Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The British government, in a bold move to join the 19th century, is thinking about repealing their laws against blasphemy. The established Church of England isn't so sure that's a good idea. But boy are they throwing around the weasel words:
The Church of England's archbishops have voiced "serious reservations" over the method and timing of the government's plans to abolish the blasphemy laws and have asked to be reassured about the central position of the Christian religion in relation to the state and society in Britain.
There is one obvious response: screw you, religious belief is up to the individual and the state has no business saying anything on the matter. That's not likely to be said. In the meantime, the two leading Archbishops in England are sending seriously mixed signals on the matter:
In a joint letter to Hazel Blears, the communities secretary, the archbishops of Canterbury and York said that although the church had signalled for 20 years that the blasphemy laws could, in the right context, be abolished, they had "serious reservations about the wisdom of legislating at this moment"...The two archbishops, Dr Rowan Williams and Dr John Sentamu, make it clear that they will not oppose the abolition of blasphemy but say the government needs to be clear as to precisely why the offence is being scrapped. They argue that it should not be seen as a "secularising move" or as a general licence to attack or insult religious beliefs and believers.
They need to be clear on why blasphemy laws are being scrapped? You mean beyond the obvious, that such laws are a clear violation of the right to free speech and a perfect example of making thought a crime? Is that not clear enough to the archbishops? Unfortunately, it looks like the British government may be replacing blasphemy laws with an equivalently bad idea:
They say it is still too early to be sure how the new offence of incitement to religious hatred, which applies to all faiths, will operate in practice and that laws which carry "a significant symbolic charge" should not be changed lightly.
Bad idea. Such laws should not exist at all.
"Having signalled for more than 20 years that the blasphemy laws could, in the right context, be abolished, the church is not going to oppose abolition now, provided we can be assured that provisions are in place to afford the necessary protection to individuals and society," they told Blears.
The protection of individuals and society from what exactly? No one has any right to protection from criticism of their beliefs. Period. End of discussion.
Comments
What about lack of faith? Will it be illegal to smear atheists and agnostics as having no morals? What about minority faiths? Scientology? The Raelian cult? Jehovah's Witness? Wicca? Will these groups receive the same "protection" from being criticized that the big, wealthy, powerful religions get? Will labeling Scientologists as a loony fringe cult be illegal?
My guess is that the answer to all these questions will be
"No. Now don't say bad things about Jesus or Muhammad or we'll put you in jail."
Posted by: Wes | March 5, 2008 9:48 AM
What specific actions do these blasphemy laws punish, what is the punishment, and are they actually enforced?
Posted by: allison | March 5, 2008 10:26 AM
Has anyone been prosecuted for blasphemy in the U.K. in the past 100 years?
What is the punishment - do you lose your decoder ring?
Seriously, the significance of the COE is at all-time lows and sinking. We should be so lucky to have it this way in the U.S.
Whether they change the blasphemy laws or not will make no difference in anyone's life, will it?
The proposal for a new religious hatred law seems more ominous. Does "militant" atheism equate to religious hatred?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 5, 2008 10:29 AM
This is a perfect "moment" to abolish these laws. There is a lack of integrity in preaching religious freedom and tolerance to Muslims while hesitating to abolish pro-Christian blasphemy laws.
Posted by: Dr X | March 5, 2008 10:55 AM
From the linked article:
The last public prosecution for blasphemy was in 1921, when John William Gott was sentenced to nine months' hard labour for publishing a pamphlet satirising the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem by comparing him to a circus clown astride two donkeys. He died soon after his release. Christian Voice failed in its attempt to bring a private prosecution last December against Jerry Springer: the Opera, when the high court ruled that the blasphemy laws did not apply to stage productions or television broadcasts.
Personally, I reckon they're not going far enough - it's time to disestablish the CoE!
Posted by: Dunc | March 5, 2008 11:13 AM
That was the last failed private prosecution but there was a successful prosecution in 1977 agianst the editor of Gay News. Details in link
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/11/newsid_2499000/2499721.stm
Posted by: Ross S | March 5, 2008 11:37 AM
Wouldn't it be fun to find a British creationist screed proclaiming that "Darwinism" is a religious concept and accusing it of promoting all sorts of crimes - and demand that the author(s) be prosecuted for a hate crime?
