
New to forex? Try a risk-freepractice account today. GFT
www.GFTuk.com

On 1 January, the Irish state introduced a new law. It extends the offence of blasphemy, which previously had only covered the Christian religion. It defines blasphemy as "publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted". The punishment for intentionally causing outrage in this way is €25,000.

"Any religion"? Woo. There are quite a lot of religions out there, in case the Irish state hadn't noticed. There is Scientology, for a start. Mormonism proposes that an angel appeared to Joseph Smith with a new sacred book written on golden plates, published in 1830. Christian Science teaches that sickness is the result of fear, ignorance or sin.

There are plenty of religions, too, which are widely regarded as dead, but which a little research could, I am sure, turn up a few dozen practitioners. I bet there are quite a lot of amateur adherents of the cult of Odin still out there. There are, too, some still odder and more recently invented religions; few people, even those within the wider religious community, could avoid stepping on these toes just by saying what they themselves believe in. There is a Church of Satan, active since the 1960s, founded by one Anton Szandor LaVey. Could they not bring a case for "intentionally caused outrage" against any number of members of more respectable religions?

Still, I'm glad that the Irish Parliament used the word "intentionally" in framing its new offence. Once, in Thanjavur in Tamil Nadu, I observed a sequence of widows approaching one of a long line of lingams in the great Hindu temple there, and noticed that they did not hesitate before choosing one to drape in a garland. I quite innocently asked our guide whether a widow would have a preferred lingam to decorate: this evidently caused immense offence, and he would hardly speak to me again, to my great (and ignorant) distress. At least I wouldn't be prosecuted in Ireland.

The Atheist Ireland association has immediately produced a list of distinguished comments, made over the ages, which they claim would fall foul of the new blasphemy law. It includes the founders of ancient religions, including Jesus and Mohammed; modern adherents such as the Pope quoting a Byzantine emperor on Islam ("things only evil and inhuman"); as well as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Springer: The Opera, and Frank Zappa saying that religion is a product of "the chimpanzee part of the brain working".

I don't suppose anyone will really be prosecuted in Ireland for practising free speech, and I suspect that legislation against real, active hate crime intended to bring down violence on the head of minorities would have been enough. There is an alarming prospect, though, that in other parts of the world, laws like this would have a real, dangerous application. In 1993, a blasphemy law was introduced to the Bangladeshi parliament with a provision for capital punishment. It failed, because its definitions of blasphemy were so in excess of any parallel law in the rest of the civilised world. No longer.

The Irish government has seen that the blasphemy laws are no longer appropriate for our society, but they have drawn a disastrous conclusion, and extended them rather than limiting them. Religion is just a system of thought, and must not be protected in ways not appropriate to any other system of thought. None of us likes being insulted, but only a priest seeks to pass a law against it.

David, you're just too much of a good thing

I love the actor David Tennant as much as anyone; I like his cheeky face and his mobile eyebrows; I like him when he is being estuary as Doctor Who, or being Scottish as himself. All the same, I wonder when we might find that we've had enough of the cheeky face and the mobile eyebrows.

Over the Christmas season, he appeared no fewer than 75 times on the BBC, including on QI, Catherine Tate, Hamlet, Desert Island Discs and, of course, Doctor Who. A future measure of over-exposure: one Tennant equals 75 appearances in a period of three weeks. Television has a terrible history of killing off the appeal of talent by grossly overexposing it – think of the careers of John Sessions and Tony Slattery. I don't blame Mr Tennant for saying yes to everything, but it does seem irresponsible of the BBC to fail to manage its talent in a way that will nurture its future.

Neither a dearth nor a flood; and in the meantime, it might be quite nice to remember some of those actors who, 10 or 20 years ago, were in Mr Tennant's position, and who seem to have been unfeelingly dropped. A quick glance through the old cast list of the Channel 4 early-1990s game show Whose Line Is It Anyway might suggest some people who, dare one say it, are still fairly talented.

For some the holiday is never-ending

Have you gone back to work this morning? Or are you managing to squeeze another day, or even another week, out of Christmas and the new year? One of the astonishing developments of recent history is the way that no member of anything resembling the professional classes would dream of going back to work until the fourth or fifth of January.

This year, as far as I can make out, everyone packed up on Friday 18 December and started to think about coming back on 4 January. Two and a half weeks seems excessive to me for a country in deepest recession, but, as you can see, along with street cleaners, waiters and shop assistants, I myself have been hard at work. This excessive and ever-expanding holiday can't be good for mental health. In any case, everyone knows that the most enjoyable holiday is the one you take when everyone else is working, sailing through the streets on a Tuesday afternoon in mid-March.

Was it just me, or did those waiters serving you at lunchtime on the 27 December have a faintly serene air, as if pleased to have something to do and somewhere to go. Much as I love my nearest and dearest, it was rather a pleasure to be able to say, on Boxing Day, "I'm awfully sorry – I've got to put in my three hours on the novel," and disappear.

More from Philip Hensher


sponsored links:
'); google_ad_client = 'ca-pub-5964551156905038'; if (ref_url.indexOf("/arts-entertainment") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '5258566634+4791354580'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/environment") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '5258566634+1107748553'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/indybest") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '5258566634+3474960607'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/life-style") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '5258566634+2301525710'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/money") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '5258566634+3913758598'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/news") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '5258566634+1985344535'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/offers") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '5258566634+4759364625'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/opinion") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '5258566634+6546546544'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/sport") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '5258566634+5668950562'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/student") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '5258566634+4306162616'; } else if (ref_url.indexOf("/travel") != -1) { google_ad_channel = '5258566634+9352556589'; } else { google_ad_channel = '5258566634'; } google_ad_output = 'js'; google_max_num_ads = '4'; google_ad_type = 'text'; google_image_size = '728x90'; google_feedback = 'on'; google_skip = '4'; } else { document.write('
'); }

sponsored links:
Ads by Google

Forex Trading - GFT
New to forex? Try a risk-freepractice account today. GFT
www.GFTuk.com

BMW Official Site
See how you can benefit from thescrappage plan with special offers.
www.bmw.co.uk/scrappage

Fear No Man
Discover What Self Defense Masters& The Army Don't Want To Reveal
www.CloseCombatTraining.com

European Train Holidays
Rail Holidays & City BreaksRailbookers - 020 3327 0848.
www.Railbookers.com

'); } else { document.write('
'); }

Post a Comment LiveJournal

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Religious cartels
[info]

cybernaught2009 wrote:

Monday, 4 January 2010 at 07:37 am (UTC)
The Irish state's decision to, in effect, extend its blasphemy laws to all religions (that it recognizes) seems to me to be deeply mistaken.

Clearly they feel that they have to treat all religions equally, and so the state's protection of Christianity has to be extended to all religions. But this seems to me to be undesirable and unnecessary.

Undesirable because it commits the state to supporting superstition against reason. Why can believers not rest content with the thought that blasphemers will suffer eternal torment in the afterlife? Why do they think that their god did not also think of imposing 2,500 euro fines in this life?

Unnecessary because the state could have argued that Christianity has some privileges as a result of its long history in Ireland, that these privileges would not now be granted, and so should not now be extended to other religions. Better still, the state could have ensured equal treatment of all religions by repealing any existing blasphemy laws. rather than extending the protection of superstition, it should have reduced it. (Similar arguments apply to state support of religious schools, etc.)

Re: Religious cartels
[info]

snotcricket wrote:

Monday, 4 January 2010 at 09:35 pm (UTC)
I suspect its more to do with Ireland's EU membership & the right of the individual blah de blah.

I've always felt that if a belief, religious or otherwise couldn't stand the test of discussion, insult (comedic/artistically or otherwise) then it /they have little right to the respect they so often demand.

And as faith is quite often blind then surely the fact the believer cannot fully explain their belief its difficult to understand how any court could rule against the blasphemous in favour of those who cannot explain that by which they claim is insulted?

Also the blasphemy law does not seem to take into account the atheist/agnostic's right to air their opinion fully, after all their view maybe breaks this law & yet their right of the individual is seriously curtailed, thus the law is neither fair nor reasonable.

Where this leaves the Jedi who knows, probably fiddling with their light sabre.

Ill-proposed and implemented laws invite trouble
[info]

tilmeeth wrote:

Monday, 4 January 2010 at 09:35 am (UTC)
Philip, actually, there are many Odinists out there. In fact one group even has charitable status in the UK, the Odinist Fellowship.