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 5, 2008 12:06 PM
There haven't been any recent convictions, but a film (Visions of Ecstasy) was banned on the grounds of blasphemy, a decision that was remarkably upheld by the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that freedom of speech comes with the responsibility "to avoid as far as possible an expression that is, in regard to objects of veneration, gratuitously offensive to others and profanatory".
The law is an abomination (especially since it privileges Anglican Christianity over all other beliefs), but it does have to be set in a wider context. For instance, last year the state broadcaster aired Jerry Springer: The Opera on the most watched channel in the country, something that would never happen on network television in the US.
Also, FYI, the religious hatred law isn't a new proposal. It came into force last year. The text is here.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 5, 2008 1:00 PM
Huh! I didn't expect the British Inquisition.
Posted by: andy.s | March 5, 2008 2:37 PM
This is going to fail so hard. The protests against Jerry Springer: The Opera had the effect of making it the most-watched TV programme in its timeslot, and when asked recently about one of the leading groups who organised the protests, the BBC's rather marvellous official word was "We don't intend to indulge Christian Voice any further."
There just aren't enough people outside the clergy who really want religion to have a special place in public life. I found it odd that people were baffled when Rowan Williams recently suggested there was "a place" in British law for Sharia - the meaning of his statement was quite obvious to me. He's realised, like the imams, that the only way to maintain a religious stranglehold on an increasingly free populace is to bring in the heavies.
Posted by: Der Bruno Stroszek | March 5, 2008 2:44 PM
The Church of England's archbishops have voiced "serious reservations" over the method and timing of the government's plans to abolish the blasphemy laws and have asked to be reassured about the central position of the Christian religion in relation to the state and society in Britain.
They most definitely should not be reassured that the Christian religion enjoys a "central position" in British society - no special rights for Christians.
The same goes for the proposed law against inciting religious hatred. It should apply to all groups, not just religious ones, once again the religionists seek special exemptions that don't apply to others.
Posted by: Priya Lynn | March 5, 2008 4:00 PM
Thanks for the replies, folks. :)
You changed my mind about this issue.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | March 5, 2008 4:18 PM
woh! back up Ed. In the UK we don't have such new-fangled fancy things as rights. We don't have a written constitution or a bill of rights. We are SUBJECTs i.e subject to whatever laws her majesy's ministers decide to pull out of their asses.
Posted by: Tom | March 5, 2008 5:22 PM
Der Bruno Stroszek said:
> There just aren't enough people outside the clergy who
> really want religion to have a special place in public life.
It would be lovely to have some polled stats that showed that. It would go a long way to demonstrate that having a Head of State that is also "Defender of the Faith" and 26 unelected religious members of government are things that should be firmly dumped in the dustbin of history.
Posted by: David Durant | March 5, 2008 7:45 PM
Wes writes:
On web sites of other political persuasions, many folks say that this is just an attempt to criminalize any criticism of Islam. The outward even-handedness is just to give it a fig-leaf of religious equality.There's ample precedent of Muslims using blasphemy laws against non-Muslims, and marchers holding signs saying "Behead those who insult Islam" leave little doubt as to how they would see such a law; it is Sharia-lite.
What GB needs isn't a religious criticism law, it needs a violent threats law (whether express, or implied).
Posted by: e | March 6, 2008 12:32 AM
As an occasional resident of the UK I can confidently assert that Tom is right. There's no written constitution in Britain, not to mention that the Anglican Church is the official religion. The Head of State is the nominal head of the church.
There has been a move to adopting the human rights conventions of the EU, but this is seen as a bad thing. Too 'European.'
Posted by: Eternal Gaijin | March 6, 2008 1:30 AM
I am confident that if I went to the Houses of Parliament and loudly shouted, "oh my God, I'm fucking Jesus in the butthole, and giving him a reacharound! Oh, wash my feet Jesus, yeah, you like that dontcha?", etcetera, whilst miming the motions as accurately as possible, I would not be arrested for anything. Even if I did it in front of Rowan Williams, even if I told everyone I was aware of the law, I do not believe anything would happen.