I should also point out that it is not only priests who wish to ban insulting speech against their kind, if you look to legislation from the past few years in the UK, you will see that the efforts of almost every type of minority is trying to do the same, with very good reason some might say.

The whole point of these laws however is not to limit free speech, but to ensure that comments made homogeneously are not intended to harm the commentee. That is, to incite hatred and possibly violence.

To use some forms of speech as a weapon is a long trusted method of violence. The Catholic Church have done it, so to have the various evangelical organisations here and around the world. But so to have more secular groups and individuals. One only has to look to the burning of churches in Norway to perceive how words, possibly well meant, can fester and grow into something monstrous and out of control, not to mention the ridiculing of peoples faith simply because you don't think it is important.

I'm all for free speech to criticise, after all, I do so here and in other places. But it must be measured and well-founded, not simply ignorant invective aimed at a group that one does not like for personal reasons. Westboro' Baptist Church springs to mind, so does Peter Akinola, but also Richard Dawkins and Peter Atkins, Sheila Jeffreys and Julie Bindel, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Nick Griffin, and many more.

Religion doesn't have a monopoly on using words with the intent to harm or incite others to hatred, even towards unbelief, and indeed, is frequently the target itself. I have seen this from both sides of the fence, so to speak.

That being said, I supported the campaign for the abolition of the blasphemy law and support the disestablishment of the Anglican church here in the UK, I'm no fan of so-called faith schools either, they seem to cause more problems than they are worth anyway. An end to religious privilege is a worthy cause, for Atheists and Christians alike, but it must not come at the price of restraint and factual critique.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act is another dubious attempt to appease the religious right, I think, as the offence of blasphemy was to be removed from the statute books. I have yet to be convinced of its necessity, as a Christian. I'm also rather against the SOCPA and the 2006 Terrorism Act.

But I digress.

Freedom of speech is the right to seek information and ideas, the right to receive information and ideas and the right to impart information and ideas, according to John Stuart Mill. It is not intended to be a vehicle for hate that incites further hatred.

I've said my piece. Apologies for the length.

Anonymous
[info]

anonsoldier wrote:

Monday, 4 January 2010 at 10:06 am (UTC)
It is most important that Scientology is noted first in the great list of this article. To even criticize (in any way, shape, or form) the Church of Scientology makes you one of their most hated enemies. Critics and former members have regularly been accused of "heresy" by the organization for simply TELLING THE TRUTH about their experiences or documented evidence about the organization and its practices. This law effectively gives the Church of Scientology a blatant excuse to have every protestor in Ireland brought up on charges. After all, their chief spokesperson, Tommy Davis, has been deeply insulted and aggravated in multiple interviews where the reporter simply asked about some of the secretive beliefs they have. Tommy stormed off of TWO interviews because of this. Both Nathan Baca of KESQ and Martin Bashir of ABC could have been arrested had they been in Ireland rather than the USA, since the Church of Scientology would assuredly have tried to bring forth charges. They are after all, one of the most litigious organizations in the world.

So, what will we all do, those of us who seek to stop a dangerous, criminal cult when the cult itself can just accuse us of heresy and try to have us arrested for daring to criticize them? Have we truly returned to the Dark Ages? I do know that my best wishes goes out to Anonymous Ireland, for my /b/rothers of dear Eire will certainly need it.

Re: Anonymous
[info]

andrea_2 wrote:

Monday, 4 January 2010 at 10:18 am (UTC)
well said. Agree with every word. Freedom of speech comes first.
Why should
[info]

andrea_2 wrote:

Monday, 4 January 2010 at 10:17 am (UTC)
religious people have special protection against insult and offence? What about secular people? Do they get a special law?

Religion is the yoke of the world and |I don't care who is offended by my saying that. Religious people, get over yourselves.

Blasphemy laws do none of us any good - believers least of all!
[info]

john_b_ellis wrote:

Monday, 4 January 2010 at 10:52 am (UTC)
"Religion is just a system of thought, and must not be protected in ways not appropriate to any other system of thought."

Spot on. Bad ideas are only effectively countered by better ideas. If someone thinks a religion's bad, why shouldn't (s)he be able to say so, and make the argument? If proponents of any religion believe they hold to ultimate truth, then, by definition, they don't ultimately have anything to fear from that! Nothing stops them making their own case in answer, and if they believe they have the truth, they're on the firmest of ground.

I can't speak for other faiths, but Christians particularly ought to think twice before advocating blasphemy laws, given that St Paul grasped the essential point within a generation of the crucifixion, and the Church came to treat his words as inspired: "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient to death, even death on a cross."

If their God didn't stand on his dignity, why should his people compel him to do so?

Is the Irish Govt. also implicated by association?
[info]

superkeith wrote:

Monday, 4 January 2010 at 02:48 pm (UTC)
Certainly the Pagans may have something to say about that but I expect that by 'Religion' they do not really mean all religions but only those that "they" consider to be Religions. In my personal opinion the real problem lies not with the merits or demerits of religions but with the Irish Political and Civil establishment because there appears to be plenty of evidence emerging that this problem was well known within the establishment for decades but in my view they chose to place Doctrine above morality, ethics and common goodness and let the children suffer. After the reports of unspeakable child torture and abuse within the Catholic ethos, the apparent desperate haste with which this legislation was brought forward indicates to me that the desire was not for the protection of Religion but, in my opinion, was solely devised to deny the right to free speech and to protect the Catholic Hierarchy and Religions from justifiable criticism. In my view this is effectively a signal of support to those who abused and I believe that before this and by this act the Irish Govt. are equally guilty of those crimes by what I believe are continuing calculated sins of omission. I think the Govt. stance does nothing to ensure that Parents can have confidence that the abuse is not still happening today.
Excellent law for the majority
[info]

corporeal_v002 wrote:

Monday, 4 January 2010 at 03:37 pm (UTC)

Bearing mind that 80% of human believe.

20% are disbelievers
40% believe in a life force or universal energy
40% believe in God

Respect.
[info]

deolenitpikka wrote:

Monday, 4 January 2010 at 06:58 pm (UTC)
We are about to enter a dangerous decade in which many people with whom we disagree fundamentally and profoundly are part of our society. We have little time in which to form a consensus within which it will be possible for the moderate majority of all faiths and none to create a mutually respectful society in which all members of that society have their most basic beliefs respected, even when not agreed with. This requires a coalition of that moderate majority which will exclude the 'mad mullahs' of both fundamentalist religion and irreligion - both the Ayatollahs and the Dawkins - who threaten the fundamental cohesion of our nation. And that requires a law against the deliberate provocation of violence, which is what a blasphemy law is. That is why I personally am in favour of a blasphemy law such as that proposed in Ireland which is fair and even-handed across all people of every faith and none.
Re: Respect.
[info]

jadroo wrote:

Monday, 4 January 2010 at 08:14 pm (UTC)
So thefore if someone believes all that drivel and nonsense we have no right to contradict them? This law is designed to protect irrational ideas against rational criticism
Re: Respect.
[info]

deolenitpikka wrote:

Tuesday, 5 January 2010 at 12:20 am (UTC)
If people hold views which you take to be 'nonsense and drivel', then they have not ceased to be human beings worthy of respect, including respect for their core values, however chosen. If you wish them to have respect for your core values (whatever they may happen to be - say, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), then you must accord them a similar respect. This law is designed to protect all peoples' reason from other people's fundamentalism. And that is why I support it.
Re: Respect.
[info]

cybernaught2009 wrote:

Monday, 4 January 2010 at 08:44 pm (UTC)
With respect, I disagree. There are already laws against incitement to violence.

It must be possible to challenge religious beliefs like any other; e.g. in this day and age it is absurd to believe that the world was created in a week six thousand years ago. Perhaps in saying this I am causing great offence to some people. I don't say it to deliberately cause offence, but because all of the scientific evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the earth is over four billion years old and that life on earth evolved gradually as a result of natural selection. (By the way, it is inappropriate to compare Richard Dawkins to a fundamentalist mullah. Dawkins' puts forward arguments and evidence, and seeks to persuade. He does not insist that people believe in the literal truth of an ancient text, and he does not threaten or menace those who do not do so.)