The human rights conventions of the EU have already theoretically negated this legislation, and the fact that they aren't used and are simply an antiquated part of the law has done the same in the last 100 years in a practical sense. I don't think there is anything to fear. So, for that reason, and not because the laws are dangerous, they should be taken off the books. If they aren't used, would be "unconstitutional" (ie, against the EU legislation, which takes precedence), and since most people in Britain are religiously tolerant anyway, they should be removed; as simple as that.
Oh, and while we're at it, disestablish the fucking church and remove the monarchy. What are we, backward religious barbarians, to be ruled by a divinely inspired head of state? Isn't that someone elses' job?
Posted by: Al | March 6, 2008 2:18 AM
Williams is the same archbishop who was calling for the Brit legal system to enforce the arbitration rulings of Sharia courts in Britain. It's not like this guy doesn't have a huge religious authoritarian streak. Whats frightening, is this guy seems to have some very vocal proponents. I haven't paid a lot of attention to this one, but they were crawling out of the woodwork over the Sharia courts statements. There was even a UoM proff that was very supportive of the idea and would love to see it here too, who commented on the BBC's World Have Your Say. Thankfully, he does seem to have a whole lot of detractors as well.
Posted by: DuWayne | March 6, 2008 2:35 AM
Tom is incorrect. The UK has citizens, not subjects. This has been the case for the last 25 years (the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on 1st Jan 1983).
Posted by: iain | March 6, 2008 5:16 AM
Dunc said:
Aside from the House of Lords looking marginally less of an archaic joke than it does at the moment (and if that's the point of the exercise getting rid of the little old lady in the bling might be a good start) do you think that anyone would actually notice?
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 6, 2008 5:39 AM
It is well past time for disestablishment, its embarasing. British political philosophers practically invented the idea of freedom of belief and we should be ashamed that other countries paid more attention to the likes of Locke and Mill than their own homeland.
On other matters, entirely from memory.
I believe the government has all but admitted that the religious hatred law was meant to give muslims as a group the same protections that racial groups have under British law. My own view is that individuals should have rights not groups but the law was not about Christian supremacy over atheists and criticisms could fail if we aim at the wrong target, as I sense some here may be doing.
The European Convention on Human Rights (which is not an EU document by the way) was incorporated in British Law by the Human Rights Act 1999. It is hugely weakened by the government claiming the privilege of opting out of any bits they don't like and constantly critcised by the right wing who seem to think it only gives rights to criminals but it is on the books.
Posted by: Matt | March 6, 2008 6:29 AM
I heard about this as well. What I don't understand is if that was the point of the legislation why they just didn't modify the Race Relations Act to extend it to cover discrimination against people on the basis of their religious and philosophical beliefs (thus also extending protection against discrimination to atheists - as yet we have absolutely none) rather than protecting the beliefs themselves and mucking about with Freedom of Speech.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 6, 2008 6:51 AM
"The human rights conventions of the EU have already theoretically negated this legislation, and the fact that they aren't used and are simply an antiquated part of the law has done the same in the last 100 years in a practical sense. "
I wouldn't count on it. As I said, the ECHR has already upheld the blasphemy law, and the convention (and the human rights act that enshrines it in UK law) gives national governments considerable discretion to protect "public order, health or morals" by infringing people's rights.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 6, 2008 6:59 AM
Perhaps not, but it's the principle of the thing.
You know what really scares me about the House of Lords these days? That they frequently seem a lot more reasonable than the Commons. I never thought I'd say that!
(UK readers who've never tried it, watch Prime Minister's Questions sometime - it'll make you ashamed of your species, never mind your country.)
Posted by: Dunc | March 6, 2008 8:33 AM
Firstly, Iain is of course quite right, we are not subjects anymore. The Queen is not a head of state in anything other than a meaningless, tourist-friendly, symbolic sort of a way.
And as to the 'official religion' and the 'central position of the Christian religion in relation to the state and society', this is just a fiction. Religion is a pretty trivial consideration over here, people take Tony Blair's silly Christian remarks - themselves a tiny fraction of even the most atheist American politician's religious protestations - as being in veyr poor taste, and for the most part this is an entirely secular nation. But this is in practise.
The Mary Whitehouse civil case over the pro-homosexuality flyer mentioned above is a classic illustration of why these laws need to be scrubbed immediately of course. That case was more about sexual bigotry than religion, but as long as these idiotic, antiquated laws are allowed to exist then they are there to be wielded by anyone with an ulterior motive.
DuWayne, I really think you are overstating the support for the Arch-Bish. When his silly statement about Sharia Law was made the general reaction over here was more along the lines of 'Ah-hah ha ha! He's barmy! Now, who's for a cup of tea?'
Which, if anything, makes it even more urgent that we flush the last vestiges of all that anachronistic religiously-based nonsense out of our legal system as soon as possible. They do not represent the British people at all and need to be disposed of before anyone really decides to use them to do mischief.
Posted by: Matthew | March 6, 2008 11:18 AM
The problem is that the majority of the voting British public trust and respect the royal family (yes, even after all the ridiculous mess of the last few years) more than they do politicians.
This means there is literally no way I can see to get rid of the monarchy (well, without a revolution) - much as I might like to see if happen. A popular poll would recommend that they stay in place and if a bill was presented before Parliament to do they job then (1) no MP would back it for fear over being voted out next election and (2) the Queen could dissolve Parliament before it became law if she wished anyway.
I'd love to be proved wrong...
Posted by: David Durant | March 6, 2008 11:55 AM
Speaking of Mary Whitehouse, anyone remember her Experience?
'That's you that is' remains one of my all time favourite putdowns.
Posted by: Matt | March 6, 2008 12:06 PM
"why they just didn't modify the Race Relations Act to extend it to cover discrimination against people on the basis of their religious and philosophical beliefs (thus also extending protection against discrimination to atheists - as yet we have absolutely none) rather than protecting the beliefs themselves and mucking about with Freedom of Speech."
I just looked at Ginger Yellow's link to the text of the Act, which I probably should have done before commenting and found the following
Meaning of "religious hatred"
In this Part "religious hatred" means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.
So it is based on protecting people not beliefs and does explicitly include atheists. This is still not a lot of help as what they are protected from is 'hatred' rather than discrimination and I'm against legislating to ban emotions even nasty ones, though I note 'dislike' is still legal.
29J Protection of freedom of expression
Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.
So maybe not quite as bad as I'd feared but I still maintain any law that bans nonviolent expressions of opinion is still unwaranted and an insult to our claim to be a free nation. Plus you have to laugh or maybe cry at a law that can ban actors from disobeying the director.
From section 29D
a person taking part as a performer in a performance directed by another shall be treated as a person who directed the performance if without reasonable excuse he performs otherwise than in accordance with that person's direction
Posted by: Matt | March 6, 2008 12:27 PM
"There has been a move to adopting the human rights conventions of the EU, but this is seen as a bad thing. Too 'European.'"
Nonsense. The European Convention on Human Rights is UK law, and there is a right of appeal from UK courts to the ECHR. Which, incidentally, has nothing to do with the EU.
Posted by: dave heasman | March 6, 2008 12:32 PM
"This is still not a lot of help as what they are protected from is 'hatred' rather than discrimination and I'm against legislating to ban emotions even nasty ones, though I note 'dislike' is still legal."
Well, what is illegal is incitement to hatred, so it's banning acts rather than emotions per se, even if those acts are not violent and not rising to the level of incitement to violence.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | March 6, 2008 1:51 PM
This is exactly why I love this blog, people who are willing to change their mind and aren't afraid of saying so! This is a perfect example of why free speech is so important.
Posted by: Abby Normal | March 6, 2008 5:32 PM
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | March 6, 2008 6:48 PM
This is one of those entertaining and infuriating things about the UK: we have laws that protect Christianity from offence, but it would be very hard for the Crown Prosecution Service to justify the cost to the public of bringing a prosecution.
Al could shout about doing all those things to Jesus and get away with it. We have an established church, and few give a shit about it. Unelected dress-wearing BIshops in our upper house occasionally get up and talk about stuff, and no -one takes any notice. I suppose we could be arsed, but we're British, we don't make a fuss. When a Princess Diana dies we like our established church to take over the dispatching of her body and leading the nation in grief (although I remained unm oved by the whole thing).