Many aspects of religion are worthy of respect, as are many religious people. But in this "dangerous decade" it is more important than ever before that religious beliefs should be examined critically. For example, on yesterday's Andrew Marr show Gordon Brown tried to contrast the "good religion, Islam" with its "perversion ... by a group of people who will stop at nothing in a murderous ideology that tries to create a caliphate, tries to create the sense that everybody is an enemy except those people who believe in a particular version of Islam". But it seems to me that this position pretends that there is a clear distinction between "moderate Islam", the religion of peace compatible with Western civilization, and "militant Islam", the religion of Islamist terrorists such as those associated with al-Qaeda. Clearly it would be desirable to have such a distinction. Moderate Muslim theologians ought to get together and draw one.

Re: Respect.
[info]

deolenitpikka wrote:

Tuesday, 5 January 2010 at 12:40 am (UTC)
With respect, I disagree with your disagreement!
It is of course possible to challenge religious beliefs like any other. However, your chosen example to some extent makes my point. You and I may well share the view that it is not likely that "the world was created in a week six thousand years ago", but there are many people who are at least as clever as us who do. They too put forward what they consider to be arguments and evidence and they seek to persuade. Interestingly, they do not generally dismiss their opponents as stupid, irrational or insincere. Nevertheless, I am glad to say that the majority of the people in this country remain to be persuaded.

Sadly, I didn't catch the Andrew Marr show, but I agree with the point you draw about the need for moderate Muslim theologians to create clear distinction between themselves and those unwilling to tolerate the existence of other viewpoints. The same point could be made about many other religions, including I venture to suggest the religion of fundamentalist atheism which (I suggest) Dawkins represents. And the key point of comparison between his position and those of other 'mad mullahs' is the unwillingness to allow the possibility that others may be both rational and sincere in their disagreement with him. We can only engage in a mutually respectful - and hence peaceable - dialogue. if we allow others to disagree with us without being regarded as irrational or insincere. It is precisely that respect which you showed to me in your pleasant and peaceable response given above and which I hope I have reciprocated. I think it is exactly that respect which we should all extend to one another, of whatever faith position. And it is only by that respectful dialogue that we will make this dangerous decade survivable.
All the Very Best,
Desmond.

Bad law endangers us all. We do not need ideologically disapproving law.
[info]

gulliver055 wrote:

Monday, 4 January 2010 at 11:23 pm (UTC)
'I don't suppose anyone will really be prosecuted in Ireland for practising free speech, and I suspect that legislation against real, active hate crime intended to bring down violence on the head of minorities would have been enough.'

Law should not be a wagging finger. Laws have consequences - fines, imprisonment, pretext for the future.

Christopher Marlowe said that Jesus was a bastard. He said it in the sixteenth century. He is now a canon cornerstone in English Literature. Hundreds of thousands learn about his heretical views every year. As a statement, it seems to me that it is about as offensive against Christians as one could get. Not only is Marlowe denying the immaculate conception, he is calling God a rapist.

What should be the consequences of this, if any at all?

*

let's not forget that religion remains immensely politically useful for those who care little about it. Iraq's democratisation has become little more than militant sectarianism and it is likely that Iraq will fracture as if by centrifugal force to its neighbouring states. God - talking Bush neither knew about nor cared about Islam before, during or after his invasion and ongoing occupation, but he has allowed the country to destabilise along religio-tribal fault lines, this destructive process crowned 'democracy' - in contravention of the US's constitution, for one ...

Ireland is behaving like a dangerous intellectual coward and should be condemned for it.

PROTEST AGAINST MUHAMMED CARTOONS CAUSES 100 CASUALTIES
[info]

e_paul_imhof wrote:

Tuesday, 5 January 2010 at 12:22 am (UTC)
Danish prosecutors investigated in 2005 if sections 140 ana 266d of the Ceiminal Code apply to JyllandsPasten's publication of vartoond Muslim considered blasphemous. No charges were brought against the paper. However, the couragous cartoonist requires constant protection. The third attempt to assasinate him was prevented only a few days ago.
Where the narrowly worded Danish law didn't apply Irish language might if it isn't thrown out by the European Court in Straabourg.
Swiss muslim lost no time to challenge the referendum banning construction of minarets. Theo Felix, 55, does in Zuerich one better. His store offers an affordable BUILD YOUR OWN MINARET-kit. Put the 38 cm Basilicum pot adorned by a mini-minaret on the window sill for likeminded neighbours enjoyment.

  • Copyright

    Click here for copyright permissions
    Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited

  • About


    Blogger