When - as is happening now about stem cell research:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2qg2ct
- religious politician get on their hind legs they are usually shushed and voted down. Blasphemy may remain on the statute books but no-one will be prosecuted and raving English atheist though I am, I shan't be fussed.
Posted by: Peter McGrath | March 6, 2008 7:41 PM
> But will Muslims get a free pass? It appears likely.
*sigh*
Because all Muslims are the sort of folks that engage in "numerous demands to hate, kill, etc" and the Koran cannot be peacefully interpreted...
If you're trying to say you think that people who incite violence may get away with it because some folks mat be scared to challenge them due to their faith then you might be correct. However let's not tar over one billion people with a actions of a tiny minority of extremist fanatics.
Posted by: David Durant | March 6, 2008 7:47 PM
> English atheist though I am, I shan't be fussed.
I'm an English atheist too and I completely agree with your assessment of how much the average Brit is fussed by most of this (ie, not at all).
However, that said, I differ from most in that I personally chafe under the notion of having unelected leaders religious leaders in my Parliament and the Head of State of my country having her position purely due to some remote ancestor being better at killing people that most other people.
I fully appreciate that most people in the UK don't feel like I do (see my post above as to how I can't see the monarchy ending any time soon) but that doesn't mean I'm not going to work towards what I think is right - and I hope apathy doesn't stop other people who feel the same.
Posted by: David Durant | March 6, 2008 7:53 PM
This is not a trivial issue; Muslims kill each other over smaller issues of doctrine, and the peaceful would be at a huge (suicidal) disadvantage. For such a view to survive and grow, it would have to be at least as brutal as the adherents of violent interpretations in order to win out over them. This appears impossible due to contradiction.
Exactly how would you interpret 8:67, "It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land."? How about 8:12, "When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."? I could dig up more of this, and it doesn't matter how this could be interpreted, what matters is how it is interpreted by the various schools of jurisprudence. (Good luck changing any of them; I understand that "the gates of ijtihad are closed", and have been for roughly a thousand years.)Muslims have a tradition of declaring takfir upon adherents of different interpretations. Please show me evidence that the orthodox schools of Islam have so declared Osama bin Laden, Mohammed Atta, the train bombers in Spain and the Underground bombers in London, and so forth. That is what you would expect if the violence is the doing of a small group of unorthodox radicals.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | March 7, 2008 12:57 AM
"The issue is whether a peaceful interpretation will ever be considered orthodox."
Actually it is by the vast majority of Muslims.
"Exactly how would you interpret 8:67, "It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land."? How about 8:12, "When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them."? I could dig up more of this, and it doesn't matter how this could be interpreted, what matters is how it is interpreted by the various schools of jurisprudence."
I'll tell you how these verses are interpreted by the vast majority of Islamic scholars.
The Qoran is a compilation of ALL the writings and documented speeches of Mohammed. Some of those documents are to be understood as universal moral prescriptions others as relating to a specific time and space.
For example, many of the "strike down the unbeliever" verses are referring to a very specific time and place - the period when the Pagans of Mecca have spent the better part of the previous decade torturing and murdering the Muslims and repeatedly breaking truces and Mohammed finally, after repeatedly urging restraint, gives up and orders the Muslims to fight back.
Islam has got some crazy shit associated with it - but no more so than any other major religion.
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 7, 2008 5:11 AM
Careful Engineer-poet - the Torah as well as the Christian Bible can provide some equally hair-raising quotes if you look for them and Turkism Imams at least are trying to re-evaluate the interpretations of the various Hadiths to formalise a more peaceable interpretation of them. Muslims are not the only religious group to base their beliefs on a ridiculous and often violent text that can and frequently does provide justification to violent nutters. Under the right (or wrong) circumstances most religions do this.
Don't get me wrong about the violent streak in, particularly contemporary, Islam (I am under no illusions about the reality of that) or the role played by those who, although not actively violent themselves, are willing to go along with the nutters or who refuse to explicitly condemn them.
I agree with you that this is an utterly repugnant, not to mention cowardly, stand to take - I'm just not sure that you can pin it down to Islam exclusively. Look at the response across the Evangelist Christian Community in the USA to the murder of abortion providers (or for that matter at PETA's reaction to violent AR extremism if you want a non-religious example) and you can see exactly the same despicable dynamic in action in these movements as well.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 7, 2008 5:43 AM
> This is not a trivial issue; Muslims kill each other over
> smaller issues of doctrine, and the peaceful would be at a
> huge (suicidal) disadvantage
*boggle*
By that logic the only Christian sects that would have survived the middle ages would be the ones that promoted killing people over minor issues of doctrine. Which, look around you, obviously wasn't the case.
By the way - I still take extreme issue with you using the generic "muslims" to describe such a huge and diverse group. Try replacing it with "blacks" in similar generic conversations and see how far you get.
As for how "muslims" will approach the kind of passages in the Koran you outlines - well, I suspect in the same way Christians approach these following passages (credit to Aaron Sorkin via The West Wing) - ie by ignoring them :
"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?
Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?"
Posted by: David Durant | March 7, 2008 7:43 AM
Quoth Ian Gould:
Says you. The facts say differently; the vast majority of Muslims have not declared Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar or the other terrorists to be unbelievers for their violent interpretations.How do you tell which are which?
The "Prophet" is, to my best understanding, considered "uswan hasana, al-insan al-kamil". That is "an excellent example of conduct" and "the perfect man", worthy of emulation in all ways. So if he consummated a marriage with a 9-yr-old girl, that is right and proper for all time. If he attacked, robbed and killed people simply for not being Muslim, that is justifiable. If he lied and deceived to advance his conquests, that is good. If he had his critics killed, that means carrying a sign saying "Behead those who insult Islam" is in deadly earnest.
Would you care to cite a few examples from modern jurisprudence, say from Iranian decisions regarding Zoroastrians? How about the death penalty for conversion? One fellow named Abdul Rahman has found that this "archaic" interpretation is rather current.I dispute that. I've been through the Bible Belt and haven't run into anything more than incredulity that I could be an atheist; nobody has ever threatened to kill me for it.
Quoth Lilly de Lure:
Which either apply to groups such as Canaanites (which are conveniently extinct), are regarded as ridiculous (killing your children for disrespecting you), or simply ignored (pork, shrimp, clothes of mixed fibers). Those sects which adhere to such things are widely regarded as something between eccentric and cuckoo. As little as I like Xians as such, I have to admit that they have largely reconciled their book with today's humanistic law and ethics. Muslims are increasingly going the other way; radical literature is widespread even in US mosques, and I keep seeing reports of odious tracts like "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" being pushed in them.And quoth David Durant (any relation to Will the historian?):
That might have been true if Christianity preached warfare and conquest, but instead it has messages like "turn the other cheek" and "love thine enemies". That's enough to make my neighbors quite tolerable, at least until they try to "save" me.Posted by: Engineer-Poet | March 8, 2008 3:19 AM
> And quoth David Durant (any relation to Will the historian?)
Alas not - much as it would have been very cool.
Posted by: David Durant | March 8, 2008 9:04 PM
"Says you. The facts say differently; the vast majority of Muslims have not declared Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar or the other terrorists to be unbelievers for their violent interpretations."
Ive responded ot this at length twice, both responses have been "held for moderation".
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 9, 2008 9:13 AM
"That might have been true if Christianity preached warfare and conquest, but instead it has messages like "turn the other cheek" and "love thine enemies"."
Ever hear the term "just war"?
Here are another Bible verse for you "Let him who has a cloak and no sword sell his cloak and buy a sword".
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 9, 2008 9:18 AM
Finally, E-P, what do have to say to the 99% of the world's Muslims who aren't prober Muslims by your definition: "You're letting the side down, get out there and rape some 9 year olds, stone some adulterers and chop some hands off?"
Why do you assume that Bin Laden's view of Islam is more valid than, say, Abdulrahman Wahid's or Megawati Sujaroputri's?
Posted by: Ian Gould | March 9, 2008 10:37 AM
I'm going to wait until those comments come through moderation before responding further.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | March 9, 2008 9:12 PM
I guess they're never going to.
Before I drop this thread from my watchlist, I'm going to leave one little "inconvenient truth" for the Muslim apologists: an interview in which a British imam says, and I quote:
(emphasis added)Posted by: Engineer-Poet | April 7, 2008 9:53 PM